The Sin Of Eli And Its Consequences

By Brett W. Smith

[Brett W. Smith is a Bible teacher in Grove City, Ohio.]

Eli, Samuel, Saul, and David appear as the primary leaders of Israel in 1 and 2 Samuel. They are also the primary fathers. Three of these leaders lost their dynastic hopes, which makes one wonder what went wrong. Of course they sinned, but the narrator gives more.

Though peripheral to the narrator’s grander purposes of teaching Israel about how the Davidic line began and how God deals with His people,[1] a discernible pattern in the failings of fathers throughout the Samuel narrative may indicate that the author(s) intended to teach a lesson about the relationship between dynastic hopes, sons, and God. The lesson is this: honoring one’s sons above God in the interest of preserving one’s dynasty actually tends to end the dynasty and to cause great trouble for the nation. This problem—“the sin of Eli,” which is seen throughout the Samuel narrative—destroyed or damaged dynasties and brought disaster on the nation.

Eli

To understand the sin of Eli one must first understand the sin of his sons. The account of Eli’s two wicked sons in 1 Samuel 2 leaves no doubt about their spiritual condition. Hophni and Phineas “were worthless men; they did not know the Lord” (v. 12). Verses 13-17 record how they violated the sacrificial procedure prescribed by Moses in Leviticus 7:31 and Deuteronomy 18:3. Yet they were serving as priests under Eli. The narrator offers a summary evaluation: “Thus the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord, for the men despised the offering of the Lord” (v. 17). As if that were not enough, they also committed immorality with the female attendants at the tabernacle (v. 22). When Eli heard what was going on, he rebuked them to some degree, but “they would not listen to the voice of their father, for the Lord desired to put them to death” (v. 25). All defiant sin was blasphemy against the Lord, and blasphemy against the Lord called for stoning. Numbers 15:30-31 states the relationship of defiant sin and blasphemy: “But the person who does anything defiantly [lit., with a high hand], whether he is native or an alien, that one is blaspheming [גָּדף, reviling] the Lord; and that person shall be cut off from among his people. Because he has despised [בָּזָה] the word of the Lord and has broken [פָּרַר] His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt will be on him.” That this euphemistic punishment of being “cut off” for blasphemy is in fact the death penalty is established in Leviticus 24:16: “Moreover, the one who blasphemes [נָקַב, curses] the name of the Lord shall surely be put to death; all the congregation shall certainly stone him. The alien as well as the native, when he blasphemes the Name, shall be put to death.” One could argue that the different words used for blasphemy in these verses allow for a distinction between the sins involved, with a direct verbal curse being more serious than a blasphemous action. If this is so, the sentence for the latter was still at least exile, as suggested by the words “cut off.” At that time Eli was the priestly authority and a judge (1:9; 4:18).[2] He was obligated by the Mosaic law to have his sons stoned or at least exiled, but he did neither.

An unidentified man of God evaluated the situation from God’s perspective. He initially listed two sins of which Eli was guilty; he had violated prescribed worship procedures[3] and honored his sons above God (2:27-29). At first it was not clear whether one of these sins was more significant than the other, but God later clarified the issue with a cryptic statement to Samuel: “For I have told him that I am about to judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew, because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he did not rebuke them” (3:13). Eli’s honoring his sons above God was the primary concern at the time of the curse. But why did God say Eli did not rebuke his sons? This verse strikes a strongly dissonant chord with Eli’s rebuke of his sons in 2:23.

Perhaps one should ask, “In what sense did he fail to rebuke his sons?” The Hebrew word for “rebuke” in 3:13 is כִּהָה, and this verse contains the only known use of this verb.[4] The most natural meaning for the word is “rebuke.”[5] If this is what the word normally meant, one is then to infer that a strong sense of “rebuke” is intended, one that would have at least included removing the sons from office.[6]

Another possibility is that the verb had a different meaning than “rebuke.” Hartley has suggested that the word here means “restrain, prevent.” (The New International Version translates the word “restrain.”) Hartley may be right, but the meaning may be even stronger than “prevent.” In 3:2 a qal form of the homonym root means “to grow dim,” describing Eli’s eyesight.[7] It could also be translated “(become) blind.”[8] The resulting idea may be that “he did not make them dim” or (playing on the image of the lamp of God in 3:3) “he did not put out their lamps.” This would at least refer to removing them from priestly office and may imply ending their lives.

