In these verses we have the good character and posture of Elkanah’s family, and the bad character and posture of Eli’s family. The account of these two is observably interwoven throughout this whole paragraph, as if the historian intended to set the one over against the other, that they might set off one another. The devotion and good order of Elkanah’s family aggravated the iniquity of Eli’s house; while the wickedness of Eli’s sons made Samuel’s early piety appear the more bright and illustrious.
I. Let us see how well things went in Elkanah’s family and how much better than formerly. 1. Eli dismissed them from the house of the Lord, when they had entered their little son there, with a blessing, 1 Sam. 2:20. He blessed as one having authority: The Lord give thee more children of this woman, for the loan that is lent to the Lord. If Hannah had then had many children, it would not have been such a generous piece of piety to part with one out of many for the service of the tabernacle; but when she had but one, an only one whom she loved, her Isaac, to present him to the Lord was such an act of heroic piety as should by no means lose its reward. As when Abraham had offered Isaac he received the promise of a numerous issue (Gen. 22:16, 17), so did Hannah, when she had presented Samuel unto the Lord a living sacrifice. Note, What is lent to the Lord will certainly be repaid with interest, to our unspeakable advantage, and oftentimes in kind. Hannah resigns one child to God, and is recompensed with five; for Eli’s blessing took effect (1 Sam. 2:21): She bore three sons and two daughters. There is nothing lost by lending to God or losing for him; it shall be repaid a hundred-fold, Matt. 19:29. 2. They returned to their own habitation. This is twice mentioned, 1 Sam. 2:11; and again 1 Sam. 2:20. It was very pleasant to attend at God’s house, to bless him, and to be blessed of him. But they have a family at home that must be looked after, and thither they return, cheerfully leaving the dear little one behind them, knowing they left him in a good place; and it does not appear that he cried after them, but was as willing to stay as they were to leave him, so soon did he put away childish things and behave like a man. 3. They kept up their constant attendance at the house of God with their yearly sacrifice, 1 Sam. 2:19. They did not think that their son’s ministering there would excuse them, or that that offering must serve instead of other offerings; but, having found the benefit of drawing near to God, they would omit no appointed season for it, and now they had one loadstone more in Shiloh to draw them thither. We may suppose they went thither to see their child oftener than once a year, for it was not ten miles from Ramah; but their annual visit is taken notice of because then they brought their yearly sacrifice, and then Hannah fitted up her son (and some think oftener than once a year) with a new suit of clothes, a little coat (1 Sam. 2:19) and every thing belonging to it. She undertook to find him with clothes during his apprenticeship at the tabernacle, and took care he should be well provided, that he might appear the more decent and sightly in his ministration, and to encourage him in his towardly beginnings. Parents must take care that their children want nothing that is fit for them, whether they are with them or from them; but those that are dutiful and hopeful, and minister to the Lord, must be thought worthy of double care and kindness. 4. The child Samuel did very well. Four separate times he is mentioned in these verses, and two things we are told of:—(1.) The service he did to the Lord. He did well indeed, for he ministered to the Lord (1 Sam. 2:11, 18) according as his capacity was. He learned his catechism and was constant to his devotions, soon learned to read, and took a pleasure in the book of the law, and thus he ministered to the Lord. He ministered before Eli, that is, under his inspection, and as he ordered him, not before Eli’s sons; all parties were agreed that they were unfit to be his tutors. Perhaps he attended immediately on Eli’s person, was ready to him to fetch and bring as he had occasion, and that is called ministering to the Lord. Some little services perhaps he was employed in about the altar, though much under the age appointed by the law for the Levites’ ministration. He could light a candle, or hold a dish, or run on an errand, or shut a door; and, because he did this with a pious disposition of mind it is called ministering to the Lord, and great notice is taken of it. After awhile he did his work so well that Eli appointed that he should minister with a linen ephod as the priests did (though he was no priest), because he saw that God was with him. Note, Little children must learn betimes to minister to the Lord. Parents must train them up to it, and God will accept them. Particularly let them learn to pay respect to their teachers, as Samuel to Eli. None can begin too soon to be religious. See Ps. 8:2; Matt. 21:15, 16. (2.) The blessing he received from the Lord: He grew before the Lord, as a tender plant (1 Sam. 2:21), grew on (1 Sam. 2:26) in strength and stature, and especially in wisdom and understanding and fitness for business. Note, Those young people that serve God as well as they can will obtain grace to improve, that they may serve him better. Those that are planted in God’s house shall flourish, Ps. 92:13. He was in favour with the Lord and with man. Note, It is a great encouragement to children to be tractable, and virtuous, and good betimes, that if they be both God and man will love them. Such children are the darlings both of heaven and earth. What is here said of Samuel is said of our blessed Saviour, that great example, Luke 2:52.
