1 Samuel 2:12–36

2:12 The narrator unhesitatingly characterizes Eli’s two sons (1:3) as scoundrels. “Worthless men” (lit., “sons of Belial”) is the plural masculine equivalent of the phrase “worthless woman” found in 1:16. While their priestly education has given them an intellectual grasp of the truth, “they did not know the Lord” in the covenantal sense of being personally acquainted with the covenant King, recognizing his authority, and living in accordance with his stipulations (cf. Ex. 5:2; Judg. 2:10; see also 1 Sam. 3:7 as regards Samuel).

2:13–14 “The custom of the priests” (rendered “the priests’ due” in Deut. 18:3) typically refers to a portion of a sacrifice allocated by God for the priest’s sustenance, but here the expression is used ironically to refer to what the priests appropriate for themselves.

It is unclear who is identified by the expression “the priest’s servant.” The term rendered “servant” (naʻar) has a wide range of meanings: “boy” (as in 2:11), “young man” (2:17), an “attendant” of any age (AT; 9:3, 5, 10), or, in a military context, an ordinary “soldier” (AT; 21:2, 4, 5). It is generally taken here to indicate someone who assists the priest in the performance of his duties, but it is more probable that “young man of the priest” (AT) is a reference to one of Eli’s sons in his capacity as a junior priest.¹ Either way, the sons are responsible for what occurs.

When an individual brings a fellowship offering, the fat, which is the Lord’s share, is to be burned on the altar, and then the portions for the priests and the worshipers are boiled in preparation for the sacred meal to follow (Lev. 7:28–35). But Eli’s sons, discontent with God’s allocation, grab more than their quota. It is implied that their three-pronged fork is not randomly thrust into the pot but aimed at the choicest portions. All who sacrifice at Shiloh become victims of their greed.

2:15 “Moreover” introduces a further aspect of their misbehavior at the sacrificial ritual. All of the fat belongs to God and is not to be consumed by the priests or anyone else (Lev. 3:16–17; Num. 18:17). However, before the fat can be burned, Eli’s sons (for “the priest’s servant,” cf. comment on 1 Sam. 2:13) seize the raw meat, including the fat—the Lord’s portion. They think nothing of contravening the requirements of the Lord in order to pursue their own interests.

2:16 Not everyone in Israel has lost sight of the proper procedure. If a worshiper is taken aback by the priest’s behavior and asks him to follow the stated procedure of burning the fat first (Lev. 7:31), he is intimidated, with force if necessary, into complying with the priest’s demand.

2:17 The paragraph concludes by echoing the strong condemnation of Eli’s sons in verse 12, this time using the term “sin” for the first time in Samuel. The basic sense of this Hebrew term is a failure to attain a target or standard—in this case by a wide margin. Their sin is “very great,” with the root “great” contrasting sharply with its subsequent use in connection with Samuel (vv. 21, 26). The priests have wronged their fellow Israelites who have come to worship, but their primary offense is against the Lord. “Treated . . . with contempt” describes how little regard they have for the rights of the Lord in the worship of his sanctuary; no king would long endure such slighting of his authority. “In the sight of the Lord” emphasizes the personal affront caused him by their sin (cf. v. 27) and raises the expectation that his judgment will soon be imposed.

2:18 The narrator’s focus switches from Eli’s rapacious sons to the unassuming piety of Elkanah’s family and in particular to the unspoiled devotion of Samuel. The singular noun “boy” (Hb. naʻar, as in vv. 13, 15, 17) effects a contrast between Samuel and the others at the Shiloh sanctuary. Samuel was consciously serving “before the Lord.” This phrase was rendered “in the presence of the Lord” in 1:22, but it is significant here that no mention is made of his mentor, Eli. Samuel’s activity is consciously oriented directly toward God, not man.

“Ministering” (cf. comment on 2:11) describes his duties in the sacred precincts. Though well below the age of thirty, at which priests usually begin their period of service, Samuel has been accorded a special status and as such is “clothed with a linen ephod.” Linen was both cool and durable and was characteristic of priestly attire. “Ephod” refers to a shirt-like garment, or possibly an apron, worn over the shoulders and stretching below the waist, held in place by a sash. A garment of a similar shape, but highly ornamented, was worn by the high priest and used in ascertaining the will of the Lord (cf. comment on 2:28). Both styles of ephod were worn over other garments.

2:19 Meanwhile the household of Elkanah continues their annual pilgrimage to Shiloh, and each year Hannah brings a “robe” she has specially made for the growing Samuel. A “robe” is an outer garment with holes for head and arms, probably made of wool and reaching almost to the ground. Samuel’s ephod would be worn over this robe. Hannah’s custom is a display of a mother’s love, which Samuel seems to have much appreciated. A robe of that style became associated with him, even after his death (28:14). The piety of Elkanah’s family is at variance with the spiritually murky surroundings in which they worship.

