And there came a man of God to Eli and said to him, Thus saith Jehovah Did I plainly reveal myself to the house of thy father when they were in Egypt, in Pharaoh's house,
An unnamed messenger walks into Shiloh and confronts Eli, the high priest of Israel. His message opens with a question about the past: why does God recall the honour He once gave this house before He judges it?
Eli's sons had sinned openly for years, and his protests changed nothing.
But "Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Israel" in their wrongdoing. His protest was feeble, and it did no good. And now comes a testimony; for God never judges without a warning.
Eli's failure was not just a family matter. It changed how God spoke to Israel.
God ordained the priesthood to keep the nation in direct communication with Him. The priesthood broke down completely in the days of Eli. So God raised up men of God, called seers, or prophets. They brought His messages to the people and pleaded with them on God's behalf. This was above all the mission of Samuel. Before his call, "there was no open vision" — no public showing of God's presence among them.
Scripture gives this messenger a title it hands out rarely.
This honourable title is not given out to all the servants of God without distinction. Moses is called "the man of God" five times; David, three times. Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha, with a few other prophets, are described the same way. The New Testament applies it to Timothy. So we too may desire this title, or the character that deserves it.
Yet this messenger is never named. That silence has a purpose.
This man of God comes to Eli unannounced. Of his name and origin we know nothing. God sent three others like him, each with a message, to a king. Only their words have come down to us. God would not have us occupied with His messengers, but with their message. They shall be known in due time, and receive the due reward of their service. So let us be content to work unnoticed and unknown, dear fellow-servants of Christ. Let us be satisfied to deliver our message, bear our testimony, and leave the rest to Him and to "that day."
The question reaches back to Egypt, before Israel was free. This backward look is God's habit.
Verses 27-28 teach us Gentiles something of the highest importance. Before He carries out judgment on what is corrupted, God always recalls the nature of His calling according to His grace. He recalls the blessing He placed in the hands of the men who have been the objects of His goodness… The house of Aaron had been the object of a very special grace among the tribes of Israel. But this grace they had forgotten. They stopped keeping the memory of God's goodness toward them, and so they fell into a state of complete corruption. And so judgment is the last remedy God applies, whether to correct or to cut off beyond recall.
God's choice of Aaron rested on nothing in Aaron. That is what makes the reminder cut.
God reminds Eli of the high honour He put on the house of his fathers. The great I AM appeared to Aaron while he was in the land of slavery. With no stated reason except His own sovereign choice, He chose him for the honourable post of high priest to Israel… He reminds them of His past dealings in grace and favour towards them. The review of His "goodness" is meant to "lead them to repentance;" if this fails, the goodness He gave only makes the guilt worse. It must bring down heavier judgment.
The charge lands on Eli himself, not only on his sons. One writer names his failure plainly.
The Lord now sends a messenger, a man of God, to Shiloh… But what was the marked failure of Eli? It was the allowance of evil. He seems to have been a likeable old man himself. But while he condemned the evil, he was loose in allowing it and carrying on with it. And what he allows, he is counted as sharing in.
Kelly asks why a father who knew the truth about his sons did so little.
Why was his effort to uphold God's honour in his children so feeble? Why did his protest fail so completely? The occasion was serious, the sin was blatant, and Eli knew it well. Sadly, he indulged his sons.
- Warned — God never judges without a warning. The visit of the man of God is itself an act of patience.
- Remembered — God first recalls the grace He gave. Forgotten goodness is what let the corruption grow.
- Chosen — God appeared to Aaron in Egypt by His own choice, not by merit. Abused privilege only deepens the guilt.
- Nameless — God hides the messenger's name so that we attend to the message. His reward waits for "that day."
- Answerable — Eli condemned the evil but allowed it. What he allowed, God counted him as sharing in.
and choose him out of all the tribes of Israel, to be my priest, to offer upon mine altar, to burn incense, to wear the ephod before me? and I gave unto the house of thy father all the offerings by fire of the children of Israel.
