Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not Jehovah.
Israel's spiritual life ran through the priesthood. This verse tells us what the two men holding that office really were. It raises the hardest question any religion can face: what happens when the men closest to God do not know Him?
(The commentators quote "sons of Belial" from an older translation. The ESV says "worthless men.")
Their position was real. Their knowledge of God was not. The chapter traces the damage in three stages.
The evil condition of the professing people of God under the priesthood of Eli shows itself in three fearful evils. The priesthood was defiled (12); the offering of the Lord was despised (17); and the tabernacle was desecrated (22)... Their office was to represent the people before the Lord. Yet these very men did not know the Lord. They used their position to enrich themselves at the expense of the people.
The phrase is not a family name. It is a moral verdict, and it appears elsewhere in Scripture with the same force.
The Hebrew word means "worthless, lawless." It is not a proper name. It stands for evil itself. So we have "son of Belial, daughter of Belial," and so on, in Deuteronomy 13:13; Judges 19:22; 1 Samuel 1:16; 1 Samuel 25:17, 25. The New Testament sets it in contrast to Christ, as if it meant Satan, 2 Corinthians 6:15.
Applied to the high priest's own household, that verdict is devastating.
"But the sons of Eli," we read, "were sons of Belial." What a reflection on the name of Eli! At that time he was both high priest and supreme judge in Israel. His sons, the "sons of Belial!" Could anything be worse — children of "worthlessness and corruption"! Here we see the truth of the saying, "The corruption of the best is the worst of corruption."
A chapter later, the same words describe the boy Samuel. The difference between the two cases is everything.
Scripture says of these profane men, "They did not know the LORD." They held the office of priests, but their hearts were far from God. Later, Scripture says Samuel "did not yet know the LORD" (chap. 3:7). But that was a very different thing. He was on the way to knowing Him "whom to know is life eternal." These sons of Eli had hardened themselves beyond remedy. Only the just judgment of God was left for them.
The priest was the only appointed road to God. So his corruption cut the whole nation off.
The priest was the link between the Lord and the people. He was the appointed means, and no one else dared take up his duties. But this priest turned away from God in wickedness. He used his position to dishonour God even more. So the appointed way of speaking with God, and of being restored to Him, was gone. Hophni and Phinehas made the people sin.
The problem was not only their conduct. It was holy work done by unholy men.
They were sons of Belial. They did not know the Lord, and yet they served in the outward things of the sanctuary. It could only end in the worst corruption. They handled holy things and were wicked in heart and life. It has been well said, "a holiness that is only external is the worst unholiness."... An unholy, selfish ministry is the greatest stumbling block to the great mass of the people.
The chapter does not end with the ruin. Alongside the failure stands a child.
Along with this appalling picture of the wickedness of the priesthood in Israel, the Holy Spirit now shows us Samuel. He is a child ministering before the Lord, wearing a linen ephod. The parents are blessed too.
This is how God works when an order collapses.
It has often been remarked that God never repairs a ruined order. Instead, He sets up something new in its place. It will bring even greater blessing to His people. It also marks a further step forward in His blessed ways.
- Office — Hophni and Phinehas held a real priesthood. Underneath the office they were worthless men.
- Worthless — "Belial" means worthless and lawless. The New Testament sets that word opposite Christ.
- Ignorant — they handled holy things without knowing the Lord. Samuel did not yet know Him either, but he was on his way; they had hardened themselves.
- Contagion — the priest was the appointed link to God. His corruption cut the people off and made them sin.
- Replacement — God did not patch up the ruined priesthood. As it fell, He was raising up a child who ministered before Him.
And the priests' custom with the people was, when any man sacrificed a sacrifice, the priest's servant came, when the flesh was cooked, with a flesh-hook of three prongs in his hand;
The scene moves from Hannah's song to the sanctuary at Shiloh, where the priests had invented a practice of their own. The verse raises a simple question: who decides what belongs to God's servants — God, or the servants?
The word "custom" carries the weight of the verse. This was an invention, not a command. One writer sets it against what God had already put in writing.
They had started a custom completely foreign to Scripture. Their servant came with a three-pronged flesh hook and took from the people's offerings everything the hook brought up out of the boiling pot. God had stipulated what part of the peace offerings the priest was to have — "the wave breast and the heave shoulder" (Lev. 7:34). But the greed of the priests moved them to defy His word in their pride and take all they pleased.
Another writer weighs what this custom cost the honest worshipper, and who let it stand.
