1 Samuel 2:23

1Sa 2:23 And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings by all this people.

Ver. 23. And he said unto them, Why do ye such things?] This was to reprove them, Lenitate patris, non auctoritate pontificis, saith Jerome, i.e., with the lenity of a father, and not with the authority of a magistrate. This was to shave the head, which deserved cutting off, saith another. A weak dose doth but stir bad humours, and anger them, not purge them out: so it fareth with sins. Castigantur a parente Eli, leniter tamen et molli tantum brachio: Chastised these varlets {A person of a low, mean, or knavish disposition; a knave, rogue, rascal.} were by their father, but so lightly, as if he were afraid to hurt them. It is likely he had always marred them with too much indulgence: David’s fault also. Pope Paul III, hearing of the abominable practices of his son Petro Alvigi Farnesis, thought it enough to say, Haec vitia me non commonstratore didicit, He never learned these faults of his father.

For I hear of your evil dealings.] Which Eli should have instanced and aggravated for their terror and shame. A reproof should be soundly set on. Jehoshaphat was to blame with his "Let not the king say so."

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Sa_2:23-24

Nay, my sons: for it is no good report that I hear.

Weakness is wickedness

It does not often occur to us what shame and guilt belong to mortal vacillation and weakness. Too often a mans weakness is accepted as a sufficient excuse for his sin. Outbursts of evil passion are excused because a man has a passionate nature. Vacillation is condoned, because a man by nature is pliant and indecisive. Inconsiderateness is held to be blameless, because a man is impulsive by natural disposition. That all this is wrong in judgment and false in principle, could not be more sternly taught than in the experience of Eli. Blameless and pure, humble and devout, there is no more beautiful character, in many of its aspects, to be found in Scripture than his; yet how stern the rebuke which is passed upon him, and how terrible the retribution! Plain it is that in Gods sight moral weakness is sin. At the Bar of Judgment I cannot finds no acceptance as a plea against You must. To say that you have not the strength, the courage, the resoluteness to do right is a confession which is itself a shameful wrong. It is the plea of a weakling, and weakness in Gods sight is wickedness. It is the plea of a coward, and moral cowardice is sin. (J. Bainton.)

Paternal leniency

I. Elis fatal leniency.

1. He saith over softly to them, Why do ye such things? (v. 23). This was to reprove them, saith Jerome, with the lenity of a father, not with the authority of a magistrate: Tis an old saying, Pity spoils a city; sure I am it did so here, for it spoiled his family, causing the priesthood to be removed from it.

2. I hear of your evil doings. This was too gentle, to mention them in the general only, and not to particularise them with their detestable aggravations, he should have rebuked them, cuttingly, or sharply (Tit_2:15) with all authority.

3. By all the people: As if it were their report only, and that he was put on by the people to say what he said.

4. Nay, my sons. He should have set on his reproof, by saying Ye act more like sons of Belial than my sons, the sons of the high priests of the Most High God.

5. Tis no good report: He should have called it, the most dismal and diabolical, if he had had a right zeal for Gods glory, etc.

6. He was not willing to reprove them, but the clamours of others forced him to do it.

7. He did not rebuke them publicly (1Ti_5:20) for the public sins to make the plaster as broad as the wound.

8. It was only a verbal reproof, whereas he should have put them out of their priesthood and punished them for their adultery according to the law, without respect of persons as a judge, etc.

9. He did not rebuke them in time, but let them live long in sin. 10. He soon ceased chiding them, so tis said, He restrained them not, (ch. 3:18.)

II. Apology for Eli in this case is--That he now was very old, some suppose him to be now come to his ninetieth year, even in his dotage, so could not himself converse with his sons, so as to observe their maladministrations, and withal, he was dim-sighted, so could not so well see their sinful practices: his superannuation caused his frequent absence from the Tabernacle, which gave a greater opportunity for his sons wickedness, to whom the management of Gods worship was (in their fathers retirement) be trusted, and tis not improbable, his sons did not much regard his reproofs, because he was old and over-worn, but themselves, being in their vigour, had married wives, and were fathers of children. And tis commonly known that old ago doth incline men to mercy, so that it is no wonder if Eli seem rather to flatter than to chastise his sons.

