Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 2:27

And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?

27 36. The doom of Eli’s house

27. a man of God ] i.e. a prophet commissioned by God. Even in the general decay of religion (1Sa 3:1) God still had his messengers. The title “man of God” is applied to Moses, Samuel, Elijah, Elisha, and others. It is specially frequent in the Books of Kings.

Did I plainly appear ] Better, Did I indeed reveal myself. See Exo 4:14 ff., Exo 4:27; Exo 12:1; Exo 12:43 for revelations made to Aaron.

in Pharaoh’s house ] In bondage to Pharaoh’s house.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

A man of God – See Jdg 13:6 note. The sudden appearance of the only prophet of whom mention is made since Deborah, without name, or any notice of his country, is remarkable.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

1Sa 2:27

And there came a man of God unto Eli.

Elis two messengers

That was a terrible speech to make to an old man whose life was all behind him, who was now tottering on the last edge! Ministers of God are required to come up to this point of faithfulness, now and again; to have to say these words, terrible as lightning at midnight, right to an old man, when nobody else is there to hear–to thunder to one man–to shake the universe round one poor old man! It is nothing to preach to a crowd. But when the man of God comes and talks to one auditor–and when that auditor feels, by reason of his solitude, that every syllable is meant for him alone–you go far to test the strength of a mans character and the extent of a mans moral capacity. Eli was a priest, the speaker was a man of God. Man first, priest second; life original, office secondary. Eli was high priest, and the man who confronted him was a man of God. There is something deeper in the human than the sacerdotal. Let us have faith in people, in humanity; not in ephods and mitres and staves of office–but in that divine, living, imperishable spirit which God has put into redeemed and sanctified beings. Surely this message was enough for one day. Who can bear such thunder from the morning even until the evening? The next messenger that came was a little child. This is how God educates us, by putting tutors on both sides, behind and before. You hear a man who tells you what to you may be evil tidings–sharp, startling messages to your judgment and to your conscience–and you say, The man is a fanatic. You walk away, and before you have got a mile further a little child gets up and smiles at you the same message–says it in smiles, in tender looks, in trembling child-like tone–and you begin to think there is something in it. You go further, and the atmosphere seems to be charged with Divine reproaches and Divine messages. So you go on, until the oldest, best., and stateliest men tremble under subtle, impalpable, all-encompassing, irresistible influences. (J. Parker, D. D.)

Fuente: Biblical Illustrator Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Verse 27. There came a man of God] Who this was we know not, but the Chaldee terms him nebiya daya, a prophet of Jehovah.

Unto the house of thy father] That is, to Aaron; he was the first high priest; the priesthood descended from him to his eldest son Eleazar, then to Phinehas. It became afterwards established in the younger branch of the family of Aaron; for Eli was a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s youngest son. From Eli it was transferred back again to the family of Eleazar, because of the profligacy of Eli’s sons.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

A man of God, i.e. a prophet or preacher sent from God. See 1Ti 6:11; 2Ti 3:17; 2Pe 1:21. Who this was is not revealed by God, and therefore it is vain to inquire, and impossible to determine.

Did I plainly appear? did I indeed show such a favor, and appear so evidently and gloriously to thee, and for thee, and is this thy requital?

unto the house of thy father, i.e. unto Aaron the chief of thy fathers house.

When they were in Egypt: see Exo 4:27. Pharaohs house, i.e. either,

1. In Pharaohs land; the whole kingdom being, as it were, one great family, whereof Pharaoh was the master. Or,

2. In Pharaohs court, where Aaron might probably be at the time of this revelation, either to answer to some accusation against him or his brethren, or to beg some relaxation of the rigour, or for some other occasion.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

27. there came a man of God untoEli, and said . . . that there shall not be an old man in thinehouseSo much importance has always, in the East, been attachedto old age, that it would be felt to be a great calamity, andsensibly to lower the respectability of any family which could boastof few or no old men. The prediction of this prophet was fullyconfirmed by the afflictions, degradation, poverty, and many untimelydeaths with which the house of Eli was visited after its announcement(see 1Sa 4:11; 1Sa 14:3;1Sa 22:18-23; 1Ki 2:27).

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

And there came a man of God unto Eli,…. A prophet, as the Targum; he had gifts and graces bestowed on him by the Lord, qualifying him for that office; he came from God, and spoke in his name, as prophets used to do: who this was is not said, nor can it be known with certainty; many conjectures are made; some think he might he Phinehas, as Ben Gersom and Abarbinel a, which is not at all likely; it is not probable that he was living, for if he had been alive, Eli would not have been high priest; the more ancient Jews say b he was Elkanah, the father of Samuel; and so Jarchi; and he is said in the Targum on 1Sa 1:1, to be one of the disciples of the prophets, and was reckoned by them among the two hundred prophets that prophesied in Israel c; but of his prophecy we nowhere read in Scripture, or that he was one: other’s d think he was Samuel himself, who through modesty conceals his name; but he was now a child, as in the preceding verse; indeed, some are of opinion that what follows is recorded in this chapter by way of anticipation, and properly belongs to, and is a part of the message sent from the Lord by Samuel to Eli, in the following chapter:

and said unto him, thus saith the Lord; using the language prophets in later times did, who spake not of themselves, but in the name of the Lord; and from whence it appears that this was not a divine Person, the Son of God in human form, since he never used to speak in this manner when he appeared:

did I plainly appear to the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house? he did; this was evident and certain, and a wonderful instance of condescending goodness: the house of his father is the house of Aaron, who, and all his sons, were born in Egypt, from whose youngest son, Ithamar, Eli descended; and to whom the Lord appeared when in Egypt, and sent him to meet Moses, whose spokesman he appointed him to be; and who prophesied in Egypt, and reproved the Israelites, which is recorded in Eze 20:1 as say the Jews e.

a Judaei apud Hieron. Trad. Heb. in lib. Reg. fol. 75. A. b Seder Olam Rabba, c. 20. p. 53. c T. Bab. Megillah, fol. 14. 1. d See Weemse’s Christ. Synagog. l. 2. c. 3. p. 250. e Jarchi & Ben Gersom in loc.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Announcement of the judgment upon Eli and his house. – 1Sa 2:27. Before the Lord interposed in judgment, He sent a prophet (a “ man of God,” as in Jdg 13:6) to the aged Eli, to announce as a warning for all ages the judgment which was about to fall upon the worthless priests of his house. In order to arouse Eli’s own conscience, he had pointed out to him, on the one hand, the grace manifested in the choice of his father’s house, i.e., the house of Aaron, to keep His sanctuary ( 1Sa 2:27 and 1Sa 2:28), and, on the other hand, the desecration of the sanctuary by the wickedness of his sons (1Sa 2:29). Then follows the sentence: The choice of the family of Aaron still stood fast, but the deepest disgrace would come upon the despisers of the Lord (1Sa 2:30): the strength of his house would be broken; all the members of his house were to die early deaths. They were not, however, to be removed entirely from service at the altar, but to their sorrow were to survive the fall of the sanctuary (1Sa 2:31-34). But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest, and cause him to walk before His anointed, and from him all that were left of the house of Eli would be obliged to beg their bread (1Sa 2:35, 1Sa 2:36). To arrive at the true interpretation of this announcement of punishment, we must picture to ourselves the historical circumstances that come into consideration here. Eli the high priest was a descendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, as we may see from the fact that his great-grandson Ahimelech was “of the sons of Ithamar” (1Ch 24:3). In perfect agreement with this, Josephus ( Ant. v. 11, 5) relates, that after the high priest Ozi of the family of Eleazar, Eli of the family of Ithamar received the high-priesthood. The circumstances which led to the transfer of this honour from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar are unknown. We cannot imagine it to have been occasioned by an extinction of the line of Eleazar, for the simple reason that, in the time of David, Zadok the descendant of Eleazar is spoken of as high priest along with Abiathar and Ahimelech, the descendants of Eli (2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 20:25). After the deposition of Abiathar he was reinstated by Solomon as sole high priest (1Ki 2:27), and the dignity was transmitted to his descendants. This fact also overthrows the conjecture of Clericus, that the transfer of the high-priesthood to Eli took place by the command of God on account of the grievous sins of the high priests of the line of Eleazar; for in that case Zadok would not have received this office again in connection with Abiathar. We have, no doubt, to search for the true reason in the circumstances of the times of the later judges, namely in the fact that at the death of the last high priest of the family of Eleazar before the time of Eli, the remaining son was not equal to the occasion, either because he was still an infant, or at any rate because he was too young and inexperienced, so that he could not enter upon the office, and Eli, who was probably related by marriage to the high priest’s family, and was no doubt a vigorous man, was compelled to take the oversight of the congregation; and, together with the supreme administration of the affairs of the nation as judge, received the post of high priest as well, and filled it till the time of his death, simply because in those troublous times there was not one of the descendants of Eleazar who was able to fill the supreme office of judge, which was combined with that of high priest. For we cannot possibly think of an unjust usurpation of the office of high priest on the part of Eli, since the very judgment denounced against him and his house presupposes that he had entered upon the office in a just and upright way, and that the wickedness of his sons was all that was brought against him. For a considerable time after the death of Eli the high-priesthood lost almost all its significance. All Israel turned to Samuel, whom the Lord established as His prophet by means of revelations, and whom He also chose as the deliverer of His people. The tabernacle at Shiloh, which ceased to be the scene of the gracious presence of God after the loss of the ark, was probably presided over first of all after Eli’s death by his grandson Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, as his successor in the high-priesthood. He was followed in the time of Saul by his son Ahijah or Ahimelech, who gave David the shew-bread to eat at Nob, to which the tabernacle had been removed in the meantime, and was put to death by Saul in consequence, along with all the priests who were found there. His son Abiathar, however, escaped the massacre, and fled to David ( 1Sa 22:9-20; 1Sa 23:6). In the reign of David he is mentioned as high priest along with Zadok; but he was afterwards deposed by Solomon (2Sa 15:24; 2Sa 17:15; 2Sa 19:12; 2Sa 20:25; 1Ki 2:27).

Different interpretations have been given of these verses. The majority of commentators understand them as signifying that the loss of the high-priesthood is here foretold to Eli, and also the institution of Zadok in the office. But such a view is too contracted, and does not exhaust the meaning of the words. The very introduction to the prophet’s words points to something greater than this: “ Thus saith the Lord, Did I reveal myself to thy father’s house, when they were in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh?” The interrogative is not used for ( nonne ), but is emphatic, as in Jer 31:20. The question is an appeal to Eli’s conscience, which he cannot deny, but is obliged to confirm. By Eli’s father’s house we are not to understand Ithamar and his family, but Aaron, from whom Eli was descended through Ithamar. God revealed himself to the tribe-father of Eli by appointing Aaron to be the spokesman of Moses before Pharaoh ( Exo 4:14. and Exo 4:27), and still more by calling Aaron to the priesthood, for which the way was prepared by the fact that, from the very beginning, God made use of Aaron, in company with Moses, to carry out His purpose of delivering Israel out of Egypt, and entrusted Moses and Aaron with the arrangements for the celebration of the passover (Exo 12:1, Exo 12:43). This occurred when they, the fathers of Eli, Aaron and his sons, were still in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh, i.e., still under Pharaoh’s rule.

1Sa 2:28

“ And did I choose him out of all the tribes for a priest to myself.” The interrogative particle is not to be repeated before , but the construction becomes affirmative with the inf. abs. instead of the perfect. “ Him ” refers back to “ thy father ” in 1Sa 2:27, and signifies Aaron. The expression “ for a priest ” is still further defined by the clauses which follow: , “ to ascend upon mine altar,” i.e., to approach my altar of burnt-offering and perform the sacrificial worship; “ to kindle incense,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy place, the principal feature in which was the daily kindling of the incense, which is mentioned instar omnium; “ to wear the ephod before me,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy of holies, which the high priest could only enter when wearing the ephod to represent Israel before the Lord (Exo 28:12). “ And have given to thy father’s house all the firings of the children of Israel ” (see at Lev 1:9). These words are to be understood, according to Deu 18:1, as signifying that the Lord had given to the house of Aaron, i.e., to the priesthood, the sacrifices of Jehovah to eat in the place of any inheritance in the land, according to the portions appointed in the sacrificial law in Lev 6-7, and Num 18.

1Sa 2:29

With such distinction conferred upon the priesthood, and such careful provision made for it, the conduct of the priests under Eli was an inexcusable crime. “ Why do ye tread with your feet my slain-offerings and meat-offerings, which I have commanded in the dwelling-place?” Slain-offering and meat-offering are general expressions embracing all the altar-sacrifices. is an accusative (“ in the dwelling ”), like , in the house. “ The dwelling ” is the tabernacle. This reproof applied to the priests generally, including Eli, who had not vigorously resisted these abuses. The words which follow, “ and thou honourest thy sons more than me,” relate to Eli himself, and any other high priest who like Eli should tolerate the abuses of the priests. “ To fatten yourselves with the first of every sacrificial gift of Israel, of my people.” serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of giving greater prominence to the idea of (my people). , the first of every sacrificial gift ( minchah , as in 1Sa 2:17), which Israel offered as the nation of Jehovah, ought to have been given up to its God in the altar-fire because it was the best; whereas, according to 1Sa 2:15, 1Sa 2:16, the sons of Eli took away the best for themselves.

1Sa 2:30

For this reason, the saying of the Lord, “ Thy house (i.e., the family of Eli) and thy father’s house (Eli’s relations in the other lines, i.e., the whole priesthood) shall walk before me for ever ” (Num 25:13), should henceforth run thus: “ This be far from me; but them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be despised.” The first declaration of the Lord is not to be referred to Eli particularly, as it is by C. a Lapide and others, and understood as signifying that the high-priesthood was thereby transferred from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, and promised to Eli for his descendants for all time. This is decidedly at variance with the fact, that although “walking before the Lord” is not a general expression denoting a pious walk with God, as in Gen 17:1, but refers to the service of the priests at the sanctuary as walking before the face of God, yet it cannot possibly be specially and exclusively restricted to the right of entering the most holy place, which was the prerogative of the high priest alone. These words of the Lord, therefore, applied to the whole priesthood, or the whole house of Aaron, to which the priesthood had been promised, “ for a perpetual statute ” (Exo 29:9). This promise was afterwards renewed to Phinehas especially, on account of the zeal which he displayed for the honour of Jehovah in connection with the idolatry of the people at Shittim (Num 25:13). But even this renewed promise only secured to him an eternal priesthood as a covenant of peace with the Lord, and not specially the high-priesthood, although that was included as the culminating point of the priesthood. Consequently it was not abrogated by the temporary transfer of the high-priesthood from the descendants of Phinehas to the priestly line of Ithamar, because even then they still retained the priesthood. By the expression “ be it far from me,” sc., to permit this to take place, God does not revoke His previous promise, but simply denounces a false trust therein as irreconcilable with His holiness. That promise would only be fulfilled so far as the priests themselves honoured the Lord in their office, whilst despisers of God who dishonoured Him by sin and presumptuous wickedness, would be themselves despised.

This contempt would speedily come upon the house of Eli.

1Sa 2:31

“ Behold, days come,” – a formula with which prophets were accustomed to announce future events (see 2Ki 20:17; Isa 39:6; Amo 4:2; Amo 8:11; Amo 9:13; Jer 7:32, etc.), – “ then will I cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall be no old man in thine house.” To cut off the arm means to destroy the strength either of a man or of a family (see Job. 1Sa 22:9; Psa 37:17). The strength of a family, however, consists in the vital energy of its members, and shows itself in the fact that they reach a good old age, and do not pine away early and die. This strength was to vanish in Eli’s house; no one would ever again preserve his life to old age.

1Sa 2:32

“ And thou wilt see oppression of the dwelling in all that He has shown of good to Israel.” The meaning of these words, which have been explained in very different ways, appears to be the following: In all the benefits which the lord would confer upon His people, Eli would see only distress for the dwelling of God, inasmuch as the tabernacle would fall more and more into decay. In the person of Eli, the high priest at that time, the high priest generally is addressed as the custodian of the sanctuary; so that what is said is not to be limited to him personally, but applies to all the high priests of his house. is not Eli’s dwelling-place, but the dwelling-place of God, i.e., the tabernacle, as in 1Sa 2:29, and is a genitive dependent upon . , in the sense of benefiting a person, doing him good, is construed with the accusative of the person, as in Deu 28:63; Deu 8:16; Deu 30:5. The subject to the verb is Jehovah, and is not expressly mentioned, simply because it is so clearly implied in the words themselves. This threat began to be fulfilled even in Eli’s own days. The distress or tribulation for the tabernacle began with the capture of the ark by the Philistines (1Sa 4:11), and continued during the time that the Lord was sending help and deliverance to His people through the medium of Samuel, in their spiritual and physical oppression. The ark of the covenant – the heart of the sanctuary – was not restored to the tabernacle in the time of Samuel; and the tabernacle itself was removed from Shiloh to Nob, probably in the time of war; and when Saul had had all the priests put to death (1Sa 21:2; 1Sa 22:11.), it was removed to Gibeon, which necessarily caused it to fall more and more into neglect. Among the different explanations, the rendering given by Aquila ( [ ? ] ) has met with the greatest approval, and has been followed by Jerome ( et videbis aemulum tuum ), Luther, and many others, including De Wette. According to this rendering, the words are either supposed to refer to the attitude of Samuel towards Eli, or to the deposition of Abiathar, and the institution of Zadok by Solomon in his place (1Ki 2:27). But does not mean the antagonist or rival, but simply the oppressor or enemy; and Samuel was not an enemy of Eli any more than Zadok was of Abiathar. Moreover, if this be adopted as the rendering of , it is impossible to find any suitable meaning for the following clause. In the second half of the verse the threat of 1Sa 2:31 is repeated with still greater emphasis. , all the time, i.e., so long as thine house shall exist.

1Sa 2:33

“And I will not cut off every one to thee from mine altar, that thine eyes may languish, and thy soul consume away; and all the increase of thine house shall die as men.” The two leading clauses of this verse correspond to the two principal thoughts of the previous verse, which are hereby more precisely defined and explained. Eli was to see the distress of the sanctuary; for to him, i.e., of his family, there would always be some one serving at the altar of God, that he might look upon the decay with his eyes, and pine away with grief in consequence. signifies every one, or any one, and is not to be restricted, as Thenius supposes, to Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, the brother of Ichabod; for it cannot be shown from 1Sa 14:3 and 1Sa 22:20, that he was the only one that was left of the house of Eli. And secondly, there was to be no old man, no one advanced in life, in his house; but all the increase of the house was to die in the full bloom of manhood. , in contrast with , is used to denote men in the prime of life.

1Sa 2:34

“ And let this be the sign to thee, what shall happen to (come upon) thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall both die.” For the fulfilment of this, see 1Sa 4:11. This occurrence, which Eli lived to see, but did not long survive (1Sa 4:17.), was to be the sign to him that the predicted punishment would be carried out in its fullest extent.

1Sa 2:35

But the priesthood itself was not to fall with the fall of Eli’s house and priesthood; on the contrary the Lord would raise up for himself a tried priest, who would act according to His heart. “ And I will build for him a lasting house, and he will walk before mine anointed for ever.”

1Sa 2:36

Whoever, on the other hand, should still remain of Eli’s house, would come “ bowing before him (to get) a silver penny and a slice of bread,” and would say, “ Put me, I pray, in one of the priests’ offices, that I may get a piece of bread to eat.” , that which is collected, signifies some small coin, of which a collection was made by begging single coins. Commentators are divided in their opinions as to the historical allusions contained in this prophecy. By the “tried priest,” Ephraem Syrus understood both the prophet Samuel and the priest Zadok. “As for the facts themselves,” he says, “it is evident that, when Eli died, Samuel succeeded him in the government, and that Zadok received the high-priesthood when it was taken from his family.” Since his time, most of the commentators, including Theodoret and the Rabbins, have decided in favour of Zadok. Augustine, however, and in modern times Thenius and O. v. Gerlach, give the preference to Samuel. The fathers and earlier theologians also regarded Samuel and Zadok as the type of Christ, and supposed the passage to contain a prediction of the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by Jesus Christ.

(Note: Theodoret, qu. vii. in 1 Reg. . , . Augustine says ( De civit. Dei xvii. 5, 2): “Although Samuel was not of a different tribe from the one which had been appointed by the Lord to serve at the altar, he was not of the sons of Aaron, whose descendants had been set apart as priests; and thus the change is shadowed forth, which was afterwards to be introduced through Jesus Christ.” And again, 3: “What follows (1Sa 2:35) refers to that priest, whose figure was borne by Samuel when succeeding to Eli.” So again in the Berleburger Bible, to the words, “I will raise me up a faithful priest,” this note is added: “Zadok, of the family of Phinehas and Eleazar, whom king Solomon, as the anointed of God, appointed high priest by his ordinance, setting aside the house of Eli (1Ki 2:35; 1Ch 29:22). At the same time, just as in the person of Solomon the Spirit of prophecy pointed to the true Solomon and Anointed One, so in this priest did He also point to Jesus Christ the great High Priest.”)