II. Let us now see how ill things went in Eli’s family, though seated at the very door of the tabernacle. The nearer the church the further from God.
1. The abominable wickedness of Eli’s sons (1 Sam. 2:12): The sons of Eli were sons of Belial. It is emphatically expressed. Nothing appears to the contrary but that Eli himself was a very good man, and no doubt had educated his sons well, giving them good instructions, setting them good examples, and putting up many a good prayer for them; and yet, when they grew up, they proved sons of Belial, profane wicked men, and arrant rakes: They knew not the Lord. They could not but have a notional knowledge of God and his law, a form of knowledge (Rom. 2:20), yet, because their practice was not conformable to it, they are spoken of as wholly ignorant of God; they lived as if they knew nothing at all of God. Note, Parents cannot give grace to their children, nor does it run in the blood. Many that are sincerely pious themselves live to see those that come from them notoriously impious and profane; for the race is not to the swift. Eli was high priest and judge in Israel. His sons were priests by their birth. Their character was sacred and honourable, and obliged them, for their reputation-sake, to observe decorum. They were resident at the fountain-head both of magistracy and ministry, and yet they were sons of Belial, and their honour, power, and learning, made them so much the worse. They did not go to serve other gods, as those did that lived at a distance from the altar, for from the house of God they had their wealth and dignity; but, which was worse, they managed the service of God as if he had been one of the dunghill deities of the heathen. It is hard to say which dishonours God more, idolatry or profaneness, especially the profaneness of the priests. Let us see the wickedness of Eli’s sons; and it is a sad sight.
(1.) They profaned the offerings of the Lord, and made a gain to themselves, or rather a gratification of their own luxury, out of them. God had provided competently for them out of the sacrifices. The offerings of the Lord made by fire were a considerable branch of their revenue, but not enough to please them; they served not the God of Israel, but their own bellies (Rom. 16:18), being such as the prophet calls greedy dogs that can never have enough, Isa. 56:11. [1.] They robbed the offerers, and seized for themselves some of their part of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings. The priests had for their share the wave-breast and the heave shoulder (Lev. 7:34), but these did not content them; when the flesh was boiling for the offerer to feast upon religiously with his friends, they sent a servant with a flesh-hook of three teeth, a trident, and that must be stuck into the pot, and whatever that brought up the priest must have (1 Sam. 2:13, 14), and the people, out of their great veneration, suffered this to grow into a custom, so that after awhile prescription was pleaded for this manifest wrong. [2.] They stepped in before God himself, and encroached upon his right too. As if it were a small thing to weary men, they wearied my God also, Isa. 7:13. Be it observed, to the honour of Israel, that though the people tamely yielded to their unwarrantable demands from them, yet they were very solicitous that God should not be robbed: Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, 1 Sam. 2:16. Let the altar have its due, for that is the main matter. Unless God have the fat, they can feast with little comfort upon the flesh. It was a shame that the priests should need to be thus admonished by the people of their duty; but they regarded not the admonition. The priest will be served first, and will take what he thinks fit of the fat too, for he is weary of boiled meat, he must have roast, and, in order to that, they must give it to him raw; and if the offerer dispute it, though not in his own favour (let the priest take what he pleases of his part) but in favour of the altar (let them be sure to burn the fat first), even the priest’s servant had grown so very imperious that he would either have it now or take it by force, than which there could not be a greater affront to God nor a greater abuse to the people. The effect was, First, That God was displeased: The sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, 1 Sam. 2:17. Nothing is more provoking to God than the profanation of sacred things, and men serving their lusts with the offerings of the Lord. Secondly, That religion suffered by it: Men abhorred the offerings of the Lord. All good men abhorred their management of the offerings, and too many insensibly fell into a contempt of the offerings themselves for their sakes. It was the people’s sin to think the worse of God’s institutions, but it was the much greater sin of the priests that gave them occasion to do so. Nothing brings a greater reproach upon religion than ministers’ covetousness, sensuality, and imperiousness. In the midst of this sad story comes in the repeated mention of Samuel’s devotion. But Samuel ministered before the Lord, as an instance of the power of God’s grace, in preserving him pure and pious in the midst of this wicked crew; and this helped to keep up the sinking credit of the sanctuary in the minds of the people, who, when they had said all they could against Eli’s sons, could not but admire Samuel’s seriousness, and speak well of religion for his sake.
