QUESTIONS ON ELI, I SAM. 2:22-25

The text is I Samuel 2:22-25, where Eli is confronting his two sons for their wickedness. Given that Eli confronts and admonishes them here in this passage i have always been a bit confused as to why GOD was so angry with Eli. Is it that Eli did not do ENOUGH to stop his sons? Or was there something specific he was 'spose to do according to his office at that time which he failed to carry out against his two sons? Or did GOD feel he did not rebuke them sternly enough or often enough? Why is it that GOD passed such serious judgement on ELI for his son's sins?

Also, it is interesting to note that when Samuel became an adult and had sons of his own they became corrupt just like Eli's sons did. So apparently Samuel LEARNED Eli's bad parenting skills. ??? Why then did GOD allow Samuel to be left to be reared by Eli at all? It seems really sad to me. Samuel's own father was basically replaced by Eli and he thereby learned Eli's permissive?? parenting and another round of sons became corrupted. Would it not have been better if Samuel had only been left with Eli part time instead of from the time he was weaned to forever? Just ponderings and questions i always have when i read this book--about things that aren't fully explained. Wondering if anyone here has any insight to offer. I can't tell for sure from the text if Eli was guilty of permissive parenting or not...

Quote: "I can't tell for sure from the text if Eli was guilty of permissive parenting or not":

It seems that this was the case- from Ch 3:

"Then the Lord said to Samuel: “Behold, I will do something in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.”

As far as Samuel staying full time with Eli-- Hannah made a vow to the Lord that she kept. Things might have worked out differently had Samuel stayed with his own family, but Hannah had to keep her vow and leave the outcome to God. This, of course, is much easier said than done.

But what was Eli supposed to do???? He was an old man already. Was he expected to wrestle them to the ground? Or was there a procedure in place for the office of the priests that he perhaps was not following in dealing with his corrupt sons? Perhaps he should have kicked them out of their positions? And if so, would they have obeyed him, given that they were already prone to using force to get what they wanted (i.e the cuts of meat from the Lord's offering).

Yes i know all about Hannah's vow and all the rest. Have read this book many, many times. However, i am always distracted by the trauma it must have inflicted upon the little boy Samuel to be suddenly abandoned at such a young age by his parents and left with a virtual stranger for the rest of his life. I can't see a kid getting over that. So this is a distraction when i read this book and pretty much is all i can see in it.

Yeah-- I feel your pain Trekker. I have been reading thru the Bible chronologically this year and and am now in I Kings and there is much in the historical books that really make me shake my head. There is an awful lot of violence, which God condones-- even against children and many other things that I just have to leave alone.

We have to just accept that God, if He is God, always makes the best choice. Maybe not in our eyes, but in His and with the big picture in mind.

I have struggled much with a lot of stuff in the OT, but am just now maybe turning the corner in tryng not to figure everything out and just trusting.

I have had other discussions with people who deal with diffcult passages in the OT by saying things like "maybe Moses didnt really hear from God and just made that up" (like the ordeal of the woman accused of adultery who is forced to drink contaminated water to see if she swells up) and maybe God really didnt tell Joshua to kill all the babies and stuff like that. But that is a dangerous road to go down.

I know you know what I mean. As far as Eli is concerned, I think God was displeased with how he raised his sons and how he allowed them to get to that point. You are right-- Eli could not have done much to two grown men and if he tried they would not have listened. They were jerks.

But then why didn't God just burn them like he did Nadab and Abihu? Eli's sons seemed to be a lot worse than they were. Oh yeah-- I almost forgot. God always makes the best choice.

But then why didn't God just burn them like he did Nadab and Abihu? Eli's sons seemed to be a lot worse than they were. Oh yeah-- I almost forgot. God always makes the best choice.

God's presence withdrawn signifies judgment delayed. When God's unique presence is near judgment is swift. The sin of Nadab and Abihu was that they offered strange fire before the Lord, an innovation, not discerning between the holy and the profane in the infancy of the Old Covenant. As with Ananias and Sapphira, there were certainly many that have sinned greater than did these; but their crimes were exemplary. Through the putting to death of both pairs of individuals, at the early institution of the respective covenants, God showed us His estimate of the particular sin forever.

As Israel continued to sin against God the Glory slowly departed. When this happens men get embolden to sin even more. This happens in cycles and is articulated in Ezekiel, "Then said he unto me, Son of man, hast thou seen what the ancients of the house of Israel do in the dark, every man in the chambers of his imagery? for they say, The LORD seeth us not; the LORD hath forsaken the earth." (Ezekiel 8:12) As God's presence withdraws the swift judgment experienced by Nadab, Abihu, Ananias, Sapphira, etc., gives way to a differen type of judgment, the worst of which is the departure of God's unique presence all together.