This higher reference of the words is in any case to be retained; for the rabbinical interpretation, by which Grotius, Clericus, and others abide, – namely, that the transfer of the high-priesthood from the descendants of Eli to Zadok, the descendant of Eleazar, is all that is predicted, and that the prophecy was entirely fulfilled when Abiathar was deposed by Solomon (1Ki 2:27), – is not in accordance with the words of the text. On the other hand, Theodoret and Augustine both clearly saw that the words of Jehovah, “I revealed myself to thy father’s house in Egypt,” and, “Thy house shall walk before me for ever,” do not apply to Ithamar, but to Aaron. “Which of his fathers,” says Augustine, “was in that Egyptian bondage, form which they were liberated when he was chosen to the priesthood, excepting Aaron? It is with reference to his posterity, therefore, that it is here affirmed that they would not be priests for ever; and this we see already fulfilled.” The only thing that appears untenable is the manner in which the fathers combine this historical reference to Eli and Samuel, or Zadok, with the Messianic interpretation, viz., either by referring 1Sa 2:31-34 to Eli and his house, and then regarding the sentence pronounced upon Eli as simply a type of the Messianic fulfilment, or by admitting the Messianic allusion simply as an allegory.

The true interpretation may be obtained from a correct insight into the relation in which the prophecy itself stands to its fulfilment. Just as, in the person of Eli and his sons, the threat announces deep degradation and even destruction to all the priests of the house of Aaron who should walk in the footsteps of the sons of Eli, and the death of the two sons of Eli in one day was to be merely a sign that the threatened punishment would be completely fulfilled upon the ungodly priests; so, on the other hand, the promise of the raising up of the tried priest, for whom God would build a lasting house, also refers to all the priests whom the Lord would raise up as faithful servants of His altar, and only receives its complete and final fulfilment in Christ, the true and eternal High Priest. But if we endeavour to determine more precisely from the history itself, which of the Old Testament priests are included, we must not exclude either Samuel or Zadok, but must certainly affirm that the prophecy was partially fulfilled in both. Samuel, as the prophet of the Lord, was placed at the head of the nation after the death of Eli; so that he not only stepped into Eli’s place as judge, but stood forth as priest before the Lord and the nation, and “had the important and sacred duty to perform of going before the anointed, the king, whom Israel was to receive through him; whereas for a long time the Aaronic priesthood fell into such contempt, that, during the general decline of the worship of God, it was obliged to go begging for honour and support, and became dependent upon the new order of things that was introduced by Samuel” ( O. v. Gerlach). Moreover, Samuel acquired a strong house in the numerous posterity that was given to him by God. The grandson of Samuel was Heman, “the king’s seer in the words of God,” who was placed by David over the choir at the house of God, and had fourteen sons and three daughters (1Ch 6:33; 1Ch 25:4-5). But the very fact that these descendants of Samuel did not follow their father in the priesthood, shows very clearly that a lasting house was not built to Samuel as a tried priest through them, and therefore that we have to seek for the further historical fulfilment of this promise in the priesthood of Zadok. As the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli, even if it did not find its only fulfilment in the deposition of Abiathar ( 1Ki 2:27), was at any rate partially fulfilled in that deposition; so the promise concerning the tried priest to be raised up received a new fulfilment in the fact that Zadok thereby became the sole high priest, and transmitted the office to his descendants, though this was neither its last nor its highest fulfilment. This final fulfilment is hinted at in the vision of the new temple, as seen by the prophet Ezekiel, in connection with which the sons of Zadok are named as the priests, who, because they had not fallen away with the children of Israel, were to draw near to the Lord, and perform His service in the new organization of the kingdom of God as set forth in that vision (Eze 40:46; Eze 43:19; Eze 44:15; Eze 48:11). This fulfilment is effected in connection with Christ and His kingdom. Consequently, the anointed of the Lord, before whom the tried priest would walk for ever, is not Solomon, but rather David, and the Son of David, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Eli and His House Threatened.

B. C. 1128.

      27 And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?   28 And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?   29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?   30 Wherefore the LORD God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the LORD saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.   31 Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.   32 And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever.   33 And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age.   34 And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them.   35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.   36 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.

      Eli reproved his sons too gently, and did not threaten them as he should, and therefore God sent a prophet to him to reprove him sharply, and to threaten him, because, by his indulgence of them, he had strengthened their hands in their wickedness. If good men be wanting in their duty, and by their carelessness and remissness contribute any thing to the sin of sinners, they must expect both to hear of it and to smart for it. Eli’s family was now nearer to God than all the families of the earth, and therefore he will punish them, Amos iii. 2. The message is sent to Eli himself, because God would bring him to repentance and save him; not to his sons, whom he had determined to destroy. And it might have been a means of awakening him to do his duty at last, and so to have prevented the judgment, but we do not find it had any great effect upon him. The message this prophet delivers from God is very close.

      I. He reminds him of the great things God had done for the house of his fathers and for his family. He appeared to Aaron in Egypt (Exod. iv. 27), in the house of bondage, as a token of further favour which he designed for him, v. 27. He advanced him to the priesthood, entailed it upon his family, and thereby dignified it above any of the families of Israel. He entrusted him with honourable work, to offer on God’s altar, to burn incense, and to wear that ephod in which was the breast-plate of judgment. He settled upon him an honourable maintenance, a share out of all the offerings made by fire, v. 28. What could he have done more for them, to engage them to be faithful to him? Note, The distinguishing favours we have received from God, especially those of the spiritual priesthood, are great aggravations of sin, and will be remembered against us in the day of account, if we profane our crown and betray our trusts, Deu 32:6; 2Sa 12:7; 2Sa 12:8.

      II. He exhibits a high charge against him and his family. His children did wickedly, and he connived at it, and thereby involved himself in the guilt; the indictment therefore runs against them all, v. 29. 1. His sons had impiously profaned the holy things of God: “You kick at my sacrifice which I have commanded; not only trample upon the institution as a mean thing, but spurn at it as a thing you hate to be tied up to.” They did the utmost despite imaginable to the offerings of the Lord when they committed all that outrage and rapine about them that we read of, and violently plundered the pots on which, in effect, Holiness to the Lord was written (Zech. xiv. 20), and took that fat to themselves which God had appointed to be burnt on his altar. 2. Eli had bolstered them up in it, by not punishing their insolence and impiety: “Thou for thy part honourest thy sons above me,” that is, “thou hadst rather see my offerings disgraced by their profanation of them than see thy sons disgraced by a legal censure upon them for so doing, which ought to have been inflicted, even to suspension and deprivation ab officio et beneficio–of their office and its emoluments.” Those that allow and countenance their children in any evil way, and do not use their authority to restrain and punish them, do in effect honour them more than God, being more tender of their reputation than of his glory and more desirous to humour them than to honour him. 3. They had all shared in the gains of the sacrilege. It is to be feared that Eli himself, though he disliked and reproved the abuses they committed, yet did not forbear to eat of the roast meat they sacrilegiously got, v. 15. He was a fat heavy man (ch. iv. 18), and therefore it is charged upon the whole family (though Hophni and Phinehas were principally guilty), You make yourselves fat with the chief of all the offerings. God gave them sufficient to feed them, but that would not suffice; they made themselves fat, and served their lusts with that which God was to be served with. See Hos. iv. 8.

      III. He declares the cutting off of the entail of the high priesthood from his family (v. 30): “The Lord God of Israel, who is jealous for his own honour and Israel’s, says, and lets thee know it, that thy commission is revoked and superseded.” I said, indeed, that thy house, and the house of thy father Ithamar (for from that younger son of Aaron Eli descended), should walk before me for ever. Upon what occasion the dignity of the high priesthood was transferred from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar does not appear; but it seems this had been done, and Eli stood fair to have that honour perpetuated to his posterity. But observe, the promise carried its own condition along with it: They shall walk before me forever, that is, “they shall have the honour, provided they faithfully do the service.” Walking before God is the great condition of the covenant, Gen. xvii. 1. Let them set me before their face, and I will set them before my face continually (Ps. xli. 12), otherwise not. But now the Lord says, Be it far from me. “Now that you cast me off you can expect no other than that I should cast you off; you will not walk before me as you should, and therefore you shall not.” Such wicked and abusive servants God will discard, and turn out of his service. Some think there is a further reach in this recall of the grant, and that it was not only to be fulfilled shortly in the deposing of the posterity of Eli, when Zadok, who descended from Eleazar, was put in Abiathar’s room, but it was to have its complete accomplishment at length in the total abolition of the Levitical priesthood by the priesthood of Christ.

      IV. He gives a good reason for this revocation, taken from a settled and standing rule of God’s government, according to which all must expect to be dealt with (like that by which Cain was tried, Gen. iv. 7): Those that honour me I will honour, and those that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

      1. Observe in general, (1.) That God is the fountain of honour and dishonour; he can exalt the meanest and put contempt upon the greatest. (2.) As we deal with God we must expect to be dealt with by him, and yet more favourably than we deserve. See Psa 18:25; Psa 18:26.

      2. Particularly, (1.) Be it spoken, to the everlasting reputation of religion or of serious godliness, that it gives honour to God and puts honour upon men. By it we seek and serve the glory of God, and he will be behind-hand with none that do so, but here and hereafter will secure their glory. The way to be truly great is to be truly good. If we humble and deny ourselves in any thing to honour God, and have a single eye to him in it, we may depend upon this promise, he will put the best honour upon us. See John xii. 26. (2.) Be it spoken, to the everlasting reproach of impiety or profaneness, that this does dishonour to God (despises the greatest and best of beings, whom angels adore) and will bring dishonour upon men, for those that do so shall be lightly esteemed; not only God will lightly esteem them (that perhaps they will not regard, as those that honour him value his honour, of whom therefore it is said, I will honour them), but they shall be lightly esteemed by all the world; the very honour they are proud of shall be laid in the dust; they shall see themselves despised by all mankind, their names a reproach; when they are gone, their memory shall rot, and, when they rise again, it shall be to everlasting shame and contempt. The dishonour which their impotent malice puts upon God and his omnipotent justice will return upon their own heads, Ps. lxxix. 12.

      V. He foretels the particular judgments which should come upon his family, to its perpetual ignominy. A curse should be entailed upon his posterity, and a terrible curse it is, and shows how jealous God is in the matters of his worship and how ill he takes it when those who are bound by their character and profession to preserve and advance the interests of his glory are false to their trust, and betray them. If God’s ministers be vicious and profane, of how much sorer punishment will they be thought worthy, here and for ever, than other sinners! Let such read the doom here passed on Eli’s house, and tremble. It is threatened,

      1. That their power should be broken (v. 31): I will cut off thy arm, and the arm of thy father’s house. They should be stripped of all their authority, should be deposed, and have no influence upon the people as they had had. God would make them contemptible and base. See Mal 2:8; Mal 2:9. The sons had abused their power to oppress the people and encroach upon their rights, and the father had not used his power, as he ought to have done, to restrain and punish them, and therefore it was justly threatened that the arm should be cut off which was not stretched out as it should have been.

      2. That their lives should be shortened. He was himself an old man; but instead of using the wisdom, gravity, experience, and authority of his age, for the service of God and the support of religion, he had suffered the infirmities of age to make him more cool and remiss in his duty, and therefore it is here threatened that none of his posterity should live to be old, 1Sa 2:31; 1Sa 2:32. It is twice spoken: “There shall not be an old man in thy house for ever;” and again (v. 33), “All the increase of thy house, from generation to generation, shall die in the flower of their age, when they are in the midst of the years of their service,” so that though the family should not be extinct, yet it should never be considerable, nor should any member of it come to be eminent in his day. Bishop Patrick relates, out of some of the Jewish writers, that long after this, there being a family in Jerusalem none of which commonly lived above eighteen years, upon search it was found that they descended from the house of Eli, on which this sentence was passed.

      3. That all their comforts should be embittered. (1.) The comfort they had in the sanctuary, in its wealth and prosperity: Thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation. This was fulfilled in the Philistines’ invasions and the mischiefs they did to Israel, by which the country was impoverished (ch. xiii. 19), and no doubt the priests’ incomes were thereby very much impaired. The captivity of the ark was such an act of hostility committed upon God’s habitation as broke Eli’s heart. As it is a blessing to a family to see peace upon Israel (Psa 128:5; Psa 128:6), so the contrary is a sore judgment upon a family, especially a family of priests. (2.) The comfort of their children: “The man of thine whom I shall not cut off by an untimely death shall live to be a blot and burden to the family, a scandal and vexation to his relations; he shall be to consume thy eyes and grieve thy heart, for his foolishness or his sickliness, his wickedness or his poverty.” Grief for a dead child is great, but for a bad child often greater.

      4. That their substance should be wasted and they should be reduced to extreme poverty (v. 36): “He that is left alive in thy house shall have little joy of his life, for want of a livelihood; he shall come and crouch to the succeeding family for a subsistence.” (1.) He shall beg for the smallest alms–a piece of silver (and the word signifies the least piece) and a morsel of bread. See how this answered the sin. Eli’s sons must have the best pieces of flesh, but their sons will be glad of a morsel of bread. Note, Want is the just punishment of wantonness. Those who could not be content without dainties and varieties are brought, they or theirs, to want necessaries, and the Lord is righteous in thus visiting them. (2.) He shall beg for the meanest office: Put me into somewhat belonging to the priesthood (as it is in the original); make me as one of the hired servants, the fittest place for a prodigal. Plenty and power are forfeited when they are abused. They should not be able to pretend to any good preferment, not to any place at the altar, but should petition for some poor employment, be the work ever so hard and the wages ever so small, so they might but get bread. This, it is probable, was fully accomplished when Abiathar, who was of Eli’s race, was deposed by Solomon for treason, and he and his turned out of office in the temple (1Ki 2:26; 1Ki 2:27), by which it is easy to think his posterity were reduced to the extremities here described.

      5. That God would shortly begin to execute these judgments in the death of Hophni and Phinehas, the sad tidings of which Eli himself should live to hear: This shall be a sign to thee, v. 34. When thou hearest it, say, “Now the word of God begins to operate; here is one threatening fulfilled, from which I infer that all the rest will be fulfilled in their order.” Hophni and Phinehas had many a time sinned together, and it is here foretold that they should die together both in one day. Bind these tares in a bundle for the fire. This was fulfilled, ch. iv. 11.

      VI. In the midst of all these threatenings against the house of Eli, here is mercy promised to Israel (v. 35): I will raise me up a faithful priest. 1. This was fulfilled in Zadoc, of the family of Eleazar, who came into Abiathar’s place in the beginning of Solomon’s reign, and was faithful to his trust; and the high priests were of his posterity as long as the Levitical priesthood continued. Note, The wickedness of ministers, though it destroy themselves, yet it shall not destroy the ministry. How bad soever the officers are, the office shall continue always to the end of the world. If some betray their trust, yet others shall be raised up that will be true to it. God’s work shall never fall to the ground for want of hands to carry it on. The high priest is here said to walk before God’s anointed (that is, David and his seed) because he wore the breast-plate of judgment, which he was to consult, not in common cases, but for the king, in the affairs of state. Note, Notwithstanding the degeneracy we see and lament in many families, God will secure to himself a succession. If some grow worse than their ancestors, others, to balance that, shall grow better. 2. It has its full accomplishment in the priesthood of Christ, that merciful and faithful high priest whom God raised up when the Levitical priesthood was thrown off, who in all things did his father’s mind, and for whom God will build a sure house, build it on a rock, so that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Judgment Pronounced, vs. 27-36

There is an interesting thing about the priesthood of Eli, not revealed in the Bible. Instead of having descended from Aaron through the line of Eleazar, like other priests had, his descent was through Aaron’s youngest son, Ithamar This was the fact though seemingly God had put the high priesthood in that line in the person and acclamation of Phinehas for his fidelity at Baal-peor (see Num 25:1013). See the reference to Ahimelech as “of the sons of Ithamar” (1Ch 24:3). Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar (1Ch 18:16) who was the son of an older Ahimelech, who is also called Ahijah, who was the son of Ahitub (1Sa 22:20) who was the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli (1Sa 14:3). It seems that the house of Eli had somehow succeeded to the high priesthood contrary to God’s plan.

The Lord sent a prophet to Eli, with a message of judgment on his house. It opens with a reminder of how the Lord had privileged the house of Aaron to occupy the high office of priest. From what is seen here the Lord must have revealed this to Aaron while he was still in Egypt. Here is a reminder of the high favor the Lord has bestowed on the family by choosing them out of all the tribes of Israel, giving them the ministry of the Lord’s holy things, as the altar, the incense, the ephod,, and supplied their needs through the offerings of the Israelites.

The prophet proceeded with the Lord’s charge against Eli. It is directly made against Eli, although he was outwardly a devout moral person. He was accused of kicking at the Lord’s sacrifices. This was, of course, done through his sons, but it was by the permissiveness of their father. Had Eli been as jealous of the Lord’s service as he should have been he would not have allowed his sons to continue in the priesthood when he knew their wickedness. He should have exercised the demand of the law in having them put to death (De 21:18-21). Instead Eli had honored his sons above God and condoned, likely participated by eating in their abuse of the priest’s portion of the sacrifices.

Next the prophet recalled the Lord’s promise to the house of Aaron, that it should walk before Him for ever. But in Eli the house had abrogated that promise, and God would not honor it longer but esteem it lightly. Eli’s arm and that of his father’s house would be cut off, symbolic of their power exercised in the priesthood. No man of his house would survive to old age, and those who did continue to live would be to consume the eye with pity and the heart with grief for their physical condition. Eli would, himself, see a stranger in the house of God, and Hophni and Phinehas would both die on the same day. These things would begin to happen very soon, but would not be complete until the time of Solomon (1Ki 2:26-27).

Some have sought a short-range fulfillment of the prophecy of a faithful priest in Samuel, but Samuel was not of a priest family, though he did exercise that office because of the position in which the Lord placed him. Others have suggested the fulfillment in the restoration of the high priesthood to Eleazar’s line, in Zadok by Solomon (1Ki 2:35). But the ultimate fulfillment is certainly in Jesus Christ, the High Priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek (Psa 110:4; Heb 5:5-10). Only Christ can and will fulfill the things said of the faithful priest in this prophecy.

Learn from chapter two: 1) Knowing the will of God and keeping one’s promises to Him will bring great joy and confidence in His promises; 2) trusting loved ones to the Lord’s care will result in peace and satisfaction for God’s children; 3) many supposed ministers of the Lord are among His most despised enemies; 4) light esteem for the commandments of the Lord will bring judgment on the guilty; 5) pursuit of right in a new endeavor will not erase the guilt in an earlier unconfessed matter; 6) evil continually condoned must certainly be judged at last.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES

1Sa. 2:27. A man of God. A prophet, as in 1Ki. 13:1, etc. The only one mentioned since Deborah. (Biblical Commentary.) Thy Father. Eli was a descendant of Ithamar, the youngest son of Aaron (1Ch. 24:3). The transfer of the high-priesthood to him must have taken place, because at the death of the last high-priest of the family of Eleazer Aarons eldest son), the remaining son was too young and inexperienced to take his place. (Keil.)

1Sa. 2:28. Did I not give, etc. The bountiful provision made by God for His priests is mentioned as the great aggravation of the sins of Elis sons. (Biblical Commentary.)

1Sa. 2:31. The judgment did not fall upon Elis house immediately. His grandson Ahitub (1Sa. 14:3), and Abiathar, Ahitubs grandson (1Ki. 1:25; 1Ki. 2:26), successively held the office of high priest. So much importance in the East has always been attached to old age that it would be felt to be a great calamity, and sensibly lower the respectability of any family which could boast of few old men. (Fausset.) Abiathar, the last high priest of Elis family, was deposed by Solomon, and the high-priesthood reverted to that of Eleazar, to whose family Zadok belonged (2Sa. 15:24; 2Sa. 17:15; 2Sa. 19:12; 2Sa. 20:25; 1Ki. 2:27).

1Sa. 2:32. This was the captivity mentioned in Jdg. 18:30. (Wordsworth.)

1Sa. 2:35. A faithful priest. This probably refers, in the first instance, to Samuel, who was evidently called by God to perform priestly acts; and, secondly, to Zadok, the father of a long line of priests. It is also generally regarded as pointing on to the Messiah. It would then seem best to regard it as announcing a line of faithful men. (Tr. of Langes Commentary.)