God's word to Eli does not open with the charge against him. It opens with a question about the past — who gave the priesthood, and on what terms — and it makes him hear again the gift he was born into: the altar, the incense, the ephod, and the offerings that fed his family.
The reproof reaches Eli through a messenger, and it begins with questions.
God will use an unnamed "man of God" to bear witness to Eli. It should have gone so deep into his soul that it moved him to act with firm decision. This message from God was a most solemn reproof to Eli himself, and it begins by asking questions.
Nothing in Aaron earned the appointment. The choice fell on him out of all the tribes, and the provision came with it.
Eli is reminded of the high honour put on the house of his fathers. The great I AM appeared to Aaron while he was still in the land of slavery. God gave no stated reason for His choice; it was His sovereign choice alone, and He picked Aaron for the honoured post of high priest to Israel. It was for no special merit on Aaron's part, but of God's freest grace, and God passed this privilege on to his descendants forever. He also gave them ample and generous provision to live on — "all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel."
Priests came nearer to God than anyone else. That nearness was a gift, and it raised the standard they had to keep.
The priests alone draw near to the holy place. God allows them alone this closeness to Him. But their position brings sins and iniquities that they are called to bear, as an effect of this nearness — things that would pass unnoticed in people outside. What does not suit the presence and the sanctuary of God does not suit His priests... God gave the service of the Levites, and the Levites themselves, as a gift to the priests. Priesthood also was a pure gift to Aaron and his sons. Because of the anointing, God gave them the most holy things to eat, a special privilege of the priests. The same is true of us.
The verse names a garment. The word itself is plain, and it came to stand for the office.
The word "ephod" is a pure Hebrew word, meaning to "put on." Here it has taken on a technical sense. In the Scriptures it is the standard word for the garment of the priest.
God does not bring up these favours out of nostalgia. This is His regular way with people, His own and sinners alike.
These special favours should have stirred them to be faithful in their duties, and moved them to hearty obedience to all His will. This is always God's way with His own, and often with sinners too. He reminds them of His past dealings in grace and favour towards them. He reviews His "goodness" in order to "lead them to repentance." If that does not work, the goodness He gave only deepens the guilt, and must bring down heavier judgment. It is a most solemn and serious thing to trifle with the grace of God, or to abuse it, as many have learned to their sorrow and eternal loss.
Eli's own hold on the high-priesthood was not clean. His branch of the family was not the one God had promised it to.
For hundreds of years the wrong line had taken over the high-priesthood. Eli belonged to the younger branch of Aaron's family. That branch seized the high-priesthood against God's law, despite the Lord's solemn promise to Phinehas (Num. 25:12-13). But there was a restoration in the person of Zadok, in the time of David and Solomon, because the Lord is faithful despite man's failure and hostility.
- Chosen. God appeared, and God chose. He took Aaron out of all the tribes, and no merit of Aaron's is named as the reason.
- Gifted. Altar, incense, ephod and offerings were all given, never earned. The nearness came as a gift too — and it raised the standard God held them to.
- Clothed. The word ephod means something "put on." In Scripture it became the standard word for the garment of the priest.
- Reminded. God recounts His past goodness before He accuses. Goodness is meant to lead to repentance. If it does not, it deepens the guilt.
- Restored. Men held the office out of line for centuries. Still the Lord kept His word and raised up a faithful priesthood again in Zadok.
Wherefore do ye trample upon my sacrifice and upon mine oblation which I have commanded [in my] habitation? And thou honourest thy sons above me, to make yourselves fat with the primest of all the oblations of Israel my people.
God sends a prophet to Eli, the high priest, with a question that sounds like a court charge. Why treat the sacrifices with contempt? Why put his sons ahead of the God who gave him his office? Eli's sons stole the offerings. Yet God aims the question at the father. That raises a harder issue: who does God hold responsible when someone sees evil and does nothing?
Where the ESV says "scorn," other translations read "kick at" or "trample on." One writer explains what that kicking means, and who God blames for it.