When God's presence began returning to the people in the time of David, the Ark of the Lord was brought up. No telling how many people probably touched that ark as they placed it on the cart. But their came a point when God's presence returned in some measure and as He returned an expectation came with Him that the people will abide by the terms of the covenant or suffer the consequences; therefore Uzzah was smitten before the Lord for steadying the Ark. This is one of the ways we knew God was returning among the people. When God's presence is near, jugment is swift.

Another example of this is at Corinth when the people were getting drunk, etc. during the Lord's Supper and as a consequence of them not discerning the Lord's Body many were sick and dying. This is evidence that God was near. Frankly once God rolls out people act and talk all kinds of stupidity before the Lord, but when He is near your bones are liable to be carried out like Ananias and Sapphira. It's curious how some will say, "It was God's mercy that they lived!" Maybe, maybe not. It could just be the fact that He has left them to their own devices until they face Him in the judgment.

But what was Eli supposed to do???? He was an old man already

Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? Eli, as High Priest had it within his own authority to order the servants among the Levites to remove these men from their positions by force. That's why it is called the High Priest. Like a judge calling to the bailif to remove a prisoner from a court room, Eli could have restrained his sons in the courts of the Lord. He did not? Why?

Here is a man that is so far out that he accuses a woman of being drunk and reproves her to his own shame, when she was crying to the Lord. All the while his sons are commiting whoredom in the House of God. This blind nepotism is a shame whether it is in sacred or secular society. But this is the attitude of the carnal mind, reprove the stranger and let the family and friends keep sinning. Selah. They carried themselves like a bunch of priveledged characters. What did God say? For I have told him that I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth; because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not. (1 Samuel 3:13). Jesus gave us the correction, "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:37)

Samuel found that the same Sin that was in Eli's sons was in his own. This is a tough pill to swallow. I see no reason to believe that either Eli or Samuel's sons were not 'raised right.' The fact is all of them knew right from wrong. The difference is that Eli had knowledge of the sins of his sons and chose them over God. Samuel seems to be blindsided by his sons actions in Beersheba. Obviously his heart was right in the matter as God offers no reproof as He did with Eli. Soon enough the use of judges would end and Israel would have their king. Samuel served God faithfully to the end, Eli fell and broke his neck as the Glory of God departed (Ichabod). Just a few more thoughts on it.

QUOTE: "I have had other discussions with people who deal with diffcult passages in the OT by saying things like "maybe Moses didnt really hear from God and just made that up" (like the ordeal of the woman accused of adultery who is forced to drink contaminated water to see if she swells up) and maybe God really didnt tell Joshua to kill all the babies and stuff like that. But that is a dangerous road to go down."==TMK

Ironically, i don't have a problem with that one. It wasnt really contaminated water, it was just formulated with spiritual power by it's ingredients so to speak and if the woman was innocent then she would be UNaffected. I dont recall the exact verse that was so i can't remember if the man was required to drink it too...(?) If not, that would be unfair i guess, but then, if you KNOW already by drinking the substance that the woman IS guilty (from the proof of the side effects) then you really wouldnt NEED to also prove the man guilty cuz that goeth without saying then; the accusation has been proven simply by the one.

On killing pagan children...i tend to assume they were all possessed (OR POSSESSABLE)because those people groups were SO steeped in idolatries, human sacrifice, and sorceries that familiar spirits would have been passed down from generation to generation over the centuries. And the thing about demons is they can leave one person and jump to another. A good word for it is "time-share". Like what you have with condos. When one person in the family dies then the demons in that person have LEGAL access to the next person in the family lineage, like father to son, and so on. It's called INHERITANCE. All that belonged to the father gets passed down to the next oldest son, and so forth.
Plus if God had let them live they would have wanted revenge at some point in the future upon the Israelites. But even worse than that is if the Israelites had let the children live and be their slaves or whathaveyou there would always have been the likelihood that they would eventually teach and seduce Israeli children into their pagan practices or beliefs. We see even today how hard it is to raise Christian children in a pagan world when there is even the slightest temptation or influence. But yea, if i had been the one told to kill BABIES, i really don't think i could follow through on that order. I guess we will have to wait to talk to David about that one and ask how he did it, etc

QUOTE: "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right? Eli, as High Priest had it within his own authority to order the servants among the Levites to remove these men from their positions by force. That's why it is called the High Priest. Like a judge calling to the bailif to remove a prisoner from a court room, Eli could have restrained his sons in the courts of the Lord. He did not? Why?"==ROBERTW

Ok, this is the answer i was looking for i think. Thank you. This confirms it then.

