Bible Commentaries

FOURTH SECTION

Samuel’s Service before the Lord in Contrast with the Abominations of the Degenerate Priesthood in the House of Eli

1 Samuel 2:11-26

I. The conduct of the sons of Eli In contrast with Samuel, the “servant of the Lord.” Vers.‚ 11–17.

11And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister [ministered12] unto the Lord [Jehovah] before Eli the priest. Now [And] the sons of Eli 13 were sons of Belial [wicked men]; they knew not the Lord [Jehovah]. And²² the priest’s custom [the custom of the priests] with the people was that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with 14 a²³ flesh-hook of three teeth in his hand; [,] And he (om. he) struck it into the pan, or kettle, or cauldron or pot; all that the flesh-hook brought up the priest took for himself.²⁴ So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither 15 Also [Even] before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden 16 flesh of thee, but raw. And if any [the] man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn²⁵ the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; [,] then he would answer [say] him. [om. him²⁶], Nay, but thou shalt give it me [om. me] now; and if not, I will take it by force. Wherefore [And] the sin of the young men 17 was very great before the Lord [Jehovah]; for men abhorred the offering of the Lord [Jehovah].

II. Samuel as minister before the Lord. 1 Samuel 2:18-21

18But [And] Samuel ministered before the Lord [Jehovah], being [om. being] a 19 child, girded with a linen ephod. Moreover [And] his mother made him a little coat [tunic], and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her 20 husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The Lord [Jehovah] give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the Lord [in place of the gift which was asked for Jehovah²⁷]. And they went unto their own home [to his²⁸ place]. And the Lord [Jehovah] visited Hannah, so that [and] she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the Lord [Jehovah].

III. Eli’s conduct towards his worthless sons. 1 Samuel 2:22-26

22Now [And] Eli was very old, and [ins. he] heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how [that] they lay with the women that assembled [served²⁹] at the 23 door of the tabernacle of the congregation [meeting (or assembly)]. And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings [deeds] by24[from] all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear; ye 25 make the Lord’s people [Jehovah’s people are made] to transgress. If one man sin against another [If a man sin against a man], the judge [God³⁰] shall judge³¹ him; but if a man sin against the Lord [Jehovah], who shall intreat10 for him ? Notwithstanding [And] they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because 26 the Lord would slay them [for it was Jehovah’s will to slay them]. And the child Samuel grew on and was in favour [grew in stature and favour³²] both with the Lord [Jehovah] and also [om. also] with men.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. 1 Samuel 2:11-16. In 1 Samuel 2:11 the Sept. again clearly shows the effort to combine explanations with the translation of the Heb. text, rendering: “ and they left him there, and they went away.” [The Vat. MS. reads in both instances “she” instead of “they.”—Tr.]. There is the less need to change the Heb. text to accord with this, because, as Böttcher (ubi sup. p69) rightly remarks, “the Elkanah” of the former is quite sufficient, since this name would suggest to every reader Elkanah and his household, and the only one that remained behind is mentioned immediately afterwards. From 1 Samuel 1:21 Elkanah can be thought of only together “with his whole house.”—The child “was ministering to the Lord,” or “serving the Lord.” These words express the whole work which the growing boy Samuel, conformably to his consecration, had to perform, certain duties connected with the service of God being laid upon him. “Before Eli,” that is, under his supervision, and according to his appointment. 1 Samuel 2:12. The sons of Eli were sons of worthlessness;³³ their character and conduct forms the sharpest contrast with what they ought to have been before the whole people as highest in position, as children of the High-priestly House. Observe the sharp asyndeton in this short sentence: they knew not the Lord, that is, they did not live in the fear of the Lord, they did not trouble themselves about Him; comp. Job 18:21. This godlessness and irreligiousness is the source of their moral worthlessness, which is afterwards described. The two together give the religious-moral characteristics of Eli’s sons.

1 Samuel 2:13. This is not to be rendered: “And the custom of the priests with the people was this”—this would certainly require simply מִשְׁפַּט³⁴ וְזֶח without הַכֹּהֲנִים [“this is the custom” without “ the priests”], comp. Genesis 11:6 (Böttcher); nor is it: “the right (that is, the assumed right) of the priests in respect to the people was as follows” (Keil), for מִשְׁפַּט [“right”] alone cannot be so understood; but the words are to be connected with the preceding: they troubled themselves not about God, nor about the real, true right of the priests in respect to the people, that is, “about what was the legal due of the priests from the people” (Thenius).

[The construction of this difficult clause adopted by Erdmann (with Vulg, Cahen, Wellhausen, Thenius, and perhaps Sept.) is open to grave objections. The reply to Keil is correct; מִשְׁפָּט cannot well mean “assumed right.” The objection to Böttcher’s translation (where read זֶה מִשְׁפָּטָם instead of Erdmann’s זֶה מִשְׁפַּט) is forcible in so far as we should expect זְה to introduce the clause (comp. Deuteronomy 18:3); but the possibility of the omission of the pronoun, and of an apposition of the two clauses must be admitted. To the translation of מ׳ by “legal right” Wellhausen properly objects that the גַּם (even) in 1 Samuel 2:15 introduces a graver outrage, and therefore the proceeding described in 1 Samuel 2:13 must be illegal.—But against Erdmann’s rendering it is to be said that the meaning assigned to ידע (know) “trouble one’s-self about” is rare and difficult; it is found only in poetical passages. The phrase “to know the Lord” occurs, and always in the sense of intimate sympathetic apprehension; but this sense will not suit the מ׳. Moreover, if מ׳ here means “right” we should expect the prep. מֵאֵת“from” (as Deuteronomy 18:3) instead of אֵת “ with ” the latter must be retained here, though the former is read in9 MSS. and in LXX, Syr, Chald. Further, the narrative is, in this construction, introduced very abruptly (“when any man, etc.”). מִשְׁפָּט means not only “right,” but also “ custom, manner;” see 2 Kings 11:14; Judges 13:12. The “custom” here described was not the legal right, but was in force under, apparently introduced by, the sons of Eli, the priests (הכ׳); 1 Samuel 2:13 details one imposition of the priests, and a more serious imposition is properly introduced ( 1 Samuel 2:15) by “even” (גַּם).—We retain, therefore, the rendering of Eng. A. V. (with Philippson, Bib. Comm, and others).—Tr.].

