Faithful Priest(s)

Last week we saw the contrast between little Samuel, just slowly growing up into maturity, and Hophni and Phinehas, the two sons of Eli who were priests in name only, totally disqualified by their greed and lust and lack of godly character.

And the way the text cut back and forth between them showed that the author of 1 Samuel here wants us to consider the differences between faithful Samuel and unfaithful Hophni and Phinehas. Some of the differences that Josh described were just hinted at in last week's text but will become more and more clear as we move through the next chapters. For example, today shows us how Hophni and Phinehas responded to Eli's authority, compared to next week in chapter 3 which gives us an example of how young Samuel responded to Eli's authority.

And so in the coming weeks I think that we'll have more and more reasons to agree with that Josh said last week—that Samuel and Hophni and Phinehas are examples of two paths you can take as they consider spiritual leadership. You can take the Samuel path of growing and learning, or you can take the Hophni and Phinehas path of grabbing what you want and ignoring whoever tries to stand in your way. And I just want to add my "amen" to what Josh said and emphasize how important of a message that was for our church which is so involved in training and investing in spiritual leaders.

1. Eli Rebukes (vv. 22-25)

Today's passage shifts the focus somewhat from Eli's sons to Eli himself. See, one big question that we might have had after last week's sermon is, if Samuel was going such a good job learning from Eli, what in the world was happening between Eli and his wicked sons? We all know that people can make their own choices, and good fathers don't always guarantee good sons.

But how could Eli just let his sons carry with their wickedness? Was he going to do anything about it? How responsible was he for his son's sons? That question is really what's at the heart of today's passage.

And the problem is introduced for us in verse 22: “Now Eli was very old, and he kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel, and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting” (1 Samuel 2:22).

Hophni and Phinehas were predators—taking food that was not theirs to enjoy, and taking women who were not theirs to enjoy. Eli is really old, which might point to his failing eyesight which we hear about in next week's passage. He doesn't necessarily see what's going on, but he hears about it. He keeps hearing about it.

And he doesn't just ignore it. He does rebuke his sons. Verse 23: “23 And he said to them, ‘Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all these people. 24 No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the Lord spreading abroad’” (1 Samuel 2:23–24).

He talks to them. He lets them know that their behaviour is no secret. Everybody knows how wicked they are, and so does he. And then he warns them in verse 25: “If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” (1 Samuel 2:25).

He's warning them that because of their jobs, and because of their particular sins—sinning against the Lord's offerings and the Lord's temple—they weren't just sinning against people. They were't just sinning against the people whose meat they stole, or the women (and maybe their husbands) whose purity they stole.

They were sinning against the Lord by using their role as priests as a platform to serve themselves instead of the Lord.

And who can defend you when God is the one you've sinned against? When there's a dispute between two people, God is like the court you can appeal to for mediation. But when you've sinned against God Himself, there's no higher court you can appeal to. There's nobody who can come to save you.

You're playing with death and judgement, in other words. This is a pretty stark warning.

But they don't listen to their father. Why? Verse 25 tells us, picking up half-way through. “But they would not listen to the voice of their father, for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death” (1 Samuel 2:25).

This is one of the many places where the Bible just assumes the absolute sovereignty of God over all things, including over human sin. Just like God hardened Pharaoh's heart to not listen to Moses, so Eli's sons don't listen to their dad because it was God's will to put them to death.

What's very important here is to recognize that this word here for will—"the will of the Lord"—is the exact same word that's used in Ezekiel 18:32: “For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.’”

God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. And it was the pleasure of the Lord to put Hophni and Phinehas to death.

This is a good reminder about the dangers of grabbing one verse from the Bible and building a whole theology on it. We need to take the whole Bible together to inform our understanding of who God is. And what these two verses together tell us is that there is a sense in which God does not take pleasure in the death of the wicked—he does not will it—and there is another sense in which he does.

