Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of 1 Samuel 1:1

Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name [was] Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite.

THE

FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL,

OTHERWISE CALLED,

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE KINGS

Ch. 1Sa 1:1-8. Elkanah’s household and devotion

1. Now ] And. The conjunction implies that the book of Samuel is a continuation of the history contained in the book of Judges which it immediately follows in the order of the Hebrew Bible, Ruth being placed among the Hagiographa.

Ramathaim-zophim ] The name Ramathaim (= “the two heights”) is found here only, and is no doubt another name for Ramah (= “the height”) the birthplace ( 1Sa 1:19), residence (1Sa 7:17), and burial-place (1Sa 25:1) of the prophet Samuel. Its site “is the most disputed problem of sacred topography.” Probably it is to be placed either ( a) at Er-Ram, a conical hill about 5 miles due north of Jerusalem, in which case it will be identical with Ramah of Benjamin (Jos 18:25): or ( b) at Neby Samwil (= “the prophet Samuel”) a conspicuous eminence 5 miles N. W. of Jerusalem, on which is still shewn the traditional tomb of Samuel: or ( c) at Ram Allah, east of Beth-horon on the western slopes of Mount Ephraim.

The epithet Zophim distinguishes the town from others of similar name, as Ramathaim in Zuph (1Sa 9:5), a district probably named after Elkanah’s ancestor, Zuph or Zophai (1Ch 6:26).

Ramathaim is possibly the same as Arimathaea in the N. T. The form Armathaim in which it appears in the LXX. gives the link of connexion between the names.

of mount Ephraim ] The central mountainous district of Palestine, in which the tribe of Ephraim settled (Jos 17:15), was “a good land.” The limestone hills are intersected by fertile valleys, watered by innumerable fountains, and still remarkable for their fertility. See Stanley’s Sinai and Palestine, p. 229, ff. The name extended southwards to the territory of Benjamin in which Ramah lay. Thus Deborah’s palm tree was “between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim” (Jdg 4:5).

Elkanah ] In 1Ch 6:22-28; 1Ch 6:33-38, Samuel’s descent from Kohath the son of Levi is given at length. Shemuel in 1Ch 6:33 is the Hebrew form of the name for which the E. V. usually substitutes the Latinized form Samuel. The discrepancies in these genealogies may be partly due to corruptions of the text, partly to the same individuals bearing different, though in some cases synonymous, names.

an Ephrathite ] The Levite Elkanah is called an Ephrathite, i.e. Ephraimite, because his family had originally belonged to the Kohathite settlements in the territory of Ephraim (Jos 21:20). It is suggested in the Speaker’s Commentary, that as Salmon, the 7th from Judah, entered Canaan with Joshua, Zuph, who was the 7th from Levi, according to the genealogy in 1 Chr., may very probably have lived at the time of the settlement of the land. The genealogy would naturally stop with the first settler in Canaan, who gave his name to “the land of Zuph” (1Sa 9:5). If so, we must suppose that he at once migrated from the residence assigned him in the tribe of Ephraim.

Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

Ramathaim-zophim may signify the two hills 1Sa 9:11-13 of the watchmen, so called from its being a post from which the watchmen looked out. But since Zuph is the name of the head of the family, it is more probable that Zophin means the Zuphites, the sons of Zuph (see Zophai, 1Ch 6:26), from whom the land about Ramah was called the land of Zuph, 1Sa 9:5.

There is reason to believe that Elkanah – an Ephrathite, or inhabitant of Bethlehem 1Sa 17:12; Rth 1:2 and of the territory of the tribe of Ephraim 1Ki 11:26 – the father of Samuel, represents the fifth generation of settlers in Canaan, and therefore that Samuel was born about 130 years after the entrance into Canaan – four complete generations, or 132 years – and about 40 years before David.

Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible

THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL

-Year from the Creation, 2833.

-Year before the Incarnation, 1171.

-Year before the first Olympiad, 395.

-Year before the building of Rome, 418.

-Year of the Julian Period, 3543.

-Year of the Dionysian Period, 351.

-Cycle of the Sun, 15.

-Cycle of the Moon, 9.

CHAPTER I

Some account of Elkanah and his two wives, Peninnah and Hannah,

1, 2.

His annual worship at Shiloh and the portions he gave at such

times to his wives, 3-5.

Hannah, being barren, is reproached by Peninnah, especially in

their going up to Shiloh; at which she is sorely grieved, 6, 7.

