The Fallible · Synthetic · Study Bible
Eli’s Wicked Sons
1 Samuel 2:12–26 — Eli’s Wicked Sons. Each verse below carries the full apparatus: the Berean Standard Bible, the vocalized original (tap any word), and a parsed breakdown of every term transcribed from the interlinear. Synthesized commentary, canonical threads, and the reading of Christ gather at the end, over the whole unit.
12Now the sons of Eli were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·ḇə·nê ‘ê·lî ḇə·lî·yā·‘al bə·nê lō yā·ḏə·‘ū ’eṯ- Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-sons-of Eli [were] sons-of-worthlessness; not they-knew ʼeth-YHWH.
Where the English smooths the original
The whole conduct of these high priestly officials showed they were utter unbelievers. They used their sacred position merely as affording an opportunity for their selfish extortions; and, as is so often the case now, as it was then, their unbelief was the source of their moral worthlessness
Worthless men. See note on 1 Samuel 1:16 . they knew not the Lord] Were ignorant of His character and so despised His laws.
worthless fellows, and knew not the Lord, sc., as He should be known, i.e., did not fear Him, or trouble themselves about Him
13or for the custom of the priests with the people. When any man offered a sacrifice, the servant of the priest would come with a three-pronged meat fork while the meat was boiling
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·miš·paṭ hak·kō·hă·nîm ’eṯ- hā·‘ām kāl- ’îš zō·ḇê·aḥ ze·ḇaḥ na·‘ar hak·kō·hên ū·ḇā šə·lōš- haš·šin·na·yim bə·yā·ḏōw wə·ham·maz·lêḡ hab·bā·śār kə·ḇaš·šêl
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-due of-the-priests with the-people: every man sacrificing a-sacrifice — and-came the-lad of-the-priest as-the-boiling-of the-flesh, and-the-fork of-three the-teeth in-his-hand,
Where the English smooths the original
The right translation is that given by the Sept., Syriac, and Chaldee, namely, "the due of the priests from the people," on which see Leviticus 7:31-35 .
Mishpat signifies the right which they had usurped to themselves in relation to the people.
It was therefore a gross act of disobedience and lawlessness on the part of Hophni and Phinehas to take more than the Law gave them. Incidental evidence is afforded by this passage to the existence of the Levitical law at this time.Barnes is arguing here against a critical reconstruction that dated the Levitical law later than Samuel; the argument is his, and the reader should weigh it as such rather than as a datum of the text.
14and plunge it into the pan or kettle or cauldron or cooking pot. And the priest would claim for himself whatever the meat fork brought up. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·hik·kāh ḇak·kî·yō·wr ’ōw ḇad·dūḏ ’ōw ḇaq·qal·la·ḥaṯ ’ōw ḇap·pā·rūr hak·kō·hên yiq·qaḥ bōw kōl ’ă·šer ham·maz·lêḡ ya·‘ă·leh kā·ḵāh ya·‘ă·śū lə·ḵāl yiś·rā·’êl hab·bā·’îm šām bə·ši·lōh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
and-he-struck into-the-basin or into-the-kettle or into-the-cauldron or into-the-pot; all that the-fork brought-up the-priest took for-himself. Thus they-did to-all-Israel, those-coming there at-Shiloh.
Where the English smooths the original
all that the fleshhook brought up the priest took for himself; as his own property; whereas no part of it at all belonged to him, he having had the breast and shoulder delivered to him in the first place; and yet, by this method, all that he could drag up with this three forked instrument he claimed as his own
(l) Transgressing the order appointed in the Law, Le 7:31, for their bellies sake.
strooke ] An old form of struck , Cp. Milton’s Ode on the Nativity , “Such music sweet As never was by mortal fingerCambridge is glossing an archaic English spelling in the King James text, not the Hebrew; included because it shows how much of a commentator’s labour goes to the translation’s own history rather than to the original.
15Even before the fat was burned, the servant of the priest would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, “Give the priest some meat to roast, because he will not accept boiled meat from you, but only raw.”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
gam bə·ṭe·rem ha·ḥê·leḇ yaq·ṭi·rūn ’eṯ- na·‘ar hak·kō·hên ū·ḇā wə·’ā·mar lā·’îš haz·zō·ḇê·aḥ tə·nāh lak·kō·hên ḇā·śār liṣ·lō·wṯ wə·lō- yiq·qaḥ mə·ḇuš·šāl bā·śār mim·mə·ḵā kî ’im- ḥāy
Literal — word-for-word from the original
Even before they-burned-as-incense the-fat, and-came the-lad of-the-priest and-said to-the-man the-one-sacrificing: “Give flesh to-roast for-the-priest; and-he-will-not-take from-thee boiled flesh — but only raw.”
Where the English smooths the original
But to take the flesh of the victim, and roast it before the symbolic offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to robbing God. It dishonoured the whole ceremony.
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, and is therefore referred to here with the emphatic particle גּם, as being the worst crime that the sons of Eli committed.
because the three forked flesh hook did not always bring up the best pieces out of the boiling pot; and therefore he resolved to have flesh raw, that he might have the best, as well as dress it to his own liking.
Their offence was committed even in offering the sacrifices for sins, which typified the atonement of the Saviour! Sins against the remedy, the atonement itself, are most dangerous, they tread under foot the blood of the covenant.Henry calls these “the sacrifices for sins.” JFB, Gill and K&D all identify the offerings in view as peace or thank offerings, with which a sacrificial meal was joined — so Henry’s premise is doubtful even though his conclusion (that sin against the remedy is the gravest kind) stands on its own.
16And if any man said to him, “The fat must be burned first; then you may take whatever you want,” the servant would reply, “No, you must give it to me right now. If you refuse, I will take it by force!”