We could think of a police officer, pulling the trigger on a criminal who was about to hurt an innocent civilian. No sane officer of the law enjoys killing another human being. They take no pleasure in that act. And yet they can take pleasure in the fact that they saved a life that day, and can go home with the painful satisfaction of a job well done.

We could point to all kinds of similar tensions in human existence, which are helpful ways of thinking through the way that God experiences both of these realities: no pleasure in the death of the wicked, and great pleasure in bringing justice and judgement on the world for the sake of His glory and the everlasting joy of His people. John Piper wrote a very helpful article called "Are There Two Wills in God?" which I've linked to at this point in the sermon manuscript. Later today you might want to click on the sermon and read that article to help you understand this a little bit more.

But one thing is clear—the author of 1 Samuel is not embarrassed at all of the fact that God is the great potter who has the right to make out of the same clay one vessel for honourable use, and another for dishonourable use—to use the language of Romans 9. Hophni and Phinehas didn't listen to their dad because God willed that they wouldn't. It was his will, his pleasure, for the greater good of His glory, to put them to death.

2. Eli Rebuked (vv. 27-36)

So, what do we think about Eli in all of this? Does he sound like a good dad? His sons are adults. He's done his job in warning them, right?

Maybe. Or maybe not. Maybe it's really easy to say to someone, "That's bad and you should stop" when actually the right thing to do is to say, "You don't have a job here anymore. Go pack your things."

After all, Eli was the high priest, in charge of the tabernacle. It might have felt loving to let his sons continue to work there, but in reality he was letting them continue to pile up sins and was letting them continue to store up judgement for themselves.

A good and loving dad would have said, "You're finished here, boys. Go get another job. You can't keep coming in here and doing that."

And more than that—Eli was the judge of Israel at that point, which we find out in chapter 4. Eli was responsible for the law of God being obeyed and practiced in Israel. He knew what his sons deserved.

But unfortunately Eli does what so many other dads and moms have done throughout history, who have gone soft on their kids, perhaps especially their adult kids. Give them a scolding once and a while so they can tell themselves that they've done their duty, and then just let it slide.

It's super easy to do because doesn't every parent want their kids close to them? Doesn't every parent fear saying or doing something that would make their kids walk away and not come back? But what happens is many parents choose closeness to their children over their children's spiritual health and eternal future. And ultimately they choose their kids over the Lord.

There's also some indication that Eli was prioritizing his own appetite. Just like Isaac who loved the wild meat that Esau brought him, Eli's two sons provided him with a steady diet of Israeli BBQ. All the best meat.

Chapter 4 tells us that Eli was a heavy man, and yes, there's a connection there. Eli benefitted from his sons' sins which maybe made him even more hesitant to do his job and lay down the law.

And so we move from Eli's rebuke to Eli being rebuked. It begins in verse 27 when an unnamed man of God—a prophet—comes to Eli with a message straight from the Lord.

a. History Lesson (vv. 27-28)

It begins with a history lesson about the priesthood.

“Thus says the Lord, ‘Did I indeed reveal myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt subject to the house of Pharaoh?’” (1 Samuel 2:27). That's talking about Aaron, the first high priest. “Did I choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel” (1 Samuel 2:28).

This history lesson highlights at least three things. First, it highlights the absolute privilege that Aaron had to be chosen as high priest of the most high God, and the absolute privilege that Eli had to be one of his descendants and to be serving in this way. They had a special gift that nobody else had.

Second, it highlights that this was God's doing. Aaron or Eli didn't apply for this job. It wasn't their idea, their property, their thing. It was a gift that the Lord chose to give. A sacred stewardship.

Third, it highlights God's provision. God had provided for his priests through the offerings of the people. The reality is that of many of the offerings offered to God by fire, a significant portion went to the priests. They were well taken care of. They had all that they needed.

b. Charges Brought (v. 29)

And against that background, the Lord, through this prophet, brings charges against Eli and his sons. “Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’” (1 Samuel 2:29).

