Idolatry is not hidden from the Lord.

“Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal and follow other gods you have not known, and then come and stand before me in this house, which bears my name, and say, ‘We are safe’ - safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my Name, become a den of robbers to you? But I have been watching!” declares the Lord. (Jeremiah 7:9-11)

This would rank highly among the most devastating pronouncements of any of the prophetic writings in the Bible. The phrase “I have been watching!” was designed to strike terror into the hearts of the people. It is part of Jeremiah’s famous ‘Temple Sermon’, spoken to the crowds at the gate of the Temple, in which he highlighted six outstanding sins: false religion, injustice, oppression, violence, idolatry and immorality.

Spreading Idolatry

This incident in front of the Temple is generally thought to have been delivered near the end of the reign of Jehoiakim in the late 7^th Century BC. Ever since the death of Josiah in 608 BC Jeremiah had been bringing warnings to the people of Judah and especially to those in Jerusalem about the idolatrous practices that were increasingly gaining a hold on the nation, especially in the countryside. These practices had now spread into the streets of Jerusalem and onto the rooftops of the houses.

The people were ignoring their covenant relationship with the Lord, which had been renewed by Josiah following the discovery of a scroll of the Torah while carrying out repairs of the Temple. Jeremiah had added his voice to the strong warnings about the consequences of breaking the covenant and worshipping foreign gods. It was not just at the hilltop shrines, but actually in the streets of Jerusalem that people were offering worship to the ‘Queen of Heaven’, the pagan goddess Astarte.

Ever since the death of King Josiah, Jeremiah had been bringing warnings to the people of Judah about the idolatrous practices that were increasingly gaining a hold on the nation.

Whole families were involved in idolatrous practices: “The children gather wood, the fathers light the fire, and the women knead the dough and make cakes for the Queen of Heaven. They pour out drink offerings to other gods to provoke me to anger” (7:18).

The theme of the so-called Temple Sermon was designed to shock the people into facing up to the reality of the situation. They were not only indulging in idolatry of a particularly repulsive kind with Astarte, the goddess of fertility, but their social life was full of self-indulgence that included violence and immorality. They were breaking all the commandments at the heart of the Torah.

Safe?!

Jeremiah then reminded them of what had happened to Shiloh, the most ancient sacred place in Israel that had not been spared from destruction. Jeremiah recalled how the people in the northern Kingdom had not listened to any of the prophetic warnings God had sent to them, so he had allowed Shiloh to be destroyed. God was now warning that this would actually happen to the Temple in Jerusalem, in which the nation of Judah was putting its trust.

The word of the Lord was “I will thrust you from my presence, just as I did all your brothers, the people of Ephraim.” Jeremiah was then told to stop praying for the welfare of the people of Judah: “Do not plead with me, for I will not listen to you” (7:16).

Three times Jeremiah was given the same command to stop praying for the welfare of the nation. This is the first, and it occurs in the midst of a most shattering passage where God spelled out to the people the reason why he was giving notice of his intention to withdraw his covering of protection over the nation, over the city of Jerusalem and over the Temple that bore his name.

Three times Jeremiah was given the same command to stop praying for the welfare of the nation.

Jeremiah must have almost choked when he spoke the words in today’s reading – “Will you steal and murder, commit adultery and perjury, burn incense to Baal…And then say ‘we are safe’…? Safe?!” He thundered. “Safe to do all these detestable things? Has this house, which bears my name, become a den of robbers to you?"

This was followed by the most devastating words in the whole of the prophecy: “‘But I have been watching’, declares the Lord!” God was watching and taking notice. He could see all that was going on that was in direct contravention of the teaching he had given to Moses. He was watching; and he knew that the people of Israel were breaking the covenant, thereby sealing the death warrant of the nation.

