Eli and the Church

I. Introduction

“Therefore the LORD God of Israel declares, ‘I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever’; but now the LORD declares, ‘Far be it from Me—for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed’” (1Sa 2:30 NASB).

Eli was a high priest and judge in ancient Israel; his sons were priests, no doubt schooled and trained by him for their office. In the course of their duties, these sons mocked God by profaning His sacrifices and preying on His worshipers. We are told that they did this highhandedly (1Sa 2:16), to satiate their covetousness and lusts. Moreover, we are told that Eli recognized their wickedness but ‘stayed his hand;’ that he and they alike ‘fattened themselves with the choice portion of every sacrificial offering’. Of course God could not let His Name be thus disdained nor His people thus abused. Accordingly, Eli and his house came under Jehovah’s judgment, and He removed them out of His sight (it is necessary sometimes to break a promise [1Sa 2:30]; may God’s Spirit guide us here). Eli and his two sons Hophni and Pinehas died on the same day that Israel proper fell to the Philistines at Aphek (Eli died at Shiloh, his sons at Aphek in the battle 1Sa 4). Later, in the days of Solomon, Jehovah removed the high priesthood from Eli’s line to the line of Zadok (Zadok, a descendant of Eleazar, a son of Aaron [1Ch 6:3-8], replaced the deposed Abiathar, who was descended from Eli; 1Ki 2:27). In the meantime, the Lord had prepared Himself a prophet and judge to lead His people in Samuel.

The disaster that befell the house of Eli came because these ambassadors and custodians of Jehovah’s requirements and ways abused and belittled the same. They imperiously sought to leverage their commission to satisfy their personal agendas. Furthermore, Eli, with the authority of a father, high priest, and judge, did not wield that authority to stop the iniquity, and thus the heavy hand of the Lord came down upon him in particular (1Sa 2:30-36, 3:12-13). It is significant that attending this high priest’s corruption was a national crisis, and that attending his demise was the nation’s demise. In this we are reminded that Judgment begins at the house of God (1Pe 4:17). Through the precedent set by God’s response to the deficient stewardship of the house of Eli, we may be sure that the consummate health of a nation is directly proportional to its spiritual health; since the advent of Jesus Christ, we should qualify that spiritual health as the character of a given nation’s Christian Church [1].

This pulpit will attempt to compare the general early twenty-first century spiritual character of the Christian Church against the spiritual character of the house of Eli in effort to assess the health of the former. Toward that end, these main features representative of both will be in view:

• Ambassadorship.

• Custodianship.

For each feature, we will discuss first the deficient spiritual precedent of Eli spoken of above, and then following that we will present the corresponding Christian standard with some thoughts and discussion as to the contemporary Christian Church’s leaning; that is, whether it seems to be leaning more toward the precedent of the house of Eli or the Christian standard.

II. Ambassadorship

(2Cr 5:20, Jhn 20:21)

Though there is solid opinion to the contrary, we believe that Eli acted in concert with his sons. This is probably why he did not upbraid them as he should have for what they were doing (note he apparently had no reservations in upbraiding Hannah 1Sa 1:14). He and they alike preyed on the worshipers that came to Shiloh, which would explain why his sons were undeterred in their treachery, for they knew their father was to some degree on board with them, and as such, his correction of them was but window dressing, and they knew it. Perhaps these sons were the worse of the two, but still, we suppose the whole lot of them had compromised themselves. If this assessment is right, then it is clear that Samuel was in a very difficult spot—but for the grace of God, that is, His preservation of His man to be—Samuel could have easily been pulled under like the rest of them. But we must leave the discussion of God’s man Samuel for another pulpit.

The Wiktionary defines an ambassador so:

1. A minister of the highest rank sent to a foreign court to represent there his sovereign or country.

2. An official messenger and representative (“Ambassador”).

These are good definitions for our purposes. Consider Eli. As high priest, Eli was precisely a minister of the highest rank sent to the (this-worldly, hence foreign) court of Israel as a representative and messenger of his sovereign Jehovah God; he was clearly God’s ambassador. We need not address the question why omniscient God, knowing how things would turn out, would ordain Eli in the first place, because Eli came to the office through priestly heritage (from Aaron through Ithamar; Exd 6:23; Henry). Imagine for a moment that you and I were going to worship and make sacrifice at Shiloh in Eli’s day. While the choice portions of our sacrifice were yet boiling, we would watch them be confiscated by Eli’s sons (1Sa 2:12-16; cf. a different era-Isa 56:11), in exploitation no doubt of what was “due” them (Lev 7:34). Moreover, we might even notice these sons seducing the female worshipers (1Sa 2:22; cf. a different era-Jer 5:8). We would witness a near total abandonment of honorable representation and service of God by His ambassadors, and a near total commitment by them to satiating themselves at their Sovereign’s expense. What a poor impression of God ‘s facility to manage His own affairs this could leave on us. Many of the worshipers that came to Shiloh and who witnessed these things first hand recognized this priestly family’s treachery (1Sa 2:23), and so the impression of God that they must have registered while at Shiloh, which should have been one of unmitigated excellence, could not duly attain to that lofty vista for all the deflecting treachery at work. Not to say that the people would have blamed God or connected Him with it somehow—they were smarter than that, for it is clear they knew who was at fault, it is just that God’s due glory was cheated through this deficient, parasitic, self-serving ambassadorship manifested by the house of Eli. Only God knows how many may have been turned away from Him owing to this odious representation of God.

Let us now consider ambassadorship as God intended it to convey Him; let us examine the Christian standard of the same (Fig. 1). With respect to Eli’s sons, 1Ti 4:12 comes to mind; now there is a contrast; a contrast in speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity. These are the metrics by which Christian ambassadorship is assessed, whatever the age of the ambassador; indeed, Jesus Christ’s ambassador, for it is He whom the Christian represents. Such a one must ‘show themselves an example of those who believe’ (cf. 1Th 2:10, 2Ti 2:22, Tts 1:5-8, 2:7-8, 1Pe 2:9; Tab. 1).

Every Christian is an ambassador for Jesus Christ (for God) and is individually responsible for how they represent Him in the foreign court (unbelieving world), wherever God placed them. Collectively, the Christian Church is a body of ambassadors. The Christian individual <—> the Christian Church (a body of individuals)—both sides of the arrows are what the foreign court sees, and, naturally, by these it shapes its opinions of Jesus Christ. In our understanding, in this Church Age era, there is no salvific insight imparted to an unbeliever from the Holy Spirit, precisely because they do not have the gift of the Holy Spirit, hence their eternal destiny rests to a large degree on the efficacy of Christian ambassadorship, and thus its quality. Small wonder that God places high priority on this office, for it is a key in-gathering dynamic in His eternal plans to bring all of humankind into His loving arms. We are not surprised that He sternly judged Israel in this regard more than once for their negligence; there is a precedent in that judgment for Christians. This brings us back to the deficient ambassadorship of Eli and his house; with God’s help, let us now assess relative to that,contemporary Christianity. We shall look first at God’s ministers, and then the Flock under their care.

One gets the impression that many Christian ministers are sincerely and sacrificially dedicated to their sovereign, Jesus Christ, and to varying degrees exude the ambassadorship metrics put forth earlier (Tab. 1), and so lean more toward the Christian standard than the deficient standard of the house of Eli. From the time put into studying God’s requirements, to proclaiming the good news of the Redemption and attendant Salvation He wrought, to vicariously caring for and loving His people, indeed all people, most Christian ministers must surely be a blessing and a joy and of invaluable utility to God. It would probably be very hard to find many who preyed on the Flock like Eli and his sons did. No doubt, the Christian Church has its history of fallen ministers who reverted to an Eli-and-house-type-perversion of their trust, but these would seem to be the exception, not the rule, in this contemporary Church era we are addressing. We wish not to be insensitive to such fallen ministers: They should be encouraged that they are in the hands of a Righteous Judge who sees their heart for what it is today. In some ways a main feature of the Gospel we preach surfaces here—a Righteous Judge sees the heart of all sinners for what it is—today (in general, today is the day of Salvation through Jesus Christ for all peoples [“A Letter of Invitation”]).

Let us now consider the Christian Flock. Here to a great extent is the Christian Church; the branches on the Vine. The great labor of evangelism is shouldered by the Flock, for it is the Flock that interfaces most readily and in greatest number with the unbelieving foreign court (Luk 10:2). Most of the evangelical opportunities necessarily come before the Flock simply because of their diverse and multiplied presence in the world. And again it is our impression that much of the Flock is sincerely and sacrificially dedicated to its sovereign, Jesus Christ, and to varying degrees exudes the ambassadorship metrics put forth earlier. The comments we have made here in assessing both fronts—Christian ministry and the Christian Flock—clearly are based on limited exposure, and are subjective; the Christian Church is too large and spread out to draw any firm conclusions beyond one’s studied albeit personal impressions as related here. Notwithstanding, God knows exactly; we are simply trying to make an appeal for personal ambassadorship-introspection at all levels in the Church owing to ambassadorship’s crucial role in evangelism; and not just once, or once in a while, but on a predetermined schedule under the scrutiny of sober accountability partnering is probably the way to go.

So to summarize, as concerns Christian ambassadorship, we believe that the Church is generally leaning more toward the Christian standard than the deficient standard of the house of Eli at this time. There are some serious exceptions here and there of course.

III. Custodianship

1Cr 4:1

The Wiktionary defines a custodian as a person entrusted with the custody or care of something or someone; a caretaker (“Custodian”). The term “custodian” and “steward” can mean the same thing. Eli was entrusted to be a custodian of the ways of God. This was the case with his lineage going back to Aaron. What this clearly means is that Eli was not ignorant of the ways of God; Eli was not ignorant of God’s requirements. One may wonder—what exactly was Eli’s responsibility with respect to caring for the ways of God; what was expected of him here? He had a responsibility to convey the same—faithfully; that is to say, in a manner that reflected the same like a mirror reflects an object before it—faithfully, down to the details. This is the key to trustworthy custodianship—it is comprehensively faithful to that which is in its care, and, as such, it it is worthy of being entrusted with the responsibility it touts (Luk 16:10-12). Eli was not faithful to the ways of God that were entrusted to his care; rather, he was faithful to his own ways, which he necessarily reflected. It seems clear that his sons learned their unfaithfulness from their father, and thus we assess the whole lot in the aggregate. This, then, unfaithful custodianship with respect to the ways of God, defines the deficient standard of this section.

Let us turn now to the Christian standard of custodianship, and here 1Cr 4:1-2 comes to mind. As the verses relate, trustworthiness is central to custodianship, and as said above, faithfulness births trustworthiness; faithfulness is the means, and trustworthiness is the end. Faithful conveyance of the ways of God translates to trustworthiness in the custodianship of the ways of God, and trustworthy custodianship of the ways of God qualifies one as truly a custodian of His ways.

Now that we have a feel for both the deficient standard of the house of Eli and the Christian standard with respect to custodianship, let us assess relative to these contemporary Christianity (ministers and Flock as before). We have witnessed ministries and brethren (Flock) that span the gamut here, but generally faithful to the ways of God (admittedly our call is subjective). Since there is such great diversity in Christianity (we mean by that, alphabetically: Eastern Orthodoxy, the Reformation Church, Roman Catholicism), the reader may wish prayerfully to assess the custodial quality of their own evangelical/church ties—that is, faithfulness to the ways of God and consequent trustworthiness to convey the same, as the reader understands these. Table 2 may serve as a guide to help draw conclusions in this assessment—the table was prayerfully assembled so as to be an overarching metric, primitives, if you will, by which a great diversity such as that mentioned may draw some conclusions.

IV. Concluding Comments

We were motivated to think through and present the ambassadorship aspect of Christianity because of its crucial role in evangelism (Jesus’ ongoing labor). As said, the Christian Flock shoulders the bulk of this responsibility simply because of its diverse and multiplied presence in the world, and so the great work of evangelism, its progress, or no progress, may in large part be attributed to the ambassadorship drive and effectiveness of the Flock. It is clear that Christian ministers have a weighty responsibility to ensure that the members of the Flock entrusted to their care are well equipped by way of example and teaching to do the work required of them in this regard (“Early Christendom: Fig. 3”). We challenge ourselves as well as our readers to be concerned about discovering new ways to personally tune one’s ambassadorship skills; let us refine the challenge—tuned in such a way as to be commensurate with the self-tuning we push ourselves through so as to attain to our most sought after secular goal/s, at least. Jesus’ ongoing labor deserves that trailing “at least.”

The deficient ambassadorship standard of the house of Eli almost speaks for itself; it is a great case-study in what not to do here. We concluded that contemporary Christian ambassadorship was largely in line with the Christian standards that qualify this ambassadorship. In that regard we discussed speech, conduct, love, faith, and purity—the things we say, and do, and believe/think (Phl 4:4-9). Each one of us must ask God to show us how we can improve in each of these areas so as to be more effective ambassadors for Him; we should each probably come before Him in prayer on some sort of regular basis and discuss this particular subject with Him. We are sure that God will answer such prayers in diverse ways that are nonetheless aptly suited to give the right guidance to the individual petitioner.

We discussed custodianship and offered that the ways of God are the great and precious object of custodial care. How one cares for the ways of God will show up in their ambassadorship effectiveness commensurately; there is but a hyper-fine line between ambassadorship and custodianship. We concluded that faithfulness to the ways of God engendered the requisite trustworthiness to care for the same. Again, the house of Eli stands as an almost perfect example of the negative; of unfaithfulness to the ways of God. And Eli and his house were thus judged—God found these “custodians” wanting, and consequently removed them out of His sight. What a statement from heaven regarding defunct stewardship; the verbiage from heaven concerning Eli and his removal are sobering. We have thought all along that Eli had to some degree compromised himself in concert with his sons, and his stern judgment only reinforces that notion in our thinking.

Nothing was said in the body of the text about fatherhood—let us address that at this spot following these comments regarding Eli. We think that the reason Eli did not discipline his sons as would a good father is because to some degree he was as guilty as they were. Even if he did not fully join in with them in all their treachery, we suppose that which he did join in with was bad enough to freeze his disciplining hand. Scripture tells us that he had waxed fat and thus it may have been that his treachery was in servicing his belly, as did his sons service theirs (what we mean by that is exploitative sacrifice confiscation); one cannot be sure, but whatever it was we suppose it was bad enough to inhibit effective fatherly discipline and guidance from him ( Pro 3:11-12, 1Cr 4:15-16, 1Th 2:11-12, 1Th 5:14, 2Ti 3:14-17, 2Ti 4:2, Hbr 12:5-6, Rev 3:19). And Eli’s judgment ranks as one of the sterner in Scripture—God was sore displeased with this man. The good, and positive, that might be said about Eli would seem to be connected with Samuel somehow; but there the credit belongs first to Jehovah God.

Praised be Thy Name Thou our Sovereign God Jehovah, even Thy blessed and holy Ways.