The Septuagint may support understanding “rebuke” as the meaning of כִּהָה by translating it with νουθετέω in the imperfect tense. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich define νουθετέω as what Eli just did in chapter 2: “to counsel about avoidance or cessation of an improper course of conduct.”[9] J. Lust, similarly, has “to admonish, to warn, to instruct.”[10] However, “preventing,” as mentioned by Hartley, should be suggested as a possible meaning of νουθετέω, signaled by the subtle indication of continuous past action, since “rebuking” seems to fit less well with continuous action.

Another possible meaning for the Greek verb here is “punish.” This meaning has scant and anachronistic attestation,[11] but a crucial textual variant supports it strongly as the intended meaning of the Septuagintal translators.[12] Where the Masoretic Text has the words לָהֶם מְקַלְלִים, “brought a curse on themselves,” the Septuagint has “blasphemed God” (κακολογοῦντες θεὸν).[13] The translators probably knew that stoning was the appropriate response. Since rebuking or preventing would not be an adequate response to the charge of blasphemy, the word νουθετέω may mean “punish,” with the specific punishment of death by stoning implied.[14] This may indicate that the Septuagint translators were familiar with כָּהָה and knew it to mean or at least to imply punishment.

As noted earlier, Eli left his sons in office when he should have at least exiled them. Furthermore 1 Samuel 3:13 clarifies that this sin of honoring his sons above God was the primary reason for the curse on Eli’s family. The word for “honor” in 2:29 (וַתְּכַבֵּד) forms a wordplay with the word for “heavy” (כָּבֵד), suggesting conceptual ties to several other verses in the nearby context (2:30; 3:13; 4:18; 4:21-22; 6:5).[15]

Dynastic Consequences

Eli left his sons in office against the Law, apparently in the interest of continuing his judge-priestly dynasty, given the focus of the man of God’s curse just following the indictment: “Therefore the Lord God of Israel declares, ‘I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever’; but now the Lord declares, ‘Far be it from Me—for those who honor me I will honor, and those who despise me will be lightly esteemed’ ” (2:30). The man of God then explained that all the men of Eli’s family would have short life spans (2:31-33), and Hophni and Phinehas would die on the same day (v. 34). The fulfillment of this prophecy is recorded in 4:11-24, when Eli, his sons, and his daughter-in-law died. The slaying of the priests at Nob (22:11-21) and Solomon’s dismissal of Abiathar (2 Kings 2:26-27) may also have partially fulfilled this curse.[16]

Given Eli’s age when he heard what his sons were doing (2:22), it is likely that, like Abraham before him, he thought he needed to help God fulfill the promise He had made regarding his dynasty (Gen. 15:5; 16:1-6; 1 Sam. 2:30). After all, Eli was probably too old to raise new sons to serve in his place. He would have to leave Hophni and Phinehas in office and hope that a son of one of them would do better than his father. Unfortunately Eli had not learned from Abraham. God does not need men to break His law in order to keep His promises. The lesson about Eli’s dynastic hopes in the Samuel narrative goes further. If Eli, who apparently had been promised a dynasty, was not justified in honoring his sons above God in the interest of preserving that dynasty, then no one else could be either. Also Eli’s priestly dynasty was not completely cut off in 2:33. This means God’s promise regarding Eli’s dynasty may still have been in effect,[17] and in any case it leaves room for the dynastic consequences to escalate.

