The Scoundrels of Eli's Household (1 Samuel 2)
The collapse of Eli’s house is a tragic tale of corruption, hubris and nepotism. His sons are described in 2:12.
12 Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord.
The two sentences here play off one another to help us understand exactly the character of Eli’s sons. Independently, each of these descriptors are quite damning. Being a scoundrel, or having no regard for the Lord are both reflections of poor character. With just a single of these descriptions, we may have a different interpretation. After all, the sons could have been scoundrels, but loved the Lord and repented. Or, the sons could have been of good character, but not loved the Lord. Both of these descriptions could posit the sons to be “grey” characters that are often so beloved in today’s mythos and dramas. They may have been tragic villains, making poor, but relatable choices. They may have been flawed heroes, ultimately being on a trajectory for good, but tripping many times along the journey.
Put these descriptions together and they are like the final nails in a coffin. The sons are not heroic but flawed, nor tragic and relatable. The sons of Eli are, for the purpose of this narrative, the furthest end of a spectrum demonstrating the despicable state of things in Israel at the time.
Why this summary statement? What exactly were the Sons of Eli doing that was so despicable?
Hophni and Phinehas’ corruption is revealed in at least 2 ways:
The details regarding the Sons of Eli’s sins are recorded in 1 Samuel 2:13-17, 22-25. The phrase “Skimming off the top” or “fleecing” comes to mind when reading the following:
13 Now it was the practice of the priests that, whenever any of the people offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand while the meat was being boiled 14 and would plunge the fork into the pan or kettle or cauldron or pot. Whatever the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. 15 But even before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, “Give the priest some meat to roast; he won’t accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.”
16 If the person said to him, “Let the fat be burned first, and then take whatever you want,” the servant would answer, “No, hand it over now; if you don’t, I’ll take it by force.”
17 This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord’s sight, for they were treating the Lord’s offering with contempt.
We learn at least three things from this text:
One set of commentators, George B. Caird and John C. Schroeder, note that the practice being described in 2:13-2:14 was a common practice among the people at Shiloh:
“the word moreover (vs. 15) shows that what has gone before is part of the offence. But mishpät'(custom) means “that which is justified by precedent” and cannot be considered blameworthy. We should therefore....attach this phrase to the preceding verse, and read, ‘they had no regard for the Lord nor for the rightful due of the priests from the people’.”
Giving to the Lord the first fruits of any offering would have been a well established practice. In Genesis 4 we see that Cain and Abel both brought offerings to the Lord - Abel’s offering is especially noted as being fat portions from the firstborn of his flock. In Exodus 23:16-19 we see firstfruits being commanded as a part of the Feast of Harvest, and in the offerings brought to the house of God. Leviticus 23:10 explicitly states the command to bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest to the priest for offering. In 1 Samuel 2:21 we learn that Hannah’s offering of Samuel to the service of the Lord was a continuation of offering first fruits. Hannah offered the first of her children. When she made this offering to the Lord, it was prior to the birth of other children, and prior to the promise of additional children. In this way, Hannah not only offered her first born, but all the fruit of her womb to the Lord. Samuel is thus a living contrast with the Sons of Eli’s practice of prioritizing their own desires.
All of these offerings were to be given to the Priests to be ceremonially prepared and given to the Lord. In each case where the Priest was to receive a portion of the offering, it would have happened with the leftovers. None of these offerings were given to the priests to first take a portion.
12 Eli’s sons were scoundrels; they had no regard for the Lord.
The two sentences here play off one another to help us understand exactly the character of Eli’s sons. Independently, each of these descriptors are quite damning. Being a scoundrel, or having no regard for the Lord are both reflections of poor character. With just a single of these descriptions, we may have a different interpretation. After all, the sons could have been scoundrels, but loved the Lord and repented. Or, the sons could have been of good character, but not loved the Lord. Both of these descriptions could posit the sons to be “grey” characters that are often so beloved in today’s mythos and dramas. They may have been tragic villains, making poor, but relatable choices. They may have been flawed heroes, ultimately being on a trajectory for good, but tripping many times along the journey.