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
hā·’îš way·yō·mer ’ê·lāw ha·ḥê·leḇ qaṭ·ṭêr yaq·ṭî·rūn kay·yō·wm wə·qaḥ- lə·ḵā ka·’ă·šer nap̄·še·ḵā tə·’aw·weh wə·’ā·mar lō lō kî ṯit·tên ‘at·tāh wə·’im- lā·qaḥ·tî ḇə·ḥā·zə·qāh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-said to-him the-man: “Let-them-surely-burn first the-fat, then-take for-thyself as-thy-soul desires.” And-he-said: “No, for now thou-shalt-give; and-if-not, I-take by-force.”
Where the English smooths the original
Take as much as thy soul desireth; we are content to relinquish our parts to thee, only let not God be wronged of his due.
by which it appears that the men that brought the sacrifice had more religion at heart, and were more concerned for the honour and glory of God than the priest
To what pitch of wickedness may not a man arrive who has shaken off the fear of God, and all sense of his presence and power!
17Thus the sin of these young men was severe in the sight of the LORD, for they were treating the LORD’s offering with contempt.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ḥaṭ·ṭaṯ han·nə·‘ā·rîm wat·tə·hî gə·ḏō·w·lāh mə·’ōḏ ’eṯ- pə·nê Yah·weh kî hā·’ă·nā·šîm Yah·weh min·ḥaṯ ni·’ă·ṣū ’êṯ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-was the-sin of-the-lads great exceedingly before the-face of-YHWH, for the-men spurned ʼeth the-offering of-YHWH.
Where the English smooths the original
Corruption in the priesthood begets profanity in the people. Cp. Malachi 2:8-9 . “They made it vile in the eyes of the people by shewing how vile it was in their eyes.
The robbery which they committed was a small sin in comparison with the contempt of the sacrifices themselves, which they were the means of spreading among the peopleK&D is here quoting O. v. Gerlach, a nineteenth-century German commentator, within his own text; the judgement is quoted, not original to Keil and Delitzsch.
Religion was being brought into general disrepute through the conduct of its leading ministers; was it likely that piety, justice, and purity would be honoured and loved in the land of Israel when the whole ritual of the sacrifices was openly scoffed at in the great sanctuary of the people by the chief priests of their faith?
Minchah, here in the general sense of "gift or offering" to God (compare Malachi 1:10-11 ; Malachi 3:3 ). In its restricted sense, it is used of the meat offerings
18Now Samuel was ministering before the LORD—a boy wearing a linen ephod.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
ū·šə·mū·’êl mə·šā·rêṯ ’eṯ- pə·nê Yah·weh na·‘ar ḥā·ḡūr bāḏ ’ê·p̄ō·wḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Samuel [was] ministering before the-face of-YHWH — a-lad, girded [with] an-ephod of-linen.
Where the English smooths the original
While the misconduct of Eli's sons was thus bringing religion into contempt, and sapping the nation's morals, Samuel was advancing in years and piety, and was gaining that education which made him fit to retrieve the evil of their doings.
Samuel received a dress of this kind even when a boy, because he was set apart to a lifelong service before the Lord.
A garment used in God’s service, and allowed, not only to the inferior priests and Levites, but also to eminent persons of the people, and therefore to Samuel, who, though not a priest, was both a Levite and a Nazarite from his birth.Benson's “Nazarite from his birth” rests on Hannah's vow at 1 Samuel 1:11 and on the Septuagint, not on an explicit statement in the Hebrew of this chapter.
19Each year his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him when she went with her husband to offer the annual sacrifice.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
mî·yā·mîm yā·mî·māh ’im·mōw ta·‘ă·śeh- lōw qā·ṭōn ū·mə·‘îl wə·ha·‘al·ṯāh lōw ba·‘ă·lō·w·ṯāh ’eṯ- ’î·šāh liz·bō·aḥ ’eṯ- hay·yā·mîm ze·ḇaḥ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-a-robe little would-make for-him his-mother, and-bring-up [it] to-him from-days to-days, in-her-going-up with her-husband to-sacrifice the-sacrifice of-the-days.
Where the English smooths the original
This annual present, however, of clothing made by the mother's hands proves that the dedication of her son to God was not allowed to interfere with home affections
denotes a kind of long upper tunic, worn by kings ( 1 Chronicles 15:27 ), prophets ( 1 Samuel 15:27 ), men of position ( Job 2:12 ), women of rank ( 2 Samuel 13:18 ). The term is applied to a part of the High
and this Hannah did partly out of her great love to her son Samuel, and partly to lessen the expense that Eli, or the congregation, were at in the maintenance of him
Aware that he could not yet render any useful service to the tabernacle, she undertook the expense of supplying him with wearing apparel. All weaving stuffs, manufacture of cloth, and making of suits were anciently the employment of women.
20And Eli would bless Elkanah and his wife, saying, “May the LORD give you children by this woman in place of the one she dedicated to the LORD.” Then they would go home.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
‘ê·lî ’eṯ- ū·ḇê·raḵ ’el·qā·nāh wə·’eṯ- ’iš·tōw wə·’ā·mar Yah·weh yā·śêm lə·ḵā ze·ra‘ min- haz·zōṯ hā·’iš·šāh ta·ḥaṯ haš·šə·’ê·lāh ’ă·šer šā·’al Yah·weh wə·hā·lə·ḵū lim·qō·mōw
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-blessed Eli ʼeth-Elkanah and-ʼeth-his-wife and-said: “May-set YHWH for-thee seed from this woman in-place-of the-petition which was-asked for-YHWH.” And-they-went to-his-place.
Where the English smooths the original
Better as in the margin, in return for the petition which she asked for Jehovah : i.e. in place of Samuel, for whom she prayed in order to dedicate him to God.