Then God blames Eli, not his sons, for kicking at His sacrifice. He had given clear commands about it. This kicking of course shows contempt for God's rights. It rebels against His authority. We may ask, was it not his sons who had done this, not Eli? But Eli was guilty of allowing his sons to do it, for he was in the chief place of authority. God blames him for honoring his sons above God. A solemn indictment indeed for a priest! God includes Eli's selfishness with that of his sons, for He says they had made themselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel. How sadly and dreadfully one may abuse the great privileges God has given!
God does not open with the accusation. He first reminds Eli of the favours He had given his family, and that reminder has a purpose.
These special favours should have stirred them to be faithful in their official duties. They should have moved them to obey all His will from the heart. This is always God's way with His own, and often with sinners too. He reminds them of His past dealings in grace and favour towards them. He goes over His "goodness" to "lead them to repentance." If that fails, the goodness He gave only makes the guilt worse, and it must bring down heavier judgment.
The verse packs several charges together, and the last of them lands on any parent who covers for a child.
There are three points in the charge. First, they "kicked," or rebelled, as if God's sacrifices were something to despise, or the rules about them a burden. Second, he honoured his worthless sons above the great and glorious God of Israel. Third, they "made themselves fat" with the very best that Israel brought to His altar. … Those who allow and support their children in any evil way, and do not use their authority to restrain and punish them, in effect honour them more than God. They are more tender of their children's reputation than of His glory, and more eager to honour them than to honour Him.
Eli had spoken to his sons. One writer explains why his words changed nothing.
In fact the sons were the guilty ones, but since Eli took no action against them, God charges him with their offence. It is true he had protested. But the evil was of such a kind that to protest and then stay on with the men he had protested against was to approve their evil. The words, you "honour your sons above Me," reveal the secret motive that governed Eli. He set family ties and friendships above the claims of the Lord.
Another writer weighs those words against the action Eli never took.
His words are strong and good. But what use are good and strong words when the strong arm of judgment should fall? … Ah, words, mere words no matter how strong, are worse than guilty complicity. Worse, because the man who speaks them knows the evil and goes on with it.
Eli was a godly man. That makes God's verdict on him startling.
"You honour your sons above Me!" Poor Eli! Despite all his piety, there were men — his sons — whom his behaviour proved he was honouring more than the Lord. God had been patient with him. But now he was about to reap the bitter fruit of the lack of holiness in his walk. Holiness is nothing other than separation from evil for the sake of God's service. … Did this righteous man, Eli, then despise the Lord? Yes, for "no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."
- Given — God reminds Eli first of past favours, not of the crime. Goodness that a man abuses only makes his guilt heavier.
- Despised — to kick at the sacrifice is to show contempt for God's rights. It rebels against His authority and treats His commands as a burden.
- Preferred — Eli guarded his sons' reputation more than God's glory. Parents who shield a child in evil do the same thing.
- Excused — Eli protested but never acted. Staying with the men he had rebuked approved their sin. Strong words without discipline are worse than open complicity.
- Judged — God counts the man who prefers his sons among those who despise Him. No servant can serve two masters.
Wherefore Jehovah the God of Israel saith, I said indeed, Thy house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever. But now Jehovah saith, Be it far from me; for them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed.
God speaks this word to Eli, the priest whose sons did evil while he did little more than protest. The sentence falls on the father, not only on the sons. It also raises a hard question: how can God set aside a promise He said would last forever?
God names the motive: Eli honoured his sons above Him. One writer shows where the failure lay:
The sons were the guilty ones, but Eli took no action against them, so God charges him with their offence. It is true he had protested. But the evil was of such a kind that to protest and still stay with the men he protested against was to approve their evil. The words "you honour your sons above Me" reveal the secret motive that governed Eli. He set family ties and the friendships of life above the claims of the Lord.
Eli was a godly man, so the word "despise" seems far too strong. One writer answers that difficulty from the Lord's own teaching:
"You honour your sons above Me!" Poor Eli! For all his piety, there were men — his sons, as his behaviour proved — whom he was honouring more than the Lord... Did this righteous man Eli, then, despise the Lord? Yes, for "no servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other."