The priests openly set aside the revealed will of God and started a custom of their own (1 Sam. 2:13-17). It was a terrible time. The worshipper with a conscience pleaded for one thing only: that God be honoured in his sacrifices, through obedience to His word. He pleaded in vain. And not only this. The priests took whatever they pleased of the offerings, with greed that knew no principle and violence that knew no shame. Even Eli, the high priest, protested, yet he let these things go on and shared in the sin.
The priests were not short of anything. What follows is appetite, not need.
How great was their sin! They defiled the people's sacrifices, and to that they added shameless gluttony. God had made ample provision for their support (Lev. 7:34). But no, this was not enough. They had to have more. And if the poor, browbeaten people of God would not give it willingly, they would take it by force.
(Leviticus 7:34 is quoted above from an older translation. The ESV reads "the breast that is waved and the thigh that is contributed.")
The hook in the pot was only half the story. Commentators trace the offence in two directions at once — toward the worshipper and toward God.
The sin of these men had two marks. First, they disregarded the rights of those who came to worship the Lord, and seized their portions (vv. 13-14). Second, they disregarded the rights of the Lord. They laid unholy hands on the Lord's portion and made sure they themselves were served before Him, so putting themselves ahead of God (vv. 15-16). They made themselves fat with the Lord's offerings and caused men to abhor them.
The same writer asks whether this is the pattern of every religious system where men take authority over other men.
Are these not the principles of any clerical system, whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian? In the end they are the principles of every class of men who take to themselves authority or privileges over other men in religious matters. They claim rights over simple believers. They make sure they themselves are served at those believers' expense. In their view, even the priest's servant has more authority than the worshippers.
Verse 12 gives the cause: these men held the office but did not know the Lord.
They were sons of Belial; they did not know the Lord, and yet they ministered in the outward things of the sanctuary. It could only result in the worst corruption. They handled holy things and were wicked in heart and life. It has been well said that "a holiness that is only external is the worst unholiness."
The priests were meant to represent the people before God. Their greed did not stop with them; it reached the people they served.
These men held the office of representing the people before the Lord. Yet they did not know the Lord themselves, and they used their position to enrich themselves at the people's expense (12-16). See how great their sin was before the Lord: their conduct led the people to despise the offering of the Lord. They became instruments for the corruption of the professing people of God (17).
- Given. God had already given the priests a fixed share of the peace offerings: the wave breast and the heave shoulder. They needed nothing they took.
- Grabbed. They replaced God's rule with a "custom" unknown to Scripture: a servant, a three-pronged hook, and whatever it brought up.
- Robbed. The custom stole twice: from the worshipper's portion, and from the Lord's place at His own altar.
- Rooted. Verse 12 names the cause. They held the office but did not know the Lord. A holiness that is only external is the worst unholiness.
- Result. Men came to despise the offering of the Lord. Leaders meant to represent the people became the means of their corruption.
and he struck it into the pan, or kettle, or cauldron, or pot; the priest took of it all that the flesh-hook brought up. So they did in Shiloh to all the Israelites that came there.
Eli's two sons had turned worship at Shiloh into a business, and this verse names their tool: a three-pronged hook pushed into the worshipper's cooking pot. Priests were entitled to a share, so why did taking it this way count as sin?
This had become the priests' routine. Yet God had already fixed which part was theirs, leaving nothing for a hook to decide.
They had started a custom completely foreign to Scripture. Their servant would come with a three-pronged flesh hook and take from the people's offerings everything the hook brought up from the boiling pot. God had stipulated what part of the peace offerings the priest was to have — "the breast that is waved and the thigh that is raised" (Lev. 7:34) — but greed drove the priests to defy His word in their arrogance and take all they pleased.
One writer counts the offences one by one. He also notes who was supposed to hand the priest his share.
Here are three offences. First, they took meat they had no right to. Second, they took it in a wrong way. Third, they took it at a wrong time. So the order they had to follow was clearly fixed already, and everyone knew it… A certain portion was appointed for the priest, and he was not to take it himself. The person offering the sacrifice gave it to him.
The share God named was not a random cut of meat. One writer on the peace offering reads the breast and shoulder as pictures of Christ.
The priest's portion in the peace offering is also dwelt upon. That portion is, more exactly, the waved breast and the raised shoulder. The breast speaks of the affections of Christ, and the shoulder of His strength. As we share in priestly communion in the thoughts of God, what was waved before Him in its wonderful perfectness becomes ours to enjoy — "the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge." And that strength which supports His feeblest ones can never fail.
(Older wording calls this the "heave shoulder.")
The verse says they did this to every Israelite who came. One writer counts the cost on two sides.
The sin of these men had two sides. They disregarded the rights of those who came to worship the Lord, confiscating their portions (vv. 13-14). They also disregarded the rights of the Lord. They laid unholy hands on the Lord's portion and made sure they were served before He was, so taking precedence over God Himself (vv. 15-16).
The same writer takes the pattern beyond Shiloh.
Are these not the principles of every class of men who take to themselves authority or privileges over other people in religious matters? They claim rights over ordinary believers. They make sure they are served at the expense of those same believers. In their view even the priest's servant has more authority than the worshippers.
The verse names the place: Shiloh, where the tabernacle stood. That detail is the sting.
Can people who are in the true place, on true ground, as they say, still practise evil — people who do not know the Lord? Yes, and from the very same motive as that of the sons of Eli. It is what they can get… Wickedness went on at the very doors of the tabernacle at Shiloh.
The damage did not stop with the priests.
Men saw such wicked conduct in the priests. So they became disgusted with all religious performances and with the truth those performances pictured. They turned away from the offering of the Lord. It is so still. An unholy, selfish ministry is the greatest stumbling block to the great mass of the people.
Against the hook and the servant, the account sets one small figure.
"But Samuel," though not even a priest, "ministered before the Lord as a child, clothed with a linen ephod." Scripture mentions his ministry both before and after the account of the wickedness of Eli's sons. So God values the simple service of a little child. The linen ephod speaks of moral righteousness: how much more fitting for Samuel than for the priests!
- Portion appointed. God had already named the priest's share and said it was to be given to him, not taken by him.
- Portion seized. The three-pronged hook made the priest's share a matter of chance, so they took what they pleased.
- Portion misread. The breast and shoulder pictured the affections and strength of Christ. A random grab lost that meaning.
- Place no protection. All of this happened at Shiloh, at the very doors of the tabernacle, by men who did not know the Lord.
- People driven off. A selfish ministry drove worshippers away from the offering. A child in a linen ephod showed the other way.
Even before they burned the fat, the priest's servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest, and he will not accept sodden flesh of thee, but raw.
Worship at Shiloh ran on a fixed order: God's portion burned on the altar first, and only then did priest and worshipper eat. Here a servant breaks that order, demanding his meat before the fat reaches the altar — and demanding it raw, not boiled.
The detail that makes this verse an offence is the timing. The fat was not a leftover the priests could claim early; it belonged to God, and it had to go to Him before anyone else was served.
The fat therefore was God's portion. So it must not be neglected or left until the morning. It had to be offered at once. God must have His part before His people had theirs. This is the secret of all blessing: give the Lord the highest place, think first of what is due to Him, and lose sight of everything else until you have given it.
The word means more than cooking fat.
The "fat" means the best part, the inward energy and will. It is a picture of the inward energy of the Lord Jesus when He offered Himself to God.
The servant comes while the sacrifice is still unfinished. One writer traces what happened when a worshipper objected.
They had another method. Before the sacrifice was made at all, and so before the fat was burned, they demanded raw meat from the worshipper. Suppose the worshipper spoke up for God and urged that the fat be burned first. The fat belonged wholly to God and had to be burned on the altar (Lev. 7:31). The priest's servant would refuse even to hear the suggestion, and threaten to take the meat by force, and the fat with it. So the priests were not only cruel to the people; they also treated God's commandment with contempt.
Commentators read verses 13–14 and verses 15–16 as two separate wrongs. The first robbed the worshipper. This one robs God.
The sin of these men had two marks. They ignored the rights of the people who came to worship the Lord, and seized their portions (vv. 13-14). They also ignored the rights of the Lord. They laid unholy hands on the Lord's portion and made sure they were served before He was, so putting themselves ahead of God Himself (vv. 15-16).
Greed drove this, not need.
God had made full provision for their keep. But no, this was not enough. They had to have more. If the poor, bullied people of God did not give it willingly, they took it by force. They lived in luxury among a people of simple habits. They kept servants, and "made themselves fat with the best of all the offerings of God's people." And to the people's credit: they put up with losing their own rightful share of the sacrifices, but they objected when the priest's servant took the fat, which was to be burned whole on the altar.