1Sa. 2:36. A piece of silver. The word is used only here. It signifies a small piece of money, and has been rendered a beggars coin. Commentators are divided in their opinion as to the historical allusions contained in this prophecy. (Keil.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF 1Sa. 2:27

A DIVINE MESSENGER

I. This remarkable messenger was a nameless person. There came a man of God unto Eli. All the prominent stars that stud our skies, and contribute their portion of light to the inhabitants of earth, are known to astronomers by name, but there are others that are so far off as not to admit of distinction, and we group them under some general designation: yet each one of these far-off bodies sheds some light upon us, nameless as it is. There are records in the holy Scriptures of many nameless persons, who, notwithstanding the little that is told about them, have been used by God to shed upon men the light of His truth. We group them together, like a cluster of far-off stars, under the general title of men of God, and all we know of their individual character or history we gather from the message which they delivered, and which has been left upon record to shed a permanent light upon the world. But although we cannot tabulate and name all the myriad stars of heaven, those which are left unnamed by men are known by name to their Creator. He calleth them all by names (Isa. 40:26). And so it is with those human light-givers whose names are not known to their fellow-men. Although this man of God remains unknown by name to all who read his words, yet he was and is known and named by His Divine Master, who called him to His work, and has long since rewarded him for it. And as those nameless stars may excel in magnitude and glory many of those which, from their nearer position to us, seem to be stars of the first magnitude, so these unnamed prophets may be as great in Gods kingdom, and may have done as great a work in His estimation as those whose names are left recorded upon the Divine page. And so it may be now with many a God-sent messenger, whose name is unknown to the world, or even to the Churchhe may be more highly esteemed by Him whose name is above every name, and stand in much closer fellowship with Him than many a one whose name stands high in the estimation of his fellow-Christians. But, after all the general name includes the particularthe greater name includes all lesser names. A man of God includes all that can be said in honour of either Isaiah the prophet or Paul the apostle. For a man of God, when the designation is not a misnomer, signifies

1. A man who has got his character from God. An Englishman when he is a true representation of his country and nation, has the disposition and tendencies which generally characterize his people. A child generally has some of the characteristics of his parent, because he is of his parent. So a man of God is one who possesses, in some degree, a God-like disposition, is one who is in sympathy with God, who loves what He loves, and hates what He hates. No particular name can express more concerning a mans relation to God than does this general one. We are of God (1Jn. 4:6), is as much as can be said of any human creature, for these four words include all the blessedness of Divine sonshipall the glory of the life everlasting.

2. In the Scripture, a man of God is one who bears a message from God. This is a title given both to Old Testament prophets and to New Testament ministers. But thou, O man of God, flee these things (1Ti. 6:11). All Scripture is given by inspiration of God. that the man of God may be perfected, etc. (2Ti. 3:16-17). In both these passages the general name includes and means more than the particular. A man of God is more than Paul or Timothyit is one who is entrusted with a message from the Eternal for his fellow-manone who has received from God the things which he speaks (1Co. 2:12-13). He speaks to men of God and for Godhis life-work is that of beseeching men to be reconciled to God (2Co. 5:20)his one business in the world is to declare the message which he has heard of Him, viz., that God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all (1Jn. 1:5).

II. This messenger, though nameless, has been held in much greater honour by men than has the well known house whose doom he declared. Character is much more important than name, and the better the deed or the word the more easily we can dispense with the doer or the speaker. The names of Eli, of Hophni and Phinehas stand out prominently upon the page of Hebrew history, but what is recorded of the high-priest and judge himself is not calculated to set him very high in the estimation of menhe has left little more than his name behind himwhile those of his sons are associated only with the memory of their crimes. The nameless prophet passes before us like a ship upon the horizon making for her destined port. We know not whence she came or whither she is going, but she leaves a pleasing impression upon the mind. But Eli and his sons remain like wrecks upon the shore, whose only use is to warn others to shun the rocks upon which they were broken.

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE PARAGRAPH.1Sa. 2:27-36

A DIVINE MESSAGE

I. The charge. The house of Eli is charged with ingratitude. Perhaps no greater crime is chargeable upon human nature. The slave who has been freed from the tyranny of a cruel master by the putting forth on his behalf of a strong arm, and who has not only been thus made a partaker of liberty but who has been clothed, and fed, and educated by the same benefactor, is expected to manifest gratitude to him to whom he owes all that makes life worth having. Gratitude ought to well up in his spirit like water from a living spring, and if such a man proves ungrateful it indicates that he is destitute of all right feeling, for he sins, not against law but against love. Elis family, in common with all the other families of Israel, had dwelt in the house of bondage. They had been for many years in the iron furnace, even in Egypt, and God had delivered them from their degraded condition and made them a people of inheritance unto Himself (Deu. 4:20). To be ungrateful to such a deliverer shows them to be without natural feeling. But their ingratitude was aggravated by their elevation above all the other families of the nation. Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaohs house? And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest? This is the head and front of their crime. When a number of homeless children are taken from the streets, and housed and cared for, those who rescue them have a claim upon the gratitude of all. But if out of this number, one is made the object of special care and is selected to fill a higher position than the rest, the ingratitude of this one will be so much greater than the ingratitude of the others, as the benefits bestowed upon the one have been greater than those bestowed upon the rest. Ingratitude in any would be a sin; but ingratitude in the one who has been especially favoured would be a sin of deeper die. The house of Aaron, of which Eli was a member, was bound to God by the common ties of gratitude by which all Israel was bound; but God had claims upon them which far exceeded those of any other family of the nation. The members of Aarons family had been elected by God to the highest possible honour, they had been set apart to the most sacred office, and they had been sustained at the command of God by the offerings of the people. It was demanded of them in return that they should show their gratitude for such unparalleled favours by reverent obedience to God. But the conduct of those who now represented them was of the very opposite nature. There had been the blackest profanity instead of reverence, and those who ought to have been examples of holiness had been promoters of vice. Ingratitude has been called a monster in nature, and a comparison between the privileges enjoyed by those men, and the returns they made, convicts them of being guilty of this monstrous crime in an aggravated form.

II. The sentence. The authority and influence of Elis house was to cease in Israel. That men by misdeeds entail a tendency to sin upon their posterity is a fact plainly written in the history of families and the oracles of God. A bad father generally leaves behind him bad children. This law must work unless God reconstitutes the present order of nature and makes each mans power to work good or ill to end with himself. But while there is the relationship of parent and child this cannot be. Wherever we look we find instances in which children are born to an inheritance of good or evil influences, and the after-life of the greater number takes its moral tone from the character of their parents. Hence it is that families as well as individuals merit the blessing or the punishment of God. Eli had not used his own authority and influence to much purpose, and his sons had shamefully abused that which had been entrusted to them by God. Such men were very unlikely to be the founders of a house which would be a blessing to Israel, therefore the sentence is directed not against Eli and his sons only, but against their posterity. As they had dishonoured God, so God would bring their house to dishonour. As Eli had not used his power and authority to prevent the defilement of the house of the Lord, he shall have no power to hold back the desolation of his own. As he and his sons had not fulfilled the conditions laid down for the observance of the priests, their sons shall have no conditions to observe, for the priesthood shall be transferred to others. As is generally the case in the judgments of God, the nature of the punishment bears some resemblance to the nature of the transgression. He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity; he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword (Rev. 13:10).

III. The authority for the sentence. Thus saith the Lord. Gods authority to pronounce this doom upon the house of Eli springs

1. From the relation which He sustains to men in general. God was the absolute proprietor of the lives of these men, as He is of the life of every human creature. He, as we have seen (see on 1Sa. 2:6), is the giver of life to men; to Him also belongs the world, which He has given to the children of men (Psa. 115:16) for a dwelling-place, and, if men abuse His good gifts, He has an absolute right to deprive them of that which He has bestowed.

2. But God had a special right to judge the house of Eli, a right springing from the special relation to Himself in which He had placed them. As we have before seen, in considering the charge, as Israelites they had been objects of His special favour, as men of the house of Aaron they were brought into a closer relationship to God, and this threefold obligation gave to Jehovah a threefold authority to pronounce upon them and theirs this terrible yet deserved sentence.

IV. The principle upon which God exercises this authority over all men. For them that honour me I will honour, etc. God can be known so as to be honoured. God must be known, not only as to His existence, but as to His character, in order to be honoured. Eli and his sons had enough knowledge of the character of Jehovah to make it possible for them to honour Him, they had enough knowledge to make their lightly esteeming Him a black transgression. Wherever men find moral excellence they are bound to honour it, their consciences call upon them to reverence goodness wherever it is found, and God here lays down a law of His government that He will not hold them guiltless who withhold from His perfect character the honour which is His due.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

1Sa. 2:29. And honourest thy sons above me. Choosing rather to gratify them than to glorify me, by abdicating them from the priesthood. But it may be Eli feared lest the high-priesthood should by this means go from his family, as it had before from Eleazars for misdemeanour, which also afterwards befell him, and he by seeking to prevent it hastened it.Trapp.

The well-fed beast becomes unmanageable and refractory, and refuses the yoke, and bursts the bonds (Jer. 5:5; Jer. 5:7-8). So the priests, instead of being grateful for the provision made for them, in their pampered pride became dissatisfied, wantonly broke the laws of God which regulated their share of the offerings, and gave themselves up to an unbridled indulgence of their passions and their covetousness.Biblical Commentary.

It is often easy to be exposed to this reproach of God without being aware of it. Those who labour to spread the light of Divine truth by publicly declaring it to the people certainly offer a sacrifice which may be very acceptable to God. But if they nourish in their hearts a secret pride, and if they seek in these holy services their own glory rather than the glory of God, they take for themselves the first-fruits of the sacrifice. They become the end of their action, and God is only the means. They put the creature before the Creator, and this is the greatest of all misplacements.De Sacy.

1Sa. 2:30. Them that honour Me, I will honour. This is a bargain of Gods own making; you may bind upon it. And they that despise Me. Gods visitation is like chequer-work, black and white.Trapp.

Never did man dishonour God but it proved the greatest dishonour to himself. God will find out ways enough to wipe off any stain upon Him; but you will not so easily remove the shame and dishonour from yourselves.Baxter.

There are three sorts of men to be considered with respect to the honour due to God.

I. Such as despise Him instead of honouring Him. Such were the sons of Eli who knew not the Lord. Those do not know God who despise His services. It is impossible to despise infinite goodness, and power, and wisdom, for those are things which all that know them cannot but reverence and esteem. For a poor creature to despise his Creator, or one that lives upon the bounty of another to despise his benefactor, seems to be such an inconsistency in morality, as if human nature were incapable of it. But although God cannot be despised for His glorious perfections, yet His authority may be despised when men presumptuously break His lawswhen they profess to know God, but in works deny Him (Tit. 1:16), when they own a God, and yet live as if there were none.

II. There are such as pretend to honour God, but do not. Men may be guilty of dishonouring God under a pretence of honouring Him, by worshipping their imaginations instead of Him, or by doing honour to Him according to their own imaginations, and not according to His will. Persons form false conceptions of God, and so give their worship to an idol of their own fancy, and they pretend to honour Him not according to His will, but according to their own fancy. There are some things practised and defended in the Christian world, which one would hardly think possible to have ever prevailed, had it not been that men thought to do honour to God by them.

III. But there is a way left to give God that honour which is due unto Him. I shall not take in all the ways of honouring God, but consider that which is most proper to the design of these words. It was not for Elis personal miscarriages that God thought Himself so dishonoured by him, but for want of taking due care in suppressing profaneness and corruption in others. And this shows the true way in which God may be honoured by those who are bound to take care of others.

1. By an universal discountenancing of all sorts of vices and profaneness.
2. By an even, steady, and impartial execution of the laws against vice and debauchery.
3. By a wise choice of fit instruments to pursue so good an end.Stillingfleet.

Outwardly, we see nothing to blame in the personal conduct of Eli. All that can be expected is found; all due respect for his office, all proper solemnity in the discharge of it. He is just the character who would have been eulogised by the men of his day as doing honour to the post which he filled; who, as the saying is, would have been respected in his life and lamented at his death. But we presently see that he had been only up to, not beyond the mark, for what was expected of him. He had sense enough of propriety and decency, creditably to discharge an office, to the capability of filling which this same sense alone raised him. He had never lived above his office. That God had delighted in burnt offerings and sacrifices he had impressed upon himself, and these things were the summit of his estimate. He had never learned that there are things better than sacrifices and more acceptable than the fat of rams. He knew not that in order to do good a man must live above, not up to, his outward duties; that influence with others is found not where life is raised up to the routine of duty, but where that routine of duty is quickened and inspired by a life led in higher places and guided by nobler motives. This sense of decency, this fine conservative feeling, may get one man creditably through his work, but it has no power over those who grow up around him; it has no deep springs, no living and sparkling eye, no winning to something above itself; all its motives are secondary; what others did before, others will think now. Eli found, as men ever find, that all this system of secondary motive is nothing to curb the bounding heart of the young, or to win the guidance of their strong and precipitous course. He who dwells in the circumference of his life gains no sympathy from those who dwell in its centre. Such a state in the individual, the family, or the community, contains of necessity the elements of decay and of downward progress. What will be the effect on a community of the prevalence of a lifeless and conventional religion? First, and necessarily, a low standard of duty, up to that which is required by man, not beyond it. Next, a false estimate of realities; a substitution of primary objects for secondary ones; a growing conviction that this world is real, and another world visionary; that words and ceremonies will serve for religion; but that deeds all belong to self and the world. As Israel became acted upon by the system which prevailed under Eli, superstition succeeded to the fear of God. Who taught his people to trust to the ark to save them, and to forget Him To what must a people have been degraded, who could look on that ark, accompanied with two ministers of such iniquity and profligacy, and greet its arrival with shouts of triumph? Where life is lived as unto God, and in His sight and His revelation of Himself held as a living present truth, there is the seed of all true happiness, of all true success, of all genuine honour. Such men, whether they prosper or fall, alone win the real prizes of life: solid usefulness, firm stability, inward peace. Such families alone are the nurseries for worthy future generations, where Gods name is known and loved; where, if there be no glittering armour, no nicely jointed harness for the youthful warrior to go forth in, the young arm is at least familiar with the use of the simple sling, and knows where to cull the smooth stones from the river of the water of life. Such nations alone contain in them the pledges for sound and honourable progress, where the national religion is not a system upheld for venerable associations sake, but is a genuine portion of the peoples life, a living seed expanding through its history On the other hand, the man of mere proprieties gets to his grave in peace; the man of selfish views wins his prize, and becomes great and fills a space in the world, and passes away, but who cares for either? The family where God was not, we have already followed in the same downward path; but who can tell, till the last dread day, the shame and misery and ruin which have overwhelmed men in generation after generation, for want of God as the guide of their youth? And if we ask respecting the fate of nations that have despised Godread it in the desolations of Nineveh and Babylon: read it in the history of the ancient people of God, scattered over the nations.Alford.

God is honoured in general by avowed obedience to His holy will, but there are some acts which more signally conduce to Gods glory.

1. The frequent and constant performance (in a reverent manner) of devotions immediately addressed to His name (Psa. 29:2).

2. Using all things peculiarly related to God, His holy name, His holy word, His holy places, with especial respect (Isa. 58:13).

3. Yielding due observance to the deputies and ministers of God, as such (Rom. 13:4; Mal. 2:7, etc.).

4. Freely spending what God hath given us in works of piety, charity, and mercy (2Co. 9:13; Pro. 3:9; Pro. 14:31).

5. A11 penitential acts, by which we submit to God, and humble ourselves before Him (Jos. 7:19; Rev. 16:9).

6. Cheerfully undergoing afflictions, losses, disgraces, for the profession of Gods truth (Joh. 21:19).

7. By discharging faithfully those offices which God hath entrusted us with, and diligently improving those talents which God hath committed to us.Barrow.

1Sa. 2:33. The posterity of Eli possessed the high-priesthood in the time of Solomon, and even when that dynasty was preserved to another family, God preserved that of Eli; not to render it more happy, but to punish it by seeing the prosperity of its enemies, to the end that it might see itself destitute and despised. This shows the depth of the judgments of God, and the grandeur of His justice, which extends even to distant generations, and manifests itself to sinners both in life and deathboth in their own disgrace and in the prosperity of their enemies.Calmet.

1Sa. 2:35. The exercise of the priestly office, which is well-pleasing to God:

1. Its personal condition and pre-sup-position, fidelity, firmness, steadfastness, I will raise Thee up a faithful priest.

2. Its rule and measure. According to that which is in my heart and soul.

3. Its blessing and reward. And I will build him a sure house, etc.Langes Commentary.

Of the priests under the law it might be generally said that they walked before the Lords Anointed; or, in other words, they were appointed by His authoritythey acted by His direction, and as his servants and representatives, till He should come personally to offer the one sacrifice on the strength of which their offerings had been made available on behalf of His believing people. And, in this view of the subject, the last clause of the verse conveyed another and more explicit assurance that the priesthood should be perpetuated during the Old Testament dispensation, notwithstanding all the calamities which might from time to time befall Israel. But it implied more. It contained a promise of blessing on that priesthood. To walk before the Lords Anointed must, I think, have implied not only walking by His directions as servants, but walking in the light of His countenance as their approving Lord and Master, in so far as His Church was dependent on their services for her edification and comfort. And how frequently then must the people of God, in Old Testament times, have been comforted and refreshed in seasons of perplexity and trouble when they called to mind this gracious assurance. But it is to the New Testament Church that this passage has opened up, in all its fulness, the inexhaustible fountain of consolation which it contains. It is impossible for us to read the words without at least having Christ brought before us, and without feeling that to Him alone can the words be applied in their full, literal, and absolute sense. Christ is exalted to the throne of the universe, but He has not forgotten His priestly office. He regards it with complacency, and still executes it with delight; for He is a priest upon His throne.Dr. R. Gordon.

1Sa. 2:36. See the sin and its punishment. They formerly pampered themselves, and fed to the full on the Lords sacrifices, and now they are reduced to a morsel of bread. They wasted the Lords heritage, and now they beg their bread. In religious establishments vile persons, who have no higher motive, may and do get into the priests office, that they may clothe themselves with the wool, and feed themselves with the fat, while they starve the flock. But where there is no law to back the claims of the worthless and the wicked, men of piety and solid merit only can find support, for they must live on the free-will offerings of the people. Where religion is established by law the strictest ecclesiastical discipline should be kept up, and all hireling priests and drones should be expelled from the Lords vineyard.A. Clarke.

1Sa. 2:27-36. Indulgent parents are cruel to themselves and their posterity Eli could not have devised which way to have plagued himself and his house so much as by his kindness to his childrens sins. What variety of judgments does he now hear from the messenger of God! First, because his old age, which uses to be subject to choler, inclined now to misfavour his sons, therefore there shall not be an old man left of his house for ever; and because it vexed him not enough to see his sons enemies to God in their profession, therefore he shall see his enemy in the habitation of the Lord; and because himself forebore to take vengeance of his sons, and esteemed their life above the glory of his Master, therefore God will revenge Himself by killing them both in one day; and because he abused his sovereignty by conniving at sin, therefore shall his house be stripped of this honour, and see it translated to another; and lastly, because he suffered his sons to please their own wanton appetite, in taking meat off from Gods trencher, therefore those which remain of his house shall come to his successor to beg a piece of silver and a morsel of bread. I do not read of any fault Eli had but indulgence; and which of the notorious offenders were plagued more? Parents need no other means to make them miserable, than sparing the rod.Bishop Hall.

God often contents himself with a single example of the estimation in which He holds the violation of certain duties. But one lesson so terrible ought to be sufficient to instruct every age, and unhappy is he who does not profit by it.Duguet.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

Prophecy against Elis wicked sons. 1Sa. 2:27-35

27 And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the Lord, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaohs house?
28 And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? and did I give unto the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire of the children of Israel?

29 Wherefore kick ye at my sacrifice and at mine offering, which I have commanded in my habitation; and honorest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?

30 Wherefore the Lord God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me for ever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.

31 Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy fathers house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house.
32 And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation, in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man in thine house for ever.

33 And the man of thine, whom I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age.

34 And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall die both of them.

35 And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in mine heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed for ever.

36 And it shall come to pass, that every one that is left in thine house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.

23.

Who was the man of God? 1Sa. 2:27

Sometimes we labor under the false apprehension that only the men mentioned in the Scriptures are active in the service of God. In every age God has had a great host of people who do His bidding. Some of them are important enough to be mentioned by name; others are anonymous characters that move across the pages of the Scripture and fulfill their ministry without much recognition. Of such nature was this man of God who came to Eli and pronounced Gods judgment upon Elis house. He was an unnamed prophet, a servant of God.

24.

Was Elis father in Egypt? 1Sa. 2:27 b

Elis father would have lived in the age of the judges. The period of Judges itself covers some three hundred years, and prior to this era was the time of Joshua. Moses preceded Joshua and led the people out of Egypt. The use of the word father in this verse must indicate that it refers to an ancestor. Levi was the son of Jacob, the founder of the tribe of which Eli was a member. God spoke to the Levites as they were in bondage in Egypt. He led these predecessors of Eli out of Egypt.

25.