Why does God take back His promise? Commentators point to the terms on which He gave it:
Under the covenant of law God had proposed that Eli's house and his father's house would walk before Him forever. The glaring failure of the priesthood changed this completely, because such a promise depended on their faithfulness. So God presses on Eli the unchanging principle: "those who honour Me I will honour, and those who despise Me shall be lightly esteemed." The history of the priesthood shows how empty natural succession is.
One writer takes the point further. What Aaron's line lost, another Priest holds and never loses:
God promised the priesthood to the house of Aaron forever... "The priest's office shall be theirs for a perpetual statute"; but it was conditional in a way — they had to "walk before" the Lord. This they stopped doing, so they were "put as polluted from the priesthood." In the end this became true of the whole house of Aaron, and that Priest "after the order of Melchizedek, who abides continually" took its place.
This is a standing rule, not a one-off ruling. One writer marks what it does and does not promise:
He has said, "Those who honour Me I will honour," and this proves true even where the honour given may not come from a renewed soul. It is so in every age. For example, if a household honours God and calls on His name, He will bless that household in His government on earth. The same holds when people carry on daily life and business with the recognition of His name. But this is not salvation; it is temporal mercy according to the principles of God's government.
God's promise to honour comes with a condition. One writer sets out the pattern:
He always delights to honour His saints in the eyes of others; but then they must not seek their own honour. He will honour His servants. But the moment we step out of the servant's place to take what we judge to be a higher place, He humbles us. The Lord Jesus Christ, the one faithful Servant, was always hiding Himself so that God might appear. And God was always honouring Him in the eyes of others.
One writer points to men whom God honoured because they honoured Him:
These faithful men became witnesses for God, for we read that they stood "before the king." God was true to His own word, "Those who honour Me I will honour."
The judgment on Eli is not the end. God also promises a faithful priest, and one writer shows what that change prepares:
Because Eli was unfaithful, God would cut off his house. He would raise up a faithful priest to act according to His own heart and mind... From now on the priest would no longer hold the first place before the Lord, but would walk before the Lord's anointed... So through the failure of the priest, God is preparing the way to fulfil His purpose: to establish Christ as King, with a faithful priest walking before Him forever.
- Honour misplaced — Eli did no evil himself, but he put his sons before God. He protested at their evil and then stayed with them, and that counted as approving it.
- Honour withdrawn — the promise that his house would walk before God forever rested on faithfulness. Natural succession secured nothing.
- Honour as a rule — God governs this way in every age. He blesses homes and daily business that honour His name, but that blessing is mercy in this life, not salvation.
- Honour returned — God honours those who keep the servant's place. Take honour for yourself, and He humbles you instead.
- Honour secured — Aaron's line lost its place. Another Priest holds it forever, and God sets Christ as King with a faithful priest before Him.
Behold, days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father's house, that there shall not be an old man in thy house.
God sets a date against the family of Eli the priest. Why should a house once promised a permanent place before God lose its strength, and what had this aging priest done to deserve it?
The verse is a verdict. The charge behind it came first. Eli himself was not abusing the offerings, yet the message came to him. One commentator traces the sentence back to a failure of holiness in a good man:
"You honour your sons above Me!" Poor Eli! For all his piety, there were men — his sons — whom he was honouring more than the Lord, and his behaviour proved it. God had been patient with him. But now he was about to reap the bitter fruit of the lack of holiness in his walk. Holiness is nothing other than separation from evil for God's service.
Where the ESV says "strength," older translations read "arm." The word is a picture. It stands for the power to do the work, and losing it left the office standing but useless:
Of course God speaks figuratively. The arm is what does the work. It is the strength behind any work that may be done. None of this would be left: the priesthood would be reduced to helplessness... God would still do good to His people despite this, but would take away the priests in their youth. Eli was to be the last of the old men among the priests.
God had said Eli's house would walk before Him always. Here He withdraws it. That is not a broken promise, because the promise carried a condition from the start:
Under the covenant of law, God had proposed that Eli's house and the house of his father would walk before Him forever. But the glaring failure of the priesthood changed this completely, because such a promise depended on their faithfulness. So God presses the unchanging principle on Eli: "those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me shall be lightly esteemed." This history of the priesthood plainly shows how empty natural succession is.
The judgment came on the family through whom Eli had sinned. It arrived in stages, and Scripture records each one:
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come. Those born into his house would die in the prime of life. Hophni and Phinehas would meet their death in one day. Everyone left of his house would be thrust out of the priest's office to beg their bread. The later history gives the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. The Philistines killed Hophni and Phinehas in battle (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cut off the offspring of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). One hundred years after the prediction King Solomon thrust out the last of Eli's house from the priest's office (1 Kings 2:27).
Eli held both religious and civil authority, so he had every means to stop his sons. He used none of it. One writer applies this to parents today and sets Eli beside Abraham:
This was the deep fault of the over-indulgent father, though he himself was innocent of the disorders around the tabernacle. He was both high priest and chief magistrate over the land. He had full power to remove them from office and to punish them, but he did neither. How much failure there is of this, sadly, among Christian parents today. There are good men, fathers, who seem to have neither eyes nor ears for the failings of their children. Disastrous results follow... God said of Abraham that he would command his children and his household after him. He did not, like Eli, weakly argue or gently warn. He commanded. This is the very thing Eli failed most to do.
The cutting off was not the end of the story. God did not repair the fallen priesthood. He moved on to something better, and the priest now came under the king:
Eli's unfaithfulness and his sons' wickedness brought an entire change in God's dealings. The priesthood passed into the shade. Instead of the King walking by his counsel, the High Priest now came under the King... But God never re-establishes an order of things that has failed in men's hands. In His great grace He goes on to something better. Everything in which man has proved so incapable will be seen in perfection in Christ, on the day He appears.
- Cause — Eli honoured his sons above God. Holiness is separation from evil for God's service, and Eli's lack of it bore bitter fruit.
- Sentence — The arm stands for strength to work. God left the office standing but drained it of power, and Eli was the last old man in it.
- Condition — The promise to walk before God forever depended on faithfulness. Birth alone guarantees nothing.
- Fulfilment — Three blows across a hundred years: two sons dead in one day, Eli's line cut off under Saul, the last of it removed by Solomon.
- Replacement — God does not rebuild what has failed in human hands. He moves on to something better, seen in perfection in Christ.
And thou shalt see an oppressor [in my] habitation, amidst all the good that shall be done to Israel; and there shall not be an old man in thy house for ever.
God's word to Eli takes away two things at once: the long life his family expected, and their share in the good God still plans for Israel. That raises hard questions — what had Eli done, and can God bless His people once their priesthood collapses?
Eli knew what his sons were doing, and did little about it. One writer traces what God did next:
"Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Israel" in their wrongdoing. His protest was weak, and it did no good… And now comes a testimony. God never judges without a warning.
The guilty men were Hophni and Phinehas, yet the charge lands on their father:
The sons were the guilty ones. But Eli took no action against them, so God charges him with their offence. True, he had protested. Yet he stayed with the very men he protested against. With evil like this, staying was to approve it. The words you "honour your sons above Me" expose the secret motive that governed Eli. He set the ties of nature and the friendships of life above the claims of the Lord.
Translations differ here. Some older ones speak of an adversary in God's dwelling, where the ESV speaks of looking with envy on Israel's prosperity. One writer explains what the arm in God's sentence stands for:
God speaks figuratively. The arm is what does the work, the strength behind anything that gets done. Nothing of this would be left. The priesthood would sink into helplessness. An oppressor or adversary would gain some prominence in God's habitation… Despite this, God would do good to His people. But He would take away the priests while they were young. Eli was to be the last of the old men among the priests.
Notice what is not cancelled. Israel's prosperity still comes. Eli's line has no part in it.
God points Eli's house back to the favours He had given them, and one writer says what they should have produced:
These special favours should have stirred them to faithfulness in their official duties. They should have moved them to wholehearted obedience to all His will. This is always God's way with His own, and often with sinners too. He reminds them of His past dealings in grace and favour towards them. The review of His "goodness" is meant to "lead them to repentance." If that does not work, the goodness given only deepens the guilt. It must bring down heavier judgment.
