Because
the Lord Would Slay Them
(Part
1)
Troy
J. Edwards
If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge
him: but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him?
Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because
the LORD would slay them. (1 Samuel 2:25)
Hophni and Phinehas, Eli’s
sons who were supposed to help him with the Levitical ministry, were sleeping
with the ladies and stealing God’s sacrifices. They refused to listen to their
father, despite Eli’s half-hearted attempts to reprimand them. The King James
Version and a number of other versions suggest that this was because of God’s
purpose to destroy them.
As usual, God’s enemies
have latched on to these words as evidence that the God of the Bible is an
arrogant, vindictive tyrant bent on the destruction of others. Then there are
God’s “defenders” who use the words to make a case for the false idea that God
predestines all events and controls all things, including our sin. No further
evidence of the latter needs to be sought than the writings of John Calvin:
So, when it is related of the sons of Eli, that they
listened not to his salutary admonitions, “because the Lord would slay them,”
(i) it is not denied that their obstinacy proceeded from their own wickedness,
but it is plainly implied that though the Lord was able to soften their hearts,
yet they were left in their obstinacy, because his immutable decree had
predestinated them to destruction.[1]
We agree with Calvin’s
statement that God left Hophni and Phinehas, but not for the reasons
that Calvin claims. Calvin believed that these men “were left in their
obstinacy” because God “had predestinated them to destruction.” Yet, this goes
directly against 2 Peter 3:9, “He doesn’t want anyone to be destroyed.
Instead, he wants all people to turn away from their sins” (New
International Reader’s Version). God also told the prophet Ezekiel:
Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?
saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live? (Ezekiel
18:23)
Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have
no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way
and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of
Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11)
Despite these facts,
theologians throughout the centuries have accepted Calvin’s interpretation of 1
Samuel 2:25. It also appears that the belief is supported by the rendering of
the passage found in most English translations of Scripture. The question is,
however, is it an accurate translation? Some theologians believe that 1
Samuel 2:25 is an example of some of the “imperfections” in our translations:
Imperfections in our translations have given rise to
many things hard to be explained. The English translation now in use, is
probably the best ever made; yet there are imperfections in it, where the true
sense of the original has not been conveyed, or conveyed only in part .... 1
Sam. ïi. 25, “Because the Lord would slay them.” The Hebrew is: “Therefore the
Lord would slay them.”[2]
Hence, we are shown that
one word, translated properly, is quite significant to a correct understanding
of a Biblical text. In his advice to preachers on studying the meaning of words
in Scripture, another author explained:
The accepted signification of a word must be retained,
unless sufficient reasons can be assigned for its rejection. Thus, we shall be
justified in rejecting the received meaning of a word in the following two
instances, viz.[3]
The author demonstrates
why a term in Scripture has to be modified using 1 Samuel 2:25 as an example.
This is especially true when the present word conflicts with God’s whole
revelation as given in Scripture:
If a meaning is inimical to any doctrine revealed in
Scripture: For instance, according to our English version, Eli's rebukes of his
wicked sons served only to lull them into security, because the Lord would slay
them (1 Sam. ii. 25), which rendering goes to show that their wicked conduct
was the result of Jehovah’s determination to destroy them; and so apparently
teach the horrid idea, that God wills His creatures to commit crimes, because
He will display His justice in their destruction. It is true that the
ordinarily received meaning of the Hebrew word here used is, because; but in
this place it ought to be rendered therefore, or though, which makes the
obstinate disobedience of Eli’s sons the cause of their destruction, and this
is in harmony with the whole tenor of the Scriptures. The proper rendering,
then, of this passage is, Notwithstanding, they hearkened not unto the voice of
their Father. Therefore, the Lord would slay them.[4]
According to one author,
altering the word “because” to “therefore” (or “though”) eliminates the awful
idea that God ensures that people will remain in sin because He has already
irresistibly decreed their destruction for no other reason than He is
sovereign. Another academic has expressed a similar opinion:
In 1 Sam. ii, 25, we read: “Notwithstanding they hearkened
not unto the voice of their father, because the Lord would slay them.” This
rendering makes God the author of the wickedness done, and Eli’s sons the
passive medium through which God violates his own law, while they are at the
same time the recipients of the divine wrath on account of the breaking of the
law. It is true that kı̂y does frequently mean because,” yet when we
consider the wide range of signification which the Hebrew particles have, we
can readily see that the passage will bear a much more consistent and
God-honoring interpretation. Had it been rendered “by,” “though,” “so,” or
“therefore,” no violence would have been done to the language, and the verse
would have been consistent with the rest of the history, thus: “Notwithstanding
they hearkened not to the voice of their father, therefore the Lord would slay
them.”[5]
Again, a simple
substitution of “because” to “therefore” or “so” eliminates God as the source
of Hophni and Phinehas’ wrongdoing. God is no longer viewed as the author of
evil for “divine” reasons. A number of other scholars affirm the validity of this
word change:
“Because the Lord would slay them;” rather, as the Hebrew
may be rendered, “therefore the Lord would slay them;” God determined to
destroy them because of their wickedness.[6]
Because the Lord would slay them] The Hebrew particle,
kı̂y, rendered because in this text, should be rendered therefore,
in the sense of for that reason, for this is. its meaning here, and so it is
used in other places. I be believed, and [9] therefore have I spoken. See also
Isa. liv, 14; Jer. xviii, 12.[7]
“Because the Lord would slay them.” The Hebrew
particle כִּי (ki) is ordinarily rendered “because;” but in this instance it
ought to be rendered “therefore.” The proper reading of the passage is—“Notwithstanding
they hearkened not unto the voice of their father. Therefore the Lord would
slay them” (Horne).[8]
The particle כי ki, which we translate because, and
thus make their continuance in sin the effect of God’s determination to destroy
them, should be translated therefore, as it means in many parts of the sacred
writings.[9]
Furthermore, we have
discovered at least two of the many English translations out there that have
sought to render the passage by using another English translation of the Hebrew
word kı̂y:
If one man sin against another, the judge shall judge
him; but if a man sin against the LORD, who shall intreat for him?