Timeless Message

500 years later, Jesus, who probably knew Jeremiah’s Temple Sermon by heart, said almost the same words as he swept through the outer courtyard of the Temple with a whip in his hand, driving out the sheep and the cattle, overturning the moneychangers’ tables, sending their money clattering to the ground, creating chaos and forcing the merchants to flee from his wrath. “My house will be a house of prayer for all nations”, Jesus declared, “But you have made it a den of robbers” (Mark 11:17).

2,000 years later this same message is coming to the nations of the West whose civilisation is crumbling before their eyes, but every warning has been ignored. They have eyes and ears, but they neither see nor hear. They have had the Bible for centuries; they know the truth, and yet they have deliberately turned away to worship the gods of this world. “They exchanged the truth of God for a lie” (Rom 1:25). “‘But I have been watching!’ declares the Lord”.

This article is part of a series on the life and ministry of the Prophet Jeremiah. Click here for previous instalments.

The anonymous prophet who told of the fall of the House of Eli.

In the historical books 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, we find accounts of unnamed prophets who are individually referred to as ‘a man of God’ (cf 1 Kings 13:1; 2 Kings 6:9) who suddenly appear to speak powerfully to rulers.

During the time of the Philistine wars prior to the monarchy one such ’man of God’ appeared and prophesied against Eli and his generations (1 Sam 2:27), that the strength of the family would be broken, that none of his descendants would live to an old age and that the line would be displaced from the priestly leadership and reduced to poverty.

The account of Eli and his house is related in the first four chapters of 1 Samuel. Eli is suddenly introduced and his story provides a backcloth for the Samuel cycle, the end of the period of the Judges and the end of the sanctuary at Shiloh, anticipating the decline of the Eliad line of priests in favour of the Zadokites (1 Kings 2:26).

Eli functioned as ‘the priest’ by which we may assume he was the high priest, if such a term is correct at this time, at the ’house of the Lord’ in Shiloh, some 20 miles north of Jerusalem, where the tabernacle containing the ark and possibly some ancillary structures were present (1 Sam 3, 7, 9).

Use of the term hekal (temple) does imply that there was something more of a permanent structure, that at least had door posts and a door. Eli and his sons are introduced without genealogy or indication of how they came to hold their position in opposition to the line of Ele’ezer (1 Chron 6:4-15). It would seem that the family were descended from Aaron through Ithmar, his youngest son (1 Kings 2:27 cf. 1 Chron 14:3). The tradition that they had seized the priesthood from Uzzi is considered to be a later Samaritan invention.

A ‘man of God’ appeared and prophesied against Eli and his generations, that the family strength would be broken and the line displaced from priestly leadership.

Eli’s Leadership

Eli had led Israel (‘judged’, KJV) for 40 years and at the time of the visit of the unnamed prophet he is described as being aged, blind and heavy in his body. How long his degenerate sons Hophni and Phinehas had been the main functionaries is not made clear.

The sons' behaviour, which included sexual misconduct with female attendants who served at the entrance (cf. Ex 38:8) and abuse of the sacrificial system, including violent actions by third parties on their behalf, showed not only disregard of the prescribed behaviour of a priest, and misappropriation of parts of the sacrifice that they would not be entitled to (Lev 7:34), but also utter contempt for the Lord whom they were supposed to be serving.

Eli it seems had attempted to rebuke them for their conduct but with little or no effect. He should have disciplined them, or removed them from the priesthood altogether. It is all too easy to let your children run amok because you are afraid of the consequences of correction or simply intimidated. The message of the prophet concerning the decline of the house of Eli and its subsequent confirmation by the child Samuel found fulfilment in the deaths of Eli’s sons on the same day (1 Sam 4:11) and the slaughter of the priests at Nob (1 Sam 12:9-20):

I will carry out against Eli everything I spoke against his family — from beginning to end. For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons blasphemed God, and he failed to restrain them. Therefore I swore to the house of Eli, ‘The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.’ (1 Sam 3:12-14)

Eli’s sons’ behaviour showed disregard of the prescribed behaviour of a priest and utter contempt for the Lord, whom they were supposed to be serving.

