1. The sons of Eli honour themselves above the Lord.

1 Samuel 2:22 Eli’s sons

‘In the book of Samuel there is an interesting account of the high priest Eli. Eli was a judge, a devoted servant of the Lord in ancient Israel. He was a descendant of Aaron through his younger son. Most often we think of Eli through his connection with the child Samuel in the temple. But the sons of Eli were evil and did not keep the commandments of the Lord. They, therefore, knew not the God of Israel but worshiped wickedness. The account reads: “Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did unto all Israel”  (1 Sam. 2:22)

As a result of their evil acts, they were not privileged to administer the ordinances of the Lesser Priesthood. It would have been their right to continue in offering the outward ordinances of the Lesser Priesthood after their father’s death. Instead, they lost not only the privileges of priesthood service but also eternal life.

The Lord condemned Eli, and he was no longer among the chosen because as a father he did not discipline and control his sons. “. . . I will judge his house for ever for the iniquity which he knoweth;” said the Lord, “because his sons made themselves vile, and he restrained them not”  (1 Samuel 3:13) (John H Vandenberg, General Conference, April 1964)

2. Eli honours his sons above the Lord.

1 Samuel 2:13–36. If the Priests Were Entitled to a Portion of Certain Sacrifices, Why Were the Sons of Eli Punished?

“Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his share was the heave-leg and wave-breast. And this he was to receive after the fat portions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar [see Leviticus 7:30–34]. To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God. … Moreover, the priests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrifice boiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altar and giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of their taking it forcibly out of the pots while it was being boiled [see 1 Samuel 2:12–17]. Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests’ servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby brought the sacrifice of the Lord into contempt.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:35–36.)

The poor example of the priests caused others in Israel to abhor “the offering of the Lord” (v. 17). But these actions were not all, for the sons of Eli seduced women and engaged in adulterous acts at the very door of the tabernacle, evidently by misusing their office of priest to entice the women (see v. 22). Under the law of Moses, willful disobedience to parents was punishable by death, and the parents were obliged to see that the punishment was carried out (see Reading 20-9). Hophni and Phinehas compounded their already serous sins by disobeying their father, and Eli failed in his parental responsibility as well as in his office as the presiding priest. Although he rebuked his sons, he took no action to see that the abomination in his family and at the tabernacle was corrected. Therefore, “a man of God” (some unnamed prophet) came to Eli and pronounced the Lord’s curse upon Eli’s house because “[thou] honourest thy sons above me” (vv. 27, 29). That is, Eli’s relationship with his sons was of more value to him than his relationship with God. (Institute Old Testament Manual)

 

3. Samuel honours the Lord.

1 Samuel 3: 1-14 Here am I

‘Though Samuel became a servant of the Lord by covenant before his birth, this is the first recorded revelation through him. It came in a day when ‘the word of the Lord was precious’. The word ‘precious’, like the Hebrew word it translates, bears the dual sense of rare and valuable. That a spokesman for the Lord had arisen soon became evident to the people (vv 19-20).  It is interesting that at first Samuel didn’t recognise the voice calling to him; we all learn line upon line. Note especially how the Lord called several times and how Samuel finally responded, as did Abraham of old, ‘Here am I’ (compare Genesis 22:1). Ultimately, Samuel’s response must be our response if we desire to receive more revelation, more opportunities, more blessings from the Lord: ‘Speak …for thy servant heareth’ (verse 9).

Because Eli was an enabler of his sons’ misbehaviour – ‘he restrained them not’ *v 13) – he was condemned by the Lord.’ (Andrew C Skinner and D Kelly Ogden, Verse by Verse, the Old Testament)

4. The Israelites honour the world.

1 Samuel 8:1. What Type of Government Did Israel Have under Samuel and Those Leaders Who Preceded Him?

‘“Thearchy or theocracy is government by the immediate direction of God through his ministers and representatives. A state governed in this manner is called theocracy. This was the original earthly government, Adam serving as the great presiding high priest through whom the laws of the Lord, both temporal and spiritual, were revealed and administered. This type of government apparently continued among the righteous portion of mankind from the days of Adam to Enoch and the taking of Zion to the Lord’s bosom.

“The great patriarchs after the flood—Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and others—appear to have had this type of government. Righteous portions of the Jareditish peoples were undoubtedly governed on this system. Certainly ancient Israel in the days of Moses and the judges operated on a theocratic basis, and the same system prevailed among the Nephite portion of Lehi’s descendants during most of their long history. When Christ comes to reign personally on earth during the millennial era, a perfect theocratic government will prevail. (D. & C. 38:20–22; 58:20–22.)” (McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 789.)

This type of government was the ideal. During the reign of the judges, however, the wickedness of the people in general and of certain leaders in particular largely invalidated the theocratic form of government.’ (Institute Old Testament Manual)

1 Samuel 8:3–7. What Caused the Elders of Israel to Reject Samuel As Their Judge and Leader and Desire a King?

‘Samuel’s sons set a poor example to the people. They turned aside from the religious truths they had learned in their youth. They used their judgeships to seek monetary gain, betraying their sacred trusts by taking bribes and giving perverted judgments. But, even more than this, the Israelites as a people had become weak and sinful and were envious of surrounding kingdoms, even though their governments were wicked and oppressive. So they used Samuel’s sons as an excuse to justify their desire to be governed by the same system as the gentile nations.

“The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies. Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obstinacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart.” (Keil and Delitzsch, Commentary, 2:2:78.)

The Lord Himself said to Samuel, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them” (v. 7).’ (Institute Old Testament Manual)

1 Samuel 8:6-22 The Lord consents to give Israel a king

‘Samuel feared for Israel’s freedom under a king, who could easily become an autocrat or tyrant. But in spite of his plain warnings of this danger, and his concept of the theocratic republic they should have retained, they insisted on a king, and the Lord instructed Samuel to grant them their request even if it was to their detriment (compare Mosiah 29:33-38). He comforted Samuel by telling him that Israel’s rejection of his wise counsel was a rejection not of him but of the Lord.

Note how the Lord’s warning to his people, conveyed by Samuel, is composed of several sections each beginning with ‘he will take’ (vv 11-17). The king’s unfair demands would inevitably be followed by the united protest of Israel ‘ye shall cry out’ (v 18). It is almost impossible to find a king who would not be wholly self-centred, whose materialistic demands would not far exceed that which Israel was to consecrate to their Heavenly King. That is why the Book of Mormon emphasises so strongly the idea that if it were possible to have just men occupy the throne, men who put God first, it would be expedient to have kings (Mosiah 23:8; 29:13,16). But that is not possible. Three sad stories of kingship follow in the books of Samuel and Kings – of Saul, David and Solomon.’ (Andrew C Skinner and D Kelly Ogden, Verse by Verse, the Old Testament)