Then follows the statement of the priests’ legal right.—The connection required that the people’s part in the offering should now be distinctly set forth, in order to put the unseemly conduct of Eli’s sons in its true light. Therefore the participle “sacrificing” in connection with the indefinite subject “every man,” stands first in absolute construction, like the Lat. Abl. absolute (comp. Gesen. § 145, 2, Rem.), = “when any man offered, then came, etc.” Ewald, § 341 e.: “ If the subject of the circumstantial sentence is wholly undefined, then the mere combination of the participle with the subject suffices to express a possible case ( Genesis 4:15).” Here is vividly portrayed the grasping selfish conduct of the priests in the preparation of the sacrificial meal after the offering was presented, which had already become the rule (“so they did to all the Israelites”).—But still further. 1 Samuel 2:15. Even before the offering, before (in accordance with the law, Leviticus 3:3-5) the fat was burned that it might be offered to the Lord as the best portion, they committed a robbery on the meat, which they wanted only הַי, that is, raw, fresh, full of juice and strength, in order to roast it. [Bib. Comm. points out that 1 Samuel 2:13-15 repeat the Language of the Law, and thus give evidence to its existence. See Leviticus 7:31-35; Leviticus 7:23-25; Leviticus 7:31; Leviticus 17:5; also Exodus 29:28; Deuteronomy 18:3. Philippson: “Roast was common in heathen sacrifices, and even now the Orientals do not like to eat boiled meat.”—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:16. The remonstrance of the offerer based on the legal regulation, of which they should be the guardians, is set aside. כַּיּוֹם = “at this time, now,” as in Genesis 25:31; 1 Kings 22:5. The Qeri “not” is preferable to the Kethib “to him:” “no, but now thou shalt give it;” threats were combined with violent seizure. Rude force was added to lawlessness.

1 Samuel 2:17. The “young men ” are not the servants of the priests (Keil) but the priests themselves, the sons of Eli. Their arbitrary conduct was “a very great sin before the Lord,” because the fat burned on the altar pertained to the Lord, and their legal portion of the sacrifice-meat fell to them only after the burning of the fat. What made their sin so great was the fact that they brought the offerings into contempt with the people, in so far as the wicked conduct of the priests took away in the eyes of the people their true significance as offerings to the Lord. Minchah (מִנְחָה) “means here not the meat-offering as the adjunct to the bloody offerings, but the sacrificial gift in general as an offering to the Lord” (Keil). In the succeeding narrative Samuel’s “service before the Lord” is contrasted with this wicked conduct of Eli’s sons in relation to the offering.

II. 1Sa 2:18-21.

1 Samuel 2:18. The “Ephod” can mean nothing but a garment resembling in form the High-priest’s ephod, consisting of two pieces which rested on the shoulders in front and behind, were joined at the top and held about the body by a girdle. Therefore it is said also: Samuel was girded with the ephod, comp. Exodus 28:7-8. In distinction from the material of the High-priest’s ephod, it was made of the same material as the other priestly garments, white linen (בַּד). That the priests then all wore this ephod appears from 1 Samuel 22:18. It was the sign of the priestly calling, and was worn during the performance of the priestly functions. David was thus clothed, according to 2 Samuel 6:14, when he brought back the Ark, and in connection with this ceremony performed quasi-priestly functions. As the mention of this priestly dress of Samuel is connected expressly and directly with the reference to his calling as minister in the Sanctuary before the Lord, it is thus intimated that Hebrews, called to this life-long service, received therewith an essentially priestly calling. [Bib. Comm.: The word minister is used in three senses in Scripture: 1) Of the service of both Priests and Levites rendered unto the Lord, Exodus 28:35, etc.; 2) of the ministrations of the Levites as rendered to the Priests, Numbers 3:6; Numbers 3) of any service, as that of Joshua to Moses, that of Elisha to Elijah, that of the angels in heaven, 2 Samuel 13:17; Psalm 103:21, etc. The application of it to Samuel accords most exactly with his condition as a Levite.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:19. While the ephod was the High-priestly dress, which the boy received on the part of the Sanctuary (Thenius), the little meïl³⁵(מְעִיל) was his every-day dress, which his mother renewed for him once a year, when she came with her husband to the Sanctuary to present the annual offering. The unbroken connection which the household thus maintained with the Sanctuary prevented any estrangement between the child Samuel and the house of his parents.—The Impf. “made” (תּעשה) indicates a continued customary action, and thus answers to the Latin tense which is so called in a stricter sense.

1 Samuel 2:20. Eli’s blessing³⁶ refers to two things: to the act of consecrating the son to the service of the Lord, and to the compensation which Eli wished the Lord to make for the son who was offered to the Lord. Keil explains the שָׁאַל (asked [Eng. A. V. “lent”]) as 3 pers. singular instead of 2 pers. singular or plural “from the indefinite form of speech (comp. Ewald, § 249 b with § 319 a) which the narrator chose because, though it was Hannah who in Eli’s presence had obtained Samuel from the Lord by prayer, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, had shared the wish of his pious wife.” But the circumstance which alone permits such change of person, or rather of gender, in the subject, namely, the indefiniteness of the subject as indicated by the context, does not exist here, since such indefiniteness is undoubtedly excluded by 1 Samuel 1:27-28. Böttcher properly takes the verb form with altered points as 3 sing. fem. “she asked.”³⁷—The sing. pronoun in “his place” (for which we should expect “their place”) does not require the change of “they went” into “the man went,” as Böttcher and Thenius prefer, following the Sept. καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ὁ ἄνθρωπος; the singular suffix (after the plural verb) is explained “by the fact that the place of residence is determined by the husband or owner of the house.”

