See the Big Picture. Dig In. Live It Out: A 5-Day Reading Plan in 1 SamuelSýnishorn

The Big Picture

Ideally, the time of the judges should have been characterized by maximum virtue and maximum freedom in society, as the nation was ruled not by any human government but by God himself. There would have been no central government to oppress and exploit the people. In this ideal, the people would have lived in an ordered and prudent manner, not being subject to any human laws but, rather, to the Law of God, the Torah. The people, however, would not obey the Torah and served idols instead of the living God. They thus became corrupt and lawless; and wherever some kind of authority did exist, as it did in the priesthood at the Tent of Meeting, there was great corruption and exploitation (the Tent of Meeting was Israel’s national religious shrine, the precursor to Solomon’s temple). Things had to change. A people who would not submit to God as their king would need to have a human king over them. The current regime at the Tent would have to go, and another priestly family would have to take their place. First Samuel tells the story of these two events. First, it describes the end of the former priestly line at the Tent, and second, it tells of the rise of the monarchy. Today’s reading tells us why the old leadership at the shrine had to be purged.

Digging In

The boy Samuel remained at the shrine at Shiloh to act as a “hierodule” (a servant in a temple or shrine) under the authority of the High Priest Eli; he was consecrated for lifelong service to Yahweh. This should have been a wonderful environment; it was the place dedicated to the praise of God. But instead, it was a place of great corruption. Samuel grew up seeing wickedness in the house of God on a daily basis. 

In 1 Samuel 2:13, we see what had become a normal practice at the shrine: when people offered a sacrifice, a priest’s assistant would plunge a fork into the pot boiling the meat and whatever came up was the priest’s portion. This policy was, we assume, adopted to make it fair; the cut of meat was randomly selected, and the priest could not pick the best piece for himself. But even this was not in accord with the Torah (see Lev. 10:14–15). What they actually did at this time, however, was much worse. Before the sacrifice was complete (which involved burning fat from the animal before Yahweh as a “pleasing aroma”; see Lev. 17:6), the priest’s assistant would demand the choicest cuts of the raw meat for his master. This was disrespectful to the worshipers and showed disdain for God. Even the laypeople knew that the ceremony required the fat to be burned first, but the priests disregarded this and threatened the people with violence if they did not comply (in the ancient world, people regarded fatty cuts of meat as the very best, and that is why the priests took their share before any fat was burned). 

For all this, the boy Samuel thrived in his environment. Hannah did not forget her firstborn but took care to bring him a new cloak every year (as all clothing was handmade from raw wool or flax fiber, this represented a considerable effort on her part). God also answered her initial fear of being left childless many times over; she had three other sons and two daughters. She was, as an Israelite would have judged it, a richly blessed woman. This is the last time Hannah appears in the narrative.

In 1 Samuel 2:22–26, we read of two different reputations that swirled about the Tent. The people knew that Eli’s sons did far worse things than pilfering choice meat. They used the women who served at the shrine as their personal harem, having sex with them as they chose. We do not know much about these women; apparently young, unmarried women were regularly appointed to serve for a period at the shrine (see Num. 6:2; Exod. 38:8). They apparently took care of routine duties involving cleaning, laundry, cooking, and the like; they do not seem to have had any priestly duties. But they were not cult prostitutes, as might be found in a shrine of Baal, and still, Eli’s sons treated them as such. Eli’s rebuke sounds feeble, but his words were true, and the sons bore responsibility for their actions. By contrast, everyone who came to the shrine regarded Samuel to be a young man of exemplary virtue and piety. 

In verses 27–34, we read a message given by an anonymous prophet against Eli and his sons. Some readers are surprised that he says that God chose Eli’s family to serve as priests while Israel was still in Egypt, but in fact, the Levites already had what we might call “clergy” status before the exodus. Despite what some think, the Levites did not become priests because of their faithfulness at the golden calf incident in Exodus 32:25–29; it is clear from Exodus 29 that the house of Aaron was already regarded as the priestly family. Eli’s line was one of several lines descended from Aaron, but not the only one. We do not fully understand the history of the Israelite priesthood (the Old Testament only gives us brief, sideways glances at that story), but this text implies that Eli was of the family line that inherited the right to serve as high priests. There were other Levitical priests, but Eli was in the family line of the high priests. They forfeited the right to continue to hold that office, however, and God chose another Levitical line to take their place. 

Verses 35–36 do not name the “faithful priest” who was chosen to replace Eli. The subsequent story suggests that it was Zadok, a priest who was elevated to his high position first by David and then by Solomon (2 Sam. 15:24–36; 1 Kings 1:32–45; 2:35; 1 Chron. 29:22). The prophecy also anticipates the reign of David, saying that this priest would “walk before my anointed,” an apparent reference to David. As for the descendants of Eli, they would lose the high priesthood but not the priestly status. They could still serve in the sanctuary if the “faithful priest” would allow them to do so. 

Living It Out

Christian ministers, like Israel’s priests, can be just as corrupt as the society around them. Sometimes, they are even worse. The behavior of Hannah and Elkanah, however, demonstrates that those who know God will continue to worship him at the sanctuary even though they know that not all is as it should be. For us, that means that we should not abandon the church just because some ministers have proven to have feet of clay. Just as God rewarded faithful Hannah, he will also care for his people today who shine as lights in a corrupt world—or even in a corrupt church. God will deal with corrupt ministers. The house of Eli lost its place of preeminence, and all ministers who defile the church through their behavior will ultimately be exposed and expelled.