National Consequences

The only divinely stated consequences of the sin of Eli are dynastic, but it may also be that the sin of Eli has national consequences in 1 and 2 Samuel and that these consequences also escalate through the narrative. The deaths of Hophni and Phinehas resulted from the sin of Eli, and the context of their deaths was a defeat for the army of Israel in which the ark of the Lord was lost (4:4-10). Hophni and Phinehas were with the ark (v. 4), but apparently they did not resist its being taken into battle. Actually they went with the ark. Then to Israel’s dismay the presence of the ark inspired the Philistines to “be men and fight” (v. 9). Ironically, bringing the ark to the battlefield caused Israel to lose the battle, not win it. Since Hophni and Phinehas (and therefore Eli, who let them live) were responsible for the ark, and the ark for the loss, the narrator implies that Eli was partially responsible for all the consequences listed in 4:10-11: (1) thirty thousand Israelites died; (2) Israel was shamed by the loss of the ark and the loss of God’s glory (vv. 21-22); and (3) Hophni and Phinehas died.

Samuel

Samuel became a priest, a judge, and a prophet (3:19-21; 7:15-16; 9:19-25; 10:8). Naturally when he became old he installed his two sons as judges (8:1). Like Eli’s two sons, their names are mentioned (8:2). Like Eli’s two sons, they abused their leadership office, though they were unjust judges who took bribes rather than immoral priests who blasphemed God (8:3). As judges, they and their father surely knew the requirements for judges: “You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment. You shall not distort justice; you shall not be partial, and you shall not take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and perverts the words of the righteous” (Deut. 16:18-19; see also Exod. 23:6-8).

Like Eli, Samuel probably thought his dynasty would last a long time. When the man of God prophesied about a “faithful priest who will do according to what is in My heart and in My soul,” the reader naturally assumes this would be Samuel,[18] given his positive evaluation over against Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel 2:26 and his rise to prominence in chapter 3. God said of this priest, “I will build for him an enduring house, and he will walk before My anointed always” (2:35). Whether Samuel believed this applied to him or not, his dynastic intentions were clear in 8:1-3. Samuel was old (v. 1), and like Eli, he probably thought the only thing he could do was leave his sons in office. Possibly Samuel did not know of his sons’ sins until the elders confronted him (v. 4), but parallels with Eli’s failed attempt at dynasty are too many to miss. When reading the word “old,” the number “two,” the names, and the sins, one may assume that Samuel was imitating Eli.[19]

Dynastic Consequences

This time there was no man of God to pronounce judgment. He was not needed. Instead, the elders of Israel pronounced judgment in that they called for a king instead of Samuel’s sons on the grounds that “you have grown old, and your sons do not walk in your ways” (8:5). The people reasoned that the one who had appointed his sons as judges could also appoint a king. Further, since his sons had failed as judges, he was obligated to honor the elders’ request in what Garsiel has called “a literary ‘measure for measure.’ ”[20] Samuel’s sin of leaving his wicked sons in office contrary to the Mosaic law gave the people the excuse they needed to demand a king “like all the nations” (v. 5).[21] God did not blame Samuel directly, but He was clearly displeased with the request (vv. 7-9). Since their request was partially Samuel’s fault, God’s displeasure lay on him implicitly. Samuel had repeated the sin of Eli, and his dynasty was doomed.

National Consequences

As a prophet, in addition to being a priest and a judge, Samuel seems to have exercised more power than Eli. Eli had suffered damage to his dynasty, but he had not lost it completely. Samuel’s dynasty, on the other hand, ended with his sons. The entirety of Saul’s reign was also a consequence of Samuel’s sin.[22] Saul’s reign had positive aspects in God’s providence, but much bloodshed might have been avoided if the people had not had an excuse to ask for a king before David was of age. At least the bloodshed between the houses of Saul and David could have been avoided.

With Eli and Samuel, the pattern has been set. The account of Samuel’s two wicked sons whom he left in office in order to continue his own dynasty closely repeats the Eli incident. Recognition of this developing theme then conditions one to listen to what is said of other fathers in relation to their sons and dynasties. In this way a progression is seen in the consequences of the sin of Eli, who honored his sons above God, which escalate dramatically for the nation as a whole and take a surprising turn in ruling families.