Elkanah comforts her, 8.

Her prayer and vow in the temple, that if God would give her a

son, she would consecrate him to His service, 9-11.

Eli, the high priest, indistinctly hearing her pray, charges her

with being drunk, 12-14.

Her defence of her conduct, 15, 16.

Eli, undeceived, blesses her; on which she takes courage,

17, 18.

Hannah and Elkanah return home; she conceives, bears a son, and

calls him Samuel, 19, 20.

Elkanah and his family go again to Shiloh to worship; but Hannah

stays at home to nurse her child, purposing, as soon as he is

weaned, to go and offer him to the Lord, according to her vow,

21-23.

When weaned, she takes him to Shiloh, presents hear child to Eli

to be consecrated to the Lord, and offers three bullocks, an

ephah of flour, and a bottle of wane, for his consecration,

24-28.

NOTES ON CHAP. I

Verse 1. Ramathaim-zophim] Literally, the two high places of the watchman; these were, no doubt, two contiguous hills, on which watchtowers were built, and in which watchmen kept continual guard for the safety of the country and which afterwards gave name to the place.

Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible

Ramathaim-zophirn, called Ramah, 1Sa 1:19, and here is the dual number Ramathaim, i.e. double Ramah, probably because it consisted of two parts, whereof the one might be called the old city, the other the new, both being united into one; and the additional title of Zophim, which signifies watch-towers, or watchmen, may note either the height of its situation, which made it fit for that use; or that the prophets, who are called watchmen, as Eze 3:17, had a school or college there.

An Ephrathite, i.e. one of Bethlehem-judah, Rth 1:2, to wit, by his birth and habitation, though by his original a Levite. Thus divers Jews by nation are called Medes, Elamites, Cretians, &c., Act 2:9-11, because they were born and bred there.

Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole

1, 2. a certain man ofRamathaim-zophimThe first word being in the dual number,signifies the double citythe old and new town of Ramah (1Sa1:19). There were five cities of this name, all on high ground.This city had the addition of Zophim attached to it, because it wasfounded by Zuph, “an Ephrathite,” that is a native ofEphratha. Beth-lehem, and the expression “of Ramathaim-zophim”must, therefore, be understood as Ramah in the land of Zuph in thehill country of Ephratha. Others, considering “mount Ephraim”as pointing to the locality in Joseph’s territory, regard “Zophim”not as a proper but a common noun, signifying watchtowers, orwatchmen, with reference either to the height of its situation, orits being the residence of prophets who were watchmen (Eze3:17). Though a native of Ephratha or Beth-lehem-judah (Ru1:2), Elkanah was a Levite (1Ch 6:33;1Ch 6:34). Though of this order,and a good man, he practised polygamy. This was contrary to theoriginal law, but it seems to have been prevalent among the Hebrewsin those days, when there was no king in Israel, and every man didwhat seemed right in his own eyes [Jud21:25].

Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible

Now there was a man of Ramathaimzophim, of Mount Ephraim,…. Ramathaim is a word of the dual number, and signifies two Ramahs; the city consisted of two parts, being built perhaps on two hills, and were called Zophim; because, as the Rabbins say, they looked one to another; or rather, because situated on eminences, there were watchtowers in them, where watchmen were placed; or because they were inhabited by prophets, who were sometimes called watchmen, Eze 3:17 and here is thought to be a school of the prophets, see

1Sa 19:19 and which seems to be countenanced by the Targum, in which the words are paraphrased thus, “and there was one” man of Ramatha, of the disciples of the prophets; or, as others think, the sense is this, this man was one of the Ramathites, the inhabitants of Ramah, and of the family of Zuph, or the Zuphites, which gave the name to the land of Zuph, and the grand ancestor of Elkanah is in this verse called Zuph, see 1Sa 9:5. According to Jerom e, this is the same with Arimathaea, of which Joseph was, Mt 27:57 for thus he writes,