There's two halves to the charges that are brought here against Eli and his sons. The first is that they have scorned the Lord's sacrifices and offerings that He commanded.

We can't tell in English, but in Hebrew the word "you" and the verb that follows is plural. In other words, this charge is directed against Eli and his sons. And it's interesting that the word "scorn" is literally "kick at." Like when you kick at something worthless on the ground. They are treating God's offerings and sacrifices as worthless.

And you can imagine Eli saying, "Who, me? My sons are doing that, not me! I've never taken meat from anybody."

And that's where the second half of this charge is important: “And honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’” (1 Samuel 2:29).

Eli was guilty of honouring his sons more than the Lord because he, along with them, was guilty of fattening himself on the best parts of the offerings. He might not have been the one stealing all the best meat, but it sounds like he sure enjoyed it when they served it for supper that night.

Maybe he would wink at them and say, "Don't tell me where you got this. The less I know, the better." But he knew. And they knew he knew. And he ate it. And he became guilty of their same sin.

We need to know how serious this is. If you go back and read through the first five books of the Bible, especially Exodus and Leviticus, it becomes clear that the offerings offered by the priests at the tabernacle were the way—the only way—that a holy God could have fellowship with his people.

It was serious stuff. Without these offerings, their sins would not be atoned for, and they would not enjoy the fellowship with the Lord that He was seeking with his people. It's barely an exaggeration to say that these offerings and sacrifices were everything to Israel.

And here's Eli and his sons, using these holy things to satisfy their own appetites. Stealing food that God designed for His people to enjoy in His presence, stealing food that God designed to symbolize His acceptance of their offerings, stealing the very means by which the people enjoyed closeness with God. And getting fat off of it.

c. Judgement Foretold (vv. 30-36)

In the book of Leviticus, when the high priest's two sons Nadab and Abihu decided to serve the Lord in the way they wanted to instead of the way that He had told them to, they died. This was serious stuff.

And so we shouldn't be surprised by the judgement that is foretold against Eli's house, starting in verse 30:

“30 Therefore the Lord, the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and the house of your father should go in and out 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 shall be lightly esteemed."

Eli was a descendant of Aaron, and the promise had been made to Aaron that his descendants would serve the Lord as priests forever. Eli might have thought that this meant they were safe. They could do what they wanted.

But he's wrong. "Far be it from me," says the Lord. He will honour those who honour him, and those who despise him—like Eli and his sons—will be treated the same way.

We might wonder how this works here. Is God going back on his word? Is God breaking his promise?

And if you're wondering that, there's three quick responses that might help. The first is that this seems to be a case where God makes a promise that has an implied condition. In other words, when He set up Aaron and his descendants to be priests forever, it was obviously implied that they would only get to serve as priests if they kept serving as priests.

It's like if a boss says to his employees at a staff meeting, "I'm taking you all out for supper this Friday." If one of those employees quits or gets fired the next day, he shouldn't expect to still get a free supper. When the boss made that promise of supper, there was an implied condition that you will get supper if you continue to be an employee between now and then.

So it was with the priests, and later on, Israel as a whole. Some of these "forever" promises were implied to hinged on their faithfulness, which is not clearly stated but is implied.

Second, there is the factor of the word "forever." The Hebrew word עוֹלָ֑ם (ʿôlām) does not mean "forever" in the same sense that the English word does. Sometimes it just means "a long time." We have to look at the context to understand the meaning.

Third, God is not abolishing the Aaronic priesthood here. He is not removing all of the sons of Aaron from being priests. As best as we can understand, he's shifting the priesthood to another line of descendants of Aaron.

So the sense seems to be: I promised Aaron that he and his descendants would be my priests, but that was not a guarantee that any of his descendants could just do whatever they want. There are many sons of Aaron to choose from, and you've disqualified yourself.

