1Sa 2:26-36 | KD | STEP | The youthful Samuel, on the other hand, continued to grow in stature, and in favour with God and man (see ).

‏ 1 Samuel 2:26-36

The youthful Samuel, on the other hand, continued to grow in stature, and in favour with God and man (see Luk 2:52). 1Sa 2:27-36 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 ה interrogative is not used for הלא (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 וּבחור, 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: על מ לעלות, “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. מעון is an accusative (“in the dwelling”), like בּית, 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.” לעמּי serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of giving greater prominence to the idea of עמּי (my people). רשׁית, 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. מעון 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 צר. היטיב, 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 ייטיב 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 (καὶ ἐπιβλέψει [? ἐπιβλέψης] ἀντίζηλον κατοικητηρίου) 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 צר 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 צר, 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. כּל־היּמים, 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. אישׁ 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. אנשׁים, in contrast with זקן, 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.” אגורה, 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. ^{▼▼Theodoret, qu. vii. in 1 Reg. Οὐκοῦν ἡ πρόῤῥησις κυρίως μὲν ἁρμόττει τῷ σωτὴρι Χριστῷ. Κατὰ δὲ ἱστορίαν τῷ Σαδούκ, ὅς ἐκ τοῦ Ἐλεάζαρ κατάγων τὸ γένος τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην διὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος ἐδέξατο. 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.