“Armatha Sophim, the city of Helcanah and Samuel, in the Thamnitic region near Diospolis (or Lydda), from whence was Joseph, who in the Gospels is said to be of Arimathaea;”

but Reland f thinks it cannot be the same that was about Lydda, which was all a champaign country; whereas this was in the mountains of Ephraim, which must be sought to the north of Jerusalem, and not the west, and so it follows:

of Mount Ephraim: which is added to distinguish it from other Ramahs in several tribes, as in Benjamin, Naphtali, c. though this may refer not to the situation of Ramathaim, but to the country of this man, who was originally of Mount Ephraim, as was the Levite in Jud 19:1 who was the cause of much evil to Israel, as this was of great good, as Kimchi observes:

and his name was Elkanah which signifies “God hath possessed”; that is, possessed him, or he was in possession of God; he had an ancestor of the same name, 1Ch 6:23. This man was a Levite, one of the Kohathites, and a descendant of Korah; so that the famous prophet Samuel was of the sons of Korah:

the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph; the three last of these names are somewhat differently read in 1Ch 6:26, where they are Eliab, Nahath, Zophai; and in 1Ch 6:34. Eliel, Toah, Zuph:

an Ephrathite; which appellation is to be connected, according to Kimchi, not with Elkanah, but with Zuph; though neither of them were so called from Bethlehemjudah, the inhabitants of which were indeed called Ephrathites from Ephratah, another name of it; so Elimelech, and his sons Mahlon and Chilion, being of that city, were so called, Ru 1:2 not from their being of the tribe of Ephraim, as Jeroboam of that tribe is called an Ephrathite, 1Ki 11:26, see Jud 12:5 for these were Levites, the descendants of Kohath, in the line of Korah; but because they sojourned in Mount Ephraim, or dwelt there, as Elkanah did; and it is well known that the Kohathites had cities given them in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos 21:5.

e De loc. Heb. fol. 88. K. f Palestin. Illustrat. tom. 2. p. 581.

Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible

Samuel’s pedigree. – 1Sa 1:1. His father was a man of Ramathaim-Zophim, on the mountains of Ephraim, and named Elkanah. Ramathaim-Zophim, which is only mentioned here, is the same place, according to 1Sa 1:3 (comp. with 1Sa 1:19 and 1Sa 2:11), which is afterwards called briefly ha-Ramah, i.e., the height. For since Elkanah of Ramathaim-Zophim went year by year out of his city to Shiloh, to worship and sacrifice there, and after he had done this, returned to his house to Ramah (1Sa 1:19; 1Sa 2:11), there can be no doubt that he was not only a native of Ramathaim-Zophim, but still had his home there; so that Ramah, where his house was situated, is only an abbreviated name for Ramathaim-Zophim.

(Note: The argument lately adduced by Valentiner in favour of the difference between these two names, viz., that “examples are not wanting of a person being described according to his original descent, although his dwelling-place had been already changed,” and the instance which he cites, viz., Jdg 19:16, show that he has overlooked the fact, that in the very passage which he quotes the temporary dwelling-place is actually mentioned along with the native town. In the case before us, on the contrary Ramathaim-Zophim is designated, by the use of the expression “from his city,” in 1Sa 1:3, as the place where Elkanah lived, and where “his house” (1Sa 1:19) was still standing.)

This Ramah (which is invariably written with the article, ha-Ramah), where Samuel was not only born (1Sa 1:19.), but lived, laboured, died ( 1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 15:34; 1Sa 16:13; 1Sa 19:18-19, 1Sa 19:22-23), and was buried (1Sa 25:1; 1Sa 28:3), is not a different place, as has been frequently assumed,

(Note: For the different views which have been held upon this point, see the article “Ramah,” by Pressel, in Herzog’s Cyclopaedia.)

from the Ramah in Benjamin (Jos 18:25), and is not to be sought for in Ramleh near Joppa ( v. Schubert, etc.), nor in Soba on the north-west of Jerusalem ( Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 329), nor three-quarters of an hour to the north of Hebron (Wolcott, v. de Velde), nor anywhere else in the tribe of Ephraim, but is identical with Ramah of Benjamin, and was situated upon the site of the present village of er-Rm, two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, upon a conical mountain to the east of the Nablus road (see at Jos 18:25). This supposition is neither at variance with the account in 1 Samuel 9-10 (see the commentary upon these chapters), nor with the statement that Ramathaim-Zophim was upon the mountains of Ephraim, since the mountains of Ephraim extended into the tribe-territory of Benjamin, as is indisputably evident from Jdg 4:5, where Deborah the prophetess is said to have dwelt between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. The name Ramathaim-Zophim, i.e., “the two heights (of the) Zophites” appear to have been given to the town to distinguish it from other Ramah’s, and to have been derived from the Levitical family of Zuph or Zophai (see 1Ch 6:26, 1Ch 6:35), which emigrated thither from the tribe of Ephraim, and from which Elkanah was descended. The full name, therefore, is given here, in the account of the descent of Samuel’s father; whereas in the further history of Samuel, where there was no longer the same reason for giving it, the simple name Ramah is invariably used.