Put these descriptions together and they are like the final nails in a coffin. The sons are not heroic but flawed, nor tragic and relatable. The sons of Eli are, for the purpose of this narrative, the furthest end of a spectrum demonstrating the despicable state of things in Israel at the time.
Why this summary statement? What exactly were the Sons of Eli doing that was so despicable?
Hophni and Phinehas’ corruption is revealed in at least 2 ways:
- Their conduct as relates offerings to the Lord
- Their conduct as relates the women serving at the tent of meeting.
The details regarding the Sons of Eli’s sins are recorded in 1 Samuel 2:13-17, 22-25. The phrase “Skimming off the top” or “fleecing” comes to mind when reading the following:
13 Now it was the practice of the priests that, whenever any of the people offered a sacrifice, the priest’s servant would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand while the meat was being boiled 14 and would plunge the fork into the pan or kettle or cauldron or pot. Whatever the fork brought up the priest would take for himself. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh. 15 But even before the fat was burned, the priest’s servant would come and say to the person who was sacrificing, “Give the priest some meat to roast; he won’t accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.”
16 If the person said to him, “Let the fat be burned first, and then take whatever you want,” the servant would answer, “No, hand it over now; if you don’t, I’ll take it by force.”
17 This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord’s sight, for they were treating the Lord’s offering with contempt.
We learn at least three things from this text:
- We learn the regular practice of Priests stealing from offerings dedicated to the Lord. (13-15)
- We learn the Priests were using their servants as a force for violent enforcement of this theft. (15-16)
- We learn the Priests attitude towards the God of Israel and his people. (17)
- The Burnt offering was burned in the altar fire. The priests were to take NONE of this offering for themselves. (Lev 1, Lev 6:8-13)
- The Grain offering only dictated a portion of the offering was to be burned in the altar fire. The remaining went to the priests. (Lev 2, Lev 6:14-23)
- The Fellowship offering was divided between the offeror and the priests. (Lev 3, Lev 7:11-35)
- The Sin offering was to be eaten by the priest who made the offering. Any meat that was offered could be eaten, with the provision that any offering with blood brought into the tent of meeting was not to be eaten, but burned up. (Lev 4:1-5:13, Lev 6:24-30)
- The Guilt offering’s innards were burned in the altar fire; the animal’s flesh was eaten by the priests. (Lev 5:14-6:7, Lev 7:1-10)
One set of commentators, George B. Caird and John C. Schroeder, note that the practice being described in 2:13-2:14 was a common practice among the people at Shiloh:
“the word moreover (vs. 15) shows that what has gone before is part of the offence. But mishpät'(custom) means “that which is justified by precedent” and cannot be considered blameworthy. We should therefore....attach this phrase to the preceding verse, and read, ‘they had no regard for the Lord nor for the rightful due of the priests from the people’.”
Giving to the Lord the first fruits of any offering would have been a well established practice. In Genesis 4 we see that Cain and Abel both brought offerings to the Lord - Abel’s offering is especially noted as being fat portions from the firstborn of his flock. In Exodus 23:16-19 we see firstfruits being commanded as a part of the Feast of Harvest, and in the offerings brought to the house of God. Leviticus 23:10 explicitly states the command to bring the sheaf of the firstfruits of the harvest to the priest for offering. In 1 Samuel 2:21 we learn that Hannah’s offering of Samuel to the service of the Lord was a continuation of offering first fruits. Hannah offered the first of her children. When she made this offering to the Lord, it was prior to the birth of other children, and prior to the promise of additional children. In this way, Hannah not only offered her first born, but all the fruit of her womb to the Lord. Samuel is thus a living contrast with the Sons of Eli’s practice of prioritizing their own desires.
All of these offerings were to be given to the Priests to be ceremonially prepared and given to the Lord. In each case where the Priest was to receive a portion of the offering, it would have happened with the leftovers. None of these offerings were given to the priests to first take a portion.
Comments
Post a Comment