Who was chosen to be priest in Israel? 1Sa. 2:28

God chose the tribe of Levi to be the priestly tribe. He further selected his priests to be the descendants of Aaron. Aaron himself was the first high priest. Aaron had four sonsNadab, Abihu, Ithamar, and Eleazar. Two of the sonsNadab and Abihuwere killed when they offered strange fire before the Lord (Leviticus 10). All the priests were thus descended from Ithamar and Eleazar, the sons of Aaron. These were the men whom God chose to be his priests. Eli was out of this priestly family.

26.

How did Eli kick at Gods sacrifices? 1Sa. 2:29

Eli himself may not have rejected Gods sacrifices. We have no record of his making a complaint or kicking about what was provided for him. His sons were the ones who abhorred the offerings of the Lord. Since Eli was the high priest, he was responsible for the conduct of all the priests. He was especially responsible for the conduct of his own sons, and he is blamed for what was going on in the priesthood.

27.

What judgment was passed upon the house of Eli? 1Sa. 2:30-33

God did not mean that he would literally cut off Elis arms (1Sa. 2:31), but he meant that the line of Eli would not expand. This would be the end of Elis house. Those who were not actually to die in the flower of their youth would be removed from the priesthood and caused to beg as poor people in the street. God had ordained that his priests would be supported through the tithes of the Israelites; but if the priests did not appreciate what He had done for them, He would put them out of their offices. They would then be wishing to have what they had rejected and would say put me I pray thee in one of the priests offices that I may eat a piece of bread (1Sa. 2:36).

28.

What sign did God give Eli that he would be removed from the priesthood? 1Sa. 2:34

God told Eli that both his sons would die in the same day. This explains partly why Eli took so seriously the announcement of the loss of the Ark and the death of his two sons. He knew that this was the end of his house. God had said that these things would come to pass and gave him a token of their being fulfilled. When the thing transpired, Eli knew that God was fulfilling His word.

29.

Who was the faithful priest? 1Sa. 2:35

Some people believe that this was Samuel, but it is taken to be a reference to the other line of the priesthood. When Solomon put down the attempted usurpation of Adonijah, he took Zadok out of the priests office and put Abiathar in his office (1Ki. 2:35). Ezekiel makes reference to this change in the priesthood in his book (Eze. 44:15) and there is also a reference to it in 1Ch. 29:22. Samuel served as priest in the transition period. David had two priests (2Sa. 8:17; 2Sa. 20:23-26) while the change was being made; but the word of God was fulfilled eventually nonetheless.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(27) There came a man of God.Of this messenger of the Highest, whom, from his peculiar title, and also from the character of his communication, we must regard as one of the order of prophets, we know nothing. He appears suddenly on the scene at Shiloh, nameless andas far as we knowhomeless, delivers his message of doom, and disappears.

The term man of God we find applied to Moses and to different prophets some forty or more times in the Books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings. It occurs, though but rarely, in Chronicles, Ezra, and Nehemiah, and in the prophetical books only once.
Until the sudden appearance of this man of God, no mention of a prophet in the story of Israel had been made since the days of Deborah.

Did I plainly appear . . .The interrogations in this Divine message do not ask a question with a view to a reply, but simply emphatically appeal to Elis conscience. To these questions respecting well-known facts the old man would reply with a silent Yes. The house of thy father refers to the house of Aaron, the first high priest, from whom, through Ithamar, the fourth son of Aaron, Eli was descended.

The Talmud has a beautiful note on this passage:Rabbi Shimon ben Yochi said, Come and see how beloved Israel is by the Holy One! Blessed be He! Wherever they are banished, there the Shekinah is with them; as it is said (1Sa. 2:27): Did I (God) plainly appear unto the house of thy fathers when they were in Egypt? &c. When they were banished to Babylon, the Shekinah was with them; as it is said (Isa. 43:14): For your sakes was I sent to Babylon. And when they will be redeemed the Shekinah will be with them; as it is said (Deu. 30:3): Then the Lord thy God will return with thy captivity; it is not said, He will cause to return (transitively), but He will return (intransitively).Treatise Meguillah, fol. 29, Colossians 1.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

GOD’S DENUNCIATORY MESSAGE TO ELI, 1Sa 2:27-36.

27. A man of God Either an angel from heaven, as was the one who appeared to Manoah and his wife, (Jdg 13:8.) or a prophet, (1Ki 13:1,) like unto Shemaiah or Elijah. 1Ki 12:22 ; 1Ki 12:17-18. The expression is that commonly used of a prophet, an inspired human messenger, and is doubtless to be so understood here. This was before the age of prophets, and this man of God appears in the sacred history, like Melchizedek, without father, without mother, without beginning of days or end of life, and so may be regarded as a permanent type of that prophetic order that subsequently arose in Israel, and, by warnings and threatenings, rebuked the wickedness of the people, even in high places, and zealously guarded the interests of the theocracy. He bears no name, but, otherwise, his sudden appearance and fearful message at a time when prophecy was almost unknown in Israel, (1Sa 3:1, note,) are about as remarkable as the saintly appearance of Melchizedek in Abraham’s day.

Thy father Aaron.

When they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house God revealed himself to Aaron in Egypt when be sent him in the wilderness to meet Moses, (Exo 4:27,) and as his mother and sister were intimate with members of the royal family, (Exo 2:9-10,) so Aaron himself may have had some particular service or position in Pharaoh’s house. But Pharaoh’s house may mean the nation over whom he ruled.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

YHWH Sends A Man Of God To Pass His Verdict On Eli’s House ( 1Sa 2:27-36 ).

Scripture constantly reveals that God is never left without a witness. Always at special times of need a ‘man of God’ appears. In this case there comes an anonymous ‘man of God’ to Eli. He may well, of course, have been known to Eli, but like a number of ‘men of God’ in Samuel and Kings he is not made known to us. He is one of God’s anonymous witnesses. He is, however, important nonetheless, and his message is even more important, for he has come to signal the demise of Eli’s house.

The coming of ‘the man of God’ has another significance in the passage. For it indicates that at this point in time YHWH has no one else that He can use in order to convey the message to Eli. But in chapter 3 the situation will change, for there YHWH uses Samuel for the purpose. It is thus an indication that Samuel is by then also accepted as a ‘man of God’, able to receive and pass on a message from YHWH. His status is continually growing.

1Sa 2:27-28

‘ And there came a man of God to Eli, and said to him, “Thus says YHWH. Did I reveal myself to the house of your father, when they were in Egypt in bondage to Pharaoh’s house? And did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? And did I give to the house of your father all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire?” ’

The man of God comes to Eli and outlines in YHWH’s Name all that YHWH has done for his house. He had revealed Himself to the house of his ‘father’ (ancestor) Aaron when he was in Egypt in bondage to Pharaoh’s house. He had chosen him out of all the tribes of Israel to be His Priest, so that he might go up to His altar, burn incense, and wear the ephod (of the Priest) before Him. Note the order as it moves forwards from the sacrificial altar in the courtyard, to the altar of incense in the Holy Place, to wearing the Priest’s ephod before YHWH in the Holiest of All. It was a huge privilege that the house of Aaron had been given. And YHWH had also given to the house of his father all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire, a part of which was given to the priests, the very offerings which were now being misused by them.

1Sa 2:29

“ Why do you trample on my sacrifice and my offering, which I have commanded in my habitation, and honour your sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the offerings of Israel my people?”

The charge is then laid, that Eli and his house have trampled on His sacrifice and offering which He has commanded in His own habitation, and indeed that Eli, by allowing what he has, has honoured his sons above YHWH, and what is more, has by participating in their behaviour made himself fat with the best parts of the offerings of His people Israel. Eli is thus not to be exonerated from blame.

1Sa 2:30

“ Thus the word of YHWH (neum YHWH – an indication of a solemn prophetic statement), the God of Israel, “I said indeed that your house, and the house of your father, should walk before me for ever.” But now, the word of YHWH (neum YHWH), “Be it far from me; for those who honour me I will honour, and those who despise me will be lightly esteemed.”

In Exo 29:9; Num 25:13 God had said that the family of Aaron in all its branches would serve perpetually as priests in His presence, but now He was altering the promise as far as Eli’s line were concerned. The time would come when they would cease to act as priests. And the reason for it was because they had lightly esteemed Him and despised Him. For, He declares, ‘those who honour Me I will honour, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed’. By this they had excluded themselves from God’s covenant. Thus they would be cut off from the priesthood, and the promise would from then on only apply to the house of Eliezer, that is, to the Zadokites. These last would, of course, also later be cut off as a result of their attitude towards Jesus Christ by the destruction of the Temple. In God’s eyes Israel therefore no longer has a sacerdotal priesthood, apart from the High Priesthood of Jesus Christ. But that was yet in the far future.

1Sa 2:31

“ Behold, the days come, that I will cut off your arm, and the arm of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house.”

To cut off the arm meant to remove the strength. Thus the point was being made that no male of his house would in future grow to be an old man, because YHWH would not permit it.

1Sa 2:32

“ And you will behold the distress of my habitation, in all that which God has shown of good to Israel, and there will not be an old man in your house for ever.”

This cutting off of the arm would have consequences also for the Tabernacle. As a result of the behaviour of Eli’s family distress would come upon God’s habitation, thus affecting all that God had given to Israel in their unique form of worship. And distress would come on Eli’s family to such an extent that they would no longer be long-lived (something seen as an indication of God’s displeasure)

So Eli would live to see YHWH’s habitation distressed. This would happen when he received news of the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. The loss of the Ark was a cause of great distress to the Tabernacle, God’s dwellingplace. It meant that Israel were bereft of the very symbol of God’s presence with them. ‘In all which God has shown of good to Israel’ would then refer to the loss of all the benefits that the Tabernacle brought to Israel. This would be the consequence of their defeat at the hands of the Philistines. The Ark would be taken, and later the Sanctuary of Shiloh would itself either be destroyed, or fall into disuse.

Alternately we can translate, ‘you will see a rival in my habitation’, the ‘you’ in this case referring to his descendants who would see themselves being displaced by the house of Zadok when Abiathar was forcibly ‘retired’ by Solomon. This would fit better with the translation of the next phrase as ‘in all that God will give to Israel’ found in many versions. For Zadok’s day (the time of David and Solomon) would be a time of great prosperity, when the sacrifices and offerings would be numerous. But all would be lost to Eli’s descendants. And again it is emphasised that no male in his house would live to old age, but now this judgment will be ‘for ever’.

1Sa 2:33

“ And the man of yours, whom I will not cut off from my altar, will be to consume your eyes, and to grieve your heart; and all the increase of your house will die in manhood ( ‘in men’).”

And any man of the house of Eli whom God does not cut off from His altar (prevent from being a practising priest), will be a cause of great sadness and grief of heart to his family, and all the males born in his house will die while still young men. In other words the future for his house is grim. They will never again produce satisfactory priests. It will be noted that they are not being excluded from the priesthood, only from its greatest blessings and benefits, and above all from the High Priesthood.

1Sa 2:34

“ And this will be the sign to you, that will come on your two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas. In one day they will die, both of them.”

And the evidence that this prophecy will be fulfilled will be that Eli’s two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will both die on the same day, an event which will shortly be recorded (see 1Sa 4:11).

1Sa 2:35

“ And I will raise me up a faithful priest, who will do according to what is in my heart and in my mind, and I will build him a sure house, and he will walk before my anointed for ever (literally, ‘all the days’).”

The promise is then that in contrast to Eli and his family, which is now rejected, God will raise up a faithful Priest who will be totally faithful to Him, and He will establish his house and make it sure, and when he comes, this Priest will serve God’s anointed one ‘all the days’. For ‘God’s anointed one’ compare 1Sa 2:10, which is the only mention of an anointed one up to this point, and is pointing forward to a future ideal king. Essentially therefore the promise here is of a faithful and true High Priest who will serve the coming expected ideal prince, the prince who in the future will be the anointed of YHWH. This is Israel’s glorious future. While our thoughts may naturally turn to what lies ahead in Samuel that was not in anyone’s mind when this prophecy was given. The thought was rather of the coming of ‘God’s expected anointed one’, which to them would have indicated, as it did to Hannah, the coming hoped for ideal king mentioned in 1Sa 2:10, whom God would raise up in accordance with Gen 17:6; Gen 17:16; Gen 35:11; Gen 49:10; Num 23:21; Num 24:17; Deu 17:14-20. The thought is therefore essentially ‘Messianic’, and find its ultimate fulfilment in our Lord Jesus Christ Who would become our great and perfect High Priest, acting on our behalf (Heb 2:17 and often; compare also John 17).

But the reader is also clearly intended by the writer to see it as referring to later events in the Book of Samuel, which can be seen as a partial fulfilment of this promise. In this light there are two main views as to whom this refers. The majority view is that it is referring to the High Priest Zadok (2Sa 20:25), to whom David gave the responsibility for the Ark (2Sa 15:24), and who, being from the line of Eleazar, continued on as High Priest, followed by his heirs, when Abiathar (of the line of Ithamar and Eli) ceased from being the joint High Priest (1Ki 2:26). From that day the High Priest never again came from the line of Ithamar (and Eli). Zadok was faithful to his trust, and his house was made sure, the line of Zadok (and Eleazar) lasting until the exile, and finally, after a few ups and downs, until the cessation of sacrifices. And Zadok did walk before David and Solomon (the prototypes of the coming king) all his days after his appointment, fulfilling the responsibilities of the High Priest’s office. His line was also that which Ezekiel saw as operating at the new altar to be built after the Exile through which the heavenly Temple was to be accessed (Eze 43:19; compare Eze 40:46).

A minority view is that it refers to Samuel. He may well be seen as having been ‘adopted’ by Eli, thus becoming recognised as of the priestly line, and he would certainly later offer sacrifices as a priest (although he never claimed the office of High Priest which was seemingly in abeyance after the destruction of Shiloh until it emerged again in Ahijah, the son of Ahitub (1Sa 14:3) to be followed by Ahimelech (1Sa 21:1). Ahitub was Ichabod’s brother). Furthermore no one was more faithful than Samuel was and would be, and he would certainly do according to what was in God’s heart and mind.

But where the prophecy fails with regard to Samuel is in the question of his being built a sure house, which in context means the house that would replace the house of Eli, for his sons in fact failed in their responsibilities (1Sa 8:1-3; 1Sa 8:5) and as far as we know never became priests. It is true that his house was later ‘established’ in that his grandson became David’s chief musician, and father of fourteen sons and daughters (1Ch 6:33; 1Ch 25:1; 1Ch 25:4-5), but it was not as priests, and the thought in the prophecy here appears to be that the making sure was to be of a house connected with the priesthood. Samuel’s house was not connected with the priesthood after his death. They too had forfeited the right to be so. Thus Samuel might have been a prospective candidate, but he did not fulfil all the qualifications. He only partially fulfilled the conditions.

1Sa 2:36

“ And it will come about that every one who is left in your house will come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and will say, “Put me, I pray you, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread.”

In terms of Messianic expectation the thought here is that the coming High Priest will be so exalted that this current priesthood will have to humble themselves before Him in order to receive life’s necessities, desiring to serve Him in order to enjoy their bread. We find a fulfilment of this depicted in the covenant meal offered to the crowds by Jesus, followed by His exposition of it in terms of the need to receive Him as the Bread of life Joh 6:35. All would have to come to Him in this way. If we would live, we too must eat of Him.

But this vivid picture also emphasises how the line of Eli will be humbled in the nearer future. In the near future those who are of his line will have to submit to the line of Eleazar in order to receive their priest’s portion, and their humiliation is emphasised. They will be relatively destitute. Such will be the destiny of Eli’s house because of their atrocious behaviour and sacrilege.

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

EXPOSITION

THE DIVINE JUDGMENT UPON ELI AND HIS HOUSE (1Sa 2:27-36).

1Sa 2:27

There came a man of God. The title man of God is the usual appellation of a prophet in the books of Judges, Samuel, and Kings, and as such is applied by Manoah to the angel who appeared to him (Jdg 13:6, Jdg 13:8). Though the recorded interpositions of the Deity in those times were generally by angels, still the readiness with which Manoah gave his visitant this title makes it probable that prophets did appear from time to time; and the mission of one, though, as here, without a name, is recorded in Jdg 6:8. As regards the date of this visitation of the man of God, we find that Eli was ninety-eight years of age when the ark was captured (1Sa 4:15). At that time Samuel was not merely a man, hut one whose reputation was established throughout the whole land, and who was probably regarded not merely as a prophet, but as Eli’s successor in the office of judge (1Sa 3:19, 1Sa 3:20). But Eli was “very old” (1Sa 2:22) when he rebuked his sons, probably between seventy and eighty, for Samuel is then called a child (Jdg 6:26); whereas he can scarcely have been much less than thirty years of age when the Philistines destroyed Shiloh. In 1Sa 8:1-3, when the misconduct of Samuel’s own sons led to the revival of the agitation for a king, he is himself described as already “old;” but as he lived on till nearly the end of Saul s reign, he could not at that time have been much more than sixty. Even when God spake by him to Eli he is still described as a boy, na’ar (1Sa 3:1), though the higher position to which he had attained, as is proved by his duties, would lead to the conclusion that he was then verging on manhood. As some time would naturally elapse between two such solemn warnings, we may feel sure that the visit of the man of God occurred shortly after Samuel s dedication. Then, as Eli neglected the warning, and the wickedness of his sons grew more inveterate, some eight or ten years afterwards the warning was repeated in sharper tones by the voice of his own youthful attendant. Meanwhile Eli seems himself to have grown in personal piety, but he could do nothing now for his sons. Past eighty years of age, the time of activity had gone by, and resignation was the sole virtue that was left for him to practise. And so the warning given by the mouth of Samuel is stern and final. Ten or fifteen more years must elapse before the ruin came. But the gloom was deepening; the Philistines were increasing in power, and the valour of Israel was decaying as its morality declined; then there was a short violent crash, and the house of Eli met its doom.

The prophet begins by enumerating Jehovah’s mercies to “the house of thy father,” that is, the whole family of Aaron, in selecting them for the priesthood (on the choice of the house of Aaron, see Exo 28:1-43; Exo 29:1-46.), and in richly endowing the office with so large a portion of every sacrifice. These portions are termed literally firings, or fire sacrifices, but the term soon became general, and in Le 1Sa 24:7, 1Sa 24:9 is applied even to the shew bread. Added then to the tithes, and to the cities with their suburbs given them to inhabit, this share of every sacrifice gave the house of Aaron great wealth, and with it they had also high rank. There was no one above them in Israel except the kings. In Sparta we find that one of the endowments of the kings was the skins of animals offered in sacrifice (Herod; 6:56). Why then do Eli and his sons, who benefit so greatly by them, “kick at Jehovah’s sacrifices and offerings?” The word is taken from Deu 32:15, and refers to the efforts of a pampered steer violently to shake off the yoke. Eli’s sons treat the ordinances which have raised them to rank, and given them wealth and power, as if they were an injury and wrong. And Eli, instead of removing them from the office which they disgraced, preferred the ties of relationship to his duty to God and the moral welfare of the people.

1Sa 2:30

I said indeed. By thus acting Eli became an accomplice in the irreligion of his sons, and God therefore revokes his grant of a perpetual priesthood. The promise had been made to Aaron’s family as a whole (Exo 29:9), and had then been renewed to the house of Eleazar (Num 25:13). But the house of Ithamar was now in the ascendant, probably owing to Eli’s own ability, who during the anarchical times of the Judges had won for himself, first, the civil power, and then, upon some fitting opportunity, the high priesthood also, though I suppose the heads of the houses of Eleazar and Ithamar were always persons of great importance, and high priests in a certain sense. Eli had now the priority, and had he and his family proved worthy, the possession of this high station might have been confirmed to them. Like Saul in the kingdom, they proved unworthy of it, and so they lost it forever. Their names, as we have seen above, do not even occur in the genealogies.

I said …. but now Jehovah saith. Can then a promise of God be withdrawn? Yes, assuredly. Not from mankind as a whole, nor from the Church as a whole, but from each particular nation, or Church, or individual. To each separate person God’s promises are conditional, and human action everywhere is a coworker with the Divine volition, though only within a limited sphere, and so as that the Divine purposes must finally be accomplished. Eli then and his sons may suffer forfeit of the promise by not fulfilling the obligations which, whether expressed or implied, are an essential condition of every promise made by God to man. But the high priesthood will continue, and will perform its allotted task of preparing for the priesthood of Christ. “Them that honour me I will honour,” states one of these conditions essential on man’s part to secure the fulfilment of God’s promises.

1Sa 2:31

I will cut off thine arm. The arm is the usual metaphor for strength. As Eli had preferred the exaltation of his sons to God’s honour, he is condemned to see the strength of his house broken. Nay, more; there is not to be an “old man in his house.” The young men full of energy and vigour perish by the sword; the Survivors fade away by disease. The Jews say that the house of Ithamar was peculiarly short-lived, but the prophecy was amply fulfilled in the slaughter of Eli’s house, first at Shiloh, and then at Nob by Doeg the Edomite at the command of Saul. There is nothing to warrant an abiding curse upon his family. The third or fourth generation is the limit of the visitation of the sins of the fathers upon the children.

1Sa 2:32

Thou shalt see an enemy. The translation of 1Sa 2:32 is very difficult, but is probably as follows: “And thou shalt behold, i.e. see with wonder and astonishment, narrowness of habitation in all the wealth which shall be given unto Israel.” The word translated narrowness often means an “enemy,” but as that for habitation is the most general term in the Hebrews language for a dwelling, being used even of the dens of wild beasts (Jer 9:10; Nah 2:12), the rendering an “enemy of dwelling” gives no sense. Hence the violent insertion of the pronoun my, for which no valid excuse can be given. But narrowness of dwelling, means distress, especially in a man’s domestic relations, and this is the sense required. In the growing public and national prosperity which was to be Israel’s lot under Samuel, Saul, David, and Solomon, Eli was to see, not in person, but prophetically, calamity attaching itself to his own family. His house was to decay in the midst of the progress of all the rest. Upon this denunciation of private distress naturally follows the repetition of the threat that the house of Ithamar should be left without an old man to guide its course onward to renewed prosperity.

1Sa 2:33

The man of thine, etc. The meaning of the Hebrews is here again changed by the insertion of words not in the original. Translated literally the sense is good, but merciful, and this the A.V. has so rendered as to make it the most bitter of all denunciations. The Hebrews is, “Yet I will not cut off every one of thine from my altar, to consume thine eyes and to grieve thy soul;” that is, thy punishment shall not be so utter as to leave thee with no consolation; for thy descendants, though diminished in numbers, and deprived of the highest rank, shall still minister as priests at mine altar. “But the majority of try houselit, the multitude of thy houseshall die as men.” This is very well rendered in the A.V. “in the flower of theft age,” only we must not explain this of dying of disease. They were to die in their vigour, not, like children and old men, in theft beds, but by violent deaths, such as actually befell them at Shiloh and at Nob.

1Sa 2:34

With this the sign here given exactly agrees. Hophni and Phinehas died fighting valiantly in battle, and then came the sacking of Shiloh, and the slaughter of the ministering priests (Psa 78:64). Upon this followed a long delay. For first Eli’s grandson, Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, was high priest, and then his two sons, Ahiah and Ahimelech, and then Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. It was in Ahimelech’s days that the slaughter took place at Nob, from which the house of Ithamar seems never to have fully recovered.

1Sa 2:35

I will raise me up a faithful priest. This prophecy is explained in three several ways, of Samuel, of Zadok, and of Christ. St. Augustine, who considers the whole passage at length in his ‘De Civ. Dei,’ 1Sa 17:5, argues that it cannot be reasonably said that a change in the priesthood foretold with so great circumstance was fulfilled in Samuel. But while we grant that it was an essential characteristic of Jewish prophecy to be ever larger than the immediate fulfilment, yet its primary meaning must never be slurred over, as if it were a question of slight importance. By the largeness of its terms, the grandeur of the hopes it inspired, and the incompleteness of their immediate accomplishment, the Jews were taught to look ever onward, and so became a Messianic people. Granting then that Christ and his Church are the object and end of this and of all prophecy, the question narrows itself to thisIn whom was this prediction of a faithful priest primarily fulfilled? We answer, Not in Zadok, but in Samuel. Zadok was a commonplace personage, of whom little or nothing is said after the time that he joined David with a powerful contingent (1Ch 12:28). Samuel is the one person in Jewish history who approaches the high rank of Moses, Israel’s founder (Jer 15:1). The argument that he was a Levite, and not a priest, takes too narrow and technical a view of the matter; for the essence of the priesthood lies not in the offering of sacrifice, but in mediation. Sacrifice is but an accident, being the appointed method by which the priest was to mediate between God and man. As a matter of fact, Samuel often did discharge priestly functions (1Sa 7:9, 1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 13:8, where we find Saul reproved for invading Samuel’s office; 1Sa 16:2), and it is a point to be kept in mind that the regular priests disappear from Jewish history for about fifty years after the slaughter of themselves, their wives, and families at Shiloh; for it is not until Saul’s time that Ahiah, the great-grandson of Eli, appears, as once again ministering at the altar (1Sa 14:3). The calamity that overtook the nation at the end of Eli’s reign was so terrible that all ordinary ministrations seem to have been in abeyance. We are even expressly told that after the recovery of the ark it was placed in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim in Judaea, and that for twenty years his son Eleazar, though a Levite only, ministered there before it by no regular consecration, but by the appointment of the men of that town. During this time, though Ahitub, Ahiah’s father, was probably high priest nominally, yet nothing is said of him, and all the higher functions of the office were exercised by Samuel. Instead of the Urim and Thummim, he as prophet was the direct representative of the theocratic king. Subsequently this great duty was once again discharged by Abiathar as priest, and then a mighty change was made, and the prophets with the living voice of inspiration took the place of the priest with the ephod. For this is a far more important matter than even the fact that Samuel performed the higher functions of the priesthood. With him a new order of things began. Prophecy, from being spasmodic and irregular, became an established institution, and took its place side by side with the priesthood in preparing for Christ’s advent, and in forming the Jewish nation to be the evangelisers of the world. The prediction of this organic change followed the rule of all prophecy in taking its verbal form and expression from what was then existent. Just as the gospel dispensation is always described under figures taken from the Jewish Church and commonwealth, so Samuel, as the founder of the prophetic schools, and of the new order of things which resulted from them, is described to Eli under terms taken from his priestly office. He was a “faithful priest,” and much more, just as our Lord was a “prophet like unto Moses” (Deu 18:15), and a “King set upon the holy hill of Zion” (Psa 2:6), but in a far higher sense than any would have supposed at the time when these prophecies were spoken.

As regards the specific terms of the prophecy, “the building of a sure house” (1Sa 25:28; 2Sa 7:11; 1Ki 2:1-46 :94, 1Ki 11:38; Isa 32:18) is a metaphor expressive of assured prosperity. The mass of the Israelites dwelt in tents (2Sa 11:11; 2Sa 20:1, etc.; 1Ki 12:16), and to have a fixed and permanent dwelling was a mark of greatness. From such passages as 1Ki 2:24; 1Ki 11:38, it is plain that the idea of founding a family is not contained in the expression. As a matter of fact, Samuel’s family was prosperous, and his grandson Heman had high rank in David’s court and numerous issue (1Ch 25:5). Probably too the men of Ramah, who with the men of the Levite town of Gaba made up a total of 621 persons (Neh 7:30), represented the descendants of Samuel at the return from Babylon. Nevertheless, the contrast is between the migratory, life in tents and the ease and security of a solid and firm abode, and the terms of the promise are abundantly fulfilled in Samuel’s personal greatness.

In the promise, “he shall walk before mine anointed forever,” there is the same outlook upon the office of king, as if already in existence, which we observed in Hannah’s hymn (1Sa 2:10). Apparently the expectation that Jehovah was about to anoint, i.e. consecrate, for them some one to represent him in civil matters and war, as the high priest represented him in things spiritual, had taken possession of the minds of the people. It had been clearly promised them, and regulations for the office made (Deu 17:14-20); and it was to be Samuel’s office to fulfil this wish, and all his life through he held a post of high dignity in the kingdom.

But the promise has also a definite meaning as regards the prophets, in whom Samuel lived on. For St. Augnstine’s error was in taking Samuel simply in his personal relations, whereas he is the representative of the whole prophetic order (Act 3:24). They were his successors in his work, and continued to be the recognised mediators to declare to king and people the will of Jehovah, who was the supreme authority in both Church and state; and in political matters they were the appointed check upon the otherwise absolute power of the kings, with whose appointment their own formal organisation exactly coincided. From Samuel’s time prophet and king walked together till the waiting period began which immediately preceded the nativity of Christ.

1Sa 2:36

Piece of silver is lit. a small silver coin got by begging and the word marks the extreme penury into which the race of Eli fell Gathered round the sanctuary at Shiloh, they were the chief sufferers by its ruin, and we have noticed how for a time they fall entirely out of view. During the miserable period of Philistine domination which followed, Samuel became to the oppressed nation a centre of hope, and by wise government he first reformed the people internally, and then gave them freedom from foreign rule. During this period we may be sure that he did much to raise from their misery the descendants of Eli, and finally Ahiah, Eli’s grandson, ministers as high priest before Saul. Though his grandson, Abiathar, was deposed from the office by Solomon, there is no reason for imagining that the family ever again fell into distress, nor do the terms of the prophecy warrant such a supposition.

HOMILETICS

1Sa 2:27-36

Impending retribution.

The facts in this section are

1. A Divine message declares to Eli the coming doom of his house.

2. The justice of the judgment is brought home to him by a reference to past privileges enjoyed and sins committed.

3. A painful sign of the certainty of the whole prediction being ultimately fulfilled is given in a reference to the sudden death of his two sons, in due time to be realised.

4. Another faithful servant of God is to be raised up to vindicate the honour which has been despised. The patience of God in allowing men free scope to develope what is in them has its limits. Eli and his sons, though differing in kind and degree of sin, alike are amenable to a law which must be maintained. Although the sons were in the ordinary sense the most guilty, it is significant that the weight of the doom here indicated is intended to fall on the aged parent, thus showing to all ages the solemn responsibility attached to public conduct, and the certainty of terrible chastisement of official transgressors, even though they be not cut off from the covenant mercies that cover sin and save the soul.

I. DUTY NEGLECTED AND TROUBLE EVADED ARE SURE TO REASSERT THEMSELVES. Eli got rid of the pressing duty of punishing his sons by substituting a paternal remonstrance, and thus for the time evaded the pain of suppressing the urgency of personal affection and the distress of a family exposure. But “duty” never dies; and the trouble it entails, always passing away when duty is done, continues in aggravated form when duty is neglected. No safer rule in life than to do duty when it is due. The demands of justice will be asserted sooner or later, and they gather in force the more they are shunned. The whole visible and invisible forces of nature, the undeveloped resources that lie in the womb of the future, are on the side of right, and will converge some day on its maintenance. The first trouble in the path of duty is the least. Embarrassments are born of procrastination; for the rule applicable to imperfect knowledge in the midst of difficult circumstances does not apply to the clear decisions of conscience. No time should ever be lost in vindicating the honour of God, the purity of the sanctuary, and the claims of national righteousness. If we do not execute God’s will because of the personal inconvenience and pain it may cause, he will execute it by other means, and nameless griefs shall follow us. History shows how true this is in national, Church, domestic, and private life.

II. Clear INDICATIONS OF COMING RETRIBUTION are sometimes given, and THEY BECOME in their immediate effects PART OF THE RETRIBUTION. Many are the “servants” of God that come visibly or invisibly to the disobedient with intimations of what is in store for them. The “man of God” who came to Eli is representative of the forms of the Divine voice which comes to the guilty to disturb the ease they had hoped for in neglecting onerous duties. To the fraudulent, the sensual, the unrighteous ruler, the unfaithful parent and pastor, conscience, leading events, and converging circumstances tell the sad tale of coming woe. The lines of justice are straight, and the wicked are compelled to look along them far ahead. Two important elements enter into the forebodings of coming retribution.

1. A revived power of conscience. The privileges and favours conferred on the house of Eli are brought home to the dormant conscience in contrast with his personal and official conduct. So likewise, by the interaction of the laws of thought, or by converging of painful events, or by some strong passage of Scripture, or by a faithful friend, or by the silent, reflected light of some holy Christian life, the privileges and favours of bygone years are flashed before the spirit, to the sudden terror and quickened action of conscience. Past mercies cannot be thought of in isolation; by a well known mental law they raise up the ghosts of former sins committed in the face of mercies. As the aged Eli saw the truth of the words of the “man of God,” so do others see their former selves, and feet their inward condemnation.

2. A conviction of the fixed character of coming events. “Behold, the days COME.” The guilty man sees the dismal train of events, and knows, on highest authority, that the decree is fixed. To the prophetic eye the future is as the present; events that are to be are recorded on the spirit as done, with all their natural effects realised by the discerning mind. Nature, with her usual quiet certainty, was at work elaborating events out of the sins perpetrated by father and sons; and therefore to the Hebrew mind that recognises nature only as the dumb instrument of the Eternal, the coming disasters are recognised properly as the fixed elements of the deserved retribution. There is the same conviction in others who have sinned. The human mind, in spite of its sins, answers to the course of nature. It mirrors in its conviction of certain punishment the regularity and fixity with which the laws of nature are at work. In the instance of many a man, powers have been set at work by his sins in virtue of the operation of which family reputation will fade and perish; premature decay will fall to the lot of descendants; sorrow and trouble will cast shadows over their pathway; and life generally will be marred. Yes; and he knows it now. The committal of sin is as the unloosing of forces of ill which enter of necessity into all the ramifications of subsequent life. The sorrow and pain consequent on this certain knowledge is no slight element in the retribution experienced.

III. RETRIBUTION AFFECTS THE LIVING THROUGH THE UNBORN, AND THE UNBORN THROUGH THE LIVING. Sin injures and degrades the sinner, but does not end in himself. Every being is related to every other being. Interactions are as real and constant in the moral sphere as in the sphere of physics. An act of sin is an act of will, and therefore the production of a wave of influence which moves on and modifies the totality of life. Wisely and beautifully, then, does the Bible teach truth in harmony with the usual order of things when it represents Eli’s sin as cutting off the arm (strength) of his father’s house, shortening the clays of his children, lowering their position in the world, and causing them to bear the sorrow of seeing a culmination of their ancestor’s sin in the “presence of an enemy” to mar the wealth of blessing properly enjoyed by Israel.

1. A general law is exemplified in Eli’s punishment. The Bible teaches that the sins of the fathers bring woe on children. The course of nature establishes the fact. No man can give out from himself any influence above what his real constitution and character are fitted to produce. A defective moral courage works detrimentally on descendants by example as truly as do imperfect manners. Social laws insure that a lost reputation modifies the relative position of offspring. The degenerate habits of a Hophni and a Phinehas cannot but lessen the years and enfeeble the moral and physical vigour of several generations. God’s laws are uniform in all ages and climes. The experience of Eli’s family is repeated in the home of the drunkard, the sensual, the educationally neglected, the morally weak, and in the effects of wicked statesmanship. But the law has two aspects. The living affect the unborn, but also the known future condition of the unborn affects the condition of the living. Wisely men are constituted so as to be deeply affected by what may happen to their future reputation and their descendants. That the good fame of his house should perish; that his descendants should be reduced in social position, and variously injured in consequence of the guilt of himself and sons, was a bitter element in Eli’s punishment. Nor is this a rare case, for as a rule men are more influenced by what comes to their children than by what personal pain they themselves suffer. In his descendants man sees himself repeated in multiplied form.

2. The general law is subject to limitations. The evil that comes to posterity through sin of ancestors does not shut out from the mercy that saves the soul. Disgrace, loss of health, early death, poverty may be part of the curse of a father’s sin; but through the mercy of God in Christ these sufferers may find renewal of spirit, pardon, and eternal life. “By one man’s disobedience” we all have suffered physically and spiritually; but by one Redeemer we may find power to become the true children of God. It is true Eli’s descendants, if renewed, would not become so good and physically perfect men as though the ancestors had not sinned; and we on earth, though saved in Christ, cannot be so physically perfect as though the curse had never fallen on us; yet the spirit will at length be set free from the bondage of corruption, and be perfect before God.

3. This law is a great and beneficent power in life. Those who rail against these Biblical announcements of retribution, because they affect descendants, are profoundly ignorant or perverse. The Bible tells only what is in nature, with the additional information that God vindicates his holiness by what occurs in nature. Any objection to the Biblical doctrine is therefore, this fact being admitted, the result of a perverse spirit. Human experience testifies how beneficially the law of retribution works in ordinary affairs. No arithmetic can calculate the amount of woe escaped by the restraining action of a knowledge of this law on human tendencies. On the other hand, the reverse side of the lawthe reward of goodness in the happiness of a posterityis one of the most healthful stimulants and guides of human exertion. It is only the morally indisposed that do not like law. Did we but know the whole intricate relationships of a moral universe stretching through all time, even the severest laws would then be seen to be an expression of broadest benevolence.

IV. RETRIBUTION ON THE INSTRUMENTS OF ACCOMPLISHING AN ULTIMATE PURPOSE IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE REALISATION OF THAT PURPOSE. As factors in the development of the Jewish economy, both Eli and his sons were instruments in preparing the way for the coming Messiah and the final supremacy of his kingdom. The house of Ithamar inherited, in common with others, the promise made to the Aaronic house. As long as there was need for an earthly high priest to shadow forth the enduring high priesthood of Christ, the promise (1Sa 2:30) to Aaron would hold good. But the completion of that purpose was not frustrated by the disgrace and displacement of the section of the house represented by Eli in consequence of unfaithfulness. God has, in his foreknowledge of what will be required, as also in his resources to provide for the erratic action of human wills according to that foreknowledge, legions awaiting his creative call to come forth and prepare the way for the Christ. He who could “of these stones raise up children to Abraham” was at no loss to dispense with the leadership in his ancient Church of a degenerate family. If the old injured instruments are judicially confined to lower forms of service, as in the case of Ahiah, grandson of Phinehas (1Sa 14:3), a holy Samuel is raised up for the emergency till a Zadok assumes the orderly high priestly functions; thus teaching us that in spite of all sins and their punishment the kingdom of God must advance. Men may rise and fall, dark seasons of priestly corruption may afflict the Church, apostates may spread consternation; but, foreseeing all, the Eternal has in reserve, and is quietly sending forth, men like Samuel and David and Paul and Luther, men who shall not cease to be employed in the high service of the “Anointed” even when they cease to speak by words.

General suggestions.

1. It is worth considering how much is lost to the world of mental and physical power by the indwelling of sin, and what a valuable contribution to the sum total of a nation’s welfare is a righteous life, by conserving and improving and making the most of all the powers of body and mind.

2. The essential folly of all sin is capable of being illustrated in what it entails, fails to avoid, and also takes away from the elements of individual and public well being.

3. There is a philosophical argument in support of the claims of Christianity in the fact that, as it seeks, and is proved by numerous facts to have the power of perfecting, the moral life, it thereby contains the solution of all our physical and economical difficulties, and needs only to become actual in individual life to constitute a real millennium.

4. There is ample ground in history for confidence in the vindication of right, even though rulers may for a season avoid disaster.

5. In the lives of most men there must be seasons when they are visited by a messenger from God; and it is a question whether, if that messenger be disregarded, another may not come bringing tidings of more terrible things.

6. In any case, where by former sins physical and social evils have come on others, it is an encouragement to know that we may labour to bring those so suffering to the great Physician for spiritual healing, and that the spiritual health will in some measure counteract the inherited evils.

7. The comforting aspect of retribution lies in that forevery one who suffers from it, possibly thousands and millions indirectly gain permanent good in the influence it exerts on existing evils and on otherwise forthcoming evils; and also that the same purpose which thus works out deserved judgment insures the fulfilment of all the promises.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

1Sa 2:27-36. (SHILOH.)

A message of approaching judgment

1. This message came from God, who observed, as he ever does, the sins of his people, and especially his ministers, with much displeasure, and after long forbearance resolved to punish them (Amo 3:2; 1Pe 4:17).

2. It came through a man whose name has not been recorded, and who was probably unknown to him to whom he was sent. When God sends a message it matters little by whom it is brought. He often makes his most important communications in a way the world does not expect, and by men who are unknown to fame. The authority of the Lord invests his messengers with dignity and power. And their best credentials are that they “commend themselves to the conscience” (2Co 4:2).

3. It came through a “man of God,” a seer, a prophet, and not directly from God to Eli, the high priest. He chooses for special service men who live near to him, and are in sympathy with his purposes, in preference to those who occupy official positions, but are possessed of little personal worth. For a long season no prophet had spoken (Jdg 4:4; Jdg 6:8; Jdg 13:6); and when the silence of heaven is suddenly broken, it is an intimation that great changes are impending.

4. It came some time before the events which it announced actually transpired. “The Lord is slow to anger” (Nah 1:3), and executes judgment only after repeated warnings. Predictions which are absolute in form must often be understood as in their fulfilment conditioned by the moral state of those whom they concern (Jer 18:7; Jon 3:4, Jon 3:9, Jon 3:10). The purpose for which this message was sent was to lead to repentance, and it was not until all hope of it had disappeared that the blow fell. In substance the message contains

I. A REMINDER OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES bestowed by the favour of God, and shown

1. By the revelation of himself to those who were in a condition of abject servitude (1Sa 2:27).

2. By his selection of some, in preference to others, for exalted and honourable service (1Sa 2:28).

3. By his liberal provision for them out of the offerings made by the people to himself. Religious privileges always involve responsibilities, and should be faithfully used out of gratitude for their bestowment.

II. A CHARGE OF GROSS UNFAITHFULNESS (1Sa 2:29). The purpose for which the priests were endowed with these privileges was not the promotion of their own honour and interest, but the honour of God and the welfare of his people. But they acted in opposition to that purpose.