1 Samuel 2:21. כִּי is neither with Bunsen to be translated: “When now Jehovah visited Hannah she conceived,” nor with Thenius to be complemented by “it came to pass,” nor to be referred to “ and Eli blessed” ( 1 Samuel 2:20), according to the view of Keil, who inserts a sentence (“Eli’s word was fulfilled,” or “they went home blessed”) in order to retain the causal meaning, but it is to be considered as strengthening the following assertion, with reference to the blessing in 1 Samuel 2:20, and = “indeed,” “in fact,” immo [German, ja, in der that]. See Ewald, § 310 c and § 330 b. Comp. Isaiah 7:9; Isaiah 32:13; Job 8:6.³⁸—Samuel’s growth “before the Lord” indicates not only that he remained in the Sanctuary, but also that (as the condition of his calling) he grew in fellowship of heart and life with God.

III. 1 Samuel 2:22-26. The chief thing in the content of this section is the description of Eli’s conduct towards his sons. But at the same time their worthlessness in relation to the Sanctuary in yet another direction is brought to view. They desecrated the latter not only by the wickedness described in 1 Samuel 2:12-17, but also by their unchaste dealing with the women who served at the Sanctuary. Wherein consisted their service at the door of the Tent of Assembly is not said in Exodus 38:8, where they are mentioned. They formed a body, which was regularly and formally drawn up (צֹבְאוֹת) at the door of the Tent for the performance of its duty, which consisted “probably in the cleansing of the vessels used in offerings.” Since, therefore, they were persons dedicated to the holy God, the wickedness of Eli’s sons, who seduced to the service of fleshly lust these persons destined for the service of the Lord, appears in so much the stronger light.—The wickedness of Eli’s sons in what pertained to the sanctuary attached itself to the whole people, who were to hold themselves a holy people to the Lord through this Sanctuary and through the offering and persons connected with it.—Eli’s conduct in connection with their misdeeds is in the beginning by the words “and Eli was very old” represented as the weakness of old age, not thereby to excuse or justify his slackness, but to explain it.

1 Samuel 2:23. The question: Why do ye such things? is but a feeble rebuke of their gross misdoings. It cannot be translated: “Why do ye according to the words which I hear” (Keil)? for the Heb. word (דִּבְרֵיכֶם) cannot mean “reports about you,” nor could these reports be termed “evil,” since they would be true reports of evil deeds; but the proper rendering is: “Why do ye as these things?” that is, such things.³⁹ “For I hear of your evil dealings from all this people,” that is, those who came to the Sanctuary, and there saw the wickedness.

1 Samuel 2:24. “Do not so (אַל) my sons.” Not good is the “report,” or objectively “the thing heard;” this answers to the “evil dealings (or things).” The “I hear” (שֹׁמֵעַ) corresponds to the “report,” “thing heard” (שְׁמֻעָה) and [being a particip.—Tr.] shows that it constantly came to his ears. What follows is the explanation of the words: “it is no good report.”

The words: “Jehovah’s people are made to transgress” (מַעֲבִרִים etc.), express the guilt which the sons of Eli incurred by their misdoing towards “the Lord’s people.” The difficulties in the explanation of the particip. (מ׳ “are causing to transgress”) have give occasion to attempts at alteration, which, however, are unsatisfactory. “Michaelis’ alteration (into מֵעֹבְרִים): ‘the report which I hear incidentally (from people passing by) from God’s people.’ is against grammar;” so says Thenius. “But,” says Böttcher rightly, “Thenius’ own reading (made from Sept. and Arab, and therefore insecure): ‘you plague, oppress the people of Israel’ (מַעֲבִדִים אַתֶּם עַם י׳) is wholly without ground. For הֶעֱבִיד means only ‘make to serve,’ ‘enslave,’ or ‘make to work,’ plague with work ( Exodus 1:13; Exodus 6:5). From the last in the later prophetic style ( Isaiah 43:23) has developed the meaning ‘weary,’ ‘burden,’ just as German: schaffen machen [‘to give trouble,’ lit. ‘to make to do’], πράγματα παρέχειν [‘to cause trouble’], and so always with the idea of ‘work’ as fundamental. Eli’s sons, it is true, robbed and dishonored the people ( 1 Samuel 2:13 sqq, 22); but they did not burden them in such a way that our term ‘give trouble’ would suit. The expression does not come up to the reality, for it is too narrow for the rebuke. And the addition of ‘ye’ (אַתֶּם) here is both violent, and cannot be inferred from the Arab. text, where it was a necessity of Shemitic construction.” The view thus opposed by Böttcher is maintained by Thenius (in his 2 d ed. also) to suit the connection perfectly, though, on the other hand, he declares that Ewald’s explanation, in which there is no change of text, must be accepted; this latter is held by Böttcher to be the only one permitted by the language and matter, and he gives it thus: “to send forth a cry (ה׳ קוֹל), thence to cause to be called out, and to cause to trumpet forth (ה׳ שׁוֹפָר) are common expressions, appropriate to the simplest style, Exodus 36:6; Leviticus 25:9; Ezra 1:1; Ezra 10:7. Why then should not “send forth a report” (ה׳ שְׁמוּע) be said as well as ‘send forth a voice’ (ה׳ קוֹל)? ‘The report which (as) I hear, God’s people are circulating,’ is quite proper; the plu. partcp. is joined to the collective ‘people’ as in 1 Samuel 13:15.” To this Thenius properly objects that it is a superfluous statement after 1 Samuel 2:23 (“which I hear from all the people”), and that we should here expect a more significant word. The train of thought requires after the declaration “not good,” etc, a statement of the ground of Eli’s judgment. The usual rendering: “ye make the Lord’s people to transgress,” satisfies the demands of the connection of thought. Only, as the pers. pron. (אתם “ye”) is wanting, the partcp. must be rendered impersonally: “people make … to transgress” (comp. מְשַׁלְּחִים, 1 Samuel 6:3, and אֹמְרִים Exodus 5:16). The objection that the object of the transgression, which is elsewhere always fouud with this verb as exacter determination, is not here expressed (comp. 1 Samuel 15:24; Isaiah 24:5; 2 Chronicles 24:20; Numbers 14:41), cannot set aside the meaning: “cause to sin or transgress,” “because the exact definition is contained in the context” (Keil). The sin of the sons was, according to the context, very great before the Lord ( 1 Samuel 2:12-17), but was at the same time committed against the people of the Lord ( 1 Samuel 2:13; 1 Samuel 2:22) in reference to their holy calling, and had the destructive effect of bringing the Lord’s offering into contempt ( 1 Samuel 2:17). The “people of the Lord” not only knew and spoke of the wickedness of Eli’s sons, but were made by the latter partakers of their guilt, were seduced into transgression of the Law by those who ought to have watched over its fulfillment.