Eli blessed his parents for having given up the boy to the Lord, and expressed this wish to the father: "The Lord lend thee seed of this woman in the place of the one asked for (השּׁאלה), whom they (one) asked for from the Lord.
The manner in which Eli blesses Elkanah shows that this surrender of a very young child to religious service was not looked upon as imposing a burden upon the sanctuary, but as the bestowal of a valued gift.
There were evidently two parties at Shiloh, the head-quarters of the national religion: the reckless, unbelieving section, headed by Hophni and Phinehas; and the God-fearing, law-loving partisans of the old Divine law, under the influence of the weak, but religious, Eli.Ellicott's reconstruction of two rival parties at Shiloh is inference from the narrative, not something the text states; it is a plausible reading of 2:12-26 but should be held as his hypothesis.
21So the LORD attended to Hannah, and she conceived and gave birth to three sons and two daughters. Meanwhile, the boy Samuel grew up in the presence of the LORD.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
kî- Yah·weh ’eṯ- p̄ā·qaḏ ḥan·nāh wat·ta·har wat·tê·leḏ šə·lō·šāh- ḇā·nîm ū·šə·tê ḇā·nō·wṯ han·na·‘ar šə·mū·’êl way·yiḡ·dal ‘im- Yah·weh
Literal — word-for-word from the original
For visited YHWH ʼeth-Hannah, and-she-conceived and-bore three sons and-two daughters. And-grew-great the-lad Samuel with YHWH.
Where the English smooths the original
Eli's word was fulfilled, or still more simply, they went to their home blessed; for Jehovah visited Hannah, blessed her with "three sons and two daughters; but the boy Samuel grew up with the Lord," i.e., near to Him (at the sanctuary), and under His protection and blessing.
whereby the prophecy of Hannah was fulfilled, 1 Samuel 2:5 , and was no doubt matter of great joy to her, though of these children we nowhere else read, nor even of their names.
Three stages of physical, moral ( 1 Samuel 2:26 ), and spiritual ( 1 Samuel 3:19-21 ) growth are marked.
Grew; not only in age and stature, but especially in wisdom and goodness, as Luke 1:15 . Or, was magnified ; or grew great , famous and acceptable, as 1 Samuel 2:26 . Before the Lord; not only before men, who might be deceived, but in the presence and judgment of the all-seeing God.
22Now Eli was very old, and he heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they were sleeping with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·‘ê·lî mə·’ōḏ zā·qên wə·šā·ma‘ ’êṯ kāl- ’ă·šer bā·nāw ya·‘ă·śūn lə·ḵāl yiś·rā·’êl wə·’êṯ ’ă·šer- yiš·kə·ḇūn ’eṯ- han·nā·šîm haṣ·ṣō·ḇə·’ō·wṯ pe·ṯaḥ ’ō·hel mō·w·‘êḏ
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-Eli [was] very old, and-he-heard ʼeth-all that his-sons were-doing to-all-Israel, and-that they-lay-with the-women the-ones-serving [at] the-entrance of-the-Tent of-Meeting.
Where the English smooths the original
These women were evidently in some way connected with the service of the Tabernacle; possibly they assisted in the liturgical portion of the sanctuary worship.
The order of ministering women instituted by Moses probably lasted down to the destruction of the temple, and Anna may have belonged to it ( Luke 2:37 ); afterwards it appeared again in a more spiritual form in the widows and deaconesses of the Christian Church.Pulpit's continuous line from Moses through Anna to the Christian deaconesses is a historical reconstruction, not a claim the text makes; Poole in the same file denies there was any such standing order at this date.
not that they lay with them at the door in a public beastly manner; but the women that came thither they decoyed into their own apartments, or into some of the courts of the tabernacle, and there debauched them
(p) Which was (as the Hebrews write) after their travail, when they came to be purified, read Ex 38:8Geneva follows a rabbinic identification of these women as new mothers coming for purification. Cambridge and Pulpit instead read them as a standing body of female servers, and Gill reports the rabbinic reading only to reject it.
23“Why are you doing these things?” Eli said to his sons. “I hear about your wicked deeds from all these people.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
lām·māh ṯa·‘ă·śūn hā·’êl·leh ’ă·šer kad·də·ḇā·rîm way·yō·mer lā·hem ’ā·nō·ḵî šō·mê·a‘ ’eṯ- rā·‘îm diḇ·rê·ḵem mê·’êṯ kāl- ’êl·leh hā·‘ām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-he-said to-them: “Why do-you-do things like-these? For I am-hearing ʼeth your-evil dealings from all this people.”
Where the English smooths the original
He reproved them, but far too gently, as these and the following words manifest. This might proceed partly from the coldness of old age, but it arose chiefly from his too great indulgence to his children.
But Eli, with the infirmities of his old age, did nothing further to prevent these abominations than to say to his sons, "Why do ye according to the sayings which I hear, sayings about you which are evil, of this whole people.
these were very scandalous sins, and deserved a more severe reprimand, and indeed a greater chastisement than by mere words; Eli should have rebuked them more sharply, and laid open the evil of their doings, and as a judge punished them for them
Eli's reproof was far too mild and gentle. In general, none are more abandoned than the degenerate children of godly persons, when they break through restraints.Henry's entry in the sources is one block covering 2:11-26 as a whole, so this sentence is his comment on the section rather than on this verse alone.
24No, my sons; it is not a good report I hear circulating among the LORD’s people.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’al bā·nāy kî lō·w- ṭō·w·ḇāh haš·šə·mu·‘āh ’ă·šer ’ā·nō·ḵî šō·mê·a‘ ma·‘ă·ḇi·rîm Yah·weh ‘am-
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“No, my-sons! For not-good [is] the-report which I am-hearing — you-cause-to-pass-over the-people of-YHWH.”