1. By irreverence and self-will in his service. “Wherefore do ye trample under foot my sacrifice?”

2. By disobedience to his will. “Which I have commanded.”

3. By pleasing others in preference to him. “And honourest thy sons above me.” Eli’s toleration of the conduct of his sons, from regard to their interest and his own ease, involved him in their guilt.

4. By self-enrichment out of the religious offerings of the people. “The idol which man in sin sets up in the place of God can be none other than himself. He makes self and self-satisfaction the highest aim of life. To self his efforts ultimately tend, however the modes and directions of sin may vary. The innermost essence of sin, the ruling and penetrating principle, in all its forms, is selfishness” (Muller, ‘Christian Doctrine of Sin’). When men use the gifts of God for selfish ends they render themselves liable to be deprived of those gifts, and to be punished for their misuse.

III. A STATEMENT OF AN EQUITABLE PRINCIPLE, according to which God acts in his procedure with men (1Sa 2:30). They have been apt to suppose that privileges bestowed upon themselves or inherited from their ancestors were absolutely their own, and would be certainly continued. But it is far otherwise; for

1. The fulfilment of the promises of God and the continuance of religious privileges depend on the ethical relation in which men stand toward him. His covenant with Levi was “for the fear with which he feared me” (Mal 2:6, Mal 2:7); but when his descendants lost that fear they “corrupted the covenant,” and ceased to have any claim upon its promised blessings. It was the same with the Jews who in after ages vainly boasted that they were “the children of Abraham.” In the sight of the Holy One righteousness is everything, hereditary descent nothing, except in so far as it is promotive of righteousness.

2. Faithful service is rewarded. HONOUR FOR HONOUR. “Them that honour me I will honour.” Consider

(1) The ground: not merely his relationship as moral Governor, but his beneficence in bestowing the gifts of nature, providence, and grace.

(2) The method: in thought, word, and deed.

(3) The reward: his approbation, continued service, extended usefulness, etc.

3. Unfaithful conduct is punished. “Promises and threatenings are made to individuals because they are in a particular state of character; but they belong to all who are in that state, for ‘God is no respecter of persons'” (Robertson). “He will give to every man according to his works.”

IV. A PROCLAMATION OF SEVERE RETRIBUTION upon the house of Eli (1Sa 2:31-34). Consisting of

1. The deprivation of strength, which had been abused. Their power would be broken (Zec 11:17).

2. The shortening of life, the prolonging of which in the case of Eli had been an occasion of evil rather than of good. “There shall not be an old man in thine house forever;” the result of weakness; repeated in 1Sa 2:32.

3. The loss of prosperity; the temporal benefits that would otherwise have been received. “Thou shalt see distress of dwelling in all that brings prosperity to Israel” (Ed. of Erdmann).

4. The infliction of misery on those who continue, for a while, to minister at the altar, and of violent death (1Sa 2:33; 1Sa 22:18).

5. Although these things would not take place at once, their commencement, as a sign of what would follow, would be witnessed by Eli himself in the sudden death of the two chief offenders “in one day” (1Sa 4:11). If anything could rouse the house of Eli to “flee from the wrath to come,” surely such a fearful message as this was adapted to do so. Fear of coming wrath, although it never makes men truly religious, may, and often does, arouse and restrain them, and bring them under the influence of other and higher motives. The closing sentences contain

V. A PREDICTION OF A FAITHFUL PRIESTHOOD in the place of that which had proved faithless (1Sa 2:35, 1Sa 2:36). “I will raise up a faithful priest,” etc; i.e. a line of faithful men to accomplish the work for which the priesthood has been appointed, and to enjoy the privileges which the house of Eli has forfeited. In contrast with that house, it will do my will, and I will cause it to endure; and it will continue to live in intimate fellowship and cooperation with the anointed kings of Israel. It will also be so exalted, that the surviving members of the fallen house will be entirely dependent upon it for a “piece of bread.” The prediction was first of all fulfilled in Samuel, who by express commission from God acted habitually as a priest; and afterwards in Zadok, in whom the line of Eleazar was restored; but the true underlying idea of a priest, like that of a king, has its full realisation in Jesus Christ alone. The gloomiest of prophetic messages generally conclude with words of promise and hope.D.

1Sa 2:30

Honour and dishonour.

Concerning the moral attitude assumed by men toward God, which is here described, observe

I. THAT IT IS PLAINLY OF THE UTMOST IMPORTANCE. “Me.” Our relation to others is a light thing compared with what it is to him. This is everything; and knowledge, power, riches, reputation, etc. nothing.

1. Because of his nature (“There is none holy as the Lord”), his government (moral, supreme, universal), and his claims.

2. It is the effectual test of our character, what we are really and essentially.

3. It is the principal means of forming and strengthening it. What are we in his sight? What does he think of me?

II. THAT IT IS NECESSARILY ONE OR OTHER OF TWO KINDS. “Honour me.” “Despise me.”

1. Honour; by reverence (the fundamental principle of the religious life), trust, prayer, obedience, fidelity, living to his glory.

2. Despise; by forgetfulnesss, unbelief, self-will, pride, selfishness, disobedience, sin of every kind.

3. There is no other alternative. “For me or against me” (Exo 32:26; Jer 8:1; Mat 6:24; Mat 7:13, Mat 7:14; Mat 12:30).

III. THAT IT IS ALWAYS FOLLOWED BY CORRESPONDING CONSEQUENCES. “I will honour.” “Shall be lightly esteemed.”

1. Honour; by his friendship, appointment to honourable service, giving success therein, open acknowledgment before men here and hereafter. “Enter thou into the joy of thy Lord.”

2. Lightly esteemed; by himself, men, angels, despised even by themselves, and cast away among the vile. “He that sayeth his life shall lose it.”

3. There is a strict correspondence between character and consequences, both generally and particularly, in kind and measure. And the joy and misery of the future will be the consummation and the ripened fruit of what now exists (Gal 6:7).

IV. THAT ITS CONNECTION WITH ITS CONSEQUENCES IS ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN. Men often think otherwise. But “be not deceived.” Consider

1. The natural constitution and tendencies of things, as ordained by him who is “above all, and in all, and through all.”

2. The recorded and observed facts of life.

3. The express declarations of him “who cannot lie.” “I will honour.” “They shall be lightly esteemed.”D.

HOMILIES BY D. FRASER

1Sa 2:30

Office nothing without character.

The worthlessness of rank or hereditary position without corresponding wisdom or virtue is a commonplace of moral reflection. But it is startling to find how strongly it is affirmed in Holy Writ of those who hold high office in the house of God. The priesthood in Israel was hereditary, though in point of fact the regularity of the succession was often broken; but such hereditary office was never meant to protect unworthy men like the sons of Eli. Their position was forfeited by their misconduct, and their priestly functions were transferred to other hands. The principle is for all time, and for general application. Does one reach and occupy a high station in the Church? No matter what his line of “holy orders” may be, or who laid hands of ordination on his head, or what functions he is held competent to perform, he must be judged by this testDoes he honour God in his office, or honour and serve himself? Does he so live and act as to commend and glorify Christ? And the same test must be applied to the man professing himself a Christian who occupies a throne on the earth, or who holds high dignity in the state, or who has power as a writer or an orator over the minds of men, or who as a capitalist has great means and opportunities of usefulness. Does he in his station glorify God? If not, his rank, or office, or grand position avails him nothing.

I. THE PIOUS DIVINELY HONOURED. To honour God; think what this implies. To know him truly, to reverence and love him. In vain any verbal or formal homage without the honour rendered by the heart (see Mat 15:8). He whose heart cleaves to God will show it in his daily conduct. He will be careful to consult God’s word for direction, and observe his statutes. He will openly respect God’s ordinances, and give cheerfully for their maintenance, and for the furtherance of righteous and charitable objects. He will honour the Lord with his substance, and with the first fruits of all his increase. He will worship God with his family, and teach his children “the fear of the Lord.” In his place or station he will make it his aim, and hold it his chief end, to glorify God. And, without any vaunting or ostentation, he will show his coloursavow his faith and hope openly. The boy king, Edward VI; showed his colours when he satalas I for how short a timeon the English throne. So did Sir Matthew Hale on the bench, and Robert Boyle in the Royal Society, and William Wilberforce in the highest circles of political life. So did Dr. Arnold among the boys at Rugby, and Dr. Abercrombie and Sir James Simpson among their patients in Edinburgh; Samuel Budgett in his counting house at Bristol, and General Havelock among his troops in India. These men were not in what are called religious offices; but, in such offices or positions as Providence assigned to them, they bore themselves as religious, God fearing men. And others there are in places and callings more obscure who are quite as worthy of esteem; those who, in houses of business among scoffing companions, in servants’ halls, in workshops, in barrack rooms, in ships’ forecastles, meekly but firmly honour the Lord, and ennoble a lowly calling by fidelity to conscience and to God. The Lord sees and remembers all who honour him. Nay, he honours them; but after his own manner, not after the fashion of the world. He honours faithful servants in this world by giving them more work to do. He honours true witnesses by extending the range for their testimony. Sometimes he honours those with whom he is well pleased by appointing them to suffer for his cause. St. Paul evidently deemed this a high honour. Witness his words to the Philippians: “Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to believe in his name, but also to suffer for his sake.” Some he calls away in early years out of the world, but they leave behind a fragrant honoured name, and they go to “glory, honour, and immortality” in a better land. It is right to value the good opinion of our fellow men; but there are always drawbacks and dangers in connection with honour which comes from man. In seeking it one is tempted to tarnish his simplicity of character, and weaken his self-respect. There is a risk of envying more successful, or exulting over less successful competitors for distinction. But it need never be so in seeking “the honour which comes from God only.” We seek it best not when we push ourselves forward, but when we deny ourselves, honour him, and by love serve the brethren. And then in our utmost success we have no ground of self-glorying, for all is of grace. Nor is there room for grudging or envying. With the Lord there is grace enough to help all who would serve him, and glory enough to reward all who serve him faithfully.

II. THE IMPIOUS DESPISED. “And they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.” Despise the Lord God Almighty! Amazing insolence of the human heart, yet not infrequent. The sons of Eli openly slighted Jehovah by their rapacity in the priest’s office, and their profaning the precincts of his house with their debauchery. Long after this, priests of Judah are reproved by the prophet Malachi for despising the name of the Lord of hosts, making his table contemptible by laying on it polluted bread, and dishonouring his altar by offering maimed animals in sacrifice. The warning then, in the first instance, is to those who bear themselves profanely or carelessly in sacred offices, and in familiar contact with religious service. But the sin is one which soon spreads among the people Ezekiel charged the people of Jerusalem with having “despised God’s holy things, and profaned his sabbaths” (1Sa 22:8). This sin is a common thing in Christendom. Men do not in terms deny God’s existence, but make light of him; never read his word with any seriousness; never pray unless they are ill or afraid; count Church service and instruction a weariness. The base gods of the heathen receive more respect and consideration from their votaries. Allah has far more reverence from the Moslem than the great God of heaven and earth obtains from multitudes who pass as Christians. They live as if he had no right to command them, and no power to judge them. They lift their own will and pleasure to the throne, and despise the Lord of hosts. With what result? They shall be lightly esteemed. Even in this world, and this life, the ungodly miss the best distinctions. They are not the men who gather about them the highest confidence or most lasting influence and esteem. After they leave the world, a few are remembered who had rare force of character or an unusually eventful career; but how the rest are forgotten! A few natural tears from their nearest kindred, a few inquiries among friends about the amount and disposal of their property, a decorous silence about themselves on the principle that nothing but what is good should be said of the dead, and so their memory perishes. But all is not over. A terrible hereafter awaits the despisers of the Lord. “As a dream when one awaketh; so, O Lord, when thou awakest, thou shalt despise their image.” The clear alternative in this text is one that cannot be evaded. One may try to assume a negative attitude, and allege that he remains in a state of suspense, and does not find the recognition of a Divine Being to be an imperative necessity; but this is practically to despise the Lordmaking light of his word, and pronouncing his very existence to be a matter of doubtful truth and of secondary importance. Reject not wisdom’s counsel; despise not her reproof. “Today, if ye will hear the voice of the Lord, harden not your hearts.”F.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

1Sa 2:35

A faithful priest.

In the strictest sense Christ alone is now a Priest. In himself assuming the office, he has forever abolished it in others. Hence none are called priests in the New Testament, except in the modified sense in which all who believe in him are so called (1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6). But taking the expression as equivalent to “a faithful ministry,” consisting of men appointed by Christ to a special service for him (Mal 2:6, Mal 2:7; Act 6:4; Eph 4:11; Col 1:7; 2Ti 2:2), and faithfully fulfilling the purpose of their appointment, it leads us to notice

I. WHENCE IT IS DERIVED. “I will raise up.”

1. He alone can do it. From him come natural gifts and, still more, spiritual graces, eminent faith and patience, humility, courage, meekness, tender compassion “on the ignorant and on them that are out of the way,” etc.

2. He has promised and made provision for it (Jer 3:15). “I will build him a sure (enduring) house.” “The death of Christ hath a great influence unto this gift of the ministry. It is a branch that grew out of the grave of Christ; let it be esteemed as lightly as men please, had not Christ died for it we had not had a ministry in the world”. He “will be inquired of” for it. If Churches would have “good ministers of Jesus Christ,” they must seek them from God (Mat 9:38).

II. WHEREIN IT APPEARS. “Shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind.”

1. Supreme regard to his will as the rule of character and labour.

2. Clear insight into his mind in relation to the special requirements of the time, place, and circumstances.

3. Practical, earnest, and constant devotion to it in all things, the least as well as the greatest. Even as “Christ himself.” “I have given you an example.”

III. WHEREBY IT IS HONOURED. “And he shall walk before mine anointed forever.”

1. Enjoyment of the King’s favour (Pro 16:15).

2. Employment in the King’s service; in continued, honourable, beneficent, and increasing cooperation with him.

3. Participation in the King’s glory forever. “Be thou faithful,” etc. (Rev 2:10). “To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne” (Rev 3:21).D.

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

FIFTH SECTION
The prophecy of a Man of God of the divine judgment on Elis house and of the calling of a faithful priest

1Sa 2:27-36

27And there came a man of God41 unto [to] Eli and said unto [to] him, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Did I plainly appear [reveal myself] unto [to] the house of thy father when they were in Egypt in Pharaohs house [in servitude42 to the house 28of Pharaoh]? And did I choose [I chose43] him [it] out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest [to do priestly service to me], to offer44 upon my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? [om.?], and did I give [I gave] unto [to] the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire [the fire-offerings] of the children 29of Israel? [om.?]. Wherefore kick ye at [trample ye under foot] my sacrifice and at [om. at] mine [my] offering which I have commanded in my habitation,45 and honorest thy sons above me to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the 30offerings [the best of every offering] of Israel my people?46 Wherefore [Therefore] the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel saith, I said indeed47 that thy house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever; but now the Lord saith [saith Jehovah], Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that 31despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy fathers house, [ins. so] that there shall not be an 32old man in thine house. And48 thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation in all the wealth which God shall give Israel [thou shalt see distress of house in all that does 33good to Israel]; and there shall not be an old man in thy house for ever. And the man of thine whom I shall not cut off [And I will not cut off every man of thine49] from my altar shall be [om. shall be], to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine [thy] heart; and all the increase of thine [thy] house shall die in the flower 34of their age.50 And this shall be a [the] sign unto [to] thee, that [ins. which] shall come upon thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall die both of 35them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that [who] shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind [soul], and I will build him a sure51 36house, and he shall walk before my anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass that every one that is left in thy house shall come and crouch to him for a piece52 of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests offices, that I may eat a piece of bread.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1Sa 2:27. The man of God (for the expression comp. Deu 33:1; Jdg 13:6) who appears here is undoubtedly to be regarded as a prophet, both from this title, which marks him as standing in a specific relation to God, and from the introduction of his address: Thus saith the Lord. This is, however, not the first mention of a prophet after Moses (Thenius); against this are Jdg 4:14; Jdg 6:8.[Bib. Comm.: The term (man of God) is applied to Moses in Deu 33:1; Jos 14:6; and to different prophets upwards of forty times in Judg., Sam. and Kings, most-frequently in the latter. In the Prophets it occurs only once (Jer 35:4). It occurs six or seven times in Chron., Ezra and Neh., and in the inscription of Psalms 90, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. The sudden appearance of a man of God, the only prophet of whom mention is made since Jdg 6:8, without name, or any notice of his country, is remarkable.Tr.]Thus saith the Lord.Called and commissioned hereto by the Lord, he is nothing but His instrument; what he says is the very word of the Lord.Did I reveal myself?The interrog. particle () stands here to strengthen the reality of the fact treated of, a question being introduced to which an affirmative reply is a matter of course, where in German [and in English] a not must be inserted. Comp. Jer 31:20; Job 20:4; Ges. 153, 2. The Inf. Abs. () shows the feeling of the question, and strengthens the assurance or assertion contained in it. By Elis fathers house we cannot understand Ithamar and his family, since a divine revelation to them in Egypt is out of the question; it is rather the family of Aaron (from whom Eli descended through Ithamar), as the high-priestly house. Aaron and his four sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, when they were in Egypt, belonged to Pharaohs house, were its subjects, property ( ); the suffix (when they were) refers not to the children of Israel, but to the house of thy father.

During the Egyptian bondage Aaron received the divine revelations by which he was called along with Moses to be Gods instrument for the redemption of His people; and with Moses he received the command to institute the feast of the Passover (Exo 4:14 sqq., Exo 4:27;Exo 12:1; Exo 12:43). These revelations were the preparation and foundation for the calling of Aaron and his house to the high-priesthood.[So far as the calling was concerned, the house of Aaron and the house of Eli were identical. Hence Eli is in this discourse identified with Aaron as to his privileges, but distinguished from the whole house as to his sin and its Punishment.TR.]

1Sa 2:28. [Erdmann renders: I chose it (the house of thy father) to perform priestly service.TR.]53

How that house (Aaron and his sons) were formally called and appointed to the priestly office is circumstantially related in Exodus 28, 29. Comp. especially Exo 28:1; Exo 29:9; Exo 29:30; Exo 29:44, with Lev 8:1 sq. and Numbers 18The priestly service is described in three grades, corresponding to the three divisions of the Sanctuary: 1) to offer54 on my altar, where the altar of burnt-offering with its service is meant; 2) to burn incense. Incense had to be burned daily. The incense-offering alone is named, and represents the other offerings as the indication of the priestly service in the Holy Place, Exo 30:8; Exodus 3) to wear the ephod before me. The high-priest wore the ephod55 when he went officially into the Most Holy place to represent the people before God, Exo 28:12; Exo 28:29-30.And I gave to the house of thy father, etc.The divine wages for these priestly services is the maintenance which the priests derived from the offerings. The firings (fire-offerings, ) are the same as the firing and the firings of the Lord (Lev 1:9; Lev 2:10; Deu 18:1) in the offerings, and so are the things offered. According to Num 18:20; Deu 10:9; Deu 18:1, the Levites, and therefore the whole priesthood, received no inheritance in land; their support was provided for by the portions of the offerings appointed them by law, that is, all sacrificial gifts, so far as they were not burnt in offering the sacrifice, Lev 6:7; Numbers 18.

1Sa 2:29. In the preceding verses (27, 28) reference is made to the favor which had been shown the family of Eli in their selection and calling to the service of priests in the Sanctuary, and their maintenance with the offerings is mentioned as proof of the Lords care for His servants; there the question (1Sa 2:27) was introduced by the simple interrog. sign (); here the more sharply toned question with why () portrays in distinct contrast the wicked conduct of the priests: Why do ye trample under foot? etc.Sacrifice and offering ( ) is a general designation for all altar-offerings (Keil). is in Aram. first tread (Heb. ), and might thence (as ,, Jdg 5:23; Pro 27:7) like tread in many languages figuratively mean to treat with contempt (Bttcher). , the dwelling, in pregnant sense is the Tabernacle, as the Lords dwelling-place in the midst of His people. Though the word has not elsewhere in itself this meaning, yet it follows here and in 1Sa 2:32 from the connection, which without difficulty permits the same addition that we find in Psa 26:8, of thy house. There is no need therefore here to suppose (with Thenius) either a wrong reading or in general anything superfluous, particularly not the latter, because the Lords abode with His people was in fact the scene of the priests enormities, and their guilt thus appeared so much the greater. is Accus. of place in the dwelling (= in the house). Bttcher proposes as a faultless text , why do ye trample under foot, what I commanded them, sinfully, where the suffix them refers to the Israelites (1Sa 2:28), and sin, is taken in the sense of , in sin, which is found in Psa 51:7. But according to the preceding explanation there is no need for such a change, apart from the fact that the sinfully precisely speaking is already contained in the trample under foot (Thenius). He says: why do ye trample, etc., because Eli was partaker in the guilt of his sons; because he, not only as father towards sons, but also as high-priest towards them as priests, was weakly lacking in the proper chastisement and in the enjoined holy strictness. Eli ought to have opposed his sons as a zealous contender for the Lords honor; since he did not do this, he not only made himself partaker of their guilt, but honored his sons before the Lord, more than the Lord, because he spared them, and showed unseasonable paternal gentleness. In the plu. pron. make yourselves fat, Elis guilt is again referred to; what they did, namely, that they took (1Sa 2:15) the first () of the offering before the best of the offering () was presented to the Lord by burning it in the fire of the altar, that he did along with them; they made themselves fat. The wickedness of Eli and his sons in connection with the offering is also put here in two-fold form, namely, against God (my offering), and against the people as the people of the Lord (all the offerings of Israel, my people).56 After the reference to the guilt follows now the judgment, the announcement of punishment, which applies to Eli as well as to his sons and his whole house.