III. Judgement pronounced on Eli. The promise for the perpetuation of the priesthood to Aarons family (Exo_28:43; Exo_29:9) was conditional only so long as they did honour God therein, which condition the elder line of Aaron kept not in the case of Jephtahs vow, therefore was the high priesthood transferred to the younger line, which now upon the like failure in the condition, made a new forfeiture thereof, by dishonouring God so notoriously in Elis sons.

1. This may be called breach of promise, as that is (Num_14:34) when the old generation were wasted in the wilderness, and yet the new one was brought into Canaan as God had promised.

2. This Man of God threatens the extirpation of Elis family (1Sa_2:31-32). His arm shall be cut off.

3. This Man of God threatens him with a rival in the place of the priesthood, which he or his posterity should behold with their eyes, to their great grief and regret (1Sa_2:32-33).

4. This Man of God threatens him with the violent, death of his sons before their fathers death (1Sa_2:34-35).

5. He threatens him with the poverty of his posterity (1Sa_2:36). They shall come crouching as Abiathar did (1Ki_2:26) when banished to Anathoth. (C. Ness.)

Elis imbecility

Ells are out of place in this world; they are only fit for the society of angels. Place one of them over a business. Oh, he is such a good man! Trusts everybody, dismisses nobody, lets every knave and idle fellow about the premises play tricks with him. By-and-bye the end comes, and you spell it with ruin. Such a dear, well-meaning man, and so unfortunate; you all pity him. Yes, such men are to be pitied, but mainly because they are so weak and easygoing. Good men, but not fit to be at the head of anything. Not fit to rule a kingdom or a lunatic asylum, or even a church, and perhaps, least of all, a home. It is a pity when domestic government gets into their hands. Such nice meal such angelic women! But, alas! they make a pitiable business of it if they become fathers and mothers. (J. G. Greenough.)

Necessity of parental severity

When George III wished his two sons, the Prince of Wales and the Duke of York, to be instructed, he sent for one of the most rigid disciplinarians of the day; and when the king and the teacher stood together, one would have been at a loss to know whether to admire more the majesty of royalty or the majesty of learning. The king gave a side glance at the two boys who stood at, his feet, and said to the stern doctor who stood before him, Sir, I wish you to teach these, my two sons. And, please your majesty, replied the teacher, how do you wish these princes to be treated? Just treat them, returned the king, as you would treat the sons of a private gentleman; if they require it, flog them; just do with them as you do at Westminster School. And so the doctor did; he let them know by hard experience that the rod was made for the fools back. And when Louis XIV of France, one of the proudest kings that ever sat on the French throne, began to feel his inferiority in knowledge after he had arrived at the years of maturity, he complained to his courtiers that he was ignorant of many things which they knew. Upon which a nobleman near him ventured to hint that when a child he was wilful and wayward, and refused listen to the voice of instruction. What! he exclaimed, was there not birch enough, in the forest of Fontainebleau? (J. Hutchinson.)