Where the English smooths the original
This seems to be too soft and smooth an appellation, too kind and endearing, considering the offence they were guilty of, and were now reproving for; rather they deserved to be called sons of Belial, the children of the devil, than sons of Eli, or brutes and shameless wretches
Other persons of pious and honest minds, whom therefore he calls the Lord’s people by way of distinction from the children of Belial , who were so highly offended. with the great dishonour done to God and to his worship, and with the horrible wickedness of the priests, that upon that occasion they were hurried into the other extreme, and lived in the neglect and contempt of their own indispensable duty of offering sacrifices, because they came through the priests’ hands.This is the third of three alternative constructions Poole offers for “the LORD's people”; he does not decide between them, and the excerpt should not be read as his settled view.
The life led by the priests publicly in the sanctuary, with their evident scornful unbelief in the divinely established holy ordinances on the one hand, and their unblushing immorality on the other, corrupted the inner religious life of the whole people.
Both the Sept. and Syriac have a different reading: "Ye make Jehovah's people cease to worship him
25If a man sins against another man, God can intercede for him; but if a man sins against the LORD, who can intercede for him?” But they would not listen to their father, since the LORD intended to put them to death.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
’im- ’îš ye·ḥĕ·ṭā lə·’îš ’ĕ·lō·hîm ū·p̄il·lōw wə·’im ’îš ye·ḥĕ·ṭā- Yah·weh mî yiṯ·pal·lel- lōw wə·lō yiš·mə·‘ū lə·qō·wl ’ă·ḇî·hem kî- Yah·weh ḥā·p̄êṣ la·hă·mî·ṯām
Literal — word-for-word from the original
“If sins a-man against-a-man, then-God shall-arbitrate for-him; but-if against-YHWH sins a-man, who shall-intercede for-him?” But-they-would-not listen to-the-voice of-their-father, for YHWH was-pleased to-put-them-to-death.
Where the English smooths the original
This is most likely an ancient proverb, quoted by Eli to impress his sons with a sense of the enormity of their sins, which were committed against Jehovah.
In the case of one man's sin against another, God settles the dispute as arbitrator through the proper authorities; whereas, when a man sins against God, no one can interpose as arbitrator. Such a sin cannot be disposed of by intercession.
In case of wrong done between man and man, God as the supreme Arbitrator settles the dispute; but where the two parties are God and man, what third power is there which can interfere? The quarrel must go on to the bitter end
It was not God's preordination, but their own wilful and impenitent disobedience which was the cause of their destruction.JFB reaches this by re-reading the conjunction kî as “therefore” rather than “because.” Poole, Gill, K&D and Cambridge all keep the causal sense, so JFB is the minority reading here and his conclusion depends on that emendation of sense.
26And the boy Samuel continued to grow in stature and in favor with the LORD and with man.
Berean Standard Bible · CC0
Hebrew — tap a word ↓
wə·han·na·‘ar šə·mū·’êl hō·lêḵ wə·ḡā·ḏêl wā·ṭō·wḇ gam ‘im- Yah·weh wə·ḡam ‘im- ’ă·nā·šîm
Literal — word-for-word from the original
And-the-lad Samuel [was] going-on and-growing and-good, both with YHWH and-also with men.
Where the English smooths the original
The account of our Lord's growth Luke 2:52 is very similar; "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." The literal version of the passage before us is, "The child Samuel advanced and grew and was good (or acceptable), both with the Lord, and also with men.
The very expressions of the biographer of Samuel were adopted by St. Luke when, in the early chapters of his Gospel, he wishes to describe in a few striking words the boyhood and youth of Him who was far greater than the child-prophet of Israel.
He grew better in bad times, which is remembered to his commendation.
The verse-by-verse work is done. What follows gathers the whole unit. All three layers below are machine-generated (⚙). Weigh them; they have no authority.
AI synthesis — woven from the public-domain voices above and the original text; generated and fallible.
The unit opens with a genealogy that cancels itself: וּבְנֵי עֵלִי בְּנֵי בְלִיָּעַל — sons of Eli, sons of worthlessness. Ellicott insists the second phrase names no deity: the word “simply signifies ‘worthlessness,’” and Barnes traces the English capital-B “Belial” back to Paul’s contrast in 2 Corinthians 6:15 rather than to anything in this verse. What follows the naming is an indictment in grammar. K&D reads מִשְׁפַּט not as “custom” but as “the right which they had usurped to themselves in relation to the people,” and Pulpit, weighing the Vulgate against the Septuagint, Syriac and Chaldee, settles on “the due of the priests from the people” (Leviticus 7:31-35). The charge, then, is not that the priests broke the law but that they had promulgated a rival one.
The verbs carry the violence. The servant does not dip the fork; he strikes with it (וְהִכָּה, Hiphil of nâkâh, the ordinary verb for striking a man down), and whatever the three teeth bring up, the priest takes (יִקַּח). Gill, following Abarbanel, reckons each tooth might lift a pound of flesh or more, and notes flatly that “no part of it at all belonged to him.” Then comes the escalation the narrator marks with a single particle. K&D: the crime of taking flesh before the fat was burned “is therefore referred to here with the emphatic particle גּם, as being the worst crime that the sons of Eli committed”; Cambridge calls it “the climax of their transgression.” Ellicott names the theology: to roast the victim before the symbolic offering had been made “was a crime which was equivalent to robbing God.”
And the ordinary Israelite is the one who speaks liturgically. His protest uses the emphatic doubled infinitive קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן — let them surely burn — and offers the servant free rein over his own portion afterwards. Poole compresses the whole exchange into one sentence: “we are content to relinquish our parts to thee, only let not God be wronged of his due.” Gill draws the conclusion the Hebrew forces: the man who brought the sacrifice “had more religion at heart… than the priest.” The reply is one word of negation, one imperative, and the rare noun בְחָזְקָה, violence. The verdict in v. 17 is measured not by the theft but by the contagion: K&D, quoting O. v. Gerlach, holds that “the robbery which they committed was a small sin in comparison with the contempt of the sacrifices themselves, which they were the means of spreading among the people,” and Cambridge states the law of it — “Corruption in the priesthood begets profanity in the people. Cp. Malachi 2:8-9.”