(Note: The fuller and more exact name, however, appears to have been still retained, and the use of it to have been revived after the captivity, in the of 1 Macc. 11:34, for which the Codd. have and , and Josephus , and in the Arimathaea of the gospel history (Mat 27:57). “For the opinion that this Ramathaim is a different place from the city of Samuel, and is to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Lydda, which Robinson advocates ( Pal. iii. p. 41ff.), is a hasty conclusion, drawn from the association of Ramathaim with Lydda in 1 Macc. 11:34, – the very same conclusion which led the author of the Onomasticon to transfer the city of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Lydda” (Grimm on 1 Macc. 11:34).

The connection between Zophim and Zuph is confirmed by the fact that Elkanah’s ancestor, Zuph, is called Zophai in 1Ch 6:26, and Zuph or Ziph in 1Ch 6:35. Zophim therefore signifies the descendants of Zuph or Zophai, from which the name “land of Zuph,” in 1Sa 9:5, was also derived (see the commentary on this passage). The tracing back of Elkanah’s family through four generations to Zuph agrees with the family registers in 1 Chron 6, where the ancestors of Elkanah are mentioned twice, – first of all in the genealogy of the Kohathites (1Ch 6:26), and then in that of Heman, the leader of the singers, a grandson of Samuel (1Ch 6:33), – except that the name Elihu, Tohu, and Zuph, are given as Eliab, Nahath, and Zophai in the first instance, and Eliel, Toah, and Ziph (according to the Chethibh) in the second, – various readings, such as often occur in the different genealogies, and are to be explained partly from the use of different forms for the same name, and partly from their synonymous meanings. Tohu and Toah, which occur in Arabic, with the meaning to press or sink in, are related in meaning to nachath or nuach , to sink or settle down.

From these genealogies in the Chronicles, we learn that Samuel was descended from Kohath, the son of Levi, and therefore was a Levite. It is no valid objection to the correctness of this view, that his Levitical descent is never mentioned, or that Elkanah is called an Ephrathite. The former of these can very easily be explained from the fact, that Samuel’s work as a reformer, which is described in this book, did not rest upon his Levitical descent, but simply upon the call which he had received from God, as the prophetic office was not confined to any particular class, like that of priest, but was founded exclusively upon the divine calling and endowment with the Spirit of God. And the difficulty which Ngelsbach expresses in Herzog’s Cycl., viz., that “as it was stated of those two Levites (Jdg 17:7; Jdg 19:1), that they lived in Bethlehem and Ephraim, but only after they had been expressly described as Levites, we should have expected to find the same in the case of Samuel’s father,” is removed by the simple fact, that in the case of both those Levites it was of great importance, so far as the accounts which are given of them are concerned, that their Levitical standing should be distinctly mentioned, as is clearly shown by Jdg 17:10, Jdg 17:13, and Jdg 19:18; whereas in the case of Samuel, as we have already observed, his Levitical descent had no bearing upon the call which he received from the Lord. The word Ephrathite does not belong, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, either to Zuph or Elkanah, but to “ a certain man,” the subject of the principal clause, and signifies an Ephraimite, as in Jdg 12:5 and 1Ki 11:26, and not an inhabitant of Ephratah, i.e., a Bethlehemite, as in 1Sa 17:12 and Rth 1:2; for in both these passages the word is more precisely defined by the addition of the expression “of Bethlehem-Judah,” whereas in this verse the explanation is to be found in the expression “of Mount Ephraim.” Elkanah the Levite is called an Ephraimite, because, so far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, just as the Levite in Jdg 17:7 is described as belonging to the family of Judah. The Levites were reckoned as belonging to those tribes in the midst of which they lived, so that there were Judaean Levites, Ephraimitish Levites, and so on (see Hengstenberg, Diss. vol. ii. p. 50). It by no means follows, however, from the application of this term to Elkanah, that Ramathaim-Zophim formed part of the tribe-territory of Ephraim, but simply that Elkanah’s family was incorporated in this tribe, and did not remove till afterwards to Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin. On the division of the land, dwelling-places were allotted to the Levites of the family of Kohath, in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh ( Jos 21:5, Jos 21:21.). Still less is there anything at variance with the Levitical descent of Samuel, as Thenius maintains, in the fact that he was dedicated to the Lord by his mother’s vow, for he was not dedicated to the service of Jehovah generally through this view, but was set apart to a lifelong service at the house of God as a Nazarite (1Sa 1:11, 1Sa 1:22); whereas other Levites were not required to serve till their twenty-fifth year, and even then had not to perform an uninterrupted service at the sanctuary. On the other hand, the Levitical descent of Samuel receives a very strong confirmation from his father’s name. All the Elkanahs that we meet with in the Old Testament, with the exception of the one mentioned in 2Ch 28:7, whose genealogy is unknown, can be proved to have been Levites; and most of them belong to the family of Korah, from which Samuel was also descended (see Simonis, Onomast. p. 493). This is no doubt connected in some way with the meaning of the name Elkanah, the man whom God has bought or acquired; since such a name was peculiarly suitable to the Levites, whom the Lord had set apart for service at the sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of Israel, whom He had sanctified to himself when He smote the first-born of Egypt (Num 3:13., Num 3:44.; see Hengstenberg, ut sup.).

