Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 brill.com/hbth Pious Eli? The Characterization of Eli in 1 Samuel 3:18 Ryan Cook Moody Bible Institute, Chicago, IL, USA ryan.cook@moody.edu Abstract In 1 Sam 3:18b, Eli responds to a prophetic judgment with the phrase “it is the Lord, may he do what is good in his eyes.” Most commentators understand this response as an example of pious acceptance of divine judgment. The claim of this article is that a plausible case can be made for reading Eli’s response as culpably passive. This case will be made following two lines of evidence. First, I will examine an oracle of judgment against an individual and the response as a type-scene in Samuel-Kings. Second, I will examine how this culpable passivity fits with the characterization of Eli in 1 Samuel 1-3. Keywords Eli – repentance – oracle of judgment – type-scene – Samuel 1 Introduction In 1 Sam 3:18b, Eli responds to the judgment of God delivered through the boy Samuel with the statement, ‫“( יְ הוָ ה הּוא ַהטֹוב ְב ֵעינָ ו יַ ֲע ֶשה‬it is the Lord, may he do what is good in his eyes”). This is an interesting remark, particularly since Eli’s response was not recorded after the previous announcement of judgment (2:27-36). Clearly, the narrator includes this response for a reason. Most interpreters have felt compelled to understand the significance of this remark. The vast majority see Eli as an exemplar of humble acceptance of divine sovereignty. As an example, Hanz Hertzberg comments, “In form and content Eli’s reply accords with Eastern attitudes, but also reveals a man who knows that © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2018 | doi:10.1163/18712207-12341375 Pious Eli ? 167 he stands under God. Much is packed into the short sentence.”1 Ralph Klein additionally sees Eli as a model to follow, “Eli accepts the fact that God has spoken and exemplifies the kind of acceptance of judgment that the people of God were called to make after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587.”2 This chorus of praise for Eli is nearly, but not quite unanimous. There are a few who see Eli as simply resigned to his fate. That is, they argue for neither an overtly positive or negative assessment of his statement. For example, Kyle McCarter states, “There is no wickedness in this pitiable old man, but neither is there the strength to combat wickedness.”3 Or, in the words of Adele Berlin, “No interpretation is necessary, as the reader at once grasps the resigned acceptance of the doom about which Eli had already been apprised.”4 So, is Eli’s statement a positive example of pious acceptance of God’s sovereign decision? Or, is his statement somewhat ambiguous? Or, is there another way to read Eli’s response that might fit better into the narrative of Samuel? This is an important question because it relates to Samuel’s theology of repentance and also to models for appropriating belief in God’s sovereignty. 1 H. Hertzberg, 1 and 2 Samuel (trans. J.S. Bowden; OTL; Westminster: Philadelphia, 1964) 42; See also, R. Bergen, 1,2 Samuel (NAC 7; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996) 86; R. Alter, Ancient Israel: The Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings. (New York: W.W. Norton, 2013) 257; A. Campbell, 1 Samuel (FOTL 7; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 55; B. Birch, 1 & 2 Samuel (NIB 2; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 993; R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two 1 Samuel (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989) 51; U. Simon, Reading the Prophetic Narratives (trans. Lenn Schramm. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997) 70; M. Ruffin, “1 Samuel 3:1-20,” Int 51 (1997) 176; J. Janzen, “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh (1 Samuel 3:15),” JSOT 26 (1983) 94-95; J.P. Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Vol. IV: Vow and Desire (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993) 184-85; Robert Gordon, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary (LBI; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986) 90-91; W. Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1990) 26; S. Chapman, 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2016) 88; D. Tsumara, The First Book of Samuel (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 182. 2 R. Klein, 1 Samuel. (2nd Ed. WBC; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2008) 34; See also, P. Ackroyd, The First Book of Samuel (CBCS; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971) 44. 3 P. McCarter, Jr. 1 Samuel (AB 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980) 100. 4 A. Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative (Bible and Literature Series. Sheffield: Almond, 1983) 65; See also, R. Youngblood, 1 and 2 Samuel (Rev. exp. EBC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009), 68; B. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003) 82; D. Firth, 1 and 2 Samuel (AOTC 8; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009) 79; G. Auld, 1 & II Samuel (OTL; Louisville: Westminster, 2011) 60. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 168 Cook The difficulty in this analysis is that the narrative of 1 Samuel is, in the famous phrase, “fraught with background.”5 The narrator does not explicitly tell us whether or not this statement should be viewed positively or negatively. We only know that the judgment prophesied is indeed fulfilled. However, it is necessary and possible to form an argument regarding how the implied reader would have understood this remark.6 The claim of this article is that a plausible case can be made for reading Eli’s response negatively. That is, the narrator is condemning Eli with his own words. This case will be made following two lines of evidence. First, I will examine an oracle of judgment against an individual and the response, or lack of response, as a type-scene in Samuel-Kings.7 Second, I will consider the characterization of Eli in 1 Samuel 1-3. 2 Oracle of Judgment and Response in Samuel-Kings The genre of 1 Samuel 3 has been the source of much debate.8 Functionally, one can understand this passage as a prophet delivering a judgment against an individual, even if the actual form is a bit different.9 The chapter has four of the five of the characteristics of the judgment against the individual outlined by Westermann.10 Judgment speeches attempt to elicit a response. That is the primary reason they are given. Otherwise, why proclaim judgment? 5 6 7 8 9 10 To borrow from E. Auerbach, Mimesis: The Representation of Reality in Western Literature (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1953) 12. For a theoretical discussion of the implied author and postulated reader, see W. Booth, The Rhetoric of Fiction (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983) 70-77, 177-180. See also, G. Osborn, The Hermeneutical Spiral (Rev. and exp. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2006) 211-12. I am making a distinction between type-scene and form criticism. Form criticism is concerned with getting back to the original oral form of certain types of speech. This is often helpful, however, by using the label “type-scene” I am referring to certain set situations where the implied audience would expect certain types of responses. See, R. Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative (New York: Basic, 1981) 47-62. See the cogent discussion related to the genre of this chapter in S. Frolov, The Turn of the Cycle 110-113. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech (trans. Gene Tucker; Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1992) 137. 1) Transgression by a national leader (1 Sam 3:12); 2) Contains an accusation and an announcement (1 Sam 3:11-14); 3) Announcement of catastrophic future in one sentence (1 Sam 3:13); 4) Announcement of judgment based on an accusation (1 Sam 3:13); 5) The relation between the announcement and the accusation is simple and straightforward without the need of logical connectors (e.g., “because”). This last criteria is not found in 1 Sam 3. C. Westermann, Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech 132-33. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 169 Pious Eli ? Why not simply execute the judgment? Thus, a judgment speech was given to encourage the recipient to respond positively to the judgment, and so, potentially change the outcome. However, this raises a question, what was an ideal response to an oracle of judgment? What kind of response would an ancient Israelite hearer/reader expect or hope for? This is a difficult question to answer and difficult to answer with a high degree of certainty. Nevertheless, one way of getting at this question is to examine all the judgment speeches against individuals in Samuel and Kings and examine the range of responses offered. There are fourteen scenes in Samuel-Kings in which a prophet delivers an oracle of judgment against an individual. They are outlined as follows: Number Passage Prophet Recipient Response Result 1 1 Sam 2:27-36 1 Sam 3:11-18 1 Sam 13:11-15 1 Sam 15:10-31 Man of God Samuel Eli None Fulfilled Eli Fulfilled Samuel Saul “It is the Lord. Let him do what seems good in his eyes” (3:18b). None Samuel Saul 2 Sam 12:1-14 1 Kgs 13:1-10 1 Kgs 17:1 Nathan 2 3 4 5 6 7 Man of God Elijah Fulfilled “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words, because I was afraid of the people and obeyed their voice. Now therefore, please pardon my sin and return with me that I may worship the Lord … Saul seized the skirt of his robe, and it tore … I have sinned, yet now honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me, that I may bow before the Lord your God” (15:24-30). David “I have sinned against the Lord” (12:13). Jeroboam “Seize him” (13:4) Fulfilled Ahab Fulfilled None Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 Changed (12:13) Fulfilled 170 Cook (cont.) Number Passage Prophet Recipient Response 8 1 Kgs 20:35-43 9 1 Kgs 21:17-29 A certain Ahab man of the sons of the prophets Elijah Ahab 10 1 Kgs 22:13-28 Micaiah Ahab 11 2 Kgs 1:6, 16 2 Kgs 20:1-6 (=Isaiah 38:1-6) Elijah Ahaziah Isaiah Hezekiah “Then Hezekiah turned his face to the wall and prayed to the Lord, saying, ‘O the Lord, please remember how I have walked before you in faithfulness and with a whole heart, and have done what is good in your sight.’ And Hezekiah wept bitterly” (20:2-3). 12 Result Fulfilled “And the king of Israel went to his house vexed and sullen and came to Samaria” (20:43). Changed “Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring disaster in his days …” “Seize Micaiah, and take him back to Fulfilled Amon the governor of the city … Put this fellow in prison and feed him meager rations of bread and water until I come in peace …” (22:26). None Fulfilled “When Ahab heard those words, he tore his clothes and put sackcloth on his flesh and fasted and lay in sackcloth and went about dejectedly” (21:27). Changed … “I have heard your prayer; I have seen your tears. Behold, I will heal you.” Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 171 Pious Eli ? (cont.) Number Passage Prophet Recipient Response 13 Isaiah 2 Kgs 20:14-19 (=Isa 39:3-7) 2 Kgs 21:10-15 14 The prophets Result Hezekiah “The word of the Lord that you have Fulfilled spoken is good. For he thought, ‘Why not, if there will be peace and security in my days?’” (20:19), Manasseh None Fulfilled Of these judgment scenes, five record no response (1, 3, 7, 11, 14), three have a clearly negative response (6, 8, 10), three give a positive response (5, 9, 12), while three seem ambiguous upon first reading (2, 4, 13). It is possible to lump those who did not give a response in with the negative responses since the narrator did not think it necessary to describe any change in the relationship between the Lord and the recipient. Indeed, all of those who did not respond had the judgment fulfilled against them.11 That leaves eight negative responses, three positive, and three that are not easily classified. It is worth taking a closer look at the three judgment scenes where the judgment was changed. This would imply that the recipient of the judgment responded appropriately to the denouncement. The first scene, Nathan’s confrontation of David, is a bit unusual (2 Sam 12:1-14). The prophet tells a parable, although David does not realize this, and induces David to pronounce a judgment upon himself, “As the Lord lives, the man who did this is a son of death!”12 (2 Sam 12:5). Nathan then announces that David had just declared judgment upon himself. His description of the judgment does not include David’s death (vv. 10-12), but it can be implied that Nathan agrees with David’s 11 12 Another way to look at this is that no response is itself a negative response to the oracle. Some scholars argue that the phrase ‫ן־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ ֶב‬is not a statement that someone should die, but rather a pejorative term. E.g., T. Cartledge argues that it is similar to the modern phrase “son of a bitch,” 1 & 2 Samuel (Smith & Helwys Bible Commentary; Macon: Smith & Helwys, 2001) 515. Cf. K. McCarter, II Samuel (AB 9; Garden City: Doubleday, 1984) 299. However, the other two contexts where this phrase is mentioned indicate that it refers to someone who deserves to die (1 Sam 20:31; 2 Sam 26:16). In the first passage, Saul argued with Jonathan that as long as David lived, Jonathan’s throne would not be established. Clearly, this context is referencing David’s literal death. The second context is where David confronts Abner for not protecting Saul in the way he should, thus he deserved to die. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 172 Cook assessment.13 After David responds, Nathan declares, “Indeed, the Lord has passed over (‫) ֶה ֱע ִביר‬14 your sin, you will not die” (2 Sam 12:13b). This implies that David’s initial judgment included death. So, while David still bore severe consequences for his sin, part of the judgment against him was changed. David’s response is a brief two words in Hebrew, ‫אתי ַליהוָ ה‬ ִ ‫“( ָח ָט‬I have sinned against the Lord”). David simply acknowledges his guilt before God.15 1 Kings 21:17-29 narrates Elijah’s confrontation of Ahab after the Naboth incident. After a comprehensive announcement of judgment (vv. 20-24), Ahab’s response is recorded in some detail. He tore his garments, placed sackcloth on himself and fasted for some time.16 Here we have a full description of repentance.17 The result of this is that the Lord delays the judgment he had pronounced (v. 29). This is similar to another paradigm example of repentance in the Hebrew Bible, the Ninevites (Jonah 3:5-9). The Ninevites, however, had their judgment withdrawn, not just delayed. 2 Kings 20:1-6 is unique in that there is no sin in the context or in the prophetic denouncement to explain why Hezekiah was suffering. Similarly, Hezekiah does not repent of any wrongdoing. Instead, he points to his faithfulness to the Lord in prayer and tears (v. 3). Hezekiah’s response elicits a change in the verdict and fifteen years are added to his life (v. 6). At the least, this text indicates that Hezekiah responded to the judgment with prayer and mourning and this changed the outcome. 13 14 15 16 17 “Nathan’s ‘You are the man’, one of the ‘most apt’ sayings in the Bible, takes up the verdict spoken by David without having to state it explicitly: it is a death sentence,” H. Hertzberg, I & II Samuel 313. Cf. R. Gordon, 1 & 2 Samuel 258; A. Auld argues that the term does not mean “to forgive,” I & II Samuel 467. However, A. Harman has demonstrated that the hif. of ‫ עבר‬does function in that way and is parallel to other expressions of forgiveness in the Hebrew Bible, see “‫ ”עבר‬in NIDOTTE (vol. 3; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 314-15. A. Auld points out that David does not offer any excuses or prevarications, I & II Samuel 467. The text says that he “lay in sackcloth and walked (‫ )הלך‬about gently/meekly (‫) ַאט‬. The verb ‫ הלך‬indicates that he acted in this way for some time. For a discussion of repentance with sackcloth in an ANE context, see O. Keel, The Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (trans. Timothy Hallett; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997) 318-23. He states, “This ‘lostness’ is evident in a long series of very specific gestures and postures: one crouched on the ground, threw dust on the head, rent the clothes, donned coarse apparel, abstained from nourishment … In short, one imparted form to interior desolation and despair” 318-19. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 173 Pious Eli ? Looking beyond Samuel-Kings for a moment, one exilic text speaks directly to the dynamic between announcements of judgment and responses (Ezek 33:10-16).18 Verses 13-16 in particular are important, If I tell a righteous person that they will surely live, but then they trust in their righteousness and do evil, none of the righteous things that a person has done will be remembered; they will die for the evil they have done. And if I say to a wicked person, ‘You will surely die,’ but they turn away from their sin and do what is just and right—if they give back what they took in pledge for a loan, return what they have stolen, follow the decrees that give life, and do no evil—that person will surely life; they will not die. None of the sins that a person has committed will be remembered against them. They have done what is just and right; they will surely live. NIV Granted that Ezekiel is writing from a different context and in a different time period, he does give a picture as to how the dynamic between judgment and response was understood in his day. It is not too much of a stretch to imagine that pre-exilic Israel had similar ideas, or that Ezekiel’s articulation of this is simply an outgrowth of what Israel already believed. Ezekiel indicates that if an oracle of judgment is given (v. 14), and the person repents (‫)שׁוב‬, then the judgment will be changed.19 These cases of judgment scenes where the judgment is reversed along with the text from Ezekiel together paint a picture of the ideal response to a judgment oracle. The type of response that a judgment oracle would ideally illicit is one of repentance, including a confession of guilt, the marks of mourning (i.e., rending of garments and wearing of sackcloth and ashes), along with a corresponding change in behavior.20 Not every text describes every aspect of the ideal response. However, in these cases it is possible that the author would assume the reader would pick up on the type of response being given. Thus, 18 19 20 This particular oracle has been variously dated. D. Block dates it to the first phase of Ezekiel’s ministry immediately prior to the fall of Jerusalem, The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48 (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 252; L. Allen prefers a date in Ezekiel’s second phase of ministry after the destruction of Jerusalem, Ezekiel 20-48 (WBC 29; Dallas: Word, 1990) 143. See the discussion in M. Greenberg, Ezekiel 21-37 (AB 22a; New York: Doubleday, 1997) 672-80. On marks of mourning in ancient Israel, see, E. deWard, “Mourning Customs in 1, 2 Samuel,” Journal of Jewish Studies 23 (1972) 1-27; R. DeVoux, Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions (trans. John McHugh; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997) 59. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 174 Cook when an ancient Israelite reader or hearer encountered the oracle of judgment type-scene, this would be the type of response they understood as ideal. Now that we have unpacked an ideal response, we can take a closer look at the three texts that seemed ambiguous upon first reading: 2 Kgs 20:14-29; 1 Sam 15:10-31; and 1 Sam 3:11-18. In the first text, Isaiah confronts Hezekiah for showing envoys from Merodach-baladan everything in Jerusalem.21 Isaiah’s announcement of judgment indicates that Hezekiah’s sons will be deported to Babylon along with all the wealth of Jerusalem (vv. 17-18). Hezekiah’s response is similar to Eli’s (1 Sam 3:18). Hezekiah says, ‫“( טֹוב ְּד ַבר־יְ הוָ ה‬the word of the Lord is good”). However, the narrator goes on to provide Hezekiah’s interior thoughts, which help to interpret the statement.22 In contrast to earlier in the chapter, where Hezekiah wept, cried out to God, and defended his character in the face of his impending death from sickness. Here Hezekiah does nothing. The reason for this inaction is because he only was concerned about peace and security in his own days (v. 19). This is not a real repentance. The interior speech of Hezekiah helps to resolve any ambiguity a reader may have had about this narrative. The contrast to Hezekiah’s earlier response to Isaiah’s announcement additionally serves to clarify this response as viewed negatively by the author.23 1 Samuel 15:10-31 narrates the Lord’s judgment upon Saul for sparing the Amalekite king as well as the best of his sheep and oxen. This passage has been the focus of study precisely because the judgments seems harsh compared to the offense, especially considering Saul’s response.24 After Samuel’s pronouncement of judgment (15:22-23), Saul responds in this way, ‫קֹולם׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ת־ה ֔ ָעם וָ ֶא ְשׁ ַ ֖מע ְב‬ ָ ‫אתי ֶא‬ ֙ ִ ‫ת־ּד ָב ֶ ֑ריָך ִ ֤כי יָ ֵ ֙ר‬ ְ ‫הו֖ה וְ ֶא‬ ָ ְ‫ת־פי־י‬ ֽ ִ ‫י־ע ַ ֥ב ְר ִתי ֶא‬ ָ ‫אתי ִ ֽכ‬ ִ ‫ָח ָ֔ט‬ ‫יהוה׃‬ ֽ ָ ‫ת־ח ָטאתִ֑י וְ שּׁ֣וב ִעמִ֔י וְ ֶ ֽא ְשׁ ַת ֲחוֶ֖ה ַ ֽל‬ ַ ‫וְ ַעתָ֕ה ָ ֥שא נָ֖א ֶא‬ 21 22 23 24 It is possible that this is more than just Hezekiah showing off. M. Sweeney argues that is it related to a pact to jointly revolt against Assyria, 1 & 2 Kings (OTL; Louisville: Westminster, 2007) 421-22. “With the report of inward speech, we enter the realm of relative certainty about character: there is certainty, in any case, about the characters conscious intention …” R. Alter, Art of Biblical Narrative 117. Most commentators understand Hezekiah’s response in this way as well. Contra, P. House, 1 & 2 Kings (NAC 8; Nashville: Brodman and Holman, 1995) 375. See, M. Sternberg, “The Bible’s Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and Poetics in Saul’s Fall,” HUCA 54 (1983) 45-82. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 Pious Eli ? 175 I have sinned for I have transgressed the edict of the Lord and his words for I feared the people and I listened to their voice. And now forgive my sin and return with me and I will worship the Lord. After this response, Samuel again affirms that the Lord has rejected him (v. 26), thus indicating that there was something deficient in his initial response. In a helpful study of this passage, Amos Frisch presents several reasons why Saul’s response in this narrative is deficient.25 While Saul starts with a confession of guilt (‫ָ֔אתי‬ ִ ‫) ָחט‬, this is immediately followed up by an excuse. A sort of “yes … but.”26 This stands in contrast to David’s response to Nathan, which was an unqualified confession. Further, Saul’s admission that he has listened to the voice of the people is a much more serious offence than Saul himself seems to realize.27 Finally, the phrase ‫אתי‬ ֑ ִ ‫ת־ח ָט‬ ַ ‫ ָ ֥שא ָנ֖א ֶא‬is only used one other time in the Hebrew Bible. It occurs on the lips of Pharaoh to Moses (Exod 10:16-17).28 Frisch has convincingly argued that this is an intentional allusion back to Exod 10. Thus, Saul is portrayed as having the same fickle and transient repentance as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, who went back on his word to let the people of Israel go.29 In sum, the narrator portrays Saul’s repentance as lacking true depth. From this analysis, Eli’s response to Samuel’s announcement of judgment seems rather deficient. He does not confess any wrongdoing, does not display any marks of mourning, or a resolve to change. It is true that not every mark of repentance is required to show up in every judgment oracle scene. Yet the fact that none of the normal marks associated with repentance shows up here is significant. Eli seems to display an unhealthy acquiescence to divine sovereignty that has led him to passivity. The question this raises is, does this type of response fit with his characterization in the narrative up to this point? 25 26 27 28 29 A. Frisch, “‘For I Feared the People, and I Yielded to Them’ (1 Sam 15,24)—Is Saul’s Guilt Attenuated or Intensified?” ZAW 108 (1996) 98-104. Ibid., 99. According to 2 Sam 12:14, the king was supposed to listen to the voice of the Lord and fear him as opposed to the people. “This verse is the very antithesis of Samuel’s forecast in his address at Gilgal …” Ibid., 100. Ibid., 102. This connection is also pointed out by Robert Gordon, I and II Samuel 146. Ibid., 103. Contra R. Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist, who views Saul’s repentance as genuine. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 176 3 Cook Characterization of Eli in 1 Samuel 1-2 Eli has been a prominent character in the narrative up to this point. He is first introduced in 1:3. The narrator here describes how Elkanah would go up to the tabernacle at Shiloh year after year where, “… there the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were priests to the Lord.” The fact that Eli is not mentioned as being a priest in this verse would indicate that he is not active in that role any longer. The hearer/reader might assume Eli’s age has limited his ability to function as a priest. It is perhaps not too surprising then that our next introduction to Eli is that he is “sitting on the seat30 by the doorpost of the temple of the Lord” (1:9).31 From this position he sits and watches the activity at the tabernacle. One of the things he observes (‫ )שׁמר‬is the mouth of Hannah. But he is not “observing” that closely because he mistook distress, sorrow, and lament for crass drunkenness (1:14). One wonders if there is a bit of a play on words here. Often in the Hebrew Bible, one is encouraged to observe, or guard (‫ )שׁמר‬one’s own mouth (Mic 7:5; Ps 39:2; Prov 21:23). Here Eli does not “guard” his mouth before speaking. Apparently, he was too focused “guarding” Hannah’s mouth. Then, as quickly as he made the accusation, he recants from it and offers a blessing instead. Now, there are a number of important themes in this passage and the primary character is clearly Hannah. However, the description of Eli both through the narrator’s depiction and through his own words, portray a man who is past his prime and does not have the perception to judge well. Perhaps, the reader might think, it is a good thing that his sons are the ones carrying out the priestly duties now. The reader might think that, until 1 Sam. 2:12. After Hannah has deposited her son with Eli and sung her sung her profound and subversive hymn, the narrator evaluates Eli’s sons as “sons of ‫ ְב ִלּיַ ַעל‬.” A word elsewhere reserved for the likes of the men who raped the Levite’s concubine (Judg 19:22), or the men who falsely accused Naboth of blasphemy (1 Kgs 21:13). The narrator literally puts the two statements back to back: “the sons of Eli, the sons of Belial” (‫ְּובנֵ י‬ ‫) ֵע ִלי ְבנֵ י ְב ִלּיָ ַעל‬. By saying that Eli’s sons were also Belial’s sons, the narrator subtly equates Eli with Belial.32 The narrator also informs us that these priests do 30 31 32 Some have taken this reference as “throne” and thus characterizing Eli as a kingly figure, e.g., D. Firth, 1 & 2 Samuel (AOTC; Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2009) 56. However, the word ‫ ִכ ֵּסא‬can also be used to refer to a simple chair (e.g., 2 Kgs. 4:10). With a lack of other royal allusions related to Eli, it seems best to take this reference as not having a royal connotation as well. For the technicalities related to this phrase, see, P.K. McCarter, 1 Samuel 60; R. Klein, 1 Samuel 8. Insightfully pointed out by R. Bergen, 1 & 2 Samuel 78. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 Pious Eli ? 177 not “know the Lord” (2:13). One may assume that since they are priests they know about the Lord. The sense here is that they do not recognize the authority of the Lord.33 This is then graphically illustrated in vv. 14-17. There are two salient points regarding the actions of Hophni and Phineas here. First, the way in which they selected their portion of meat was not in line with the Levitical law (Lev 7:30-34). There is nothing in the Torah that legislates sticking a threepronged fork into a boiling pot, yet that is the customary practice at Shiloh. This is something that Eli would certainly have been aware of and supported. Secondly, the sons are not content with this, but require the fat that was intended for the Lord alone (Lev 3:16). Throughout this chapter, the narrator highlights the sons’ sins related to their role as priests.34 In addition to the sins related to the offerings, vv. 22 relates that they were “laying with the women at the entrance to the tent of meeting.” These sins were highlighted because they were within Eli’s realm of responsibility not just as a father, but as the priest over the Shiloh sanctuary. The passage which describes Eli’s questioning of his sons is prefaced with the description, “Now Eli was very old …” (2:22). This indicates that Eli did not rebuke his sons until it was far too late. When he did finally confront his sons regarding these issues, he indicates that he has not seen these abuses first hand from his seat at the tabernacle, but has had to hear about what they are doing from others (2:24). The irony in this is that when he saw Hannah praying at the tabernacle, he immediately assumed the worst. However, he has not even noticed what his sons have been up to in the very same space. When the unnamed prophet gives the first lengthy denunciation of Eli, he does not condemn him for being a bad father. Rather, it is a bit of the opposite. He has honored his sons over the Lord (2:28). Additionally, this prophet makes clear that Eli has been participating in and benefitting from the shady practices of his sons in taking more than their share of the offering.35 Indeed, throughout the prophetic indictment, the main charge against Eli is that he has not honored the Lord, but despised him (2:30). The implication of 2:35 is that Eli has not been a faithful priest, thus a new priestly regime was necessary. The prophetic voice in Samuel and Kings is a trustworthy one. The implied reader surely would have understood these charges against Eli as true. This provides the context in which we seek to interpret Eli’s response to God in chapter 3. 33 34 35 DCH, IV.99. R. Klein, 1 Samuel 26-27; B. Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel 71. The prophet declares to Eli that, “you honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves (‫יא ֶכם‬ ֲ ‫ ) ְל ַה ְב ִר‬on the choicest parts of every offering …” (2:29). Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 178 4 Cook The Characterization of Eli in 1 Samuel 3 This transitional chapter is certainly more about Samuel’s rise than about Eli, but Eli does provide the necessary foil for Samuel. The statement in 3:1 that the “word of the Lord was rare in those days …” would imply for the reader that Eli was not a bearer of the Lord’s word, like Samuel will be. Eli is also described as having poor eyesight, which is likely an allusion to his spiritual as well as his physical state (v. 2).36 Additionally, the narrative juxtaposes the sleeping places of Samuel and Eli. Verse 2 generically states that Eli was sleeping ‫ ִב ְמקֹמֹו‬, wherever that might be. It is possible that this is a rather innocuous remark except for the fact that the narrator takes the care to mention where Samuel is sleeping in the next verse. He is said to be sleeping, “in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was” (v. 3). Thus, Samuel is narratively depicted as being geographically closer to the Lord than Eli. The following scene is a bit comic with the Lord calling Samuel and Samuel running to Eli. The narrator gives a reason why Samuel did not recognize the voice of the Lord in v. 7, it is because he did not yet know him. This is the same phrase used to describe Eli’s sons in 2:12. Clearly, the adult sons who were serving as priests were more culpably ignorant of the Lord than Samuel. However, the common denominator for both Eli’s sons and Samuel is that they had been