Notwithstanding they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, therefore
the LORD purposed to destroy them. (The Holy Bible with
Emendations by J.T. Conquest)
If one man sin against another, intercession can be
made for him to the Lord; but if he sin against the Lord, who can intercede for
him? But they hearkened not to the voice of their father, wherefore the
Lord determined to destroy them. (Charles Thomson Bible)
This translation of the
Hebrew verb is considerably more in line with James 1:13, “for God cannot be
tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.” God could not be a Holy
God and declare that those men stay in their sin in order for God, who ensured
that they would sin in this way, to have enough justification to slay them.
Such a notion transforms God into the world’s worst tyrant.
On the other hand, when
people choose to persist in sin and ignore all of God’s warnings, then God will
decide, as John Calvin wrote, that such people are to be “left in their
obstinacy.” Nevertheless, contrary to Calvin’s idea that God intended this to
happen, Scripture teaches that God only “gives them up” to such
hard-heartedness after numerous attempts to sway them into the right path
(Romans 1:24-28; Psalm 81:11-13).
God sent a prophet to
warn them of the danger that they were in (1 Sam. 2:27-36). Sadly, men can
choose to harden their hearts when they hear God’s voice (Hebrews 3:15; 4:7). As
Aaron Williams rightly noted:
The Lord would slay them,
or ‘it pleased the Lord to slay them, and, therefore, he gave them up to their
own heart’s lusts, to work all iniquity with greediness.’ Even their own father
could not ‘entreat for them” in his priestly character; and for such wickedness
there was no atonement. Their cup was full.[10]
It is clear that
destroying Hophni and Phinehas was not God’s initial intention or desire. God
had no choice because of their relentless actions. The next thing we need to
figure out is how God destroyed them. Is it possible that God directly
orchestrated their demise? Is it possible that God used His divine power to
create circumstances that would ensure their demise? Is God, in other words, a
vengeful slayer of men? Part 2 will provide answers to these questions.
[1] Calvin,
John Institutes of the Christian Religion, Volume 2 (Philadelphia:
Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1843), p. 193
[2] Dobie,
David A Key to the Bible: Being an Exposition of the History, Axioms, and
General Laws of Sacred Interpretation (New York: C. Scribner, 1856), pp.
252, 253
[3] Bate,
John “The Meaning of Words and Phrases” in The Local Preacher’s Treasury
(London: T. Woolmer, 1885), p. 185
[4] Ibid,
p. 186
[5] Turton,
J. J. “The Unauthorized Calvinism of the English Bible” in The Methodist
Quarterly Review, Volume 46 (New York: Carlton and Porter, 1864), p. 392
[6] Holden,
George The Christian Expositor; or, Practical Guide to the Study of the Old
Testament (London: J. G. and F. Rivington, 1834), p. 249
[7] Sunderland,
La Roy Biblical Institutes; or, A Scriptural Illustration of the Doctrines,
Morals, and Precepts of the Bible (New York: B. Waugh and T. Mason), p. 162
[8] Thomas,
Robert Owen A key to the Books of Samuel, and the Corresponding Parts of
Chronicles (London: Thomas Murby, 1881), p. 52
[9] Clarke,
Adam The Holy Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments (New York: T.
Mason & G. Lane, 1837), p. 213
[10] Williams,
Aaron Women in the Bible: Being a Collection of all the Passages in the
Scriptures which Relate to Women (Philadelphia: Alfred Martien, 1872), pp.
146, 147
===================================================
Visit our web page:
Like us on Facebook:
Follow us on Gab.com
Subscribe to us on Minds.com:
Become a Contact with me on MeWe:
Subscribe to our YouTube channel:
No comments:
Post a Comment