Garsiel has recognized the parallels between the sons of Eli and Samuel and the later sons of David. However, he wrongly took these parallels as an indication of wholesale rejection of hereditary leadership.[23] Recognizing the sin of Eli in the parallel accounts of Eli and Samuel should have protected Garsiel from this erroneous conclusion. The narrator goes into great detail in showing the comparison between the house of Eli and the house of Samuel, and it is too simplistic to reduce the sin of Eli to nepotism. If hereditary rule were the real problem, all the calamity that followed from the sin of Eli’s sons could have followed just as easily from their having been appointed to office out of nepotism. Furthermore, God had promised some form of heredity leadership to Eli (1 Sam. 2:30), which He should not have done if hereditary rule were evil. Likewise God promised David a dynasty. Hereditary leadership as such was not the problem.

Saul

Saul did not face the same apparent choice between keeping the Law and maintaining his dynasty through a wicked son.[24] Saul had a good son in Jonathan (14:1-15). Saul’s temptation was to murder David in the interest of preserving his dynasty. Saul knew that his failure to obey the Lord had caused him to lose his kingly right to a dynasty. The hope of a king’s dynasty had been clearly conditioned on keeping the Law (Deut. 17:20). More to the point, Samuel flatly said, “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king” (1 Sam. 15:23). Samuel even indicated that God had chosen another to inherit the kingdom (v. 28). Though Saul knew this, he committed the sin of Eli by attempting to maintain his dynasty through murdering David, as Saul said to Jonathan: “For as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, neither you nor your kingdom will be established. Therefore now, send and bring him to me, for he must surely die” (20:31). Saul eventually accepted the fact that David was the rightful heir to his throne, and Saul later gave David his blessing (24:20; 26:25). Even if one could somehow excuse Saul’s initial attempts to kill David as kingly paranoia in ignorance of David’s anointing, Saul again attempted to kill David even after acknowledging David’s right to become the king. Here Saul clearly chose dynasty over God, which may have been Saul’s attitude all along.

Dynastic And National Consequences

Saul’s version of the sin of Eli adds an interesting point. There are other ways to honor one’s sons above God than simply failing to remove a wicked heir. Even if a leader’s son is righteous, the dynasty cannot continue if God has decided it needs to end. In Saul’s case the dynasty was a lost cause before he imitated Eli; so Saul’s loss of dynasty cannot be attributed to the sin of Eli. Still there seem to be dynastic consequences in that the Lord allowed three of Saul’s sons to fall with him in battle against the Philistines (28:19; 31:1-7). One may also speculate that Israel’s great national loss to the Philistines would not have been necessary had Saul been kind to David. With David still at Saul’s side as a military commander (or ruling as king), perhaps Israel’s army would not have suffered heavy casualties and the Philistines would not have shamed the God of Israel by defeating the army and taking revenge on Saul for Goliath’s head (31:1-10).

David

In view of the way dynasties had come and gone before the reign of David, the prospects of Israel having a successful dynasty did not look good. God’s promise in 2 Samuel 7 to establish David’s sons after him is therefore of paramount importance. David’s story eventually comes to focus on two of his sons, Amnon and Absalom. One hopes for Israel’s sake that David would do better in dealing with his two wayward sons than Eli did with Hophni and Phinehas or Samuel with Joel and Abijah. The expectation is that if his sons sinned and David did nothing, he would lose his dynasty and the nation would suffer great loss.

Many debate whether David sinned in his treatment of Amnon and Absalom; so a thorough discussion of their sins, David’s obligations, and David’s actual responses is in order.[25] Amnon raped his half sister, the daughter of his father (13:1-19). The punishment for rape of a virgin who was not promised to another involved provisions for her future security (Deut. 22:28-29). The legal issue in the case of Amnon and Tamar is that Tamar was the daughter of Amnon’s father, and their prohibited union was punishable by death, as stipulated in Leviticus 20:17: “If there is a man who takes his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, so that he sees her nakedness and she sees his nakedness, it is a disgrace; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the sons of their people. He has uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he bears his guilt.” David knew of the crime, but all he did was get angry (2 Sam. 13:21). David’s lack of action seems to have stemmed from a desire to preserve his kingship and his dynasty through his firstborn son.