Also, both you (RobertW) and OldJoe have given some very amazing teaching and insight here in your posts that i have never heard nor considered before. WOW. Scary stuff. That is not taught in churches.

NOW, MY NEXT QUESTION IS: Since GOD said he would judge Eli forever and that there would not be any sacrifice for his sin FOREVER, does that mean he went to Hell??

NOW, MY NEXT QUESTION IS: Since GOD said he would judge Eli forever and that there would not be any sacrifice for his sin FOREVER, does that mean he went to Hell??

Not necessarily. We have this comment about the family:

Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial; they knew not the LORD. (1 Sam. 2:12). By implication Eli knew the Lord, but the sons did not. This seems to indicate their fate. Eli, on the other hand, suffered the loss of his unique calling to serve as High Priest. This played out over time.

The loss of calling is seen from time to time, but one of the more glaring is Moses. He was called to lead the children of Israel into the promised land, but was essentially fired. The whole reason for his life was cut short. Why?

And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed me not, to sanctify me in the eyes of the children of Israel, therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them. (Numbers 20:12)

The very first qualification for any leader in the economy of God is that they must sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the people. This means that they have to live in such a way that the people know that God is GOD and that next to Him there is no other. They cannot leave the impression with people that God can be trifled with or disobeyed. Why? Because the people will follow their lead. When Moses said 'thus saith the Lord' over a million people stepped forward. That amount of influence demands a loyalty and consecration to God like no other.

Eli did not sanctify the Lord in the eyes of the people, but left them with the impression that the rules can be bent for family's sake. So he was fired too. But, God had a replacement waiting in the wings in both cases. This is instructive. Any time we think we can act out and disobey God or please ourselves (as did also Saul) we can guarantee God already has a David out in the field some place. And this is what made David God's man, he was a man's after God's own heart and not a sinful man after his own wretched heart. This qualified him.

Scary stuff. That is not taught in churches.

I agree that we need to certainly look to the scriptures more to understand our times. I recently wrote an article along these lines. I entitled it, "Backsliding in the Latter years." For those that might be interested. http://realrevival.blogspot.com/2012/06/backsliding-in-latter-years.html

Quote: """NOW, MY NEXT QUESTION IS: Since GOD said he would judge Eli forever and that there would not be any sacrifice for his sin FOREVER, does that mean he went to Hell??"""

Is that not also, " "Will not the Judge of all the earth do right?" Judgment is His, not ours.

In Christ: Phillip

NOW, MY NEXT QUESTION IS: Since GOD said he would judge Eli forever and that there would not be any sacrifice for his sin FOREVER, does that mean he went to Hell?? Anyone have an answer? Am really wondering.

QUOTE: "God's presence withdrawn signifies judgment delayed. When God's unique presence is near judgment is swift."==ROBERTW

What you said makes total sense, and yet it has been bothering me a great deal...confusing me. For if God withdraws His presence then how can He say (in the NT)
"I will never leave you nor forsake you"?????????????

Quote: "For if God withdraws His presence then how can He say (in the NT) "I will never leave you nor forsake you"?????????????"

There is presence, then there is manifest presence.

The first is a given, the latter is not(but is always available if we seek it).

At least that is how I understand it.

NOW, MY NEXT QUESTION IS: Since GOD said he would judge Eli forever and that there would not be any sacrifice for his sin FOREVER, does that mean he went to Hell?? Anyone have an answer? Am really wondering.

Here is our text in question:

And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering for ever. (1 Samuel 3:14)

It is most likely that the office of priesthood is in view and not Eli's individual soul. Given that there was no repentance it was impossible for sacrifice or offering to be effectual in this situation. Behold, to obey is better than to sacrifice. Sacrifice could not purge a perpetual attitude of high-handed rebellion as was found in Eli's sons. Because Eli would not deal with them his whole house was judged. This judgment was fulfilled in 1 Kings 5:27 when Solomon came to power. "So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh."

QUOTE: "God's presence withdrawn signifies judgment delayed. When God's unique presence is near judgment is swift."==ROBERTW

What you said makes total sense, and yet it has been bothering me a great deal...confusing me. For if God withdraws His presence then how can He say (in the NT)
"I will never leave you nor forsake you"?????????????

There are three ways to look at this, historically, theologically and practically. Historically we know that God's UNIQUE presence left Israel, for example, in Ezekiel chapter 6 and following. We can argue that God is omnipresent or immanent as theological propositions, and this would be true. So it is true that God is in the gambling halls, brothels, and even hell itself. And He is God there, but He is not there in the way that He desires to be.