1Sa 1:2-3

Elkanah had two wives, Hannah (grace or gracefulness) and Peninnah (coral), the latter of whom was blessed with children, whereas the first was childless. He went with his wives year by year ( , as in Exo 13:10; Jdg 11:40), according to the instructions of the law (Exo 34:23; Deu 16:16), to the tabernacle at Shiloh (Jos 18:1), to worship and sacrifice to the Lord of hosts. “ Jehovah Zebaoth ” is an abbreviation of “ Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth,” or ; and the connection of Zebaoth with Jehovah is not to be regarded as the construct state, nor is Zebaoth to be taken as a genitive dependent upon Jehovah. This is not only confirmed by the occurrence of such expressions as “ Elohim Zebaoth ” (Psa 59:6; Psa 80:5, Psa 80:8, Psa 80:15, 20; Psa 84:9) and “ Adonai Zebaoth ” (Isa 10:16), but also by the circumstance that Jehovah, as a proper name, cannot be construed with a genitive. The combination “Jehovah Zebaoth” is rather to be taken as an ellipsis, where the general term Elohe (God of), which is implied in the word Jehovah, is to be supplied in thought (see Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 375, English translation); for frequently as this expression occurs, especially in the case of the prophets, Zebaoth is never used alone in the Old Testament as one of the names of God. It is in the Septuagint that the word is first met with occasionally as a proper name ( ), viz., throughout the whole of the first book of Samuel, very frequently in Isaiah, and also in Zec 13:2. In other passages, the word is translated either , or , or ; whilst the other Greek versions use the more definite phrase instead.