Eli's failure happened at home, and one writer presses the point on parents:
Think of it — he honoured his wicked sons above Jehovah! Could sin be greater or guilt more serious? Some parents allow and back up their children in any evil way, and never use their authority to restrain and punish them. In effect they honour their children more than God. They are more careful of their children's reputation than of His glory, and more eager to honour them than to honour Him.
The words about no old man in Eli's house took generations to work out:
The later history gives the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. Hophni and Phinehas are killed in the fight with the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cut off the offspring of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). One hundred years after the prediction, King Solomon thrust out the last of Eli's house from being priest (1 Kings 2:27).
- Warned — God sent a warning before He sent the blow. He never judges without notice.
- Cause — Eli honoured his sons above the Lord. He protested, but he stayed beside the evil, and that approved it.
- Aggravation — God's past favours should have produced faithfulness. Ignored, that same goodness only made the guilt heavier.
- Sentence — the "arm" means strength for work, and God cut it off. The priesthood sank into helplessness, an adversary gained ground at God's dwelling, and Eli was the last old man among the priests.
- Reach — Eli's sons died fighting the Philistines. Saul cut off his house sixty years later, and Solomon removed the last of his line a century on. God went on doing good to Israel all the same.
And the man of thine [whom] I shall not cut off from mine altar, shall be to cause thine eyes to fail and to grieve thy soul; and all the increase of thy house shall die in their vigour.
Commentary for this verse has not been generated yet.
And this shall be the sign to thee, which shall come upon thy two sons, upon Hophni and Phinehas in one day they shall die, both of them.
God had already told Eli that his family would lose the priesthood. His descendants would die young. Now He adds a guarantee to that sentence. One event, soon to come, would prove the whole word true.
One part of the sentence would serve as proof of the rest. One writer places the sign inside the wider judgment on the priesthood, and notes what God left unsaid:
Even so, God would do good to His people, but He would take away the priests in their youth. Eli was to be the last of the old men among the priests. All his sons would die in the prime of life. God gave a sign to confirm that this was real. His two sons would die on the same day. God did not add what was also true, that Eli himself would die that day.
The sentence falls on Hophni and Phinehas, yet God charges their father with the offence. Eli had spoken against their conduct and then carried on alongside them:
The sons were the guilty ones. But Eli took no action against them, so God charges him with their offence. It is true that he had protested. Yet the evil was of such a kind that to protest and still go on with the men he had protested against was to approve their evil. The words "you honour your sons above Me" reveal the secret motive that ruled Eli. He set the ties of family and the friendships of life above the claims of the Lord.
The two deaths in one day were only the first instalment. The same writer traces the rest of the judgment through the century that followed:
Eli had sinned through his family, and on his family the judgment would come. His descendants would die in the prime of life. Hophni and Phinehas would meet their death in one day. Everyone left of his house would be driven out of the priest's office to beg their bread. Later history gives the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. Hophni and Phinehas were killed in the battle with the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later, King Saul cut off the descendants of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). One hundred years after the prediction, King Solomon drove the last of Eli's house out of the priesthood (1 Kings 2:27).
The sign came on a day when Israel carried the ark into the battle line and still lost. One writer weighs the guilt on both sides:
"And the Philistines fought, and Israel was defeated, and they fled, every man to his home... And the ark of God was captured, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, died." So the word of the Lord came true. Poor Eli sits by the wayside watching, and his heart trembled for the ark of God... The Philistines might be wrong to fear that simply bringing the ark onto the field would settle the fight. But the Israelites were a hundred times more guilty. They flattered themselves that the ark, brought in this way, was bound to save them.
A good personal character did not cover Eli's failure at home. One writer puts the two houses side by side:
Here we see that it does not matter how good the personal character of God's servant may be. If he fails to rule his own house properly, God will not hold him guiltless. Eli should have restrained his sons... His terrible end was this: he broke his neck over the house of God, because he had not broken his heart over his own house.