On a theological level we often have the suggestion that God's presence will never leave no matter what. We have the opposite extreme in other theological camps that suggests that God's presence leaves every single time a person sins. I think it is useless to keep this argument in the theological textbooks and laboratories; in the realm of theory and speculation.

We have this passage in Hebrews 13:5:

[Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.

This passage is context sensitive. To remove it from context is to create a pretext (meaning you can make it say what you wish). It is a highly emphatic statement that has 5 negatives in the Greek. God is saying I will in no wise utterly forsake you, no I will not. But again, this text has an address. It is written to believers that are suffering persecution and moving on in faith towards God. It has nothing to do with rebels that decide to fall back into perdition. God's promises such as these not only have an address, but they are conditional. Even if conditions are not stated they are implied.

The passage is also paraphrase of the promises made to Joshua and others that God would be with them to lead them as He was with Moses, etc. Judges chapter 2 is a great place to gain insight on how God's promises such as Hebrews 13:5 are in fact conditioned upon our faith and obedience.

On a practical level we know that God's Spirit obviously in not in a person that continues to manifest the works of the flesh. A person may stumble for a time into carnality, but we are not in the flesh but in the Spirit IF so be that the Spirit dwells in us. We are known by our fruits. If a person is as mean as a junkyard dog and treats others with hate and hostility, they cannot be said to have the Holy Spirit no matter what they claim. The Holy Spirit does not yield wormwood (poison). This is how we are known. A lot of people claim to be full of the Holy Ghost, but can't even love their neighbor as themselves. It's a sham.

If a person persists in resisting the Holy Spirit and quenching the Holy Spirit; if they do not consciously seek to be being filled with the Holy Spirit there will come a point that they no longer exemplify evidence of the manifest presence of God. It will reflect in their behavior, particularly in the area of compassion. Stephen is an example of a person that we know with certainty was FULL of the Holy Ghost. How do we know? Scripture says so. How else do we know? He loved to the very end, just like Jesus did.

It is folly to hang on to Hebrews 13:5, resist the Holy Ghost and claim fulness. No man can receive and resist at the same time. So that is the common sense side of it.

Wow, RobertW, thanks for that explanation, all of it. You really should become a minister/pastor, you know that? What is it you do for a living? If you are not preaching in a church i would be surprised. You explain things pretty well.
It's a very deep study for me.

On the other issue, of Eli and the FOREVER judgment, i guess i am to take that to mean that as long as any of his progeny lives upon the earth. Correct?

QUOTE: "There is presence, then there is manifest presence.
The first is a given, the latter is not(but is always available if we seek it)."==TMK

Sorry TMK, i have NO idea what you mean.

On the other issue, of Eli and the FOREVER judgment, i guess i am to take that to mean that as long as any of his progeny lives upon the earth. Correct?

It's important to know that sometimes God's judgments don't fully take place immediately. In the near term Eli's sons and Eli would die all in a single day. This came about as a result of the Philistines killing the sons and Eli falling over and breaking his neck after he heard the Ark had been taken. During this time Samuel became the judge in Israel and in his older age anointed Saul as king. He was rejected and then David was anointed as king.

When David became king he sought to bring the Ark of the Lord back into the city. He desired to build a 'house' for the Ark, but could not because he was a man of blood. Certainly the functions of the High Priest were very limited during these many decades. During this time Eli's progeny still functioned in some capacity in the priesthood. The last of these men was Abiathar.

Solomon was given the job of building the Temple. It is apparent that God did not want the descendants of Eli involved in the priesthood once the Temple came online. It is my view that they were not trustworthy and God knew that. It was not simply a matter of God judging Eli's grandsons and great grandsons, etc. for the behavior of their parents, etc. They were all more or less unfit for the job and depending on their compentency God used them.

Before Solomon started the Temple project, early on, there was a power struggle between Solomon and his brother Adonijah (David's 4th son). Amnon and Absolom were dead, Daniel (Chileab) is not to be found, so Adonijah figured he ought to be king. The problem is that Solomon was the man in succession to be the king. Guess who Eli's great grandson Abiathar supported? Indeed it was Adonijah. This treasonous act was a capitol offense, however, Solomon showed him mercy by sparing his life but thrusting him out of the priesthood.

1Kings 2:27 So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that he might fulfil the word of the LORD, which he spake concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.

As best as I know that was the end of Eli's house and things passed back into the hands of the descendants of Eleazar.