This expression, which was not used as a divine name until the age of Samuel, had its roots in Gen 2:1, although the title itself was unknown in the Mosaic period, and during the times of the judges. It represented Jehovah as ruler over the heavenly hosts (i.e., the angels, according to Gen 32:2, and the stars, according to Isa 40:26), who are called the “armies” of Jehovah in Psa 103:21; Psa 148:2; but we are not to understand it as implying that the stars were supposed to be inhabited by angels, as Gesenius ( Thes. s. v.) maintains, since there is not the slightest trace of any such notion in the whole of the Old Testament. It is simply applied to Jehovah as the God of the universe, who governs all the powers of heaven, both visible and invisible, as He rules in heaven and on earth. It cannot even be proved that the epithet Lord, or God of Zebaoth, refers chiefly and generally to the sun, moon, and stars, on account of their being so peculiarly adapted, through their visible splendour, to keep alive the consciousness of the omnipotence and glory of God ( Hengstenberg on Psa 24:10). For even though the expression (their host), in Gen 2:1, refers to the heavens only, since it is only to the heavens (vid., Isa 40:26), and never to the earth, that a “host” is ascribed, and in this particular passage it is probably only the stars that are to be thought of, the creation of which had already been mentioned in Gen 1:14.; yet we find the idea of an army of angels introduced in the history of Jacob (Gen 32:2-3), where Jacob calls the angels of God who appeared to him the “camp of God,” and also in the blessing of Moses (Deu 33:2), where the “ten thousands of saints” ( Kodesh ) are not stars, but angels, or heavenly spirits; whereas the fighting of the stars against Sisera in the song of Deborah probably refers to a natural phenomenon, by which God had thrown the enemy into confusion, and smitten them before the Israelites (see at Jdg 5:20). We must also bear in mind, that whilst on the one hand the tribes of Israel, as they came out of Egypt, are called Zebaoth Jehovah, “the hosts of Jehovah” (Exo 7:4; Exo 12:41), on the other hand the angel of the Lord, when appearing in front of Jericho in the form of a warrior, made himself known to Joshua as “the prince of the army of Jehovah,” i.e., of the angelic hosts. And it is in this appearance of the heavenly leader of the people of God to the earthly leader of the hosts of Israel, as the prince of the angelic hosts, not only promising him the conquest of Jericho, but through the miraculous overthrow of the walls of this strong bulwark of the Canaanitish power, actually giving him at the same time a practical proof that the prince of the angelic hosts was fighting for Israel, that we have the material basis upon which the divine epithet “Jehovah God of hosts” was founded, even though it was not introduced immediately, but only at a later period, when the Lord began to form His people Israel into a kingdom, by which all the kingdoms of the heathen were to be overcome. It is certainly not without significance that this title is given to God for the first time in these books, which contain an account of the founding of the kingdom, and (as Auberlen has observed) that it was by Samuel’s mother, the pious Hannah, when dedicating her son to the Lord, and prophesying of the king and anointed of the Lord in her song of praise (1Sa 2:10), that this name was employed for the first time, and that God was addressed in prayer as “Jehovah of hosts” (1Sa 1:11). Consequently, if this name of God goes hand in hand with the prophetic announcement and the actual establishment of the monarchy in Israel, its origin cannot be attributed to any antagonism to Sabaeism, or to the hostility of pious Israelites to the worship of the stars, which was gaining increasing ground in the age of David, as Hengstenberg (on Psa 24:10) and Strauss (on Zep 2:9) maintain; to say nothing of the fact, that there is no historical foundation for such an assumption at all. It is a much more natural supposition, that when the invisible sovereignty of Jehovah received a visible manifestation in the establishment of the earthly monarchy, the sovereignty of Jehovah, if it did possess and was to possess any reality at all, necessarily claimed to be recognised in its all-embracing power and glory, and that in the title “God of (the heavenly hosts” the fitting expression was formed for the universal government of the God-king of Israel, – a title which not only serves as a bulwark against any eclipsing of the invisible sovereignty of God by the earthly monarchy in Israel, but overthrew the vain delusion of the heathen, that the God of Israel was simply the national deity of that particular nation.

(Note: This name of God was therefore held up before the people of the Lord even in their war-songs and paeans of victory, but still more by the prophets, as a banner under which Israel was to fight and to conquer the world. Ezekiel is the only prophet who does not use it, simply because he follows the Pentateuch so strictly in his style. And it is not met with in the book of Job, just because the theocratic constitution of the Israelitish nation is never referred to in the problem of that book.)

The remark introduced in 1Sa 1:3, “ and there were the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord,” i.e., performing the duties of the priesthood, serves as a preparation for what follows. This reason for the remark sufficiently explains why the sons of Eli only are mentioned here, and not Eli himself, since, although the latter still presided over the sanctuary as high priest, he was too old to perform the duties connected with the offering of sacrifice. The addition made by the lxx, , is an arbitrary interpolation, occasioned by a misapprehension of the reason for mentioning the sons of Eli.

1Sa 1:4-5

“ And it came to pass, the day, and he offered sacrifice ” (for, “on which he offered sacrifice”), that he gave to Peninnah and her children portions of the flesh of the sacrifice at the sacrificial meal; but to Hannah he gave , “ one portion for two persons,” i.e., a double portion, because he loved her, but Jehovah had shut up her womb: i.e., he gave it as an expression of his love to her, to indicate by a sign, “thou art as dear to me as if thou hadst born me a child” ( O. v. Gerlach). This explanation of the difficult word , of which very different interpretations have been given, is the one adopted by Tanchum Hieros., and is the only one which can be grammatically sustained, or yields an appropriate sense. The meaning face ( facies) is placed beyond all doubt by Gen 3:19 and other passages; and the use of as a synonym for in 1Sa 25:23, also establishes the meaning “person,” since is used in this sense in 2Sa 17:11. It is true that there are no other passages that can be adduced to prove that the singular was also used in this sense; but as the word was employed promiscuously in both singular and plural in the derivative sense of anger, there is no reason for denying that the singular may also have been employed in the sense of face ( ). The combination of with in the absolute state is supported by many other examples of the same kind (see Ewald, 287, h). The meaning double has been correctly adopted in the Syriac, whereas Luther follows the tristis of the Vulgate, and renders the word traurig , or sad. But this meaning, which Fr. Bttcher has lately taken under his protection, cannot be philologically sustained either by the expression (Gen 4:6), or by Dan 11:20, or in any other way. and do indeed signify anger, but anger and sadness are two very different ideas. But when Bttcher substitutes “angrily or unwillingly” for sadly, the incongruity strikes you at once: “he gave her a portion unwillingly, because he loved her!” For the custom of singling out a person by giving double or even large portions, see the remarks on Gen 43:34.