Note where the resistance comes from. The ordinary Israelite, not the priest, is the one pleading for God's portion.
The harm did not stop with the priests. People came to hate bringing offerings at all, and writers press the same point on any age.
Men who do not know the Lord serve in the things of God. They are not serving Him but themselves, and so they are under the control of Satan, the god of this age. When people saw such wicked conduct in the priests, they grew disgusted with all religious performances and with the truth those performances pictured. They turned away from the offering of the Lord. It is still like that today. An unholy, selfish ministry is the greatest stumbling block to most people.
Shiloh held two households at the same altar — Eli's sons, and the boy Samuel. One question separates them, and writers press it on the reader directly.
We have noticed that there were two families at the only true place — Shiloh. One is approved, the other disapproved. What was the difference? The words are very plain. "The child did minister to the Lord, before Eli the priest." This is the first test. Are we ministering to the Lord, or to self and self-importance? Which is it? Do not evade this question.
- God's portion. The fat was His, burned on the altar first. It stands for the best and innermost part of the sacrifice. That points to the inward energy of the Lord Jesus when He offered Himself.
- God's order. He receives before His people do. Putting what is due to Him first is the secret of all blessing.
- Man's grab. Demanding raw meat meant taking a share before the altar got anything. The priests put themselves ahead of God, treated His command with contempt, and used force to get their way.
- Worship spoiled. Two rights went down at once: the worshipper's portion and the Lord's portion. The people lost their share, yet they, not the priests, spoke up for His.
- The test. Selfish ministry drove ordinary people away from the offerings of God. Samuel served in the same place and passed the one test that divides them: for the Lord, or for self?
If the man said to him, They will immediately burn the fat entire, then take as thy soul desires; he would say [to him], No, but thou shalt give [it] now; and if not, I will take [it] by force.
A worshipper brings his sacrifice to Shiloh, and the priest's servant demands raw meat before the fat is burned for God. The man objects, and commentators see in that small exchange the ruin of the whole priesthood in Israel.
The worshipper's plea is not about meat but about order. He wants God served first, because the fat was never meant for any man.
They had another method. Before the sacrifice was made, and so before the fat was burned, they would demand raw flesh from the offerer. The offerer might speak up for God and urge that the fat be burned first. The fat belonged wholly to God, to be burned on the altar (Lev. 7:31). The priest's servant would reject the suggestion outright, and threaten to take it by force along with the fat.
The priests were entitled to a share. What they were not entitled to was to go first. Writers see two separate victims in these verses — the people and the Lord Himself.
The sin of these men had two marks. They disregarded the rights of those who came to worship the Lord, and confiscated their portions (vv. 13-14). They also disregarded the rights of the Lord. They laid unholy hands on the Lord's portion and made sure they were served before He was, so taking precedence over God Himself (vv. 15-16).
God had already arranged a generous living for the priests. Nothing here came from need.
How great was their sin! They profaned the sacrifices of the people, and added shameless gluttony to it, though God had made ample provision for their support... But no, this was not enough. They had to have more. If the poor, bullied people of God would not give it willingly, they would take it by force. They lived in luxury among a people of simple habits. They kept servants, and "made themselves fat with the best of all the offerings of God's people."
Notice who defends God's rights here. It is the ordinary Israelite, not the priest.
And the people, to their honour, though they let themselves be deprived of what was theirs by right in the sacrifices, objected when the priest's servant took the fat.
Another writer draws a rule out of the scene, and notes what answer the plea received.
And is this not always the case? Where God is pushed aside and His service despised, is the bond between people not corrupted too?... So here. The priests will take their own portion out of the sacrifice. Not the part God's law kindly provided for them, but the best part, and the part that belonged to Him alone. The worshippers still had some tender conscience left, and pleaded that God should have His part first. A rough answer and a threat of violence were all they got.
The damage did not stop at the altar. The men sent to bring Israel near to God drove Israel away from Him.
These men held the office of representing the people before the Lord. Yet they did not know the Lord themselves, and they used their position to enrich themselves at the people's expense (12-16). The greatness of their sin before the Lord shows in this: their conduct led the people to despise the offering of the Lord. They became instruments for the corruption of the professing people of God (17).
The same writer sees the pattern repeat wherever religious position becomes leverage.