Weak Leadership

The emphasis in the introductory passage is that ‘he knew’ and ‘he failed to restrain them'. A second tension was that Eli appeared to have had little faith that any intercession could be made for them, and chose to bury his head in the sand (1 Sam 2:25).

Hophni and Phinehas. See Photo Credits.The message of the prophet sounds a warning today to church leadership and particularly those in leadership of groups of churches and denominations. Paul writing to Timothy describes a time of great stress in the last days and lists characteristics that resemble the behaviour of Hophni and Phinehas, which included being lovers of themselves, abusive and disobedient to their parents (2 Tim 4:1).

In the West we largely live in an orphan society where fatherhood has not been exercised in the home and leadership within the church has lost its fathering role. Fatherhood in leadership is an expression of the Fatherhood of God and as such contains the elements of correction and discipline. If one is not disciplined by one’s father one is not a son and therefore, functionally is illegitimate (Heb 12:8).

Part of the decline of the Church as an effective witness and weakness in its discipling programmes has been caused directly by what may be termed the ‘Eli effect’ of taking lines of least resistance, confronting weakness and tolerating deviant behaviour or simply ignoring problems and hoping that they will go away. The problem is that the issues left unchallenged seldom depart and if they do depart they take root elsewhere. Transferring the tension to another is not a godly solution.

Major denominations and groups that have tolerated deviant teachings and behaviour have weakened the Church from within. There has been an insidious move away from Bible teaching to a pattern that is founded in psychology and first line management that has eroded the essential character of the Church as a protector of the apostolic faith and a moral influence upon society.

Part of the decline of the Church’s witness has been caused by the ‘Eli effect’: taking lines of least resistance, tolerating deviant behaviour or simply ignoring problems and hoping that they will go away.

Take These Words to Heart

In a similar manner, weak leadership caused by a fear of confrontation and a move away from strong leadership to local consensus have undermined the responsibilities, direction and effectiveness of Church leadership. We have failed to present a fatherly [not paternalistic] model based upon the Fatherhood of God.

If leaders do not keep their house in order, albeit through fear of the face of man, misguided loyalties or fear of personal rejection, internal division and party spirit, the accusation that came through the prophet remains — “why do you honour your sons more than me?”

A similar accusation resonates against the church in Thyatira (Rev 2:20) with the words “I have this against you...you allowed…”, in this case allowing false prophecy, sexual misconduct and the eating of food sacrificed to idols. It is important to remember that to maintain silence in the face of deviant behaviour or teaching is to tacitly approve of it.

The story also demonstrates that when the fear of the Lord is absent in the leadership it percolates downwards. The emphasis moves away from essential trust in God to reliance being put on artefacts (e.g. the ark — 1 Sam 4:4), institutions (e.g. the Temple - Jer 7:3) or individuals.

It is important to remember that to maintain silence in the face of deviant behaviour or teaching is to tacitly approve of it.

In the modern era it is tragic to see members of the Church following individuals in order to ‘hear a word from the Lord’ or in the belief that their own church, group or denomination have little or nothing to offer. The star status accorded to some speakers has gone a long way to undermining some individuals’ faith when some of the so-called celebrities have been shown to be all too human.

The leaders after suffering a defeat on the battlefield assumed that the mere presence of the ark of the covenant would assure them victory against the Philistines (1 Sam 4:4). The result was that in fulfilment of the prophecy, Eli's two sons were killed at the battle of Aphek (1 Sam 4:11). Upon hearing the news Eli fell off his chair and broke his neck, resulting in his own death. Archaeological evidence indicates that the sanctuary at Shiloh was destroyed at this time and the priesthood moved to Nob.

In conclusion the words which the prophet spoke to Eli should be taken to heart. “I respect those who respect me but those who despise me will meet with contempt” (1 Sam 2:30, CJB).

Originally published in Prophecy Today, 1999, Vol 15(4).