(2.) They debauched the women that came to worship at the door of the tabernacle, 1 Sam. 2:22. They had wives of their own, but were like fed horses, Jer. 5:8. To have gone to the harlots’ houses, the common prostitutes, would have been abominable wickedness, but to use the interest which as priests they had in those women that had devout dispositions and were religiously inclined, and to bring them to commit their wickedness, was such horrid impiety as one can scarcely think it possible that men who called themselves priests should ever be guilty of. Be astonished, O heavens! at this, and tremble, O earth! No words can sufficiently express the villany of such practices as these.
2. The reproof which Eli gave his sons for this their wickedness: Eli was very old (1 Sam. 2:22) and could not himself inspect the service of the tabernacle as he had done, but left all to his sons, who, because of the infirmities of his age, slighted him, and did what they would. However, he was told of the wickedness of his sons, and we may well imagine what a heart-breaking it was to him, and how much it added to the burdens of his age; but it should seem he did not so much as reprove them till he heard of their debauching the women, and then he thought fit to give them a check. Had he rebuked them for their greediness and luxury, this might have been prevented. Young people should be told of their faults as soon as it is perceived that they begin to be extravagant, lest their hearts be hardened. Now concerning the reproof he gave them observe,
(1.) That it was very just and rational. That which he said was very proper. [1.] He tells them that the matter of fact was too plain to be denied and too public to be concealed: “I hear of your evil dealings by all this people, 1 Sam. 2:23. It is not the surmise of one or two, but the avowed testimony of many; all your neighbours cry out shame on you, and bring their complaints to me, expecting that I should redress the grievance.” [2.] He shows them the bad consequences of it, that they not only sinned, but made Israel to sin, and would have the people’s sin to answer for as well as their own: “You that should turn men from iniquity (Mal. 2:6), you make the Lord’s people to transgress, and corrupt the nation instead of reforming it; you tempt people to go and serve other gods when they see the God of Israel so ill served.” [3.] He warns them of the danger they brought themselves into by it, 1 Sam. 2:25. He intimates to them what God afterwards told him, that the iniquity would not be purged with sacrifice nor offering, 1 Sam. 3:14. If one man sin against another, the judge (that is, the priest, who was appointed to be the judge in many cases, Deut. 17:9) shall judge him, shall undertake his cause, arbitrate the matter, and make atonement for the offender; but if a man sin against the Lord (that is, if a priest profane the holy things of the Lord, if a man that deals with God for others do himself affront him) who shall entreat for him? Eli was himself a judge, and had often made intercession for transgressors, but, says he, “You that sin against the Lord,” that is, “against the law and honour of God, in those very things which immediately pertain to him, and by which reconciliation is to be made, how can I entreat for you?” Their condition was deplorable indeed when their own father could not speak a good word for them, nor could have the face to appear as their advocate. Sins against the remedy, the atonement itself, are most dangerous, treading under foot the blood of the covenant, for then there remains no more sacrifice, Heb. 10:26.
(2.) It was too mild and gentle. He should have rebuked them sharply. Their crimes deserved sharpness; their temper needed it; the softness of his dealing with them would but harden them the more. The animadversion was too easy when he said, It is no good report. he should have said, “It is a shameful scandalous thing, and not to be suffered!” Whether it was because he loved them or because he feared them that he dealt thus tenderly with them, it was certainly an evidence of his want of zeal for the honour of God and his sanctuary. He bound them over to God’s judgment, but he should have taken cognizance of their crimes himself, as high priest and judge, and have restrained and punished them. What he said was right, but it was not enough. Note, It is sometimes necessary that we put an edge upon the reproofs we give. There are those that must be saved with fear, Jude 1:23. 3. Their obstinacy against this reproof. His lenity did not at all work upon them: They hearkened not to their father, though he was also a judge. They had no regard either to his authority or to his affection, which was to them an evident token of perdition; it was because the Lord would slay them. They had long hardened their hearts, and now God, in a way of righteous judgment, hardened their hearts, and seared their consciences, and withheld from them the grace they had resisted and forfeited. Note, Those that are deaf to the reproofs of wisdom are manifestly marked for ruin. The Lord has determined to destroy them, 2 Chron. 25:16. See Prov. 29:1. Immediately upon this, Samuel’s tractableness is again mentioned (1 Sam. 2:26), to shame their obstinacy: The child Samuel grew. God’s grace is his own; he denied it to the sons of the high priest and gave it to the child of an obscure country Levite.