The narrator does not argue; he cuts. Against the servants who are נַעַר in vv. 13 and 15, and the הַנְּעָרִים whose sin was great in v. 17, he sets another נַעַר, girded in plain bad-linen. Cambridge states the technique outright: “The writer dwells upon the contrast between Samuel and the sons of Eli.” Gill notices the precise advance over 2:11 — there Samuel ministered before Eli, here before the LORD. K&D explains the vesting: חָגוּר “is the technical expression for putting on the ephod,” and the boy received such a dress “because he was set apart to a lifelong service before the Lord.”
Then the robe. Cambridge catalogues the מְעִיל among kings, prophets, men of position and the high priest’s robe of the ephod; Ellicott and K&D both take Samuel’s as a scaled-down copy of the high priestly robe, minus its symbolic ornaments. Barnes goes furthest, reading ephod and robe together as pointing “to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God.” Pulpit demurs — the meil “was the ordinary dress of all classes of people… and can have no special meaning” — and the two readings are left standing side by side in the record. What no one disputes is the frequentative grammar Cambridge flags: “the verbs are frequentative, describing an annual practice often repeated.” Year after year, one small garment, carried up by hand.
Eli’s blessing is the hinge. Cambridge corrects the older English: not “for the loan which is lent” but “in return for the petition which she asked for Jehovah.” K&D notes the striking third-person שָׁאַל and explains it as an indefinite construction, Eli assuming the father shared the mother’s vow. Pulpit catches the tone: Eli’s wording “shows that this surrender of a very young child to religious service was not looked upon as imposing a burden upon the sanctuary, but as the bestowal of a valued gift.” And the blessing lands. K&D supplies the elided thought behind the “for” of v. 21: “Eli’s word was fulfilled… they went to their home blessed.” Gill notes that Hannah’s own song is thereby verified (1 Samuel 2:5), and adds, honestly, that of these five children “we nowhere else read, nor even of their names.” Meanwhile Cambridge tracks three stages of Samuel’s growth — physical here, moral in v. 26, spiritual in 3:19-21.
Ellicott observes that the compiler shields Eli where he can, and that here “an excuse is made for their father… ‘He was,’ says the writer, ‘very old.’” The excuse does not hold. The crimes have now passed from the pot to the tent door, and the commentators divide over who the women were: Geneva follows a rabbinic reading that they came “after their travail, when they came to be purified”; JFB imagines “an institution of holy women of a strictly ascetic order”; Cambridge and Pulpit read הַצֹּבְאוֹת as a word of regular service, “arranged in bands,” with duties like the Levitical tsâbâʼ of Numbers 4:13 and 8:24; Poole doubts any standing order and takes them simply as women who came up to worship. The Hebrew root itself is military — to mass, as an army — and Cambridge adds the darker suggestion that “the example of the abominations connected with the Phoenician worship of Ashtaroth may have helped to corrupt the priests of Shiloh.”
Eli’s rebuke is the thing everyone notices. Benson: “He reproved them, but far too gently… it arose chiefly from his too great indulgence to his children.” Gill: “these were very scandalous sins, and deserved a more severe reprimand… and as a judge punished them for them.” Poole sharpens the failure into a legal one — Eli “contented himself with a verbal rebuke and did not restrain them… without all respect of persons.” Henry says it in one line: “Eli's reproof was far too mild and gentle.” The address אַל בָּנָי, “no, my sons,” draws Gill’s bitterest comment, that they deserved rather to be called “sons of Belial, the children of the devil, than sons of Eli.”
And then, out of the weakest mouth in the chapter, the deepest sentence in it. Cambridge judges v. 25 “most likely an ancient proverb, quoted by Eli,” and notes that the force is carried by a paronomasia impossible to reproduce: וּפִלְלוֹ (Piel of pâlal) against יִתְפַּלֶּל (Hitpael of the same root). K&D: “In the case of one man’s sin against another, God settles the dispute as arbitrator through the proper authorities; whereas, when a man sins against God, no one can interpose as arbitrator. Such a sin cannot be disposed of by intercession.” Pulpit puts the same thing as a scene: “what third power is there which can interfere? The quarrel must go on to the bitter end.” On the closing clause the commentators split honestly and openly. JFB insists “it should be therefore… It was not God’s preordination, but their own wilful and impenitent disobedience which was the cause of their destruction.” Poole and Gill read the causal kî as it stands: God “would not and did not give them grace to hearken.” Cambridge holds both ends and refuses to reconcile them — “this coexistence of mercy and judgment in the divine will (Exodus 34:6-7) is a mystery which necessarily transcends our comprehension” — while pointing out that in every biblical instance the hardening follows a long refusal, not precedes it. Barnes concedes the same limit: how God’s sovereign purpose consists with man’s free will “is what cannot possibly be explained.”
The unit closes on three participial words, הֹלֵךְ וְגָדֵל וָטוֹב, which Barnes renders with deliberate flatness: “The child Samuel advanced and grew and was good (or acceptable), both with the Lord, and also with men.” Poole reduces it to seven words of praise — “He grew better in bad times, which is remembered to his commendation.” Gill sets the two trajectories side by side: Samuel “grew more and more in all respects, and better and better, while Eli’s sons grew worse and worse.” And every commentator in the file hears the sentence again in a later Gospel: Ellicott says the very expressions “were adopted by St. Luke”; Cambridge, “A childhood like that of Jesus (Luke 2:52)”; K&D simply appends “(see Luke 2:52)”; Pulpit calls Samuel here a type of “our blessed Lord”; Barnes prints the two texts together. That convergence, across eleven independent voices, is the most attested claim in this unit.