1 Samuel 2:25. Pillel (פִּלֵּל) is used, in connection with wicked actions, in the sense “to give a decisive judgment,” and so between two contending parties, “to compose a strife by judgment;” comp. Ezekiel 16:52; Psalm 106:30. The elohim, however, cannot here mean the Judges, or the authority that Judges, but God is described as He who composes by judging. The sense of Eli’s discourse is: “When men sin against men, it is God (of course through the appointed human organs), who restores the disturbed relations by composing the strife; but when we have to do with the relation, not between man and man, but between man and God, when a man sins against God, offends against God’s honor, who will interpose to arrange the matter?” Eli sets two things therefore before his sons: 1) that their sin is a sin immediately against God, from which point of view it has been regarded in the whole preceding narration ( 1 Samuel 2:12; 1 Samuel 2:17); 2) that the consequent guilt is so great, that divine punishment therefor is certain. [Wordsworth: A man may intercede with God for remission of a penalty due for injury to himself; but who shall venture to entreat for one who has outraged the majesty of God?—Tr.]—Eli’s weakly mild words were too indefinite and general to check the bold wickedness of his sons. It was too late. They sinned against the Lord “with a high hand” (בְּיָד רָמָה), as it were, with hardened hearts.—And they hearkened not to the voice of their father.—As reason of this (כִּי, “because”) is stated, “that it pleased God, was God’s will, to slay them;” that is, they were in a state of inner hardening, which excluded the subjective condition of salvation from destruction, and so they had already incurred God’s unchangeable condemnation. As hardened offenders, they were already appointed by God to death; therefore the word of instruction had no moral effect on them.

1 Samuel 2:26. In contrast with them, Samuel is now again presented, as he developed in his childhood as well physically as morally; while the sons of Eli were a horror to God and men, he was well-pleasing to God and men. On הָלַךְ comp. Ges, § 131, 3, Rem3. It is used frequently to express continuance in the sense “advance,” “continue,” and then also expresses advancing increase, the participial construction being not seldom employed in such cases, as here: “The child Samuel grew constantly in stature and goodness.” [See Luke 2:52.—Tr.]

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL

1. Since Eli’s judgeship rested on his high-priestly dignity, the High priestship, thus connected with the judicial office, had so much the higher calling to establish the theocratic unity of the people with their centre, the national sanctuary at Shiloh. But, in the person of the weak Eli, it showed itself incapable of fulfilling this calling. The godless priesthood, represented by the sons of Eli, corrupted the inner religious-moral life of the people, whose external centre and theocratic unity were in the Sanctuary. The priesthood could no longer fulfil its calling of mediating between God and His people, because its representatives, lacking the religious-moral conditions of the calling, were unworthy of it; they were not servants of God, but servants of sin.

2. The sins of Eli’s sons were a symptom of their spiritual heart-hardening and ruin in alienation from God and in immorality. They sinned with “a high hand,” boldly, presumptuously (comp. Numbers 15:22-31). To this internal judgment of hardening answered as necessary consequence the judgment of their rejection by God, which was a thing determined on in God’s will, because they knew nothing of God and His law ( 1 Samuel 2:12). Their crime against the divinely established holy ordinances and the sanctuary, the visible sign of God’s abode with His people, was at the same time a crime against the people of the Lord, and culminated in the crime against God Himself, in which indeed was its root.

3. Samuel, though not a priest, but only a Levite, is (by his repeated designation as “servant of the Lord” ( 1 Samuel 2:11; 1 Samuel 2:18), and by the reference to his priestly clothing) contrasted with the representation of the official priesthood as God’s chosen instrument for truly fulfilling, in and by the prophetic calling which was to take the place of the priesthood that mediated between God and His people, the priestly mission⁴⁰ to fulfil which the existing priestly race had shown itself both powerless and unworthy. The condition of this theocratic calling of Samuel, the earnest, personal fellowship of life with the Lord, is pointed out in 1 Samuel 2:21; 1 Samuel 2:26. The life of the youth, who was chosen and called by the Lord to restore the theocracy, develops itself in the service of the sanctuary before the Lord in conformity to his divine mission, in order that some day he may become in place of the desecrated sanctuary the living personal centre of the theocratic national life, and in place of the corrupted priesthood the consecrated organ of God’s new revelations for His people.