True, David was in a difficult situation politically because of his own perpetration of worse sins in the matter of Bathsheba and Uriah. He certainly had lost his moral authority. He may have felt that he ought to forgive as he had been forgiven. However, David received clemency from God directly. David was the king, but he was not God. Even the statement of clemency toward David granted that his crime had deserved death as its punishment: “You shall not die” (12:13-14). Eli’s sons were immoral, and Samuel’s sons perverted justice; then David perverted justice by failing to punish his son’s immorality. All this points to disaster for the house of David and for Israel because, like Eli, he honored his son Amnon above God.[26]

One could yet suggest that, since everyone was sent out of the room (or perhaps house), there could not have been two witnesses, which were necessary to convict Amnon by law (Deut. 19:15-17; 2 Sam. 13:9). However, those whom Amnon had sent out were probably within earshot. At least one of them did in fact return when Amnon called for him (2 Sam. 13:17). David heard of the matter, and probably not from Absalom or Tamar (vv. 20-22).

No doubt Absalom’s murder of Amnon warranted the death penalty for Absalom. True, Amnon deserved to die, and Absalom was Tamar’s close relative. David was responsible to act, and as soon as he failed to do so, Absalom’s hatred for Amnon began to fester. Seemingly David’s silence drove Absalom to become a murderer, perhaps opening the door to his later crimes. Absalom carried out his revenge not by pursuing and killing Amnon (Num. 35:19-20) but by deceiving him and ordering others (servants, not relatives) to kill him (2 Sam. 13:24-29). Obviously his action was not legitimate revenge. The fact that Absalom did not wield the sword personally does not exonerate him in the least. Similarly Nathan had said that David had “struck down” Uriah the Hittite when the king had committed murder by proxy earlier in the narrative (12:9). Obviously then Absalom was a murderer, and so he should have died (Deut. 19:11-13).

David not only failed to execute his son Absalom, but he ultimately granted him a full kingly pardon (2 Sam. 14:33). Certainly David faced a complex situation, and he may have felt partly responsible for Absalom’s actions. Yet some of the motivation may have been that he wished to improve the chances of continuing his dynasty. Absalom was apparently David’s heir at this point,[27] and David did not want to endanger his dynastic kingship.[28] This motive fits well with the story told by the woman whom Joab sent on behalf of Absalom (vv. 1-21). She asked for clemency for her son in order to continue the family line and inheritance. Yet David seems to have sealed his dynasty’s fate by committing the sin of Eli a second time.

To what degree or in what situations was the king allowed to grant clemency? A precedent may have been set by Saul to the effect that a king could grant clemency to those who had sinned against him personally (1 Sam. 11:12-15), but crimes perpetrated against others seem to have been another matter. In cases where the offense was not against the king, justice seems to have been the guiding principle, or at least a weightier principle than protecting the most promising kingly heir (Deut. 16:18-20). Even in disputable cases the king seems to have had little freedom. Deuteronomy 17:20 stipulated that the king write his own copy of the Law “that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen and that he may not turn aside from the commandment, to the right or to the left, so that he and his sons may continue long in his kingdom in the midst of Israel.” Clearly the continuation of a dynasty was conditioned on strict adherence to the Law. The clause “that his heart may not be lifted up above his countrymen” condemns David’s judgments even further because it was preference for his own sons and dynasty that led him to violate the Law by withholding punishment from Amnon and granting a full pardon to Absalom.