Right after the sign of death comes a promise of a faithful priest. One writer reads that promise as reaching beyond any priest of Israel:
Here again a bright light shines out of the gathering gloom. God was to raise up for Himself a "faithful priest," His "Anointed." This clearly looks beyond either David or Zadok. It is God's glorious King-Priest, who on earth always did what was according to God's heart and mind. So, in wrath, God always remembers mercy.
- Warned. God announced the judgment before He carried it out. Eli heard the sentence long before it fell.
- Sealed. God sealed that word with a sign. Hophni and Phinehas would die on the same day, and that one event proved the rest true.
- Wider. The sign opened a judgment that ran for a century. Saul cut off Eli's descendants, and Solomon removed the last of his line from the priesthood.
- Fulfilled. The Philistines defeated Israel and captured the ark, and both sons died that day, just as God had said.
- Replaced. The same message that ends one priesthood promises a faithful priest who does what is in God's heart. Judgment closes; mercy opens.
And 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; and he shall walk before mine anointed continually.
God has just told Eli that his house will be cut off. The message ends not with failure but with a promise: God will raise up a priest of His own choosing. Two questions follow. Who is this faithful priest? And who is God's anointed, the one he walks before?
The dishonour is deep, but the last word is not ruin. One writer traces how the promise answers the failure point for point.
So, after all, deep though the dishonour, the priesthood should not perish forever. Another should take it up in faithfulness as pronounced as the previous unfaithfulness. Another should carry out the office according to God's mind, and God would establish him forever. God was not defeated, for He had in reserve One who should be not only prophet but priest. In due time there would come the faithful priest: and that priest is CHRIST.
God measures this priest by His own heart and mind. That test, one writer argues, rules out every ordinary successor.
Verse 35 looks far beyond the time of Eli and his sons. It looks beyond all the priests who have come and gone down through the centuries. God Himself would raise up a faithful priest — not one from the natural succession of the line of Aaron. We can say this of the Lord Jesus Christ alone: He would do according to what is in God's heart and mind. God would build Him a sure house. This Priest was of the order of Melchizedek (Heb. 5:9-10), not of Aaron, and as such He is a priest forever (Heb. 5:6).
The closing phrase rearranges Israel's whole system. Older translations render the phrase "walk before my anointed." In the books of the law, "the anointed" had one meaning.
We know that God had planned it long before, entirely apart from all this sad and humbling history: "And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever." This is deeply striking... In the law "the anointed one" always means the high priest. Now, for the first time in God's dealing with Israel, "His anointed," or "the anointed," is not the high priest. It is a greater person, and the high priest is to walk before him.
Earlier the arrangement ran the other way.
Compare this with Numbers 27:18-23. There Joshua must "stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before the LORD. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in." The deciding word is Eleazar's. Now the priest must walk before the king, though he is faithful and works according to the Lord's mind and heart. What is more, until now the title "the anointed" was understood to belong to the High Priest. From now on it belongs to the king.
The promise came true once in Israel's own history. One writer holds that this was not the whole of it.
This word came true in the days of Solomon (1 Kings 2:26-27), when Abiathar was thrust out of the priesthood and Zadok put into his office. Yet surely the prophecy holds God's answer in Christ to the failure of the priesthood. He is now a priest after the order of Melchizedek, interceding for us in the presence of God. And He will soon come out to sit as Priest upon His throne (Zech. 6:13).
The same promise of a sure house comes later for the king. That pairing, one writer says, shapes the whole book.
It then shows us the priesthood, set in formal order and succession, corrupting itself and removed by judgment. After that God brings in His own Priest (1 Sam. 2:35), who was to act according to His heart, and for whom He was to build a sure house. In the same way it shows us the kingdom, set up at first according to man's desire, corrupting itself and removed by judgment. After that God brings in His own King, also after His heart, and for whom He would also build a sure house... And this anointed of God, we know, in the fullness of times, is to be none less than the Son of God Himself, God's King to hold the unshakeable kingdom, and God's Priest to hold the untransferable priesthood.
- Failure — God sets Eli's line aside, yet the message ends in light. He keeps another priest in reserve, and the office does not perish.
