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 man’s 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 God’s 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 God’s sight is wickedness. It is the plea of a coward, and moral cowardice is sin. (J. Bainton.)
Paternal leniency
I. Eli’s 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 God’s 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 God’s worship was (in their father’s 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 Aaron’s 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 Jephtah’s 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 Eli’s 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 Eli’s 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 father’s 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.)
Eli’s 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 fool’s 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 boy’s 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.)