2:20 Eli rises to the occasion when Elkanah and his wife come to Shiloh, and he invokes divine blessing on them. Though “May the Lord give you” is singular and addressed to Elkanah, it is Hannah’s petition that Eli focuses on. Again, “petition” and “asked” reflect the same root (cf. comment on 1:27–28). Eli prays that her faith would be rewarded by the bearing of children (cf. Ex. 1:21; Ps. 127:3) in place of Samuel, who has been dedicated to the Lord. After this, the family returns “to their home” (lit., “to his [Elkanah’s] place”).

2:21 Over the years the Lord grants Hannah additional children. “Visited” (Hb. paqad) describes the action of a superior with respect to an inferior (cf. comments on 1 Sam. 11:8; 2 Sam. 24:2), in this instance describing God’s intervention to extend her family—she bears five more children. From this point onward no more is heard about the couple who has fulfilled the role assigned them in the Lord’s purpose; the focus shifts to their son Samuel.

“And the boy Samuel grew in the presence of the Lord.” “Grew” (lit., “became great”) is used in two other summary statements regarding Samuel (1 Sam. 2:26; 3:19), and the same root is found in the description of the conduct of Hophni and Phinehas in 2:17—but there in connection with their sin. “In the presence of the Lord” is not quite the same expression as that found in 1:22 and 2:18, but it does indicate Samuel’s obedient service at the sanctuary (cf. v. 26).

2:22 Attention reverts to the misconduct of Eli’s sons. Given that Eli died at age 98 (4:15), he was about ninety years old when Samuel came to Shiloh. His age is mentioned not to excuse his ineffectiveness but to explain why “he kept hearing” (cf. 2:23) about his sons rather than personally observing them. He is no longer capable of monitoring what went on at the sanctuary.

The reports Eli receives are of two sorts. (1) Some address “all that his sons were doing to all Israel,” relating to their malpractice in the rites of their office (vv. 13–17), with the repeated “all” emphasizing its prevalence. (2) Eli is also told about their heinous sexual misconduct. There is no evidence that, in line with Canaanite practice, the women “at the entrance to the tent of meeting” are cultic prostitutes. A similar team of women is mentioned in Exodus 38:8 as “ministering” in a group (the same term as “serving” here, but different from that in 1 Sam. 2:18). Possibly they maintain the area around the tent. At any rate, when Eli’s sons take advantage of them, the situation inevitably becomes public knowledge.

2:23 Eli himself is a good man, but because of age or temperament he lacks the drive to tackle his sons’ abuses. The verb “I hear” is a participle indicating an ongoing state of affairs—his own words condemn his inaction until the notoriety of their conduct (“from all these people”) compels him to intervene. “Evil dealings” is a correct but vague characterization of their conduct. Eli’s criticism may ease his conscience but it does not relieve him from taking firmer action.

2:24 Eli reiterates his disappointment with their conduct. He urges them to desist, but with little vehemence. “It is no good report that I hear” is a massive understatement, perhaps intended to cajole them into repentance—but the widely authenticated allegations demand decisive measures. Eli either acknowledges the damage done by the spread of these reports or makes the point that their conduct is a pernicious influence in the land as a whole: his words might also be translated, “It is no good report that I hear: you make the people of the Lord to transgress” (cf. NKJV).

2:25 Eli presses upon his sons the seriousness of their situation by quoting a proverb: “If someone sins against a man, God² will mediate for him.” Sin is conduct toward another that falls short of the Lord’s standards (cf. comment on 2:17). When an individual has a complaint against another, he may have it resolved by bringing it before God as a disinterested party, perhaps before a judge or priest. If, however, an individual deliberately disregards God’s statutes and offends him directly, “Who can intercede for him?” (repeating the verb “mediate”). There is no third party to appeal to, and God will directly penalize such an affront.

Eli’s sons utterly disregard his rebuke and defiantly continue their existing practices—and Eli leaves the matter there. The narrator adds the comment: “It was the will of the Lord to put them to death.” This is not saying that because Eli’s sons are so intransigently set on their rebellious ways that the Lord then resolves to put them to death. Rather, because they have already forsaken the way of the Lord, he has decided to punish them by giving them over to the consequences of their sinful desires (Prov. 15:10). By withholding any influence that might spiritually move them to respect their father’s entreaty, God is imposing his righteous judgment on them.

2:26 To heighten the contrast between Eli’s sons and Samuel, the narrator briefly mentions Samuel’s progress as he matures physically and in the esteem of the Lord and of his contemporaries. This is a description reflected in that of Jesus in Luke 2:52. Avoiding the contaminating influence of those around him, Samuel is steadily being shaped into the sort of man God desires as a leader for his people. “Boy” (Hb. naʻar; cf. comment on 2:13) envisages him as no longer an infant but not yet fully an adult.

