I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle.
Causes of Eli’s overthrow
There are several impressive lessons urged by God’s treatment of Eli.
I. First of all it is clear--and it ought to be made most distinct, because of a great practical delusion which exists upon this point--that it is not enough that there be many good points in a character. Character ought not to be a mere question of points at all. Character ought not to be viewed in sections and departments, in aspects and occasional moods. Character should have about it the distinctness of wholeness, entirety. Our goodness is not to be an occasional impulse or a transitory appearance of moral conscience and moral concern for others. Out of our character there is to stream continuous and beneficent influence. When our moral training is perfected we shall not have points of excellence; our whole character will be massive, indivisible, and out of it will go an influence that will constrain men to believe that we have been with God, and that we have imbibed the very spirit of his righteousness. Eli was amiable. A great many mistakes are made about amiability. A man may be amiable simply through mere want of interest or force; he may be so constituted that really he does not much care who is who, or what is what. Eli had religious impulses. What then? There is a sense in which religious impulse may be but constitutional. We must not overlook the constitutional condition. Let us clearly understand, therefore, that mere religious sensibility, religious impulse and religious susceptibility, must not be understood as proclaiming and certifying sound religiousness of character. Eli treated Samuel without official envy or jealousy. So far so good. But absence of envy may come of mere easy good nature. There are men in the world who do not care one pinpoint who is at the head of affairs. That is not magnanimity; that is not nobleness.
2. The second lesson that is urged upon us by this view of Eli’s position is--that divine discipline is keen--intensely spiritual. The inquiry is, Can you point out any vulgar sin in Eli? Sin is not measurable by vulgarity. Some men seem incapable of seeing sin until it clothes itself in the most hideous forms. Forms have nothing to do with sin. Herein we see the keenness, the spirituality of Divine discipline.
3. See further, in this case, the terribleness of God’s displeasure. But the way of the transgressor is hard; he is making a hard pillow for his head. Be he high priest or doorkeeper; be he mighty in gift or obscure in talent--God will not spare him. If judgment begin at the house of God, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear? (J. Parker, D. D.)
The causes of Eli’s overthrow
Can you find one vulgar sin in the venerable high priest? We cannot see, looking at the page in the light of merely literary critics, where the great lapse was. We know not but that if Eli, as portrayed in the inspired book, were set up as the standard of determination, a great many would fall short of his lofty altitude. These considerations justify the interest of the question how Eli came to be dispossessed of the priesthood. Look at his noble treatment of the child Samuel. When did he chide the young prophet? When did he superciliously snub the child? Look at the unpriestliness of his tone when he talks to the child. Looking at some aspect of Eli’s character, what reverence we feel for the old man! We see that he was a fine interpreter of the supernatural section of life. He was not self-obtrusive; he was no mere priest; he introduced men immediately to God; he did not claim any power of exclusive or tyrannic mediation. Look, again, at the submissiveness of his tone when his doom was pronounced. Then look at the man’s interest in the ark of the Lord. Down to the very last, we see that Eli was an intensely religious man, from whom God withdrew His covenant, and on whom He pronounced such severe judgments. We would, therefore, repeat with fervour and with emphasis, that the conscience of universal man asks: “Lord of heaven and earth, is this right?” In looking at the failure of Eli as involving a moral question between the Creator and the creature, we are prepared to teach that the obligations of character must always control the obligations of covenants. All God’s covenants are founded upon a moral basis. A covenant is but a form; a covenant is merely an arrangement, if it be not established upon moral conditions. There are circumstances in which God’s faithfulness and God’s unchangeableness are seen, not in fulfilling, but actually in the annulling, of covenants. God will never maintain the letter at the expense of the spirit. There is a pedantic morality amongst men which says, “The bond must be kept to the letter,” and which cares nothing for the spirit of the engagement. God’s morality is not a morality of ink and seals and witnesses. It involves life, spirit, motive, purpose. Were God to keep to the letter at the expense of the spirit, He would be no longer God. His unchangeableness is in His righteousness, not in His formality. Our confidence in Him is this:--That He will set aside His oldest servants, His first-chosen men, His most princely vice-regents and interpreters--he will utterly destroy them from the face of the earth, and hurl after them the written covenants He has made with them--if they trifle with eternal truth, with infinite purity! To cover a corrupt life with the blessing of His approbation, simply because there is a literal covenant to be carried out, would be to deny every element which makes Him God. (J. Parker, D. D.)