⚙ This is the tool's own fallible reading, offered to be tested against the text. The unit is built on one repeated noun — נַעַר, naʻar, lad — used first of the men who came with the fork (vv. 13, 15, 17) and then, four times, of Samuel (vv. 18, 21, 26). Scripture is not contrasting a bad priesthood with a good one; both parties are servants, both are young, both are inside the same tent. What divides them is the direction the hand moves. Hophni's servants are defined by lâqach, taking — three times in three verses, ending in the first person, I take by force. Samuel is defined by what is done to him: he is girded (passive participle), he is clothed by his mother year after year, he is blessed through Eli's mouth, he is given. The priesthood of vv. 12-17 is a hand that closes; the ministry of vv. 18-21 is a hand that opens.
That is why v. 25 belongs where it stands. Eli's proverb is exactly right and exactly useless: when the offence is against the LORD himself, there is no third party in the room. K&D and Pulpit both see that the whole force of the Hebrew paronomasia is the absence of an arbitrator. But the chapter does not leave the question hanging in a vacuum — it sets, on either side of the unanswerable question, a child in a linen ephod who was asked of God and given back to God. The narrative answer is not yet an argument; it is a person, growing, in the room where the question was asked. ⚙ I hold this reading loosely: the text itself does not say that Samuel answers Eli's question, and to claim more than the juxtaposition would be to invent. What the text does say is that the question is real, that no man in Shiloh could answer it, and that God was quietly raising someone who was neither taking nor defending himself.
A house can keep every altar lit and still lose the LORD at the fork. (⚙ This line is the tool's own summary sentence, not a verse of Scripture.)
AI-generated connections. Each carries a verification badge with a recorded basis; contested links are flagged.
The vessel-word קַלַּחַת (qallachath, H7037) occurs in only two verses in the whole Hebrew Bible: this one and Micah 3:3, where the rulers of Israel are charged with flaying the LORD's people and chopping them up “as flesh within the cauldron.” The Verifier confirms the shared lexeme, along with bâsâr, flesh. ⚙ Micah takes the picture from a corrupt sanctuary kitchen and turns it on the whole leadership of the nation: the pot that Hophni's servant plundered becomes, in the prophet's mouth, the pot in which the people themselves are cooked. That the two passages share a word this rare is not proof of literary dependence, and I do not claim it — but the image is the same image, and the accusation is the same accusation.
Micah 3:3
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H7037 qallachath (in 2 vv — this verse and Micah 3:3, its only other occurrence in Scripture), plus H1320 bâsâr (in 241 vv). The rarity of qallachath is what carries the verbal tier; no claim of quotation is made.
פָּרוּר (pârûwr, H6517, “a skillet, as flat or deep”) appears in only three verses. At Numbers 11:8 Israel gathers the manna and boils it in pârûr-pots; at Judges 6:19 Gideon boils the flesh of a kid and carries the broth out in a pârûr to set before the Angel of the LORD. Here the same vessel is the target of a three-pronged fork. The Verifier records the shared lexeme with both passages (Numbers 11:8 also shares H1310 bâshal, to boil; Judges 6:19 also shares H1320 bâsâr). ⚙ Gideon's pot is the closest and sharpest comparison: an Israelite prepares meat and broth and brings them out to God, and is told to pour them on the rock. At Shiloh the pot is raided before God is served at all. Same cookware, opposite direction.
Numbers 11:8 · Judges 6:19
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H6517 pârûwr (in 3 vv — this verse, Numbers 11:8, Judges 6:19: the complete occurrence set); Numbers 11:8 also shares H1310 bâshal (in 24 vv), Judges 6:19 also shares H1320 bâsâr (in 241 vv). Rare-lexeme verbal link; no quotation is claimed in either direction.
The מַזְלֵג (mazlêg, H4207) is not a household utensil the servant happened to bring. The word occurs in seven verses, and its other occurrences are inventories of sanctuary bronzework: the fleshhooks made for the altar of burnt offering (Exodus 27:3; Exodus 38:3), the fleshhooks carried by the Kohathites when the altar is packed for the march (Numbers 4:14, which also shares H8334 shârath, the very root used of Samuel's ministering in v. 18), and the gold and silver fleshhooks David weighs out for the temple service (1 Chronicles 28:17; cf. 2 Chronicles 4:16). The Verifier confirms the shared lexeme in each. ⚙ So the tool in Hophni's servant's hand is consecrated equipment. This is not theft with a stick; it is theft with the altar's own implement — which is why the narrator bothers to count its teeth.
Exodus 27:3 · Numbers 4:14 · 1 Chronicles 28:17
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H4207 mazlêg (in 7 vv) with Exodus 27:3, Exodus 38:3, Numbers 4:14, 1 Chronicles 28:17 and 2 Chronicles 4:16; Numbers 4:14 additionally shares H8334 shârath (in 92 vv). Rare cultic-implement lexeme; a shared vocabulary of sanctuary furniture, not a quotation.
At Josiah's Passover in 2 Chronicles 35:13 the holy offerings are boiled in dûwd-kettles — the same vessel-word used here in v. 14 — and then divided out among the people. The Verifier records the shared lexemes mishpâṭ, bâshal and dûwd. Pulpit cites this very verse when arguing that Eli's sons demanded flesh “to which they had absolutely no right.” ⚙ The contrast is procedural and exact: at Shiloh the priest's boy strikes a fork into the kettle and carries the meat away from the people; at Josiah's Passover the servers boil in the same kind of kettle and carry the meat to the people. The vocabulary of a right priesthood and a predatory one is identical; only the vector differs. I tier this structural rather than verbal because mishpâṭ and bâshal are common words and dûwd, though uncommon, carries no distinctive sense here.