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL

1 Samuel 2:12. Starke: Where the true fear of God is lacking in the heart, there ungodliness prevails in the life, and thereby the heart reveals itself. S. Schmid: It is a bad state of things, when those who teach others the fear of God, do not fear God themselves.—J. Lange: Preachers should most carefully guard against scandal, and earnestly strive to pursue a course of life which shall be not merely without offence, but also edifying, 1 Timothy 4:11.—Starke: He who in the office of teacher seeks only his own—namely, how he may become rich and have a good time—but not that which belongs to God and Jesus Christ, is a false prophet, a thief, and a hireling. Mark that, you who bear the vessels of the Lord, Philippians 2:20-21; Philippians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 1 Peter 5:2 sqq. [The misconduct of these leaders of worship may well suggest lessons for Christian ministers; but it should never be forgotten that the Christian minister corresponds much more nearly to the Old Testament prophet than to the priest, and that all Christians are priests, 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10.—TR.]

1 Samuel 2:16. Starke: When hearers see something bad in him who has the care of their souls, they should duly remind him of it, and should not approve and commend his bad deeds, much less imitate him therein.

1 Samuel 2:17. Starke: Nobody makes more Atheists than godless teachers, and even if the people still remember so much as to do according to their words and not their works, yet they retain a powerful influence upon the furtherance of godlessness. That wicked teachers with their godless life make great their damnation, is beyond dispute; but it is irrational to infer from this that there is no such thing as religion. [“The sin of the young men was very great” is the text of a sermon by Wesley (Sermon CIX, Vol. II. p368) on the question “whether God ever did bless the ministry of ungodly men.”—TR.]

1 Samuel 2:18. Starke: And so he (Samuel) was a right pious lad; for such piety is more acceptable to God than when one leads a good life among only pious people, since there is a greater victory and greater fidelity in living piously among the wicked. Comp. Enoch’s example, Genesis 5:24; Genesis 6:9.

1 Samuel 2:19. Daechsel: Petty little histories, cries unbelief. What matters it whether one knows that Samuel had a little coat or not! Holy Scripture is not written for the wise, but for child-souls, and a child-like soul does not doubt that even the little coat which Hannah prepared for her Samuel has its history. If I think of Hannah as every year sewing this coat at her home in Ramah, I know that at every stitch a prayer for her Samuel rose up to the throne of the Lord.—The coat which she was sewing would remind her that she had given her Samuel to the Lord; and when the coat was ready, and she brought it to Shiloh, then every time with the coat she anew gave Samuel to her God, and said: I give him to the Lord again for his whole life, because he was obtained from the Lord by prayer.

1 Samuel 2:21. Starke: Whoever gives to God what is God’s, to him God also gives what his heart desires.—Osiander: Nothing is better invested than what is given to God the Lord and to His service; for He richly repays it all.—Daechsel: When our faithful God accepts from us poor creatures an offering of love, He takes it only to give it back five-fold, a hundred fold, and a thousandfold; from His fulness we receive grace for grace. Look at our Hannah! It was grace, that the Lord taught her to pray for Samuel; grace, that He gave her the promise; grace, that He made her willing to dedicate Samuel to him; but what shall we say of the fact that in place of the one child whom He had caused to be given to Himself, the Lord gave her five children, three sons and two daughters? When we in His service do for Him the least thing out of love, it is not enough that He gives to the act itself such blessedness, but, consciously or unconsciously to us, He crowns such an act with a rich blessing of grace, and this grace is completed when He blesses us with the greatest of all blessings, eternal life.—[ 1 Samuel 2:22-25.] Starke: O, how often do pious parents, by indulging their wicked children, plait a scourge for their old backs! [Hall: I heard Eli sharp enough to Hannah, upon but a suspicion of sin, and now how mild I find him to the notorious crimes of his own. The case is altered with the persons. With all the authority of an Oriental father, a high-priest, and a Judges, he was solemnly bound to do more than mildly censure his sons, 1 Samuel 3:13.—TR.]

1 Samuel 2:25. Cramer: The sins of the first table are much weightier and more perilous than the sins of the second table.—Osiander: Let no one sin purposely or wilfully and heap sins upon sins; for if he does, the door of grace is at last closed to him, and he finds no more place for repentance.—Starke: The purpose of God was not the cause of their disobedience, but their disobedience was a sign that they were now ripe for destruction, and that the righteous purpose of God in their case should now soon be executed.

1 Samuel 2:26. Starke: The best way to make ourselves agreeable and beloved among men is to seek to please God in Christ, act according to our conscience, and lead an exemplary life.—S. Schmid: Whoever uses the grace of God aright, to him God gives more and more grace.—Daechsel: Our history is throughout a strong, firm consolation for parental hearts—for those who have to give back to the Lord in death a dear child which He has given to them in birth, for He can otherwise rejoice and bless them ( 1 Samuel 2:20 sq.); and also for those who have to let their sons and daughters go out into the wicked world, full of evil examples and corrupting influences, for He can even then shield and preserve their children, and carry them on in faith and godliness ( 1 Samuel 2:21-26).

1 Samuel 2:18-26. Young Samuel the pattern of a pious life in youth in the service of the Lord: 1) Planted and rooted in the soil of the early habit during childhood of consecrating himself to the Lord, 1 Samuel 2:18-19; 1 Samuel 2) Growing and increasing in the fear of the Lord under the care of godly parents and teachers, 1 Samuel 2:19-21; 1 Samuel 3) Preserved and proved amid the temptations and influences of an evil world, 1 Samuel 2:22-25; 1 Samuel 4) Blessed with favor in the sight of God and man.