Laxity of parental authority

Eli surely has his parallel in many a moral household which presents the spectacle of a father of exemplary life and character surrounded by children who, as they phrase it, take their own line in whatever form of dissipation or extravagance, or at best of aimless and frivolous living. The fault may be altogether with the child, but generally in this world when sons go wrong there are at least faults on both sides. And may it not be that in the critical years, when character was taking shape, and temptations were pressing hard with eager importunity, nothing was done, perhaps nothing was said to check, to rebuke, to guide, to encourage? The boys character was allowed to drift; it was allowed to drift by the man whose sense of responsibility as his father should have saved him from a mistake so ruinous. Authority need not be despotism; it may be tender and considerate to any extent, provided only that it is authority, and that its voice is not silent, nor its arm paralysed by a misplaced affection or by a want of moral courage, or by secret indifference, to the greatest issues which He before every human being. (Canon Liddon.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Sa 2:23-24. And he said, Why do ye do such things? — He reproved them, but far too gently, as these and the following words manifest. This might proceed partly from the coldness of old age, but it arose chiefly from his too great indulgence to his children. I hear of your evil dealings by all this people — Their wickedness was so notorious that there was a general complaint of it, which should have moved him to much greater severity than merely to reprove and chide them. He ought to have restrained them, and if he could not otherwise have done it, to have inflicted those punishments upon them which such high crimes deserved, according to God’s law, and which he, as high-priest and judge, was in duty bound to inflict without respect of persons. Nay, my sons, for it is no good report that I hear — This is the language of a father, not of a zealous judge. Ye make the Lord’s people to transgress — By causing them to neglect and despise the service of God, and tempting them to lewdness.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 23. Why do ye such things!] Eli appears to have been a fondly affectionate, easy father, who wished his sons to do well, but did not bring them under proper discipline, and did not use his authority to restrain them. As judge, he had power to cast them immediately out of the vineyard, as wicked and unprofitable servants; this he did not, and his and their ruin was the consequence.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. for I hear of your evil dealings] Rather, for I hear evil things of yon from all this people.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Nay, my sons,.... This seems to be too soft and smooth an appellation, too kind and endearing, considering the offence they were guilty of, and were now reproving for; rather they deserved to be called sons of Belial, the children of the devil, than sons of Eli, or brutes and shameless wretches, and such like hard names:

for it is no good report that I hear; a very bad one; far from being good, scarce anything worse could have been said of them; to rob persons of the flesh of their offerings, when there was a sufficient allowance made for them by law, and to be so impious as to require what was not their due, and even before the Lord had his; and to debauch the women that came to religious worship, and that in the sacred place of worship, they also being priests of the Lord, and married men; sins very shocking and sadly aggravated, and yet Eli treats them in this gentle manner:

ye make the Lord's people to transgress: by causing them to forbear to bring their sacrifices, being used in such an injurious and overbearing way; and by decoying the women into uncleanness, and by setting examples to others: or, "to cry out"; as in the margin of our Bibles, to exclaim against them for their exorbitant and lewd practices; so the Targum,

"the people of the Lord murmur because so ill used by them:''this clause may be read in connection with the former, "it is no good report that I hear, which ye cause to pass through the Lord's people"; ye occasion the people to speak ill of you everywhere, in the camp of Israel, throughout the whole nation; the report as it is bad, it is general, is in everyone's mouth; so Maimonides (u) interprets it; with which Jarchi and others agree (w).

(u) Moreh Nevochim, par. 1. c. 21. (w) Vid. T. Bab. Sabbat, fol. 55. 2. & praefat. Ben Chayim. ad Bib. Heb. Bomberg. & Buxtorf.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

People. They could not refrain from complaining of the iniquity of his children, how much soever they might revere him. Though he was not a witness himself of their abominations, such an uproar must have convinced him that they were guilty. (Haydock) --- The Fathers in general blame the lenity of the high priest, who ought not only to have rebuked, but also to have put a stop to the crying sins of his sons, by the utmost severity. (Calmet)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Such things, as those above mentioned, 1Sa 2:13,22. Eli’s sin in this matter was not only that he reproved them too gently, and generally, and sparingly; but especially that he contented himself with a verbal rebuke and did not

restrain them, as is said 1Sa 3:13, and inflict those punishments upon them, of putting them out of their priest’s office, and cutting them off from God’s people; which such high crimes deserved by God’s law, and which he as judge and high priest ought to have done, without all respect of persons.

By all this people, that dwell here, or come hither to worship.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

23. Why do ye such things — The fond father merely remonstrates and reasons, but young men so deeply sunken in sin as were Hophni and Phinehas are not to be benefitted or reclaimed by kind moral suasion alone. He should have put forth the hand of his authority as judge, to punish severely such violence and crime.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

He said, &c. - Eli's sin was not only that he reproved them too gently, but that he contented himself with a verbal rebuke, and did not restrain them, and inflict those punishments upon them which such high crimes deserved by God's law, and which he as judge and high-priest ought to have done, without respect of persons.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.