1Sa 1:6

“ And her adversary (Peninnah) also provoked her with provocation, to irritate her.” The is placed before the noun belonging to the verb, to add force to the meaning. ( Hiphil), to excite, put into (inward) commotion, not exactly to make angry.

1Sa 1:7

“ So did he (Elkanah) from year to year (namely give to Hannah a double portion at the sacrificial meal), as often as she went up to the house of the Lord. So did she (Peninnah) provoke her (Hannah), so that she wept, and did not eat.” The two correspond to one another. Just as Elkanah showed his love to Hannah at every sacrificial festival, so did Peninnah repeat her provocation, the effect of which was that Hannah gave vent to her grief in tears, and did not eat.

1Sa 1:8

Elkanah sought to comfort her in her grief by the affectionate appeal: “ Am I not better to thee ( , i.e., dearer) than ten children?” Ten is a found number for a large number.

Fuente: Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Parentage of Samuel; Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah.

B. C. 1140.

      1 Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:   2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.   3 And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, were there.   4 And when the time was that Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions:   5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.   6 And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the LORD had shut up her womb.   7 And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of the LORD, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat.   8 Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?

      We have here an account of the state of the family into which Samuel the prophet was born. His father’s name was Elkanah, a Levite, and of the family of the Kohathites (the most honourable house of that tribe) as appears, 1Ch 6:33; 1Ch 6:34. His ancestor Zuph was an Ephrathite, that is, of Bethlehem-Judah, which was called Ephrathah, Ruth i. 2. There this family of the Levites was first seated, but one branch of it, in process of time, removed to Mount Ephraim, from which Elkanah descended. Micah’s Levite came from Bethlehem to Mount Ephraim, Judg. xvii. 8. Perhaps notice is taken of their being originally Ephrathites to show their alliance to David. This Elkanah lived at Ramah, or Ramathaim, which signifies the double Ramah, the higher and lower town, the same with Arimathea of which Joseph was, here called Ramathaim-zophim. Zophim signifies watchmen; probably they had one of the schools of the prophets there, for prophets are called watchmen: the Chaldee paraphrase calls Elkanah a disciple of the prophets. But it seems to me that it was in Samuel that prophecy revived, before his time there being, for a great while, no open vision, ch. iii. 1. Nor is there any mention of a prophet of the Lord from Moses to Samuel, except Judg. vi. 8. So that we have no reason to think that there was any nursery or college of prophets here till Samuel himself founded one, 1Sa 19:19; 1Sa 19:20. This is the account of Samuel’s parentage, and the place of his nativity. Let us now take notice of the state of the family.

      I. It was a devout family. All the families of Israel should be so, but Levites’ families in a particular manner. Ministers should be patterns of family religion. Elkanah went up at the solemn feasts to the tabernacle at Shiloh, to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts. I think this is the first time in scripture that God is called the Lord of hosts—Jehovah Sabaoth, a name by which he was afterwards very much called and known. Probably Samuel the prophet was the first that used this title of God, for the comfort of Israel, when in his time their hosts were few and feeble and those of their enemies many and mighty; then it would be a support to them to think that the God they served was Lord of hosts, of all the hosts both of heaven and earth; of them he has a sovereign command, and makes what use he pleases of them. Elkanah was a country Levite, and, for aught that appears, had not any place or office which required his attendance at the tabernacle, but he went up as a common Israelite, with his own sacrifices, to encourage his neighbours and set them a good example. When he sacrificed he worshipped, joining prayers and thanksgivings with his sacrifices. In this course of religion he was constant, for he went up yearly. And that which made it the more commendable in him was, 1. That there was a general decay and neglect of religion in the nations. Some among them worshipped other gods, and the generality were remiss in the service of the God of Israel, and yet Elkanah kept his integrity; whatever others did, his resolution was that he and his house should serve the Lord. 2. That Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, were the men that were now chiefly employed in the service of the house of God; and they were men that conducted themselves very ill in their place, as we shall find afterwards; yet Elkanah went up to sacrifice. God had then tied his people to one place and one altar, and forbidden them, under any pretence whatsoever, to worship elsewhere, and therefore, in pure obedience to that command, he attended at Shiloh. If the priests did not do their duty, he would do his. Thanks be to God, we, under the gospel, are not tied to any one place or family; but the pastors and teachers whom the exalted Redeemer has given to his church are those only whose ministration tends to the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ,Eph 4:11; Eph 4:12. None have dominion over our faith; but our obligation is to those that are the helpers of our holiness and joy, not to any that by their scandalous immoralities, like Hophni and Phinehas, make the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred, though still the validity and efficacy of the sacraments depend not on the purity of him that administers them.