2 Chronicles 35:13
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H4941 mishpâṭ (in 395 vv), H1310 bâshal (in 24 vv), H1731 dûwd (in 7 vv). Real verbal overlap, but the lexemes are too ordinary to carry a verbal tier; the link recorded here is the shared procedural pattern of boiling and distributing sacrificial flesh.
At 1 Samuel 1:9 Eli sits on his seat by the doorpost of the temple of the LORD at Shiloh while Hannah prays; here at 2:22 the same door of the tent of meeting is where his sons defile the women who serve. The Verifier records the shared proper nouns ʻÊlîy and Shîylôh. ⚙ The narrator has fixed a camera on one threshold. The first time we see it, a barren woman is asking; the second, the high priest's sons are taking. The book's judgement on the house of Eli is largely delivered by simply returning to the same doorway. Ellicott extends the arc to Psalm 78:60-64, where Asaph records that God “forsook the tabernacle at Shiloh — even the tent that He had pitched among men,” and that “their priests were slain with the sword.”
1 Samuel 1:9 · Psalm 78:60-64
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexemes H5941 ʻÊlîy (in 30 vv) and H7887 Shîylôh (in 30 vv) with 1 Samuel 1:9 — shared proper nouns, which establish a same-setting link, not a quotation. The Psalm 78 reference is Ellicott's cross-reference, not a Verifier-computed lexical link, and is included on his authority as a thematic parallel only.
The noun חָזְקָה (chozqâh, H2394, “vehemence, usually in a bad sense”) is rare — the Verifier finds it in five verses — and one of them is Judges 8:1, where the men of Ephraim “chid with Gideon sharply.” ⚙ The shared lexeme is genuine and rare, which would ordinarily justify a verbal tier; I am downgrading it deliberately, because the sense is not the same. At Judges 8:1 the vehemence is a fierce quarrel with words; here it is physical seizure of another man's meat. Reporting the lexical overlap is honest; claiming a verbal allusion on the strength of it would not be. What the two passages do share is a period: the same era of Israel in which force, verbal or physical, has become the ordinary way of settling what the covenant was meant to order.
Judges 8:1
basis: Verifier: shared Hebrew lexeme H2394 chozqâh (in 5 vv) — a genuinely rare lexeme that would support a verbal tier, deliberately downgraded here because the semantic force differs (fierce rebuke there, violent seizure here). The recorded link is thematic: the era of the Judges settling matters by vehemence.
Every commentator in the file hears Luke 2:52 in 1 Samuel 2:26. Ellicott: “The very expressions of the biographer of Samuel were adopted by St. Luke.” Barnes prints the two side by side. Cambridge: “A childhood like that of Jesus.” K&D appends the reference without comment. Pulpit says outright that Samuel here is a type of “our blessed Lord.” ⚙ This link cannot be tiered verbal by the Verifier's method, and must not be: 1 Samuel 2:26 is Hebrew (הֹלֵךְ וְגָדֵל וָטוֹב) and Luke 2:52 is Greek, so no shared Strong's number exists or can exist between them. The connection is a structural one — a threefold formula of growth in stature and in favour with God and with men, applied to a child set apart in the sanctuary — most likely mediated through the Septuagint rather than through the Hebrew text directly. Pulpit's further observation is worth keeping: the formula appears in Luke immediately after a temple scene in which the established teachers are confounded by a boy, exactly as here it appears immediately after the established priesthood has been condemned.
Luke 2:52 · Luke 2:40
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek ↔ Hebrew): no shared Strong's lexeme is possible, so no verbal tier is available in principle. The recorded basis is the shared threefold growth formula (advance in stature, favour with God, favour with men) applied to a sanctuary-raised child, noted independently by Ellicott, Barnes, Cambridge, K&D and Pulpit.
Ellicott and Barnes agree that בְלִיָּעַל here is a common noun meaning worthlessness, and both trace the capitalised English “Belial” to 2 Corinthians 6:15, where Paul sets Christ against Βελίαρ “as if Belial were the name of an idol or the personification of evil.” Ellicott credits the observation to the Speaker's Commentary. ⚙ I flag this thread rather than confirm it. Whether Paul's Βελίαρ is (a) a personal name for Satan already current in Second Temple usage, (b) a personification of this Hebrew abstract noun, or (c) a distinct term, is a genuinely contested question of provenance that these commentators note but do not settle — and the direction of influence they propose runs from the New Testament back onto the English of the Old, which is a fact about translators, not about the Hebrew. The Hebrew of 1 Samuel 2:12 asserts nothing about a personal Belial. Cross-Testament, so no verbal tier is available regardless.
2 Corinthians 6:15
basis: Cross-Testament (Greek ↔ Hebrew): shared Strong's numbers are impossible, so no verbal tier applies. Flagged because the identification of Hebrew bᵉlîyaʻal (H1100, worthlessness) with Paul's Βελίαρ as a proper name is disputed: Ellicott and Barnes both report it as a later development that shaped the English versions, not as the sense of the Hebrew here. Verify against the Greek text and Second Temple usage before relying on it.
AI-generated reading; weigh it against the text.