1 Samuel 2:23-25. The judgment against obduracy in sin against the Lord: 1) Wherein is it founded? (a) In persistent, conscious sinning on against the Lord in spite of divine and human warning. (b) In the holy, unchangeable will of God, who does not suffer Himself to be mocked2) How is it executed? (a) In that God gives up the sinner to the service of sin from one degree to another. (b) In that the punitive divine justice gives over the sinner to the destruction to which he has condemned himself.

[ 1 Samuel 2:12-25. On wicked children of pious parents1) The number of such cases is often greatly exaggerated, because men are surprised at them, and notice, and remember; but it is in fact sadly great—in the Scripture histories—in our own observation2) The probable causes of this. (a) Piety is not properly hereditary—in what sense it is, and in what sense it is not. (b) Pious parents may, out of mistaken kindness, improperly indulge, and but feebly restrain—as Eli. (c) In other cases, they are too strict and severe. Application—to parents—to the children of the pious.—TR.]

1 Samuel 2:26. The fruit of a godly life: 1) The gracious approval of the Lord; 2) Recognition by God-fearing men.

Footnotes

FIFTH SECTION

The prophecy of a Man of God of the divine judgment on Eli’s house and of the calling of a faithful priest

1 Samuel 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 Pharaoh’s house [in servitude⁴² to the house 28 of 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 29 of 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 30 offerings [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 31 despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, [ins. so] that there shall not be an 32 old 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 33 good 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 34 of 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 35 them. 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

1 Samuel 2:27. The “man of God” (for the expression comp. Deuteronomy 33:1; Judges 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 Judges 4:14; Judges 6:8.—[Bib. Comm.: “The term (man of God) is applied to Moses in Deuteronomy 33:1; Joshua 14:6; and to different prophets upwards of forty times in Judges, Sam. and Kings, most-frequently in the latter. In the Prophets it occurs only once ( Jeremiah 35:4). It occurs six or seven times in Chron, Ezra and Nehemiah, and in the inscription of Psalm 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 Judges 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 (הֲ) 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. Jeremiah 31:20; Job 20:4; Ges. § 153, 2. The Inf. Abs. (נִגְלֹה) shows the feeling of the question, and strengthens the assurance or assertion contained in it. By Eli’s father’s 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 Pharaoh’s house,” were its subjects, property (לְבֵית פּ׳); the suffix ־ָם (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 God’s instrument for the redemption of His people; and with Moses he received the command to institute the feast of the Passover ( Exodus 4:14 sqq, Exodus 4:27; Exodus 12:1; Exodus 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.]

[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 Exodus 28:1; Exodus 29:9; Exodus 29:30; Exodus 29:44, with Leviticus 8:1 sq. and Numbers 18—The 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, Exodus 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, Exodus 28:12; Exodus 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, אִשֵּׁי ב׳) are the same as “the firing and the firings of the Lord” ( Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 2:10; Deuteronomy 18:1) in the offerings, and so are the things offered. According to Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; Deuteronomy 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, Leviticus 6:7; Numbers 18.

1 Samuel 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 Lord’s care for His servants; there the question ( 1 Samuel 2:27) was introduced by the simple interrog. sign (הֲ); here the more sharply toned question with “why” (לָמָּה) portrays in distinct contrast the wicked conduct of the priests: Why do ye trample under foot? etc.—“Sacrifice and offering” (זֶבַח וּמִנְחָה) is a “general designation for all altar-offerings” (Keil). בָּעַט “is in Aram. first tread (Heb. דרך), and might thence (as בום,דרך, Judges 5:23; Proverbs 27:7) like ‘tread’ in many languages figuratively mean to treat with contempt” (Böttcher). מָעוֹן, the “dwelling,” in pregnant sense is the Tabernacle, as the Lord’s dwelling-place in the midst of His people. Though the word has not elsewhere in itself this meaning, yet it follows here and in 1 Samuel 2:32 from the connection, which without difficulty permits the same addition that we find in Psalm 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 Lord’s abode with His people was in fact the scene of the priests’ enormities, and their guilt thus appeared so much the greater. מָעוֹן is Accus. of place “in the dwelling” (= בַּיִת “in the house”). Böttcher proposes as a “faultless text” א׳ צִוִּיתִים עָוֹן, “why do ye trample under foot,… what I commanded them, sinfully,” where the suffix “them” refers to the Israelites ( 1 Samuel 2:28), and עָוֹן “sin,” is taken in the sense of בְּעָוֹן, “in sin,” which is found in Psalm 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 Hebrews, 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 Lord’s 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,” Eli’s guilt is again referred to; what they did, namely, that they took ( 1 Samuel 2:15) the first (רֵאשִׁית) of the offering before the best of the offering (מִנְחָה) 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.

1 Samuel 2:30. אָמַרַתִּי=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 1 Samuel 2:27 refers. For this reason, if for no other, because “the house of thy father” must mean the same here as in 1 Samuel 2:27, we must set aside the view that here only Ithamar’s family is meant, to which the high-priesthood passed from Eleazar’s 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 Genesis 17:1. Rather it points to the life in priestly service before the Lord promised to the house of Aaron for ever ( Exodus 29:9). The promise of the “covenant of an everlasting priesthood” was renewed to Phinehas, the son of Eleazar ( Numbers 25:13) for his zeal for the Lord’s 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.