2:27 At this juncture a solemn pronouncement is issued to Eli through a “man of God”—a term typically applied at this time in Israel’s history to a prophet (see 9:6–8; 2 Kings 1:9). This is the first prophet to appear since the time of Gideon (Judg. 6:8); it is probably indicative of Eli’s spiritual ebb that the Lord does not speak to him directly.

“Thus says the Lord” is a messenger formula by which the speaker indicates that he is relaying accurately the words of another party, here Israel’s covenant King. Rhetorical questions are employed to stir Eli’s sluggish recollection regarding the basis of his priestly office. At the exodus the Lord had revealed himself to the “house of your father,” probably a reference to Aaron, from whose fourth son, Ithamar, Eli’s line descended. This is the first use of “house” (Hb. bayit; cf. comment on 2 Sam. 7:5), a key word occurring a further ten times in this passage, mainly in connection with collective leadership over the generations. When Eli’s ancestors had been enslaved by the “house of Pharaoh,” the royal family of Egypt, the Lord had communicated with Aaron and revealed his will.

2:28 Furthermore, Aaron had been selected out of all the Israelites to assume the role of high priest (Ex. 28:1). His office bestowed a threefold privilege: “to go up to my altar,” a summary expression for all that was connected with offering sacrifice; “to burn incense,” pointing to the priest’s service within the Holy Place (Ex. 30:1–10; Num. 16:40); and “to wear an ephod before me,” referring not to the plain linen ephod associated with the priests in general but to the high priest’s ephod, which was connected with receiving divine revelation (Ex. 28:4–14; 39:2–7).

In connection with these activities, the priests were permitted to keep portions of the sacrifices for their own use (Lev. 6:14–18; 7:28–36). The term “my offerings by fire” is obscure and perhaps should be rendered “my food offerings.”³ This provision ensured there was no need for the priests to supplement their income in other ways.

2:29 The question “Why then?” upbraids Eli and his family (“you scorn” is plural) for their ingratitude. “Scorn” is literally “kick at,” like an animal trying to free itself from a yoke (also used in Deut. 32:15 in a context of abused prosperity), and conveys Eli’s family’s habitual contempt for God’s arrangements regulating worship at “my dwelling.” “Sacrifices” and “offerings” probably represent a hendiadys (two words expressing one idea) for all the tribute brought to God; the repeated “my” emphasizes that such tribute belongs to God and cannot be disposed of as they see fit.

As regards Eli personally (“honor” is singular), his fault lies in condoning his sons’ conduct. The high priest is answerable for his subordinates’ behavior, especially when he takes no effective action against known misconduct. Eli’s regard for his sons has warped his priorities and ousted God from first place in his life. He has also indirectly benefited from his sons’ profiteering “by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering,” which may refer to the fat reserved for the Lord (1 Sam. 2:15–16).

2:30 “Therefore” introduces the sentence to be imposed by “the Lord, the God of Israel”—the double designation being a solemn reminder of whom they have offended. Although the phrase “the Lord declares” (lit., “declaration of the Lord”) occurs only in this verse in Samuel, in the prophetic books it is frequently used for authoritative divine speech (cf. Jer. 23:30–31).

In Numbers 25:13 the house of Eleazar, Aaron’s third son, was granted a “covenant of a perpetual priesthood.” It is not recorded when or why the high priestly line was transferred to the house of Ithamar, but the Lord “promised” (lit., “certainly said,” employing an intensified verbal expression) “your house” (Eli and his descendants) and “the house of your father” (here and in 1 Sam. 2:31, the line of priests descended from Ithamar) that they would “go in and out” (lit., “walk to and fro”; cf. comment on 12:2), enjoying unimpeded access to the sanctuary “forever” (probably “perpetually”; cf. 1:22).

“But now” the status of Eli and his line is no longer tenable. The Lord has not reneged on his promise, but the house of Eli has failed to live up to the obligations the promise imposed on them. God’s declaration that “those who honor me I will honor” confirms that divine blessing is extended to God’s loyal subjects, while those who disregard the King’s directions are precluded from enjoying his favor. The verb “honor” is based on the notion of weightiness and importance, contrasting with “lightly esteemed,” which denotes lack of status (cf. 6:5; 2 Sam. 6:20, 22). In view of the parallelism, the Lord is the implied agent of the passive “shall be lightly esteemed” as well.