Eli's proverb in v. 25 turns on a pun the English cannot carry: וּפִלְלוֹ (Piel of pâlal, H6419, to arbitrate) against יִתְפַּלֶּל (Hitpael of the same root, to intercede). K&D states the logic exactly: “In the case of one man's sin against another, God settles the dispute as arbitrator through the proper authorities; whereas, when a man sins against God, no one can interpose as arbitrator. Such a sin cannot be disposed of by intercession.” Pulpit adds the parallel from Job 9:33 — the daysman who does not exist, who might lay his hand on both. Gill answers the question directly from the New Testament: excepting Christ, “there is none to entreat for those that have sinned against the Lord,” for He “is the only Mediator between God and men… and ever lives to make intercession for transgressors,” citing 1 John 2:1. Ellicott hears in the same verse the shadow of the sin against the Holy Spirit. ⚙ The reading is the oldest Christian use of this text: Eli's question is not rhetorical but diagnostic — it names a vacancy in the covenant structure that the Levitical priesthood, by definition, could not fill, because the priests were themselves the offenders. The New Testament answer is not that the question was wrong but that the office was empty until it was filled.
Job 9:33 · 1 Timothy 2:5 · Hebrews 7:25 · 1 John 2:1
1 Samuel 2:26 gives three participles in a row — הֹלֵךְ וְגָדֵל וָטוֹב — which Barnes renders “advanced and grew and was good (or acceptable), both with the Lord, and also with men,” and then sets against Luke 2:52. Ellicott says Luke adopted “the very expressions of the biographer of Samuel” to describe “Him who was far greater than the child-prophet of Israel.” Cambridge, K&D and Pulpit make the same identification independently, Pulpit calling Samuel here a type of “our blessed Lord.” ⚙ The force of the parallel is contextual as well as verbal: in both texts the formula of a child's quiet growth is placed immediately beside the exposure of a failing religious establishment — here Hophni and Phinehas, there the teachers in the temple. Scripture twice sets a growing boy against an aging institution and tells the reader which one has a future. This is the most widely attested reading in the file: five of eleven commentators reach it unprompted.
Luke 2:52 · Luke 2:40
Barnes, twice in this unit, reads the ephod and the little robe on Samuel as pointing “to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation” — Cambridge quotes the Speaker's Commentary to the same effect. Pulpit disagrees, holding the meil to be ordinary dress. ⚙ Granting that the commentators divide, the narrative fact is not in dispute: in this chapter the hereditary priesthood is corrupt and the child whom God is raising up is not of the priestly line at all. That pattern — an office that failed because it passed by birth, replaced by one held by a person God appointed — is the argument of Hebrews 7:23-25, where the many priests are “prevented by death from continuing” and one priest holds His priesthood permanently because He lives forever. I mark this reading novel rather than ancient: the commentators in this file draw the Samuel/Christ line at Luke 2:52 and at the intercession of v. 25, not at the ephod, and the Hebrews connection here is my own inference from the shape of the narrative. It should be tested, not leaned on.
Hebrews 7:11-12 · Hebrews 7:23-25
The biblical text is the Berean Standard Bible (BSB), public domain (CC0). Hebrew/Greek text, transliteration, morphology and Strong’s are transcribed from the Berean interlinear (CC0) + Strong’s lexicons (PD); the literal renderings, divergence notes, word notes and all synthesis are this tool’s own work (⚙) — fallible; verify them.
Named voices, quoted verbatim from public-domain works:
Text. The Hebrew is the Masoretic consonantal text with Berean interlinear parsing; the English quoted is the Berean Standard Bible (CC0). The interlinear's word indices follow the English order, not the Hebrew, so at several verses (2:12, 2:17, 2:20, 2:21, 2:23, 2:24) the index sequence does not match the order of the Hebrew line. The literal renderings above are rebuilt from the Hebrew order, and the note keys remain the interlinear's indices.
Known cruxes. (1) At 2:16 the interlinear lists a word lō (index 13) with no Strong's number, parsed as a negative particle: this is the ketiv/qere where the consonants לו stand for לא. K&D reads “No (לו for לא)”; Cambridge states that “the correct reading of the Heb. gives ‘Nay’ in place of ‘him.’” (2) At 2:24 the Septuagint and Syriac read differently: Pulpit reports “Ye make Jehovah's people cease to worship him” against the Masoretic “Ye make Jehovah's people to transgress,” and K&D notes that maʻăḇirîm stands without its pronoun in an indefinite construction, with Ewald, Thenius and Böttcher each proposing a different rendering. (3) At 2:17 Cambridge reports that “the Sept. omits the men.” (4) At 2:13 and 2:18 the interlinear tags ʼêth as H854 (“nearness, with”) rather than H853 (object marker); both tags appear in the same verses, and the distinction is carried in the notes.
Sources. Voices are verbatim contiguous substrings from eleven public-domain commentaries, each named by tag. Two contain material quoted from others: Ellicott at 2:12 quotes Dean Stanley's Lectures on the Jewish Church at length and cites the Speaker's Commentary; K&D at 2:17 quotes O. v. Gerlach. Gill's entries at 2:22 and 2:24 are capped in the brief and were not expanded; nothing in this synthesis depends on the capped remainder. Cambridge's note at 2:23 contains an OCR error (“of yon” for “of you”), which is why that entry is not quoted here.
What is uncertain. The identity and function of the women at the tent door (2:22) is genuinely unresolved in the sources: Geneva follows a rabbinic reading of women coming for purification after childbirth, JFB posits an ascetic order, Cambridge and Pulpit argue for a standing body of female servers on the strength of tsâbâʼ and Exodus 38:8, and Poole denies any standing order at all. Gill reports, and rejects, a rabbinic softening of 2:22 under which the sons merely delayed the women's offerings rather than lay with them; the Hebrew will not bear that softening, and Gill says so. The legal warrant for Samuel's ephod is likewise disputed (Barnes and Cambridge against Pulpit). Nothing in the ⚙ layer above is a sourced fact; the sourced facts are the lexicon entries, parses, Verifier bases, and the named quotations.
✦ = human, public-domain source, quoted and named. ⚙ = machine synthesis, to be verified. Flagged cross-references are left visible on purpose — the verifier working in the open. “Search the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” (Acts 17:11)