This disqualification is described powerfully in the verses that follow: "31 Behold, the days are coming when I will cut off your strength and the strength of your father’s house, so that there will not be an old man in your house. 32 Then in distress you will look with envious eye on all the prosperity that shall be bestowed on Israel, and there shall not be an old man in your house forever. 33 The only one of you whom I shall not cut off from my altar shall be spared to weep his eyes out to grieve his heart, and all the descendants of your house shall die by the sword of men. 34 And this that shall come upon your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, shall be the sign to you: both of them shall die on the same day."

We've heard a lot lately how important descendants were to the people of Israel. So we should understand how great of a curse this is. This is one of the strongest judgements that could come on Eli: not just him, but his whole house, all of his descendants, cut off. Both of his sons killed. Everybody gone.

And this isn't the end. Verse 35: " 35 And I will raise up for myself a faithful priest, who shall do according to what is in my heart and in my mind. And I will build him a sure house, and he shall go in and out before my anointed forever. 36 And everyone who is left in your house shall come to implore him for a piece of silver or a loaf of bread and shall say, ‘Please put me in one of the priests’ places, that I may eat a morsel of bread.’ ’ ”” (1 Samuel 2:30–36).

These words were fulfilled initially as Zadok, another descendant of Aaron, became the high priest during the days of David. These words remind Eli that he doesn't have a monopoly on the priesthood. He should have fired his sons—instead, his whole family line is going to be fired and the job is going to be given to someone who will do the job properly. And anybody from his family who survived the slaughter will be reduced to begging this other priest's family for scraps of bread to survive.

Total humiliation.

And it's not finished. In case Eli didn't get it, God is going to send another messenger to Eli to repeat essentially the same message to him a second time. But this time it won't be through a seasoned prophet, but from the mouth of the little boy that Eli has been mentoring in the tabernacle.

But that's next week.

For now, we should step back and ask, what should we learn from this admittedly difficult passage?

3. Crucial Lessons

a. God's Greatness

The first is perhaps the most obvious and the most important: God is great. God is great and his greatness is seen in the judgement that falls on those who treat him like trash.

When I was 12 I was in the air cadets, and on the night we got our first uniforms one of the other cadets was going around knocking our wedges off of our heads. And he just wouldn't stop and it was getting really annoying.

And so finally I lost patience and went up to the closest adult I could find and burst out with, "Can you please tell him to stop knocking my hat off of my head?"

Little did I know that I had just spoken to an officer. A real military officer. And cadets do not just walk up to officers and ask them to tell their friends to stop it.

Now in my defence, nobody had told me this. We hadn't been taught these things. But I was taught those things as that officer proceeded to give me a n extremely thorough and severe tongue lashing in front of all of my buddies. And truthfully nothing could have taught me more about the respect you give to an officer than the discipline I received for not giving that officer respect.

The creator of the universe is a consuming fire, eternal and glorious and worthy of praise beyond anything we can imagine. And one of the clearest and strongest places we see this is in the judgement that falls on those who treat him like trash.

Do you think we still need to remember this truth today? 1 Peter tells us that we “like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5).

But we don't need to worry, right, because the fearsome God of the Old Testament been replaced with the cuddly Jesus of the New? Not so fast. “28 Therefore let us be grateful for receiving a kingdom that cannot be shaken, and thus let us offer to God acceptable worship, with reverence and awe, 29 for our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28–29).

b. Acceptable Worship

And the book of Hebrews goes on to describe acceptable worship, and it's very interesting that it's not for 15 verses that it gets to the act of praising God with our lips. Before and after that verse is lots of discussion about how to offer the acceptable worship of our lives, especially our lives together.

It's just like Romans 12, where Paul appeals to us, by the mercies of God, to present our “bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship” (Romans 12).

And then for the rest of the chapter he tells Christians how to love each other. That's where our acceptable so often shows up. In our life together.

Do you think it would ever be possible for us, just like Eli and his sons, to take this high and holy privilege we've been given to offer God the acceptable worship of our whole lives and to turn it around and use it as a way to gratify our selfish appetites? I think so. One of the ways that this so often shows up here in North America is through a consumeristic attitude towards our life together in the church.

