Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJohn Kitto Morning Bible Devotions: July 13
Today is: Friday, April 26th, 2024 (Show Today's Devotion)
Select a Day for a Devotion in the Month of July: (Show All Months)
1Sa_2:12-17
The custom of sacrifice was, that burnt offerings were wholly consumed by fire upon the altar; and that sin offerings were eaten by the priests. But in the case of peace offerings, the internal fat alone was consumed, first of all, upon the altar; then the priest had for his share the breast and the shoulder, after these had been waved before the Lord; and the remainder of the carcass was returned to the offerer, to be eaten by himself and his friends, or such as he invited. This was ample allowance for the priest, who had the whole of the sin offerings, and some principal parts of the peace offerings. But Eli’s sons thought not so. Not satisfied with the breast and the shoulder of every victim, they begrudged the offerer the remainder. Properly their interest in the matter ceased as soon as they had received their allowance. But they pursued the remainder with greedy eyes; and at length they ventured to introduce the custom that, while the meat was boiling for the offerer and his family—which was done in some part of the tabernacle, as afterwards of the temple—a servant was sent round “with a flesh hook of three teeth in his hand.” This trident, which no doubt had the prongs wide enough apart, the man thrust into the boiler; and claimed as the perquisite of the priest whatever the instrument brought up; and this could not but frequently make a serious reduction of the food with which the offerers were used to entertain their friends, and to extend their bounty to the needy.
Even this mean and ludicrous greediness did not long satisfy the sons of Eli. Finding that this exaction was submitted to by the people, they went further yet. After the breast and shoulder had been given, but before the remainder had been put to boil, the servant came and demanded the raw meat, alleging that the priests did not want it boiled, but to roast. This might be one reason, although there were the breast and shoulder which they might roast if they liked but the real reason probably was that the three-pronged fork, striking somewhat at a venture, did not always afford such large or such choice portions as the avidity of the priests required. To secure this exaction, and to prevent all evasion this demand was made even before the fat was offered upon the altar, which, as it belonged to the Lord, and the offering of it was a highly religious act, should have been, even if only for the same of decency, first of all performed. But knowing that the offerers could not withdraw till the Lord’s portion had been presented, the demand was made before the fat was offered. The people could not but feel the gross indecorum of this proceeding; and the manner in which they meet this new exaction is in all respects praiseworthy, and shows that the men who brought the offerings had more religion at heart, and were more concerned for the honor and glory of God, than were his own ministers. They implored them to allow the Lord’s offerings to be first presented, and then, said they, “take as much as thy soul desireth.” The answer of the man to this becoming remonstrance and handsome offer was usually: “Nay, but thou shalt give it me now; and if not, I will take it by force.”
What wonder that the people were disgusted at these proceedings, and that the result was that they abstained from bringing their peace offerings to the altar, seeing that their doing so subjected them to such insult and oppression, and produced circumstances so revolting to their religious feelings. “Wherefore,” we are told, “the sin of the young men was very great before the Lord: for men abhorred the offering of the Lord.”
This was their offence, and a very terrible one it was—amounting to a betrayal of the high trusts committed to their care. Nor was this all—for we are told that they behaved themselves most vilely towards “the women who assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.” Who were these women? That is a question of greater interest at this day, than the historical fact connected with it. The question has indeed been much discussed. The most obvious and common sense view as suggested by this text alone, would seem to be that they were women who went there for worship, and who, not being admitted into the interior of the court, assembled in front of the entrance, the curtains of which being drawn aside on such occasions, allowed them a view of the interior, and of the solemn proceedings there. It has been thought, however, that there is some reference to a particular class of women, habitually attending at the tabernacle in discharge of some special duty or vocation. Some fancy that they came upon business which it belonged to women to do there, such as to wash and clean the rooms. But in that case they would be assembled, not “at the door of the tabernacle,” but within it. And then we do not know that there were any rooms to wash and clean at the tabernacle—though there were at the temple; and, more than all, such offices, and many others (such as even the washing of clothes) usually performed by women in the West, are as usually discharged by men in the East, except in the apartments appropriated to the use of women. In this, as in a thousand instances, we arrive at erroneous conclusions by arguing from the analogy of our own customs, without proper inquiry whether those of the East may not be very different. Others imagine that the women came to sew and spin at the tabernacle; as if, because the “women that were wise-hearted did spin,” at the original construction of the tabernacle, they did so always after. This is a curious instance of generalizing upon a particular passage of Scripture, having reference to a merely temporary and occasional matter. Some spinning and sewing might be necessary to renew the priestly vestures, but this was doubtless done at home—as, indeed, the original dresses and the hangings of the tabernacle were—and probably in the families of the priests themselves. It is preposterous to suppose, that the little spinning and sewing that might be necessary to keep the attire of the priests in order, should be carried on at the door of the tabernacle. The Jewish interpreters usually understand, that the congregation of females was caused by the attendance of women who had recently given birth to children, and who came with their offerings of purification—and as these were attended by their female friends and relations, a few of these parties (and there must have been several every day) would collectively form a considerable crowd at the door of the tabernacle.
Upon the whole, however, we incline to regard the first and least special explanation as the most reasonable—admitting, however, that a certain proportion of the women may have been, and probably were, such frequent and regular attendants from devout feelings, that they became well known at the tabernacle—like the communicants of a church as distinguished from the general congregation—and might be preeminently distinguished as “the women who [habitually] assembled at the door of the congregation.” To go beyond this, as some have done, and suppose that there was a body of devout women who had specially consecrated themselves to the service of the tabernacle, and to a holy life, in a state of celibacy, is more than we can find in the Bible, and seems to us a Romanist invention, wrought out of some incidental expressions, which admit and require a different interpretation; and this for the purpose of producing a show of Scripture authority for the practice of female ascetic devotement, to which both the spirit and the letter of the Old Testament and of the New, are decidedly opposed, and which has been, and is, one of the resources wherein “the proud mind of the flesh” seeks nourishment.