As if all of this were not bad enough, David committed the sin of Eli again when Absalom rebelled. Absalom had earned two more death sentences by this time—one by violating David’s concubines (Lev. 20:11; 2 Sam. 16:22)[29] and one according to David’s interpretation of the Law. David had stated clearly that one who attempted to kill the anointed king or even failed to protect him deserved to die (1 Sam. 24:4-6; 26:9-11, 14-16). He had executed others who had committed regicide, even when the king in question had not been the anointed king (2 Sam. 1:15-16; 4:9-12). Yet David commanded that Absalom not be killed in a battle in which Absalom was attempting to kill David (18:5). Thus obviously David’s love for his son had for the moment eclipsed David’s love for God.

National Consequences

The sin of Eli reached its zenith with David who committed the sin three times, honoring his “two” sons (Amnon and Absalom) above God individually rather than together, and Absalom twice.[30] As David was a more powerful monarch than Saul, the national consequences escalated. This time not only was Israel defeated, but Israel was defeated in a war against its own king. If defeat by a foreign deity was thought to indicate that deity’s superiority, what must a civil war mean? It actually indicated judgment in this case, but other nations may have seen it as impotence on the part of Israel’s (and David’s) God. Thus the sin of Eli brought shame on the name of the Lord. Absalom’s inciting the rebellion was in part a consequence of David’s failure to punish him. At least 20,000 Israelites died (18:7), and that was only on one side. Further, the stage was set for Sheba’s rebellion, in which some people (at least two) died (20:1-22).

Dynastic Consequences

The dynastic consequences for David are quite interesting. Of course, he lost the two sons, Amnon and Absalom, whom he hoped to protect. Also his concubines were raped (16:22).

Surprisingly, David did not lose his dynasty. Solomon inherited the dynasty and passed it on to the entire line of Judean kings. Why did David not lose his dynasty? David’s perpetration of the sin of Eli and its consequences could have meant that God’s covenant in 2 Samuel 7 was conditional. But since God did not nullify the covenant, one should conclude all the more firmly that it was indeed unconditional.

What then of David’s words to Solomon in 1 Kings 2:4? David seems to have thought at that point that the dynasty could be lost. But the solution is simple. God promised that David’s throne would be established forever, but He did not say when “forever” would start. Solomon could indeed “lack a man on the throne” for a time, say, seventy years or more, because of sin, and such was the nature of David’s warning. All that was necessary was that a future descendant establish an everlasting kingship. Thus historically the hope of a Messiah as Davidic King grew naturally from the cessation of kingship in Judea because the Jews understood that 2 Samuel 7 had yet to be completely fulfilled. Jesus, of course, is that Davidic King (Luke 1:31-33).

The above notwithstanding, David’s sin with Bathsheba casts a shadow of uncertainty over the results of Eli-like sins. It does appear that the deaths of Amnon and Absalom were included in the consequences of David’s adultery and murder.[31] However, God could have ordained one event as a consequence of more than one sin. Perhaps David’s checkered past kept him from carrying out justice on Amnon. The narration seems to portray David’s sins as part of the consequences of his sin with Bathsheba and Uriah. David’s earlier sins led to later sin.

Conclusion

The writer seems to have developed the sin of Eli for two reasons. One was to create dissonance when David, whose dynasty God had guaranteed, committed a sin that seemed to be a sure way to end a dynasty. The result is that one recognizes that God certainly intended to maintain the Davidic throne forever. The other reason was to teach Israel a lesson about fathers and sons in leadership. Honoring one’s sons above God in the interest of preserving a dynasty, even a good dynasty for the good of the people, was a way to end that dynasty and to cause great trouble for the nation. The sin of Eli would have been a solemn warning to all religious and civic leaders in Israel not to repeat the folly of those good men, and it is still a warning today.