raised and trained by Eli. Is there a sense of culpability on Eli’s part indicated here? Additionally, one wonders if Eli would have been expected to pick up more quickly on the fact that the Lord was calling to Samuel. Robert Bergen puts it this way, “The narrator’s portrayal of Israel’s high priest as a man who required three tries to perceive Yahweh’s work in a child’s life probably is intended to confirm the correctness of God’s judgment on Eli’s house. It reinforces the image cast in 1:12-16 of Eli as a spiritual dolt. The venerable patriarch was scarcely more spiritually enlightened than his spiritually benighted sons.”37 Finally, Eli’s response to Samuel in the morning seems to indicate that he knew that the message Samuel received would be one of condemnation for him. He uses an oath formula, which has been compared to similar oaths from Mari where prophets were called upon to affirm that they were revealing everything that they were commanded.38 Eli seems to suspect that the Lord’s revelation to the boy was going to be one the boy would be hesitant to share with him. Textually this is coherent because Eli has already heard directly from a 36 37 38 R. Bergen, 1 & 2 Samuel 86. R. Bergen, 1 & 2 Samuel 86. V. Hurowitz, “Eli’s Adjuration of Samuel (1 Samuel III:17-18) in the Light of a ‘Diviner’s Protocol’ from Mari (AEM I/1, 1),” VT 44 (1994) 483-97. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 Pious Eli ? 179 prophet about the foretold judgment against his house. He may be expecting to hear that kind of judgment again. Having the judgment repeated a second time would certainly indicate that the judgment was more firmly set.39 A potential argument to still read Eli’s response as a positive example of submitting to divine sovereignty is to argue that Eli’s judgment was so certain that nothing he could do would avert the impending disaster. In addition to the judgment being pronounced twice narratively, God says to Samuel, “Therefore I have sworn concerning the house of Eli, if the guilt of the house of Eli can be atoned by sacrifice, or offering ever” (3:14). This literal rending is a familiar oath pattern. The force of the statement is to clearly say that the guilt of Eli’s house could never be wiped away by any of the normal means for ancient Israel: sacrifice or offering. Does this not indicate that Eli had no way of averting the outcome even if he was the paradigm of repentance? On the one hand, this question does not greatly impact my interpretation. Even if Eli could not avert the judgment, a positive response to a judgment oracle would still be to confess and mourn over one’s sin. Nevertheless, in ancient Israelite thought there still may have been hope for Eli despite the Lord’s statement in 3:14 and the double pronouncement of judgment. In an insightful comment on Lev 5:20-25 (Eng. 6:1-7), Jacob Milgrom wonders how it was possible that someone could be forgiven after stealing from a fellow Israelite, and then swearing on oath that he did not steal it. In this case you have an intentional sin compounded by a false oath in the name of God, a capital offence. This in the context of a theology which argued that intentional sins could not be atoned for (Num 15:29-30). Milgrom argues that this is possible because, “the repentance of sinners, through their remorse and confession, reduces their intentional sin to an inadvertence, thereby rendering it eligible for sacrificial expiation.”40 Perhaps there would have yet been some faint hope for Eli. 5 Conclusion This article has attempted to demonstrate that despite the near unanimous perspective of commentators, Eli’s statement in 1 Sam. 3:18 is not likely an example of his piety, nor is it intended to serve as a model to the exilic community to accept God’s judgment. Rather, it is more plausibly understood as 39 40 This was generally true in the ancient world (e.g., Gen 41:32). J. Milgrom, Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics (Continental Commentary; Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004) 59. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 180 Cook a culpable passivity, an unhealthy immobility in the face of an over-bearing sense of divine sovereignty. The oracles of judgment in 1 Sam 2 and 3 were intended to bring about a repentance from Eli, which never came. This argument was made based on an examination of prophetic oracles of judgment and their responses in Samuel-Kings, where it is clarified that the expected response to a pronouncement of judgment would include a confession of guilt, the marks of mourning (i.e., rending of garments and wearing of sackcloth and ashes), along with a corresponding change in behavior. This attitude of culpable passivity also fits with the characterization of Eli up to this point in the narrative of Samuel. Bibliography Ackroyd, Peter R. The First Book of Samuel. CBC. London: Cambridge University Press, 1971. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 20-48. WBC 29. Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1990. Alter, Robert. The Art of Biblical Narrative. New York, NY: Basic Books, 1981. Alter, Robert. Ancient Israel: the Former Prophets: Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings: a Translation with Commentary. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, 2013. Arnold, Bill T. 1 And 2 Samuel: the NIV Application Commentary from Biblical Text—to Contemporary Life. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2003. Auerbach, Erich. Mimesis: the Representation of Reality in Western Literature. Translated by Willard R. Trask. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1953. Auld, A. Graeme. I & II Samuel: a Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011. Bergen, Robert D. 1, 2 Samuel: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. NAC 7. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 2002. Berlin, Adele. Poetics and Interpretation of Biblical Narrative. BLS. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1983. Block, Daniel Isaac. The Book of Ezekiel: Chapters 25-48. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Booth, Wayne C. The Rhetoric of Fiction. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1983. Brueggemann, Walter. First and Second Samuel: Interpretation: a Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching. IBC. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1990. Campbell, Antony F. 1 Samuel. FOTL 7. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2003. Cartledge, Tony W. 1 & 2 Samuel: Bible Commentary. SHBC. Macon,GA: Smyth & Helwys Pub., 2001. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 Pious Eli ? 181 Chapman, Stephen B. 1 Samuel as Christian Scripture: a Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2016. Clines, David J.A. Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 9 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 1993-2014. De Ward, Eileen. “Mourning Customs in 1, 2 Samuel.” JJS 23 (1972): 1-2. Dozeman, Thomas B., Ronald E. Clements, Robert B. Coote, Dennis T. Olson, Kathleen Anne, Farmer, Bruce C. Birch, and Peter D. Miscall. The New Interpreters Bible, v. II: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Introduction to the Narrative Literature, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, First and Second Samuel. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. Firth, David. 1 & 2 Samuel. Vol. 8. AOTC. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2009. Fokkelman, J.P. Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel: a Full Interpretation Based on Stylistic and Structural Analyses. Vol 4, Vow and Desire (I Sam. 1-12). SSN 31. Assen: Van Gorcum, 1993. Frisch, Amos. “‘For I Feared the People, and I Yielded to Them’ (1 Sam 15,24)—Is Saul’s Guilt Attenuated or Intensified?.” ZAW 108 (1996): 98-104. Frolov, Serge. The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1-8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2004. Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: a Commentary. LBI. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. Greenberg, Moshe. Ezekiel 21-37: a New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB 22A. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm, and J.S. Bowden. I & II Samuel, a Commentary. Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press, 1964. House, Paul R. 1, 2 Kings: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture. Vol. 8. NAC. Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman, 1995. Hurowitz, Victor Avigdor. “Eli’s Adjuration of Samuel (1 Samuel III: 17-18) in the Light of a ‘Diviner’s Protocol’ from Mari (AEM i/1, 1).” VT 44 (1994): 483-97. Janzen, J. Gerald. “Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh (1 Samuel 3:15).” JSOT 26 (1983); 94-95. Keel, Othmar. Symbolism of the Biblical World: Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms. Translated by Timothy Hallett. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008. McCarter, P. Kyle. I Samuel: a New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 8. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1980. McCarter, P. Kyle. II Samuel: a New Translation with Introduction, Notes and Commentary. AB 9. New York, NY: Doubleday, 1984. Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus: a Book of Ritual and Ethics. CC. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182 182 Cook Osborne, Grant R. The Hermeneutical Spiral: a Comprehensive Introduction to Biblical Interpretation. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006. Polzin, Robert. Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History: Part Two 1 Samuel. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1989. Ruffin, Michael. “1 Samuel 3:1-20.” Int 51 (1997): 175-78. Simon, Uriel. Reading Prophetic Narratives. Translated by Leonard J. Schramm. ISBL. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1997. Sternberg, Meir. “The Bible’s Art of Persuasion: Ideology, Rhetoric, and Poetics in Saul’s Fall.” HUCA 54 (1983): 45-82. Sweeney, Marvin Alan. First and Second Kings: a Commentary. OTL. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2007. Tsumura, David T. The First Book of Samuel. NICOT. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007. VanGemeren, Willem A. New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1997. Vaux, Roland de, and John McHugh. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1997. Westermann, Claus. Basic Forms of Prophetic Speech. Translated by Hugh Clayton White. Cambridge: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1992. Youngblood, Ronald F., Richard Patterson, and Hermann Austel. 1 Samuel-2 Kings. Edited by Tremper Longman and David E. Garland. EBC 3. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2010. Horizons in Biblical Theology 40 (2018) 166-182