2:31 “Behold, the days are coming” is the first of 21 occurrences of this phrase in Scripture, mainly in the prophetic books. It directs attention to the outcome of a process that has already commenced and here will culminate when the Lord “cut[s] off your strength and the strength of your father’s house.” This is addressed to Eli (“your” is singular), whose “strength” (lit., “arm,” a symbol of power) and that of his father’s house will be terminated. What is in view is not the eradication of Eli’s family line but their being weakened and rendered insignificant. In particular, Eli’s descendants will no longer occupy the high priesthood and, unlike Eli, will all die young.

This element of the prophecy is fulfilled when Saul slaughters all of the priests at Nob (1 Sam. 22:16–19), with only Abiathar surviving, who was later deposed by Solomon and exiled to Anathoth (1 Kings 2:26–27, 35).

2:32 In the Septuagint and 4QSam^a the second part of verse 31 and the first part of verse 32 are omitted so that “there shall not be an old man in your house forever” appears only once. The two nouns following “you will look” in Hebrew have various meanings: “enemy” or “distress” and “dwelling” or “envy” (with slightly different spelling). The ESV adopts the second variant in each case, so that Eli is represented as viewing the distress to come on his family after his death and contrasting it with “all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel.” However, “You will see distress (or, an enemy) [in my] dwelling” is just as plausible, in reference to the devastation to come on Shiloh.

“There shall not be an old man in your house” intensifies the calamity of the previous verse by the addition of “forever” (lit., “all the days”). No descendant of Eli will survive into old age.

2:33 “The only one of you whom I shall not cut off” may point forward to Abiathar’s survival (22:18–23) or may be a general statement referring to “each one of you whom I do not cut off.” Survivors of Eli’s line will be barred from priestly service at “my altar” and will instead live lives of great sadness. The declaration that such a survivor “shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart”⁴ is a curse formula similar to that found in Leviticus 26:16.⁵ Furthermore, Eli is told that “all the descendants [lit., “increase”] of your house shall die by the sword of men,” where “the sword” is added from the Septuagint. The literal Hebrew “shall die men” might mean they will die as ordinary men, no longer representatives of a priestly line, or else as those in the prime of life. The overall picture is that the curse of covenant disobedience will continue to afflict Eli’s line (cf. comment on 1 Sam. 2:36).

2:34 Further, Eli will receive a “sign” that will clearly authenticate that the other disasters announced by the prophet will be divinely imposed after Eli’s death. As with Aaron and the death of his sons Nadab and Abihu (Lev. 10:1–3), Eli will live to see both his sons “die on the same day” (1 Sam. 4:11).

2:35 Although the prospects for Eli’s house are dire, God intimates that he has a recovery plan for the priesthood. Interpreters are divided on the identity of the “faithful priest” who will replace Eli and his line. “Faithful” comes from a root conveying a sense of stability or reliability, translated “sure” in the second part of the verse. Since the term is repeated again as “established” in connection with Samuel (3:20), some have taken this reference to be to him, but Samuel did not found a priestly line, nor were his sons ever viewed as priests.

More commonly it is argued that what is predicted is the change of the high priesthood from the line of Ithamar back to that of Eleazar, and that the “faithful priest” will be Zadok (2 Sam. 8:17), who alone will serve as high priest under Solomon. Zadok will conform to the divine stipulations regarding priestly conduct, and his faithfulness will be rewarded in two ways: (1) The Lord promises, “I will build him a sure house,” where “sure” repeats the term “faithful” (cf. 1 Sam. 25:28; 2 Sam. 7:11). Zadok’s family line (“house”) will be divinely maintained. (2) Moreover, “He shall go in and out before my anointed forever.” For “go in and out” as performing priestly duties, cf. comment on 1 Samuel 2:30. The Zadokite priests will function alongside the anointed king (2:10) throughout the time of the kingdom of Judah.

However, there is likely another dimension to this prophecy, a messianic dimension reaching its true fulfillment in Christ. The main obstacle facing this interpretation is that “he shall go in and out before my anointed forever” seems to envisage the faithful priest as someone other than the anointed king. But it has been pointed out that the immediate antecedent of “he” is not the “faithful priest” but “a sure house.”⁶ In that case the ultimate referent of this prophecy is Jesus in his capacity as the eternal high priest, with his followers constituting his “sure house” as a “holy priesthood” (1 Pet. 2:5).

2:36 This verse bears a threefold nested quotation in which the man of God relates what God has predicted the remnant of Eli’s descendants will say. Afflicted with extreme poverty, they will be compelled to seek relief. “Implore” (the same verb as “worship” in 1:3) describes their prostrating themselves before Zadok’s descendants as they request money or food. They will accept any position of temple service, even the most menial, so that they may support themselves. Another of Hannah’s predictions will come true: “Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread” (2:5). Those who have improperly fattened themselves at the Lord’s expense will be rendered destitute as a result.