Notes

1. Robert Bergen suggests as many as five general purposes or intended functions of the books (1, 2 Samuel, New American Commentary [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996], 28-46).
2. Robert P. Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988), 97.
3. Fattening themselves on the sacrifices is the means by which they sinned, rather than a separate sin.
4. John E. Hartley, “כהה,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 2:599.
5. Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1906; reprint, Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2007), 462.
6. Meir Sternberg suggests that Eli’s original rebuke was not good enough because Eli used language that was vague and euphemistic rather than directly telling his sons what they had done wrong (The Poetics of Biblical Narrative [Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1985], 422).
7. Brown, Driver, and Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, 462.
8. Rostock Schunck, “כָּהָה,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck, trans. David E. Green (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 58.
9. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek–English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 679.
10. J. Lust, E. Eynikel, and K. Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2003).
11. Plutarch may have used the word this way in the first or second century AD (Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 679).
12. F. Selter suggests that νουθετέω here be translated “correct” (“νουθετέω,” in The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975], 568).
13. The apparatus of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia identifies the switch from אלהים to להם as among the eighteen tiqqunesopherim, items marked in some Hebrew manuscripts as having been emended by scribes in order to avoid cases of irreverence.
14. Another possibility is that Eli failed to “instruct” (another meaning of νουθετέω) them by informing them that they were blaspheming, although the account in 1 Samuel 2 of his rebuking them could just as easily be called “instruction.”
15. Moshe Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel: A Literary Study of Comparative Structures, Analogies, and Parallels (Ramat-Gan: Revivim, 1985), 61; see also Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 94.
16. G. D. Vreeland, The Darker Side of Samuel, Saul, and David: Narrative Artistry and the Depiction of Flawed Leadership (Longmont, FL: Xulon, 2007) 1:56.
17. More likely, however, the promise to Eli’s house was originally made in Numbers 25 to Phinehas and only extended to Eli by descent. If so, the later dominant Zadokite line may be the fulfillment of all three prophecies: (1) the Numbers 25 promise to Phinehas, (2) the prior (to 1 Sam.) promise to Eli’s house as a branch of the house of Phinehas, and (3) the new prediction in 1 Samuel 2, which amounts to a different branch within the house of Phinehas inheriting the original promise.
18. As Matitiahu Tsevat indicates, the prophecy may have actually spoken of the Zadokites (“Studies in the Book of Samuel,” Hebrew Union College Annual 32 [1961]: 193).
19. Samuel may have further incriminated himself in 12:2. At that point God Himself had told Samuel to appoint a king (8:7), and he had done so (10:1; 11:15). Nevertheless he mentioned, “I am old and gray, and behold my sons are with you” (12:2). The nation had a king, but Samuel was still intent on having his sons somehow involved in the leadership of the country, probably as judges. Since Samuel certainly knew what his sons were doing, his apparent failure to remove them from office leaves little doubt as to his intention or his sin.
20. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel, 63.
21. Bergen has said, “It is important to note here that the request for a king was not in itself sinful; the Torah envisioned a day in which Israel would decide to have a monarchy and made provisions for the establishment of this institution (cf. Gen. 17:6; Deut. 17:14-20). But for Israel to entrust its future to a human deliverer instead of anchoring it in their relationship with the Lord was both wicked and futile” (1, 2 Samuel, 144).
22. Bergen sees Saul’s reign as a punishment on Israel for asking for a king with wrong motives (ibid., 123).
23. Garsiel, The First Book of Samuel, 63-64.
24. Some would see this as a significant break in the literary pattern. But this fails to recognize the greater historical purpose of the narrative. In simple point of fact Saul was not a good man with two wicked sons. The writer faithfully recorded the real Saul, rather than making up one that would have been more convenient. Like others before him, Saul chose dynasty over Deity to the detriment of all.
25. For a defense of David see Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 383, 392.
26. Gordon, I & II Samuel, 264.
27. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 386.
28. Ibid., 391.
29. Ibid., 414.
30. First Kings 1:5-6 refers to a third sinful son of David, Adonijah, whom David also seems to have honored over God by leaving Adonijah’s sin of rebellion unchecked. Possibly others among David’s many sons sinned without redress. Perhaps the narrator highlighted two sons in 2 Samuel to confirm that David was guilty of the same sin Eli and Samuel had perpetrated with their two sons.
31. Ibid.