People approaching their local churches not as a venue to offer acceptable sacrifices to God, but as a place to fatten themselves based on their appetites.

Just think about some of the common ways that people talk about the church in North America. "I don't like how they did this." "I don't prefer that kind of music." "I liked things better the way they were before." "I think that wasn't a great idea."

Little ways of talking about the church that show that we are not thinking about ourselves as priests and living stones in a holy temple, but consumers in a spiritual food court, shopping around to suit our tastes.

One of the ways this could show up is how much our participation in the church is based on what makes sense to us, personally. If we as a church have decided we're going to do something together, whether it's a congregational decision, or one of the committees or leadership teams that we as a congregation have put in place, and one of those decisions doesn't make a ton of sense to us or we personally don't think it's a necessary thing or a good idea, do we withhold your participation, like passing over a dish at the buffet line? Or do we jump in because we're a just a brick in the temple, and we're priests in this temple, and this is what God has provided for us, and we're going to play like a team?

Let me give an example. We do a prayer service once a month. Every time that date comes around, I struggle to come. If it's winter, I don't want to leave my house again. If it's summer, I'd rather be outside. I've got all kinds of reasons why I could enjoy that time with my kids.

But Acts 2:42 described the vibrant early church as being devoted to "the prayers," which is unambiguously referring to corporate prayer together. Time and again in Acts we see God moving in response to the church gathering to pray. That pattern repeats over and over in the past 2,000 years as revivals and moves of God, bg and small, have essentially always been preceded by God's people gathering to pray.

I know that the health and vibrancy of our church depends not just on what I'm doing right now but on what we do when we gather to pray. I really want to be a part of a praying church.

So if it's not my preference to leave my house on Sunday evening, to hell with my preferences. Literally.

Now, I understand that there are good and valid reasons for people to not be able to come to a prayer service on a Sunday evening, and there are other ways of praying together.

Just like there's all sorts of good and valid reasons why all kinds of people can't participate with all kinds of things we do together as a church. This is not a guilt trip for those of you who because of distance or health or other very legitimate reasons just can't do certain things.

The question is, as we evaluate our participation, are we thinking like priests in a holy temple, whose priority is offering God the acceptable worship of our lives together, or are we thinking like consumers in a buffet line, coming in with the big fork to take the best for ourselves and leave the rest behind?

And how much of God's judgement on us might we be inviting on ourselves if we do that? Remember, when the Corinthians turned the Lord's supper into a gluttonous feast where some got full and some went hungry, God killed some of them.

In the New Testament. After Jesus died and rose again.

Our God is a consuming fire.

c. The Faithful Priest

And I don't want to move on too quickly from the pointedness of these questions and the work that God might want to do in our consciences as we think about these things.

But let's not loose sight of where we are in the book of Samuel. God is clearing the way from the chaos of the days of the judges for the stability of His anointed king. Removing the corrupt priesthood is an important step in that process.

And soon, a faithful priest—Zadok—will take his stand beside a faithful king—David—and lead God's people into righteousness.

And the two of them, in various ways, point forward to the faithful priest, our faithful high priest, the Lord Jesus Christ.

Who, in the days of his flesh, repeatedly refused to reach and grab to satisfy Himself. He starved almost to death in the wilderness, trusting His father to give Him what He needed at the right time.

Jesus nourishes and cherishes His church instead of stealing from us for his own benefit.

He is the faithful priest who serves us even today.

And if you feel convicted at all about the ways that perhaps you've acted more like Hophni or Phinehas or Eli than Jesus, then look to the cross, where Jesus knew all of that and chose to die for your crimes anyway.

The only thing Jesus ever took from you is the the eternal judgement that you deserved. Forgiveness and a fresh start is right here for you today.

And as we look to the cross we see in the cross the call for us to pick up our cross and lay down our life, following our master and trusting Him to take care of us as we walk down the Calvary road.