Are these not the principles of any system of clergy, whether pagan, Jewish, or Christian... the principles of every class of men who claim for themselves authority or privileges over other men in religious matters? They claim rights over simple believers. They make sure they themselves are served at the expense of those same believers. In their view even the priest's servant has more authority than the worshippers. They seize part of what belongs to God alone, and in the end they cause Him to be despised, so that they may be honoured instead of Him.
- Order. The fat belonged wholly to God and had to be burned on the altar. The whole argument in this verse is over who gets served first — God or the priest.
- Appetite. God had already provided well for the priests. The demand for more, and now, came from greed, not need.
- Force. The worshipper pleaded for God's portion and got a threat. Push God aside, and people start trampling each other too.
- Fallout. Their sin was great before the Lord because it spread. The men meant to bring people near to God made the people despise the offering of the Lord.
- Pattern. Wherever people claim religious authority to be served at the cost of believers, they take God's place and make Him despised. Shiloh's sin never stayed in Shiloh.
And the sin of the young men was very great before Jehovah, for men despised the offering of Jehovah.
Chapter 2 has just described what Eli's sons did at Shiloh: a servant with a fork, a demand for raw meat, a threat to take it by force. This verse weighs that practice twice — by how God saw it, and by what it did to the worshippers.
The offence had two victims. The sons trampled on two sets of rights at once.
The sin of these men had two sides. They disregarded the rights of those who came to worship the Lord, taking their portions (vv. 13-14). They also disregarded the rights of the Lord. They laid unholy hands on the Lord's portion, made sure people served them before Him, and so took precedence over God Himself (vv. 15-16). They made themselves fat with the Lord's offerings and made men hate them.
The sons demanded their meat before the fat was burned. That was not impatience over dinner. The fat was the part that belonged to God alone, and the worshippers themselves knew it.
God had made plenty of provision to support them... But no, this was not enough. They had to have more. If the poor, bullied people of God would not give it willingly, they would take it by force... And the people deserve credit. They put up with losing what the sacrifices gave them by right. But they objected when the priest's servant took the fat. According to Leviticus 3:3-5, 16, the fat had to be burned entirely on the altar, as "a food offering with a pleasing aroma to the LORD."
The verse measures the sin in God's sight, not by the amount of meat stolen. The reason it gives is the effect on other people.
The very men whose job was to represent the people before the Lord did not know the Lord themselves. They used their position to enrich themselves at the expense of the people (12-16). You can see how great their sin was before the Lord: their conduct led the people to despise the offering of the Lord. They became instruments for the corruption of the professing people of God (17).
People did not only turn away from the priests. They turned away from the sacrifice itself, and from everything it pointed to.
They handled holy things and were wicked in heart and life. It has been well said, "a holiness that is only external is the worst unholiness."... When men saw such wicked conduct in the priests, they became disgusted with all religious ceremony and with the truth it pictured. They turned away from the offering of Jehovah. It is so still. An unholy, selfish ministry is the greatest stumbling block to the great mass of the people.
Rossier sees the same principle at work far beyond Shiloh.
They claim rights over simple believers. They arrange things so that these same believers serve them, at the believers' own cost. In their eyes even the priest's servant has more authority than the worshippers. They seize, to a degree, God's own rights, and in the end they make men despise Him, so that men honour them instead. They did not know the Lord (v. 12); "There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Romans 3:18).
Eli objected, but he did not stop his sons. God told him what lay behind that.
The priests took whatever they pleased of the offerings, with shameless greed and arrogant violence. Their threat was, "You must give it now, and if not I will take it by force." Even Eli, the high priest, protested, yet he let these things go on and shared in the sin. "You honour your sons above Me," the Lord said to him, "fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of My people Israel."
The failure of the priesthood was not the end of the story. God answered the ruin of His own order with a person.
Man had profaned the ordinance of God in the priesthood, and for this God would set aside His own order. Yet He said, "I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in My heart and in My mind. And I will build him a sure house." How refreshing to the weary soul to see mercy triumph over judgment! Everything that failed in man's responsibility is made sure again in the hands of One who alone is "the faithful and true Witness."
- Rights — The sons robbed the worshipper of his portion and God of His, and served themselves first.
- Fat — They seized first the part set apart to be burned for God. Ordinary worshippers protested when their priests would not.
- Weight — The sin was "very great in the sight of the LORD" because it made others despise His offering.
- Damage — A selfish ministry disgusts people with the ministers, and then with the sacrifice and the truth it pictured.
- Remedy — Where the priesthood failed, God promised a faithful priest and a sure house. Mercy triumphs over the ruin of human responsibility.