In 1 Samuel 3:13, God explains to the boy Samuel that he will hold Eli to account, not for what he has done personally, but for what he has allowed to continue under his watch:

“And I declare to him that I am about to punish his house forever, for the iniquity that he knew, because his sons were blaspheming God, and he did not restrain them.” (ESV, my emphasis)

There is no indication that Eli, like his sons Hophni and Phinehas, had acted wickedly. In fact, he appears to take sin seriously. Twice at the beginning of 1 Samuel he reprimands people for their sin.

First, he rebukes Hannah for what he (wrongly) assumes to be drunkenness on her part:

“Eli took her to be a drunken woman. And he said to her, ‘How long will you go on being drunk? Put your wine away from you.’” (1 Sam 1:13-14).

In his old age (1 Sam 2:22), his powers of perception may not be what they were. Nevertheless, he is a man of principle and openly rebukes a woman whom he suspects to be drunk at the house of the Lord.

Second, when he hears reports of his sons’ corrupt, abusive behaviour, he confronts them:

“Eli kept hearing all that his sons were doing to all Israel [they exploited and bullied the people by forcibly stealing sacrificial meat], and how they lay with the women who were serving at the entrance to the tent of meeting. And he said to them, ‘Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil dealings from all these people. No, my sons; it is no good report that I hear the people of the LORD spreading abroad. If someone sins against a man, God will mediate for him, but if someone sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?’” (1 Sam 2:22-25, ESV)

Eli’s sons were wicked men (1 Sam 2:12), who treated the Lord’s offering with contempt (1 Sam 2:17). When Eli heard what they were up to, he took their sin seriously enough to confront them. But, he was both priest and judge in Israel (1 Sam 1:9; 2:11; 4:18), and as such “was effectively the human leader of the people of Israel at this time” (John Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader). Therefore, it wasn’t enough that he just gave them a fatherly ticking off. He needed to restrain his sons, “to eject them from their sacred office.” (G.T. Manley, New Bible Dictionary, 310). If he didn’t stop them, who would?

Almost always when cases of serious power abuse come to light, behind the grim stories of repeated bullying, or embezzlement, or sexual abuse (Eli’s sons seemed to specialise in the lot), there lies a senior leader or leaders who knew what was going on, had words in private (see 1 Tim 5:20), but ultimately chose not to restrain the abuser.

Notice the way that the ESV translates the Hebrew verb at the beginning of 2:22: “Eli kept hearing.” It’s not hard to think of modern parallels. The bishop keeps hearing that Rev Jones makes his female staff uncomfortable with his innuendo, furtive glances, and inappropriate touching. So he has a quiet word in Jones’ ear and tells him to be more careful around his staff. The board of governors keeps hearing that the seminary president berates and bullies his staff. They address concerns to him, and even arrange counselling to help him to work through his anger and deceit issues. But when the reports of bullying keep coming they turn a blind eye and cover things over “for the sake of the gospel.”

If you’d asked Eli, he would have said that he was taking his sons’ sin seriously. More than that, he would have believed that he was discharging his duty before God. But, it wasn’t enough to reprimand them. He needed to restrain them because the buck stopped with him:

“‘I gave to the house of your father all my offerings by fire from the people of Israel [i.e. you stand in a position of great privilege and responsibility Eli]. Why then do you scorn my sacrifices and my offerings that I commanded for my dwelling, and honor your sons above me by fattening yourselves on the choicest parts of every offering of my people Israel?’” (1 Sam 2:28-29, ESV).

Eli hadn’t personally taken the choice offerings for himself. But in God’s eyes his lack of active intervention made him complicit. Likewise, the bishop, or the chair of the board, or the presbytery, or the denominational head, who allows an abuser to continue in their wicked ways under their watch, is complicit in that abuser’s sins. God takes such a dereliction of duty very seriously indeed.

Eli had to restrain his sons. Notice what is at stake. It is not ultimately that the people of Israel were being bullied and abused, horrific as that was. It was that God was being scorned and dishonoured (1 Sam 2:29).

That ultimately is what passive ecclesiastical functionaries like Eli and their modern counterparts have in common with wicked abusers—they don’t care about God’s honour. They talk a good game, and they say all the right things, but when push comes to shove they don’t love or respect God enough to uphold his holiness before his people and a watching world.

God will judge them for that, just as he did Eli.

Share this post: