Priests Versus Prophets With the books of 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings we have a record documented by prophets, where with 1 & 2 Chronicles we have a record by priests. Note how 1 Chronicles starts out with seven chapters of geneology, these guys had to keep track of geneology in order to establish their lineage-based claims to minister as priests. We see other dichotomies between the two records as well. In Chronicles, Eli's impeachment from office is entirely excluded from the record. Not surprising given the account is very hostile to the priest's lineage-based claims. However, the prophetic record is just as guilty of ommission as well. The account of Uzza being struck down by the Lord for touching the Ark of the Covenant (1 Chron. 13) is not present in the prophetic account. This account emphatically supports the Levitical right to minister in the Temple, and excludes non-Levites from service. Thus, we see both accounts have their bias. And, it is not surprising that the records are separated after the impeachment of Eli, as the priestly office was first jeopardized by an unnamed prophet (2:27-36) and then taken over by Samuel. In general, the Lord comes down on the side of the prophets more often than not. The priests tended to focus mainly on the physical aspects of worship, and this caused problems at times as Israel lost sight of the spiritual. The result is the prophets frequently bore down on the futility of worship that was only physical, cp. Num. 23:19, 1 Sam. 15:22, Ps. 51:16-17, Isa. 1:11-14, Isa. 66:3, Jer. 7:22-23, Micah 6:6-8, and also cp. John 4:19-24, D&C 29:34. General Comments on 1 Samuel 2-3, 8 The material in this lesson focuses on the Lord acceptance of the just and rejection of the unjust. Particularly noteworthy is the expulsion of priests who are lineage of Aaron and their replacement by Samuel who is lineage of Ephraim (1:1). Superficially, this violates dictates in the Law of Moses as priests were supposed to be lineage of Levi and then more specifically Aaron as a result of a number of general rebellions among Israel where the Levites remained faithful. But here the priests are grossly immoral and as a result the Lord replaces them with a righteous Israelite. Thus, we can see the Lord changing His position and becoming occasionally more or less exclusive on certain matters of administration based upon the righteousness of the people He is dealing with. So the Lord is an interactive God who is sensitive to the people He is dealing with in accomplishing His will, but He is not capricious or persuaded to man's will (Num. 23:19). This is an important point as we oftentimes see God as stoic and detached, ordering unalterable and never-changing decrees. This is clearly not the case. Over time the Lord changes His position on a number of policies on how things are to be administrated. However, the Lord never changes positions on matters dealing with morality and ethics. As people grow more wicked or righteous He will adjust his regulations regarding them. However, the limits and bounds dividing righteousness and unrighteousness never change. Sometimes people in class will want to go to one extreme of the other, saying that God never changes and cite some acontextual proof text like Mal. 3:6 or Mormon 9:19. Others will say He changes things all the time and try to use this to suggest that He changes His position on trendy moral issues like abortion, homosexuality, fornications, and so on and use plural marriage as a case and point. Avoid this kind of contentious debate by clarifying and emphasizing the difference between changes in administration/regulation (at first all nations had access to the MP, then only Israel could have the MP, then only Levites could have the LP, then only lineage of Aaron could have the AP, then exceptions are made as with Samuel, then the MP is ultimately restored to all who are worthy) and changes in morality/ethics/righteousness (no unrighteous person is ordained to the PH, and those who administer in it unworthily are cursed). The former are altered all the time, the latter never are. Once this is done, then open it up to questions. If people are still confused, elaborate on what was just said and classify their proof texts accordingly. Comments on 1 Samuel 2 v1-10 Here we have Hannah's prayer of thanks to the Lord for His granting her a son. Note the prayer is offered at the time she dedicates Samuel to Temple service, and occurs in the Temple. Her prayer can be arranged as an inverted parallelism. Below is the Revised Standard Version (RSV) arranged as such: 1 Hannah also prayed and said, "My heart exults in the LORD; my strength [KJV:horn] is exalted in the LORD. My mouth derides my enemies, because I rejoice in thy salvation. 2 "There is none holy like the LORD, there is none besides thee; there is no rock like our God. 3 Talk no more so very proudly, let not arrogance come from your mouth; for the LORD is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed. 4 The bows of the mighty are broken, but the feeble gird on strength. 5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread, but those who were hungry have ceased to hunger. The barren has borne seven, but she who has many children is forlorn. 6 The LORD kills and brings to life; he brings down to Sheol and raises up. 7 The LORD makes poor and makes rich; he brings low, he also exalts. 8 He raises up the poor from the dust; he lifts the needy from the ash heap, to make them sit with princes and inherit a seat of honor. For the pillars of the earth are the LORD'S, and on them he has set the world. 9 "He will guard the feet of his faithful ones; but the wicked shall be cut off in darkness; for not by might shall a man prevail. 10 The adversaries of the LORD shall be broken to pieces; against them he will thunder in heaven. The LORD will judge the ends of the earth; he will give strength to his king, and exalt the power [KJV:horn] of his anointed." v1 "horn", as the LDS Edition KJV footnotes indicate, the horn is a figurative symbol of power. It is a natural sort of symbol drawn from oxen or deer where the larger the horns or antler rack the seemingly more powerful the individual is. It is similar to the Semitism of showing forth one's arm in that they roll up their sleeve and expose how muscular the arm is. It is simply referring to an outward observable display of power, which in this case is the Lord granting Hannah a son after her being barren for years. "mine enemies" presumably referring to 1:6. v2 "rock like our God", cp. Deut. 32:4, Isa. 17:10, Isa. 26:4, Matt. 7:24. v4 "girded with strength", cp. Isa. 40:28-31. v5 "they that were hungry ceased", cp. Isa. 55:1-2. v8 employs the familiar NT theme of "first will be last and last will be first". v11 Samuel is left to Serve in the Temple and his family returns home. v12 "sons of Belial", i.e., they were worthless sons who did not follow the Lord. "They knew not the Lord", contrast this with Samuel in 3:7. Samuel was just a boy and quickly came to know the Lord by revelation. v13-17 The sons of Eli violated the regulations given in Leviticus and acted selfishly in their roles as Temple priests. v18-21 In sharp contrast to the greed and selfishness of Eli's sons, Samuel's family acts selflessly. Eli blesses them, but in the next verses Eli rebukes his sons. Thus we have a set of contrasts being made. v22-25 Word gets back to Eli that his sons are fornicating with Israelite women and using their positions in the Temple to do so. Imagine the gossip and slander that would result among the people under such circumstances. Eli reprimands his sons for their sins against both man and God, but they ignore him. The practices in v. 13-17 appear to be going on for some time, but here the act of fornication is presented as the straw that breaks the camel's back. Thus, I would assume the present fornications are some new sin his sons have recently gotten involved in, therefore prompting the censure and God's subsequent actions. Perhaps as youngsters they engaged in the selfishness of v. 13-17 and then in adolescence or as young men they went on to fornications. This is the only reprimand documented in the text, and it occurs as a result of public knowledge of their gross immorality. This would seem to suggest that Eli only rebukes them after being publicly embarrassed. However, this is not necessarily the case as v. 25 suggest that Eli's rebuke here is documented as part of a legalistic judgement. Thus, it was included in the text for reasons other than to directly comment on Eli's role as father. We are left to guess how active Eli was in attempting to censure his sons for their wayward behavior. If this was in fact the only censure, then Eli was hardly the dutiful father. v25 I would take the latter half of the verse to be referring to something similar to Isa. 6:8-10 where Eli's rebuke results in the sons hardening their hearts. Thus the Lord had him rebuke them so as to convict them and make His capital punishment just. v26 Compare 3:19-21. v27-36 Eli's lineage is rejected from the Priesthood by a prophet, note especially v. 30. While Eli's lineage is rejected and his family line is ultimately terminated, the general Aaronic line and Levitical rights to minister in the Temple were not revoked wholesale. The curse here is aimed specifically at Eli and his sons as a direct result of personal apostasy. Thus, individual worthiness is preeminent over lineal right for considerations of Priesthood service. Literal sons of Aaron enjoy lineage-based clames to the Aaronic Priesthood to this very day, cp. D&C 68:17, D&C 107:16. v34 Compare 4:17-18. v35 The faithfulness of the priest is emphasized over the lineage of the priest. Eli's house was of the appropriate lineage, but unrighteous. Copyright © 2002 by S. Kurt Neumiller . All rights reserved. No part of this text may be reproduced in any form or by any means for commercial gain without the express written consent of the author. Digital or printed copies may be freely made and distributed for personal and public non-commercial use.