1 Samuel 2:31-32. The general truth of the last words in 1 Samuel 2:30, which emphasize in the distinctest manner the ethical condition of the exercise of the holy sacerdotal office in the priest’s bearing towards God, is applied to Eli and his house in 1 Samuel 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, Psalm 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 Eli’s 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” (Böttcher). As the house of Eli will perish, so will also the house of God suffer affliction ( 1 Samuel 2:32). הִבִּיט always means to look with astonishment or attention (Böttcher, Numbers 12:8; Isaiah 38:11; Psalm 10:14); צָר is only “oppressor” or “enemy,” and is not to be rendered “rival” or “adversary,” as Aquila (ἀντίζηλος) and Jerome (œmulus), and also Luther and De Wette give it; מַעוֹן “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 Abiathar’s place ( 1 Kings 2:27), for Zadok was not Abiathar’s 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 Lord’s house of its heart. We do not need therefore to alter the text to “rock of refuge” (צֻר סָעוֹז), as Böttcher proposes. “In all which” (בּכֹל אֲשֶׁר) is not to be rendered with De Wette “during the whole time which.” In יִיִלטִיב “shall do good” we must not supply a י 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 י׳ has an unpersonal subject, it has, as here, a simple Acc. after it, Proverbs 15:13; Proverbs 15:20; Proverbs 17:22; Ecclesiastes 20:9, while, with a personal subject, a preposition follows, Exodus 1:20; Numbers 10:32; Judges 17:13” (Böttcher). The affliction of God’s 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 God’s dwelling. “Not an old man” is repetition of the threat in 1 Samuel 2:31, and return of the discourse to the judgment on Eli’s house. “All the days” [Eng. A. V. for ever], for ever, that is, as long as his family existed. [Both text and translation of 1 Samuel 2:32 offer great difficulties. Vat. Sept. omits it. Al. Sept. and Theod.: “Thou shalt see strength” (κραταίωμα), 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 1 Samuel 2:31-32; the other versions and all the MSS. contain the verse, one MS. only of De Rossi giving מָעוֹז, “strength,” instead of מָעוֹן, “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 צָר frequently means “distress,” and as the course of thought here suggests affliction for Eli’s house rather than for God’s, 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 1 Samuel 2:31.—TR.]

1 Samuel 2:33. Böttcher declares De Wette’s explanation: “and I will not let thee lack a ingle man,” to be incorrect, and Thenius’ reference to the definite one “Ahitub” ( 1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 22:20) to be without ground, and then remarks (on וְאִישׁ לֹא): “There remains no other course but to regard it as an infrequent, but not unexampled exceptional case. In Hebrews, as is well known, a negative in a sentence with אִישׁ (“man”) and בל (“all”), whether it stand before or after, negatives these words not alone, but in connection with the whole sentence, and thus אַל אִישׁ,לֹא אִישׁ mean not “not every one,” but “no one,” and so too אִישׁ אַל,אִישׁ לֹא, Exodus 16:19; Exodus 34:3; Leviticus 18:6. But when the accent falls on the word expressive of universality by an adversative particle, as here (וְאִישׁ), the following negation may affect this word alone, as in Numbers 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 1 Samuel 14:3 and 1 Samuel 22:20 that he was the only one who survived of Eli’s house.⁵⁷—The following words: the great majority or mass shall die as men, not only answer to the repeated threat in 1 Samuel 2:31-32, that there should be no old man in the house, but at the same time explain the declaration of 1 Samuel 2:31 : “I will break thine arm;” for “men” (אֲנָשִׁים) 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 מ׳ ב׳, “multitude,” “majority,” not “offspring,” comp. 1 Chronicles 12:29; 2 Chronicles 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 לֹא א׳ 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 Poole’s 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.]

1 Samuel 2:34. The fact announced, the death of his two sons in one day ( 1 Samuel 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 Eli’s descendants indeed perished in this judgment, and among his immediate posterity were some who filled the office of priest, namely, Phinehas’ Song of Solomon, Ahitub; Ahitub’s sons, Ahiah ( 1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 14:18) and Ahimelech ( 1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Samuel 22:11; 1 Samuel 22:20); Ahimelech’s Song of Solomon, Abiathar ( 1 Samuel 22:20). Ahiah and Abiathar filled the high-priestly office. But Ahimelech and “all his father’s house, the priests, who were at Nob,” were hewn off from Eli’s family-tree. And Abiathar, Ahimelech’s Song of Solomon, who escaped that butchery ( 1 Samuel 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 Ithamar’s family, and went over to Eleazar’s, 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 ( 1 Samuel 2:31-34): gradually Eli’s 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.

1 Samuel 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 Lord’s 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, Acts, according to the norm of the divine will; as faithful priest of God, he knows what is in God’s heart and soul, he knows His thoughts and counsels; these will be the rule by which (כַּאֲשֶר) 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 thine—this 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 Hannah’s song.