1Sa 2:30. =I had said.The house of thy father in connection with thy house, indicates the whole priestly connection in all its branches from Aaron down, to whom with his sons the same expression in 1Sa 2:27 refers. For this reason, if for no other, because the house of thy father must mean the same here as in 1Sa 2:27, we must set aside the view that here only Ithamars family is meant, to which the high-priesthood passed from Eleazars family, and to which Eli belonged. But also the expression: should walk before me for ever, is in conflict with this view. The walking before the Lord would be understood in too narrow a sense, on the one hand, if it were restricted to the entrance of the high-priest into the Holy of Holies, and in too wide a sense, on the other hand, if it were regarded as a general description of a pious walk before God, as in Gen 17:1. Rather it points to the life in priestly service before the Lord promised to the house of Aaron for ever (Exo 29:9). The promise of the covenant of an everlasting priesthood was renewed to Phinehas, the son of Eleazar (Num 25:13) for his zeal for the Lords honor. This fact and its motive contribute essentially to the explanation of what here follows. The and now introduces a declaration opposed to that promise, not in the sense that the latter is annulled, but in reference to its non-fulfilment for those in whom the condition of its fulfilment was lacking. Far be it from me, that is, this promise shall not be fulfilled unless the condition be fulfilled which is expressed in the words: Those that honor me I will honor.According to the priests attitude towards God the Lord in their whole walk will be His attitude towards them in respect to the fulfilment of His promise.

1Sa 2:31-32. The general truth of the last words in 1Sa 2:30, which emphasize in the distinctest manner the ethical condition of the exercise of the holy sacerdotal office in the priests bearing towards God, is applied to Eli and his house in 1Sa 2:31, and contains the standard by which he with his sons is judged. I will cut off thy arm.The arm signifies might, power, Psa 10:15; Job 12:9. There shall not be an old man in thy house. Thus will be shown that the strength of the family and the house is broken; for strength is shown in reaching a great age. No one in Elis house shall attain a great age. This supposes that sickliness will early consume its members. On the aged rested the consideration and power of families (Bttcher). As the house of Eli will perish, so will also the house of God suffer affliction (1Sa 2:32). always means to look with astonishment or attention (Bttcher, Num 12:8; Isa 38:11; Psa 10:14); is only oppressor or enemy, and is not to be rendered rival or adversary, as Aquila () and Jerome (mulus), and also Luther and De Wette give it; dwelling is here to be understood of the dwelling-place of God, not of Eli. From these meanings it follows that Samuel cannot be here referred to, since he was not an enemy of Eli, nor the installation of Zadok in Abiathars place (1Ki 2:27), for Zadok was not Abiathars enemy. Something must be meant which Eli lived to see with astonishment or consternation in the house of the Lord, and it can therefore only be the oppression of the house by the oppressor or enemy who met Israel in the person of the Philistines, carried away the ark, and thus robbed the Lords house of its heart. We do not need therefore to alter the text to rock of refuge ( ), as Bttcher proposes. In all which ( ) is not to be rendered with De Wette during the whole time which. In shall do good we must not supply a as name of Jehovah (Kennicott), nor, as is commonly done, make Jehovah the subject (De Wette, Keil, etc.). There is no reason why we should not take all which itself as unpersonal subject; precisely where has an unpersonal subject, it has, as here, a simple Acc. after it, Pro 15:13; Pro 15:20; Pro 17:22; Ecc. 20:9, while, with a personal subject, a preposition follows, Exo 1:20; Num 10:32; Jdg 17:13 (Bttcher). The affliction of Gods house from the loss of the Ark remained, while under the lead of Samuel there came blessing to the people. This is the fulfilment of this prophecy in reference to the affliction of Gods dwelling. Not an old man is repetition of the threat in 1Sa 2:31, and return of the discourse to the judgment on Elis house. All the days [Eng. A. V. for ever], for ever, that is, as long as his family existed. [Both text and translation of 1Sa 2:32 offer great difficulties. Vat. Sept. omits it. Al. Sept. and Theod.: Thou shalt see strength (), etc. The Syr. and Arab.: and (not) one who holds a sceptre in thy dwelling, which involves a totally different text. Targ. has thou shalt see the affliction which will come on a man of thy house in the sins which ye have committed in the house of my sanctuary. The omission in Vat. Sept. was probably occasioned by the similar endings of 1Sa 2:31-32; the other versions and all the MSS. contain the verse, one MS. only of De Rossi giving , strength, instead of , dwelling. We must therefore retain the Heb. text, and explain the repetition of the last clause as intended to give emphasis to the statement in question. But, as frequently means distress, and as the course of thought here suggests affliction for Elis house rather than for Gods, it is better to render: thou shalt see distress of dwelling in all that brings prosperity to Israel, the contrast being between the national prosperity and his personal affliction, which would thus exclude him from the national rejoicing, and so from the evidence of the divine favor. And we may regard the latter clause of the verse: there shall not be an old man, etc., as defining the affliction which is here brought out as a punishment additional to the weakness of 1Sa 2:31.TR.]

1Sa 2:33. Bttcher declares De Wettes explanation: and I will not let thee lack a ingle man, to be incorrect, and Thenius reference to the definite one Ahitub (1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 22:20) to be without ground, and then remarks (on ): There remains no other course but to regard it as an infrequent, but not unexampled exceptional case. In Heb., as is well known, a negative in a sentence with (man) and (all), whether it stand before or after, negatives these words not alone, but in connection with the whole sentence, and thus , mean not not every one, but no one, and so too , , Exo 16:19; Exo 34:3; Lev 18:6. But when the accent falls on the word expressive of universality by an adversative particle, as here (), the following negation may affect this word alone, as in Num 23:13. Accordingly we render here: Yet I will not cut off every one from thee. The following words: to consume thine eyes and to grieve thy heart, or that I may consume, etc., mark the highest degree of punishment which would befal Eli but for the limitation contained in the words not every man. Thenius refers this limitation specially to Ahitub, son of Phinehas, and brother of Ichabod, against which Keil justly remarks that it cannot be proved from 1Sa 14:3 and 1Sa 22:20 that he was the only one who survived of Elis house.57The following words: the great majority or mass shall die as men, not only answer to the repeated threat in 1Sa 2:31-32, that there should be no old man in the house, but at the same time explain the declaration of 1Sa 2:31 : I will break thine arm; for men () indicates the power and strength of the house, and is contrasted with old man (Luther: when they have become men; Van Ess: in mature age).On , multitude, majority, not offspring, comp. 1Ch 12:29; 2Ch 30:18.[Sept.: And every survivor of thy house shall fall by the sword of men. Vulg.: and the great part of thy house shall die when they attain the age of men. Targ.: and all the multitude of thy house shall be slain young. Syr.: and all the pupils (so Castle renders marbith) of thy house shall die men. Philippson: and all the increase of thy house shall die as men. The Eng. A. V. probably gives the sense. The adj. all does not suit the rendering multitude, which Targ. and Erdmann adopt. In regard to the first clause of the verse, the rendering of Eng. A. V. seems to be possible, that is, the taking as indef. rel. clause. Erdmann regards the reservation of the man as a limitation of the punishment (consume, grieve); Eng. A. V. better, with most expositors, as an element of the punishment. Mendoza (in Pooles Synopsis): I will take from thee the high-priesthood, which thou hast by privilege; I will give thee or thy descendants the priesthood of the second order, which thou hadst by hereditary right. Grotius: They shall live that they may be the greatest grief to thee.Long afterwards this curse was held to cling to the family of Eli. Gill cites a saying of the Talmud that there was a family in Jerusalem the men of which did not live to be more than eighteen years old, and Johanan ben Zacchai being asked the reason of this, replied that they were perhaps of the family of Eli.Sept. has his eyes and his soul, instead of thy; but there is no good ground for altering the Heb. text.TR.]

1Sa 2:34. The fact announced, the death of his two sons in one day (1Sa 4:11), was to be a sign to Eli, who lived to see it, that this threat affecting his whole house should be fulfilled. The realization of this threat began with that event. Not all of Elis descendants indeed perished in this judgment, and among his immediate posterity were some who filled the office of priest, namely, Phinehas son, Ahitub; Ahitubs sons, Ahiah (1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 14:18) and Ahimelech (1Sa 22:9; 1Sa 22:11; 1Sa 22:20); Ahimelechs son, Abiathar (1Sa 22:20). Ahiah and Abiathar filled the high-priestly office. But Ahimelech and all his fathers house, the priests, who were at Nob, were hewn off from Elis family-tree. And Abiathar, Ahimelechs son, who escaped that butchery (1Sa 22:19), and as a faithful adherent of David enjoyed the dignity of high-priest, was deposed from his office by Solomon. The office of high-priest passed now forever from Ithamars family, and went over to Eleazars, to which Zadok belonged; the latter from now on was sole high-priest, while hitherto Abiathar had exercised this office along with him.Thus was to be fulfilled the negative part of the prophetic announcement (1Sa 2:31-34): gradually Elis house went down in respect to the majority of its members [better, in all its increase.TR.]; the office of high-priest, which the surviving members for some time filled, was at last taken away from it altogether.

1Sa 2:35 sqq. Now follows the positive part of the prophecy.But I will raise me up a faithful priest.The priestly office, as a divine institution, remains, though those that fill it perish because they are unworthy, and because their life contradicts its theocratic meaning, and therefore falls under the divine punishment. The faithful priest is, in the first place, to be understood in contrast with Eli and his sons, to whom the above declaration of punishment was directed. We may distinguish the following facts in the announcement of this priest of the future, who is to assume the theocratic-priestly position between God and His people in place of Eli and his house: 1) he is to be raised up by God directly, that is, not merely called and chosen, but (according to the exact meaning of the word) set up; his priestly position is to be historically fixed and assigned by God directly and in an extraordinary manner; 2) he will be a faithful priest, that is, will not merely be in keeping with the end and meaning of his calling, but, in order to this, will be and remain personally the Lords own in true piety and in firm, living faith, constantly and persistently devoted to the Lord his God, and seeking only His honor; 3) he will do, act, according to the norm of the divine will; as faithful priest of God, he knows what is in Gods heart and soul, he knows His thoughts and counsels; these will be the rule by which () he will act as a man of God, as a servant after his heart; 4) and I will build him a sure house, his family will continue as one well-pleasing to me and blessed, and will not perish like thinethis shall be the reward as well as the result of his faithfulness; 5) he shall walk before my anointed for ever. The anointed is the theocratic king, whom the Lord will call. Walking before Him denotes the most cordial life-fellowship with Him. In this reference of the prophetic announcement to the anointed of the Lord is expressed the same expectation of a theocratic kingdom as in the close of Hannahs song.

In 1Sa 2:36 is added another feature in the portraiture of the faithful priest: in this close connection with the kingdom, he will occupy so exalted, honorable and mighty a position over against the fallen house of Eli, that the needy and wretched survivors of that house will be dependent on him for existence and support.On the before , where, on account of the following Article, it signifies all, whole, comp. Ges., III., 1 Rem., Ew., 290 c. All the rest, all that remains. The is a small silver coin collected by begging (Keil). The lower the remains of Elis house sink even to beggary, the higher will the faithful, approved priest, of whom the prophet here speaks, stand. In the immediate future of the theocratic kingdom he will see far beneath him those of Elis house who are still priests in humble dependence on him.

This prophecy found its fulfillment from the stand-point of historical exposition in Samuel. That the author of our Books had him in view in his account of the man of Gods announcement is clear from the narration immediately following in 1 Samuel 3; here the voice of the divine call comes to the child Samuel at the same time with the revelation imparted to him of the judgment against the house of Eli. He is indeed expressly called by the divine voice to be prophet; his first prophetic duty, which he performs as Gods organ, is the announcement of the judgment on Eli in the name of the Lord; it is true, it is said of him in 1Sa 2:20, that he was known in all Israel to be faithful and confirmed () as a prophet. But the summary statement of his prophetical vigor and work in 1Sa 2:19-21, in which the epithet faithful, confirmed, points back to the same expression in 1Sa 2:35, is connected with the reference to Shiloh and the constant revelations there, which had begun with the one made to Samuel; by the express reference to Shiloh Samuels prophetic character and work are at the same time presented under the sacerdotal point of view. An essential element of the calling of priest was instruction in the Law, the announcement of the divine will (Lev 10:11; Deu 33:10), and Mal 2:7, expressly declares the duty of the priest in these words: the priests lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth, for he is a messenger of heaven; and so that prophecy of a faithful priest is all the more fulfilled in Samuel (whose words to the people, 1Sa 3:19-21, had the pure and the practical word of God in the Law for their content), because the priesthood of his time had proved itself unworthy and unable to fulfil this calling. The further sacred priestly acts which Samuel performed (1Sa 3:19-21), and the mediating position between God and the people as advocate and intercessor expressly ascribed to him in 1Sa 7:5 characterize him as the faithful, approved priest who is announced here in 1Sa 2:35-36. The other single traits in the picture suit Samuel. In the list of theocratic instruments of the succeeding period there is none that surpasses him; he surpasses them all so far, that our gaze fixes itself on him in seeking for a realization of this announcement in connection with the fulfilment of the threat against Eli and his house. Samuels bearing and conduct is everywhere such that the declaration he shall do according to what is in my heart and soul, is verified in no other theocratic-prophetic and priestly person so eminently as in him. A sure house the Lord built him according to 1Ch 6:33; 1Ch 25:4-5. His grandson was Heman the singer, the kings seer in the words of God, father of fourteen sons and three daughters. The intimate relation of Samuel to the theocratic kingdom under Saul and David, the Lords anointed kings, is an obvious fulfilment of the prophecy he shall walk before my anointed for ever. The raising up of the fore-announced priest was to follow immediately on the punishment of Eli and his house. In point of fact Samuel steps into the gap in the priesthood which that judgment made as priestly and high-priestly mediator between God and the people, as is shown by the passages cited and by the whole character of his work. By the corruption of its traditional representatives the hereditary priesthood had come to be so at variance with its theocratic significance and mission, that the fulfilment of this mission could be attained, in this great crisis in the development of Israels history into the theocratic kingdom, only in an extraordinary way, through direct divine calling, by such an instrument as Samuel. The statement, in the concluding words, of the walking of the faithful priest before the Lords anointed is fulfilled exactly (according to the above explanation) in Samuels relation to this kingdom.It is held by some that the prophecy in 1Sa 2:30-36, (compared with 1Ki 2:27, and Joseph. V. 11, 5; VIII. 1, 3), refers to the transition of the priestly dignity from the house of Ithamar to the house of Eleazar, and therefore that this prophecy, in whole or in some parts, was composed in or after the time of Solomon, (De Wette, Einl. 178 b.; Bertholdt, Einl. III. 916, and Ewald, Gesch. I. 190); against which Thenius (p. 15) properly points out that even after this change the high-priesthood remained still in the family of Aaron, while the words and the house of thy father, (1Sa 2:30-31), clearly shows that the prophecy does not speak of a change in the family, and that in 1Sa 2:27-36 we have a genuine ancient prediction of a prophet. Against the view that the prophecy of the faithful priest was, according to 1Ki 2:27 fulfilled in the complete transference of the high-priesthood, by the deposition of Abiathar, to the family of Eleazar, to which Zadok belonged, we remark: 1) that (if the advocates of this view mean this family and its succeeding line of high-priests) the words of the prophecy speak of a single person, not of several, or collectively of a body; and 2) that, if Zadok is held to be the faithful priest in whom the prophetic word was fulfilled, his person and work have no such epoch-making theocratic significance in the history as we should expect from the prophecy; the expectation is satisfied only in Samuels priestly-prophetical eminence. For the rest, the words of 1Ki 2:27 give no ground for the opinion that the prophecy in 1Sa 2:35 is in them referred to Zadok (Thenius), since the passage, having in view Abiathars deposition, is speaking merely of the fulfilment of the threatened punishment of Elis house, and not at all of the fulfilment of the positive part of the prophecy; there is, therefore, no occasion to speak (with Thenius) of a false conception of this prophecy as early as Solomons time. The lofty priestly position, which Samuel took in his calling as Judge and Prophet before the Lord and His people, the priestly work, by which (the regular priesthood completely retiring) he stood as mediator between Jehovah and His people in sacrifice, prayer, intercession and advocacy, and the high theocratic-reformatory calling, in which his important, sacred duty was to walk before the anointed, the king, whom Israel was to receive through him, while the Aaronic priesthood fell for a good time into such contempt, that, in the universal neglect of divine worship, it had to beg honor and support from him, and became dependent on the new order of things begun by Samuel, (O. v. Gerlach),these things prove that, from the theocratic-historical point of view, in him is fulfilled the prophecy of the faithful priest.

[Four different interpretations explain the faithful priest to be Samuel, Zadok, Christ, or a line of priests, including Samuel and Zadok, and culminating in Christ; the last seems to be the only tenable one. I. We cannot restrict the prophecy to Samuel, for 1) the established house promised the faithful priest is clearly a priestly house, as is evident from a comparison of 1Sa 2:35 with 1Sa 2:30-31, where the everlasting official sacerdotal character of this house is contrasted with the fall of Elis priestly house; and Samuel founded no such house. 2) Elis house was not immediately deprived of the high-priesthood, nor was it at all excluded from the priesthood. Up to Solomons time descendants of Eli were high-priests, and the Jews held that his family continued to exist. Nor did Samuel succeed Eli immediately as Priest and Judges 3) It is an important fact that Samuel is nowhere called a priest, and it is an exaggeration of his position to ascribe to him a complete sacerdotal character. His mediatorial work belonged to him largely as a man of God, and similar work was performed by Moses, David, Solomon, none of whom acted as priests. It is doubtful whether Samuel sacrificed at all, still more whether he usually performed this service. The people are said to have sacrificed (1Sa 11:15), where is probably meant that they did it through the priests, and one passage (1Sa 9:13), seems to exclude Samuel from the act of sacrifice. At any rate his performance of sacrificial service may be regarded as extraordinary and unofficial like that of Gideon (Jdg 6:26-27) and Solomon (1Ki 3:4). But it is true that Samuels life developed the conception of the theocratically pure and faithful priest in contrast with the self-seeking and immorality of Elis sons. He was the first protest against their profane perversion of the holy office, the first exemplification after Elis time of pure-hearted service of God. II. Rashi, Abarbanel and the majority of modern commentators suppose the reference to be to Zadok, Christian writers usually adopting also the Messianic interpretation. And, though 1Ki 2:27 mentions only the deposition of Abiathar as the fulfilment of the judgment on Elis house, yet this, taken with 1Sa 2:35, can hardly be dissevered from the installation of Zadok as sole high-priest; the final exclusion of Elis representative is followed immediately by the elevation of the Zadokite family, which continues in an unbroken line to Christ. That the Zadokites were the true divinely-appointed priests, is assumed throughout the following books of the Old Testament, and especially in such passages as Eze 44:15, (quoted by Keil). Erdmanns objections to this view do not seem conclusive. He urges: 1) that the prophecy (1Sa 2:27-36) speaks not of a change within the Aaronic family, but of a setting aside of that family in favor of a non-Aaronic priest.But this is not the declaration of the prophecy, (1Sa 2:30 speaks of the exclusion of unworthy members, and the reference is plainly to Elis immediate family), and is contradicted by the facts of history; for the Aaronic priesthood did continue to the end, while the change announced (1Sa 2:36) was to take place in the history of Israel. Samuel founded no priestly family, and the restriction of the prophecy to him alone is not in keeping with the broadness of its declarations. 2) That Zadok was not specially prominent, and does not exhibit a commanding character cannot be urged against this view, since the prophecy promises not intellectual vigor in the faithful priest but theocratic official purity and personal godliness, which Zadok and his descendants in the main exhibited. III. Augustine (De Civ. Dei 17, 5) explains the priest here announced to be Christ alone, basing his view on the breadth and fulness of the statements made about Him. The text does not allow this exclusive reference to Christ, looking plainly, as it does, to the then existing order of things (as in 1Sa 2:36, which Augustine interprets of Jewish priests coming to worship Christ), but it may include Him, or rather point to Him as the consummation of the blessedness which it promises; and the remarkable fulness of the terms in 1Sa 2:35 naturally leads us to this explanation. IV. If the prophecy finds a partial fulfilment in Samuel and Zadok, and also points to Christ, then it would seem best to regard it as announcing a line of faithful men who would do Gods will in full official and personal sympathy with His law. First comes Samuel, not indeed an official priest, but a true representative of the spirituality of the divine service (see 1Sa 15:22). He is followed by Zadok, the father of a long line of priests, who (with many defects) in the main preserve among the people and in the presence of the king the fundamental ideas of the sacrificial service, and are a type (Eze 44:15) of the perfect priesthood into which they are finally merged. To this Erdmann objects that the reference is plainly (1Sa 2:35) to one person, and not to a body of men; but he himself understands the anointed, in which the expression of singleness is not less distinct, of Saul and David. If the anointed is to be understood of a line of kings, why not the priest of a line of priests?This last view then seems best to meet the demands of this confessedly difficult passage. See Keil and Wordsworth in loco.Tr.].