- Faithful — God measures the new priest by His own heart and mind. That test points past every human successor to Christ.
- First place lost — the priest now walks before the anointed king. In the law "the anointed" meant the high priest; the title now passes to the king.
- Foreshadowed — Solomon put Zadok in Abiathar's place, and the word came true. One writer reads that event as a picture of something larger still ahead.
- Forever — God promises a sure house to His Priest, and later to His King. Both meet in one Person — an unshakeable kingdom and a priesthood that never passes to another.
And it shall come to pass [that] every one that is left of thy house shall come to crouch to him for a small piece of silver and for a cake of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priestly offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread.
God's warning to Eli ends with a picture of survivors: a priestly family begging for a coin and a scrap of bread. How could Israel's highest office sink this far, and is there any mercy left inside such a judgment?
The terms of the sentence match the sin that earned it. Eli's sons had grown fat on what belonged to God. Their children would beg for the smallest coin there was.
Utter poverty and humiliating begging would be the lot of Eli's descendants. It is a picture fearful to think about, and it must have struck Eli with horror. But his sons had lived in luxury and power. It was fitting that their children should grovel in disgrace and poverty. They had lived in luxury at Jehovah's expense, robbing Him of what was His due. Their children would come to beg for a piece of silver — the word is said to mean the smallest coin — and a morsel of bread.
Notice what the beggars ask for. Not nearness to God, not the altar — a place, because a place comes with a meal.
Eli's house, on the other hand, would sink to the level of beggars. They had no heart of a priest. They asked for a priest's office only to relieve their hunger. The sadness of this should have reached Eli's conscience, but searching one's own heart is foreign to empty religion.
Priests at other times fell the same way, valuing the job only for what it paid.
These sons of Aaron had fallen so low that they forgot the election of grace. It had marked them out from their brothers and given them the privilege of being Jehovah's ministers. Now they regarded the work of their office as nothing but a means of profit.
Eli himself did not commit his sons' crimes. But he never acted against them, and that made him a partner in the evil.
In fact the sons were the guilty ones. But Eli took no action against them, so God charges him with their offence. It is true that he had protested. Yet the evil was so serious that to protest and still stay with the men he protested against was to approve their evil. Eli's secret motive comes out in the words, you "honour your sons above Me." He set family ties and friendships above the claims of the Lord.
This was no vague threat. The words came true in three separate blows, spread over a hundred years.
Everyone left of his house would lose the priest's office and beg their bread. The later history shows the solemn fulfilment of these predictions. Hophni and Phinehas die in the fight with the Philistines (1 Sam. 4:11). Sixty years later King Saul cuts off the increase of Eli's house (1 Sam. 22:18). A hundred years after the prediction, King Solomon removes the last of Eli's house from the priesthood (1 Kings 2:27).
The begging points to a bigger change. From here on, the priest no longer holds first place in Israel.
So the high priest is set aside as the direct link between the Lord and His people. He falls into second place, since there is another anointed one greater than he. Through the priest's failure God is preparing the way for His purpose: to establish Christ as King, with a faithful priest walking before Him for ever.
One lesson stands out from the whole story.
This history of the priesthood plainly illustrates the emptiness of natural succession.
Once the roles ran the other way. David, God's anointed, asked bread of Eli's line, and Eli's line gave it to him.
But it turned out that Jehovah's anointed begged bread from one of Eli's descendants, and that man did not refuse him. So God showed His mercy while His judgments were falling on that godless house. A member of that house held the priestly office while David was on the throne.
- Cause. Eli honoured his sons above God; the verse shows where that choice ends — descendants begging for a coin and a crust.
- Character. They ask for the priest's office, not the priest's God: a sacred place wanted only as a source of food.
- Certainty. The word came true in stages — Eli's sons fell in the Philistine battle, Saul cut down his house, Solomon removed the last of the line.
- Change. Priesthood by family line ends here. From now on the priest takes second place and walks before God's Anointed.
- Compassion. Mercy still appears inside the sentence. God's anointed king asked bread from Eli's descendant and received it, and that descendant served while David reigned.