In 1 Samuel 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 כּל before הַנּוֹתָר, where, on account of the following Article, it signifies all, whole, comp. Ges, § III, 1Rem, Ew, § 290 c. “All the rest, all that remains.” The אֲגוֹרַת בֶּסֶף is “a small silver coin collected by begging” (Keil). The lower the remains of Eli’s 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 Eli’s 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 God’s announcement is clear from the narration immediately following in 1 Samuel3; 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 God’s organ, is the announcement of the judgment on Eli in the name of the Lord; it is true, it is said of him in 1 Samuel 2:20, that he was known in all Israel to be faithful and confirmed (נֶאֱמָן) as a prophet. But the summary statement of his prophetical vigor and work in 1 Samuel 2:19-21, in which the epithet “faithful, confirmed,” points back to the same expression in 1 Samuel 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 Samuel’s 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 ( Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10), and Malachi 2:7, expressly declares the duty of the priest in these words: “the priest’s 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, 1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 3:19-21), and the mediating position between God and the people as advocate and intercessor expressly ascribed to him in 1 Samuel 7:5 characterize him as the faithful, approved priest who is announced here in 1 Samuel 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. Samuel’s 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 1 Chronicles 6:33; 1 Chronicles 25:4-5. His grandson was Heman “the singer, the king’s 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 Lord’s 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 Israel’s 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 Lord’s anointed is fulfilled exactly (according to the above explanation) in Samuel’s relation to this kingdom.—It is held by some that the prophecy in 1 Samuel 2:30-36, (compared with 1 Kings 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 Song of Solomon, (De Wette, Einl. § 178 b.; Bertholdt, Einl. III:916, and Ewald, Gesch. I:190); against which Thenius (p15) 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,” ( 1 Samuel 2:30-31), clearly shows that the prophecy does not speak of a change in the family, and that in 1 Samuel 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 1 Kings 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; and2) 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 Samuel’s priestly-prophetical eminence. For the rest, the words of 1 Kings 2:27 give no ground for the opinion that the prophecy in 1 Samuel 2:35 is in them referred to Zadok (Thenius), since the passage, having in view Abiathar’s deposition, is speaking merely of the fulfilment of the threatened punishment of Eli’s 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 Solomon’s 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, for1) the “established house” promised the faithful priest is clearly a priestly house, as is evident from a comparison of 1 Samuel 2:35 with 1 Samuel 2:30-31, where the everlasting official sacerdotal character of this house is contrasted with the fall of Eli’s priestly house; and Samuel founded no such house2) Eli’s house was not immediately deprived of the high-priesthood, nor was it at all excluded from the priesthood. Up to Solomon’s 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, Song of 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 ( 1 Samuel 11:15), where is probably meant that they did it through the priests, and one passage ( 1 Samuel 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 ( Judges 6:26-27) and Solomon ( 1 Kings 3:4). But it is true that Samuel’s life developed the conception of the theocratically pure and faithful priest in contrast with the self-seeking and immorality of Eli’s sons. He was the first protest against their profane perversion of the holy office, the first exemplification after Eli’s 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 1 Kings 2:27 mentions only the deposition of Abiathar as the fulfilment of the judgment on Eli’s house, yet this, taken with 1 Samuel 2:35, can hardly be dissevered from the installation of Zadok as sole high-priest; the final exclusion of Eli’s 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 Ezekiel 44:15, (quoted by Keil). Erdmann’s objections to this view do not seem conclusive. He urges: 1) that the prophecy ( 1 Samuel 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, ( 1 Samuel 2:30 speaks of the exclusion of unworthy members, and the reference is plainly to Eli’s immediate family), and is contradicted by the facts of history; for the Aaronic priesthood did continue to the end, while the change announced ( 1 Samuel 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 declarations2) 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. Dei17, 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 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 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 God’s 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 1 Samuel 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 ( Ezekiel 44:15) of the perfect priesthood into which they are finally merged. To this Erdmann objects that the reference is plainly ( 1 Samuel 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” ( Deuteronomy 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; chap4, the Judge Deborah, who, expressly described as “prophetess,” combines the offices of Judge and Prophet, being the organ of Jehovah’s communications; chap6, 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 people’s idolatry through the oppression of enemies, exhortation to repentance, promise of help.

2. The internal decline of the theocratic life of God’s 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 Revelation -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 Samuel’s 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 1 Samuel 2:35 expressed, found in all respects its completest and most universal fulfilment in Christ’s 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. [ 1 Samuel 2:30] expresses God’s 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,” 1 Peter 4:17.

6. [The walking of the priest before Jehovah’s 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 David’s 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 Hannah’s 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

[ 1 Samuel 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 ( 2 Timothy 3:17). 2) When called to give rebukes and warnings, he should do it with faithfulness, solemnity, and tenderness.—Tr.].

1 Samuel 2:27-36. The prophet’s 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 God’s grace, 1 Samuel 2:27-28; 1 Samuel 2) Looking around upon the present, it holds before Eli his sins and those of his house, 1 Samuel 2:29-30; 1 Samuel 3) Looking out upon the future, it proclaims the divine judgment, 1 Samuel 2:30-36.

1 Samuel 2:27-30. To what are we bound by the experience of overflowing manifestations of God’s 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.

1 Samuel 2:27-36. God’s righteousness and grace in union with each other1) Grace in union with righteousness, 1 Samuel 2:27-32; (a) The actual proofs and gifts of God’s grace ( 1 Samuel 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, 1 Samuel 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, 1 Samuel 2:30. 2) The severity of God’s righteousness does not exclude grace, 1 Samuel 2:30. (a) It suffers itself to lean upon forbearing, softening grace, in order that justice may not execute complete destruction, 1 Samuel 2:33; 1 Samuel 2:36; (b) It does not take away the arrangements which grace has established, but guards and preserves them against the sin of men, 1 Samuel 2:27-29; (c) It does not cause the promises of grace to fall away, but makes room for their fulfilment in another way, 1 Samuel 2:35.

1 Samuel 2:30. God the Lord, according to His righteousness, remains no man’s 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 Lord’s 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 ( Colossians 3:17). II. Some of the ways in which He will honor us. (1) In causing us to be respected by our fellow-men ( Proverbs 3:16). (2) In making us the means of converting others. (3) In receiving us to glory, honor and immortality in heaven ( Romans 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,].

1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 2:10, Hom, and Pract.—Tr.].

1 Samuel 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, 1 Samuel 2:27-29; 1 Samuel 2) In indulgent and weak love to the children it robs God of the honor which He demands, 1 Samuel 2:30; 1 Samuel 3) It thereby prepares for the children a sure destruction, 1 Samuel 2:34; 1 Samuel 4) It often thereby brings a curse and ruin upon succeeding generations, 1 Samuel 2:31-33; 1 Samuel 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 children’s sins.…… I do not read of any fault Eli had but indulgence; and which of the notorious offenders were plagued more!—Tr.].

Footnotes