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

1. The man of God who, by divine commission, predicts the punishment of Eli and his house is a proof that the prophetic gift, which appears sporadically in the Period of the Judges, had in this its gloomy close not yet disappeared. After it had been said: there arose not henceforth a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face (Deu 34:10), nevertheless in the time of the Judges, by whose word as spoken according to the divine calling and commission, the people had to govern themselves, we see prophecy reappearing in the following individuals: Judges 2, the messenger of the Lord,58 who comes up from Gilgal to Bochim, and exhorts the Israelites to repentance in the name of the Lord; chap. 4, the Judge Deborah, who, expressly described as prophetess, combines the offices of Judge and Prophet, being the organ of Jehovahs communications; chap. 6, the Prophet who was sent by the Lord as His messenger, to rebuke Israel for their idolatry, and to call Gideon to deliver Israel from the Midianitish bondage. The content of the prophetic declarations, in keeping with the history of the times, is: announcement of divine punishment for the peoples idolatry through the oppression of enemies, exhortation to repentance, promise of help.

2. The internal decline of the theocratic life of Gods people showed itself in the close of the Period of the Judges principally in the corruption of the sacerdotal office as cause and effect. In regard, therefore, to the priestly mediation between God and the people, there was needed a thorough reformation and a re-establishment of the proper inner relation between them by a true priestly mediation. For this reason the prophetic announcement of the faithful, true priest stands at the beginning of the new period, and, at the commencement of the new theocratic development, has an epoch-making fulfilment in Samuels person and work, in which the priestly side is chiefly prominent.

3. Samuel is in this respect a type of Christ; the idea of the priesthood, as here in 1Sa 2:35 expressed, found in all respects its completest and most universal fulfilment in Christs high-priestly office of mediator between God and man.

4. The conception of the honor of God and of knowing Him is impossible, without the idea of the personal living God, and without the existence of a relation, established by Him, between Him, the living God, and man, in which the consciousness of absolute dependence on Him is connected with that of the obligation to be heartily consecrated to Him and in fellowship with Him. The declaration he who knows Me, etc. [1Sa 2:30] expresses Gods righteous procedure in regard to the recognition or non-recognition of His honor by men.

5. When the guilt of the corruption and decline of the religious-moral life of the people rests on the house of the Lord, it is time that judgment should begin at the house of God, 1Pe 4:17.

6. [The walking of the priest before Jehovahs anointed indicates a definite separation between the sacerdotal and judicial or governing offices, and a certain subordination of the first to the second. This was a condition of the developed Israelitish state, and appears in proper form first under David. Saul seems to have exercised authority over the priesthood, but in Davids time the relation of political subordination was first united with sincere religious unity of heart and purpose, and thus one step taken towards the perfect and complete form (king, prophet, priest), which was to shadow forth the office and work of Christ.And, as of Hannahs anticipation of the king, so we may say of the prediction by this man of God of the united king and priest, that it had its root in the felt need of the times, which, as it existed in its distinctest and intensest form in the most spiritual minds of the nation, was guided and elevated and intensified by the Spirit of God into prevision and prophecy.Tr.].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

[1Sa 2:27. A man of God. 1) His office is to come to the people with Thus saith the Lord. Though inspiration cannot now be expected, he may be thoroughly furnished from the Scriptures (2Ti 3:17). 2) When called to give rebukes and warnings, he should do it with faithfulness, solemnity, and tenderness.Tr.].

1Sa 2:27-36. The prophets sermon of censure, [German Strafpredigt] against Levi and his house. 1) Looking back to the past, it recalls the manifold exhibition of the benefits of Gods grace, 1Sa 2:27-28; 1 Samuel 2) Looking around upon the present, it holds before Eli his sins and those of his house, 1Sa 2:29-30; 1 Samuel 3) Looking out upon the future, it proclaims the divine judgment, 1Sa 2:30-36.

1Sa 2:27-30. To what are we bound by the experience of overflowing manifestations of Gods grace? 1) To be always thankfully mindful of them; 2) To proclaim everywhere the praises of God; 3) By a sober and holy walk to promote the honor of His name.

1Sa 2:27-36. Gods righteousness and grace in union with each other. 1) Grace in union with righteousness, 1Sa 2:27-32; (a) The actual proofs and gifts of Gods grace (1Sa 2:27-29) contain serious demands by the holy and righteous God; (b) The promises of grace are in respect of their fulfilment conditioned by the conduct of man towards God, which is weighed by his righteousness, 1Sa 2:30; (c) In proportion as man in view of the revelation of divine grace gives God the honor or not, he is requited by God according to his righteousness, 1Sa 2:30. 2) The severity of Gods righteousness does not exclude grace, 1Sa 2:30. (a) It suffers itself to lean upon forbearing, softening grace, in order that justice may not execute complete destruction, 1Sa 2:33; 1Sa 2:36; (b) It does not take away the arrangements which grace has established, but guards and preserves them against the sin of men, 1Sa 2:27-29; (c) It does not cause the promises of grace to fall away, but makes room for their fulfilment in another way, 1Sa 2:35.

1Sa 2:30. God the Lord, according to His righteousness, remains no mans debtor: 1) Whoever honors Him, will He also honor; 2) He who despises Him shall be despised in return.To honor God the loftiest task of human life: 1) Wherein it consists; 2) How it is performed; 3) What promise and threatening are here concerned.[I. Some of the ways in which we may honor God. (1) By speaking His name with reverence. (2) By keeping the Lords day holy to Him. (3) By propriety of behaviour in public worship. (4) By practically recognizing our dependence on His Providence. (5) By performing all the duties of life as to the Lord (Col 3:17). II. Some of the ways in which He will honor us. (1) In causing us to be respected by our fellow-men (Pro 3:16). (2) In making us the means of converting others. (3) In receiving us to glory, honor and immortality in heaven (Rom 3:7).Baxter: Never did man dishonor God, but it proved the greatest dishonor to himself. God will find out ways enough to wipe off any stain upon Him; but you will not so easily remove the shame and dishonor from yourselves.Tr,].

1Sa 2:35. The exercise of the priestly office, which is well-pleasing to God: 1) Its personal condition and pre-supposition, fidelity, firmness, steadfastness, I will raise me up a faithful priest; 2) Its rule and measure, according to that which is in my heart and in my soul; 3) Its blessing and reward, and I will, etc. [Upon the phrase, he shall walk before my Anointed forever, comp. above on 1Sa 2:10, Hom, and Pract.Tr.].

1Sa 2:27-30. The heavy guilt of neglecting the office of household-priest in the rearing of children: 1) It wrongs the welfare and honor of the house, so far as in earlier times God has in grace and compassion crowned it with blessings, 1Sa 2:27-29; 1 Samuel 2) In indulgent and weak love to the children it robs God of the honor which He demands, 1Sa 2:30; 1 Samuel 3) It thereby prepares for the children a sure destruction, 1Sa 2:34; 1 Samuel 4) It often thereby brings a curse and ruin upon succeeding generations, 1Sa 2:31-33; 1Sa 2:36.

[Hall: Indulgent, parents are cruel to themselves and their posterity. Eli could not have devised which way to have plagued himself and his house so much, as by his kindness to his childrens sins. I do not read of any fault Eli had but indulgence; and which of the notorious offenders were plagued more!Tr.].

Footnotes:

[41][1Sa 2:27. Chald. a prophet of Jehovah.Tr.]

[42][1Sa 2:27. often expresses possession, and is here so rendered by Chald. and Sept.Tr.]

[43][1Sa 2:28. The following makes it better not to carry on the interrogation here. Erdmann: I chose it (thy house) to perform priestly service.Tr.]

[44][1Sa 2:28. The Heb. form here may be Qal (ascend) or Hiphil (offer) but the sense it the same in both cases.Tr.]

[45][1Sa 2:29. See Exeg. Notes.Tr.]

[46][1Sa 2:29. The is probably repetition from the last letter of the preceding word; see Jos 10:21 for similar case.Tr.]

[47][1Sa 2:30. Indeed is merely intensive, Heb. Infin. Absol.Tr.]

[48][1Sa 2:32. On the text of this verse see Exeg. Notes.Tr.]

[49][1Sa 2:33. See Exeg. Notes.Tr.]

[50][1Sa 2:33. Lit. shall die men;. Sept. by the sword of men, which Wellhausen prefers, but see Exeg. Notes.Tr.]

[51][1Sa 2:35. The Heb. word is the same as that rendered faithful just before.Tr.]

[52][1Sa 2:36. More exactly a small piece; Erdmann: eine Bettelmnze, a beggars coin.Tr.]

[53]Textual and Grammatical.The Inf. Abs. stands for the Verb, fin., as a Verb. fin. has preceded in the same sentence (Ges., 131, 4 a). But the interrog. does not extend to this Inf. Abs., which stands for the Perf., and makes the discourse absolute. is better referred to than to , on account of the following tribes. But then we must read with Bttcher and Thenius instead of , as agreeing better with the preceding and the succeeding Inf. (Bttcher). So the Sept. . Comp. Exo 31:10. is contracted from . See Deu 1:33; 2Sa 18:3; Ecc 5:5.

[54][The Germ. has steigen, ascend, error for opfern, offer.Tr.]

[55][Germ. achselkleid, shoulder-dress, amice.Tr.]

[56] is periphrasis for the Gen., and is chosen in order to make the my people more prominent (Keil). On this periphrasis of the Gen. see Ew. Gr. 292, a. 3.[But this does not apply here. See Textual Notes in loco.Tr.].

[57]Bttcher: is for =, one of the numerous clerical errors in these books.[It is by no means clear that there is a clerical error here, since we may suppose a stem = as =.Tr.]

[58][It is doubtful whether the malak can be considered other than an angel.Tr.].

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

(27) And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?

Observe with what a solemn introduction the man of God is here mentioned; and what a most awful message he brought. Probably the revelation here spoken of, of the Lord’s appearance to his father’s house, referred to the general deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt; or if anything more personal or particular was alluded to, it might have been the Lord’s appearance to Aaron, the great Father of the Levites. Exo 4:27 .

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

1Sa 2:27 And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?

Ver. 27. And there came a man of God unto Eli. ] This man of God was Samuel, saith Junius: but that is not likely; rather it was Elkanah, as the Hebrews will have it, or some other prophet extraordinarily raised up by God, to show Eli and his sons their ingentia beneficia, flagitia, supplicia. Yet some good divines hold that this prophecy is part of that sent afterwards to Eli by Samuel, 1Sa 3:11-14 and here set down by way of anticipation.

Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy father? ] viz., Of Aaron, of whom thou art descended by Ithamar. This referreth, saith Lyra, to Exo 4:27 , before which time Aaron was a prophet, say the Hebrews, and prophesied in Egypt, reproving the Hebrews for their idolatry there, and that one of his sermons was recorded by Ezekiel. a

a Pet. Martyr.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

man of God : i.e. a prophet. See Deu 33:1 and App-49. Compare Jdg 13:6.

Did I plainly . . . ? = I did indeed, with Septuagint, Aramaean, and Syriac.

appear=reveal Myself.

they. Aaron as well as Moses was in Pharaoh’s house. See note on Exo 4:27.

were. Septuagint reads “were servants”. Compare Deu 5:6.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

a man: 1Sa 9:4, Deu 33:1, Jdg 6:8, Jdg 13:6, 1Ki 13:1, 1Ti 6:11, 2Pe 1:21

Did I: Exo 4:14, Exo 4:27

Reciprocal: 1Sa 1:28 – to the Lord 1Sa 3:12 – I will perform 1Sa 3:13 – For I have told him 1Sa 9:6 – city 1Ki 14:7 – Forasmuch 1Ki 16:2 – I exalted thee 2Ch 11:2 – the man Jer 28:8 – prophesied Jer 35:4 – a man

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

1Sa 2:27-28. There came a man of God unto Eli That is, a prophet, sent from God to deliver the following message to him: Did I plainly appear Hebrew, Manifestly reveal myself unto the spouse of thy father Unto Aaron, who was the head of the family of the priests. It is the way of the prophets, when they call men to repentance for their sins, to show them the aggravations of these sins, by enumerating Gods many and great mercies to them. See Isa 1:2, &c.; Mic 6:3-5. All the offerings made by fire There were none of the sacrifices offered at the altar of which the priest had not some share: see Num 18:8-10. For even of the burnt-offerings, which were wholly consumed on the altar, the skin was, by an express law, given to the priest, Lev 7:8.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Sa 2:27-36. A Prophet Foretells the Death of Elis Sons, and the Expulsion of his Family from the Priesthood.Composed by the Deuteronomic Editor (see above, p. 273), to connect the misconduct of the sons of Eli with the massacre of his house at Nob and deposition of his descendant, Abiathar, from the priesthood in favour of the house of Zadok (1Ki 2:26 f.); and perhaps also with the unhappy condition of the priests of the high places, after these were suppressed (2Ki 23:8 f.), though there is no indication that the priests of the high-places as a class were reckoned descendants of Eli.

1Sa 2:27. man of God: see Jdg 13:6.Did I reveal, etc.: these questions are a form of emphatic statement. The earlier sources of Samuel do not connect Eli with Aaron or Moses, but the author of this passage probably considered that because Eli was priest, he was descended from Aaron and inherited his election to the priesthood.in bondage to: read with LXX slaves to.

1Sa 2:28. wear an ephod: rather carry an ephod; ephod here not the same as the linen ephod in 1Sa 2:18, but an image or other piece of Temple furniture used in connexion with the sacred lots (p. 100); (see Jdg 8:24-27*, and cf. 1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 21:9; 1Sa 23:6).

1Sa 2:29. kick ye at: rather follow the LXX, look at with shameless eye, and render cast an evil eye upon, i.e. treat with contempt.

1Sa 2:30. the Lord saith (twice): neum Yahweh, a solemn, emphatic phrase, Oracle of Y. (see Gen 22:16).I said, etc.: this oracle is not in the Hex. (cf. 1Sa 2:27).Be it far from me: lit. abominable to me (see Gen 44:7).

1Sa 2:31 f. These verses do not make sense; the present wording cannot be the original one, but must be due to mistakes in the copying. We cannot now discover the original form. LXX omits that there shall not be to . . . habitation. The general sense is that the house of Eli shall be brought low, arm cut off, and none survive to old age; the reference is to the massacre at Nob (1Sa 22:20).

1Sa 2:33. The man, Abiathar, the sole survivor of that massacre, whose deposition by Solomon will consume the eyes, etc. of Eli, who may be supposed to foresee it.shall die: in the massacre.in the flower of their age: rather, with LXX by the sword of men.

1Sa 2:34. Cf. 1Sa 4:11.

1Sa 2:35. faithful priest: Zadok (see above).build him a sure house: the priesthood shall remain permanently in his family.anointed: Mshiah, Messiah, as consecrated to God and endowed with His Spirit by the ceremony of anointing.

1Sa 2:36. piece of silver: the word translated piece occurs only here it should perhaps be translated payment.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

2:27 And there came a man of God unto Eli, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Did I plainly appear unto the house of thy {s} father, when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house?

(s) That is, Aaron.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

4. The oracle against Eli’s house 2:27-36

The rest of the chapter explains why God would put Eli’s sons to death (1Sa 2:25). The specific criticism that the man of God (a prophet, cf. 1Sa 9:9-10) directed against Eli and his sons was two-fold. They had not appreciated God’s grace extended to them in the Exodus deliverance nor the opportunity to serve Him as priests (1Sa 2:27-29). "Kick at" (NASB, 1Sa 2:29; cf. Deu 32:15) means to "scorn" (NIV, Heb. ba’at). It is a serious matter to undervalue the grace of God. God had initiated blessing, but they had not responded appropriately, namely, with gratitude, trust, and obedience. Eli’s guilt (1Sa 2:29) lay in his failure to rebuke his sons severely for their sin (1Sa 3:13), though he did warn them of God’s judgment (1Sa 2:25). He also enjoyed the fruits of their disobedient worship (1Sa 2:13-16). Had Eli grown fat from eating the best portions that his sons extorted from the people (cf. 1Sa 4:18)?

Many students of this book have identified 1Sa 2:30 as its key verse because it articulates the principle that the books of Samuel illustrate. Every section of 1 and 2 Samuel demonstrates the truth of this statement.

God’s judgment on Eli and his sons was that He would dishonor them. God had promised that Levi’s descendants would serve Him forever as priests, namely, as long as Israel existed as a sovereign nation (Exo 29:9; Num 25:13). Now God revealed that He would cut off Eli’s branch of the Levitical family tree. Eli was a descendant of Levi through Levi’s son Ithamar. His descendants ceased to function as priests when Solomon dismissed Abiathar as high priest. Abiathar escaped the slaughter of the priests at Nob (1Sa 22:17-20), but Solomon defrocked him because he supported Adonijah (1Ki 2:27; 1Ki 2:35).

The faithful priest God promised to raise up (1Sa 2:35) was initially Samuel (1Sa 3:1; 1Sa 3:20; 1Sa 7:9; 1Sa 9:2-13). Zadok, a descendant of Levi’s son Eleazar, replaced Abiathar as high priest in Solomon’s day (1Ki 2:35). [Note: Segal, p. 40; et al.] The Lord’s anointed (1Sa 2:35) was the king of Israel. One of his descendants would be Messiah. Eze 44:15; Eze 48:11 refer to the continuing ministry of Zadok’s descendants when Messiah reigns in His future millennial kingdom. [Note: See Ronald L. Rushing, "Phinehas’ Covenant of Peace," Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988.] 1Sa 2:36 evidently continues to describe the fate of Eli’s descendants after God deposed Abiathar. [Note: For another study of 1Sa 2:27-36, see Tsevat, "Studies in the Book of Samuel," Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):191-216.]

Notice the chiastic (crossing) structure of chapter 2 that focuses on Eli’s blessing of Samuel’s parents.

"A.    The song of Hannah, concluding with reference to the Lord’s anointed (1Sa 2:1-10)

    B.    Samuel ministers before the Lord (1Sa 2:11)

        C.    The sins of Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:12-17)

            D.    Samuel ministers before the Lord (1Sa 2:18-19)

E.    Eli blesses Samuel’s parents (1Sa 2:20-21 a)

            D.’    Samuel grows in the Lord’s presence (1Sa 2:21 b)

        C.’    The sins of Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:22-25)

    B.’    Samuel grows in the Lords’ presence (1Sa 2:26)

A.’    The oracles of the man of God, concluding with reference to the Lord’s anointed (1Sa 2:27-36)" [Note: Youngblood, p. 588.]

This section reveals the importance and power of parental influence, though this is not the primary lesson. Eli had placed more importance on his sons’ personal preferences than he had on God’s preferences; he had honored them more than Him (1Sa 2:29). Consequently they became worthless men (1Sa 2:12) whom God finally killed prematurely. Hannah, on the other hand, encouraged her son, Samuel, to value the service of God. Consequently he developed into a godly man whom God and other people honored and respected (1Sa 2:26). Eli’s sons despised God and abused other people (1Sa 2:17; 1Sa 2:22). Samuel feared God and became a great blessing to other people.

This chapter also shows that godly influence can be more powerful than ungodly influence and can overcome many natural obstacles. God enabled Hannah to influence Samuel for good even though she seldom saw him, lived miles from him, and could not prevent the daily wicked influence of Eli’s sons over him. Her previous dedication of him to the Lord was undoubtedly a factor in her success. Other important factors were her continuing encouragement to serve God and her prayers for Samuel.

God has not blessed with godly offspring all parents who have had the same desires for their children that Hannah did. Children are responsible for their own decisions as they grow up (Eze 18:4; Eze 18:20). Some choose to turn away from the Lord. Nevertheless this story shows what can happen. Children can grow up in an ungodly environment away from their parents’ personal supervision and still become godly. The influence of a wise and godly parent can overcome many other ungodly influences in a child’s life.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)