      II. Yet it was a divided family, and the divisions of it carried with them both guilt and grief. Where there is piety, it is a pity but there should be unity. The joint-devotions of a family should put an end to divisions in it.

      1. The original cause of this division was Elkanah’s marrying two wives, which was a transgression of the original institution of marriage, to which our Saviour reduces it. Mat 19:5; Mat 19:8, From the beginning it was not so. It made mischief in Abraham’s family, and Jacob’s, and here in Elkanah’s. How much better does the law of God provide for our comfort and ease in this world than we should, if we were left to ourselves! It is probable that Elkanah married Hannah first, and, because he had not children by her so soon as he hoped, he married Peninnah, who bore him children indeed, but was in other things a vexation to him. Thus are men often beaten with rods of their own making.

      2. That which followed upon this error was that the two wives could not agree. They had different blessings: Peninnah, like Leah, was fruitful and had many children, which should have made her easy and thankful, though she was but a second wife, and was less beloved; Hannah, like Rachel, was childless indeed, but she was very dear to her husband, and he took all occasions to let both her and others know that she was so, and many a worthy portion he gave her (v. 5), and this should have made her easy and thankful. But they were of different tempers: Peninnah could not bear the blessing of fruitfulness, but she grew haughty and insolent; Hannah could not bear the affliction of barrenness, but she grew melancholy and discontented: and Elkanah had a difficult part to act between them.

      (1.) Elkanah kept up his attendance at God’s altar notwithstanding this unhappy difference in his family, and took his wives and children with him, that, if they could not agree in other things, they might agree to worship God together. If the devotions of a family prevail not to put an end to its divisions, yet let not the divisions put a stop to the devotions.

      (2.) He did all he could to encourage Hannah, and to keep up her spirits under her affliction, 1Sa 1:4; 1Sa 1:5. At the feast he offered peace-offerings, to supplicate for peace in his family; and when he and his family were to eat their share of the sacrifice, in token of their communion with God and his altar, though he carved to Peninnah and her children competent portions, yet to Hannah he gave a worthy portion, the choicest piece that came to the table, the piece (whatever it was) that used to be given on such occasions to those that were most valued; this he did in token of his love to her, and to give all possible assurances of it. Observe, [1.] Elkanah loved his wife never the less for her being barren. Christ loves his church, notwithstanding her infirmities, her barrenness; and so ought men to love their wives, Eph. v. 25. To abate our just love to any relation for the sake of any infirmity which they cannot help, and which is not their sin but their affliction, is to make God’s providence quarrel with his precept, and very unkindly to add affliction to the afflicted. [2.] He studied to show his love so much the more because she was afflicted, insulted, and low-spirited. It is wisdom and duty to support the weakest, and to hold up those that are run down. [3.] He showed his great love to her by the share he gave her of his peace-offerings. Thus we should testify our affection to our friends and relations, by abounding in prayer for them. The better we love them the more room let us give them in our prayers.

      (3.) Peninnah was extremely peevish and provoking. [1.] She upbraided Hannah with her affliction, despised her because she was barren, and gave her taunting language, as one whom Heaven did not favour. [2.] She envied the interest she had in the love of Elkanah, and the more kind he was to her the more was she exasperated against her, which was all over base and barbarous. [3.] She did this most when they went up to the house of the Lord, perhaps because then they were more together than at other times, or because then Elkanah showed his affection most to Hannah. But it was very sinful at such a time to show her malice, when pure hands were to be lifted up at God’s altar without wrath and quarrelling. It was likewise very unkind at that time to vex Hannah, not only because then they were in company, and others would take notice of it, but then Hannah was to mind her devotions, and desired to be most calm and composed, and free from disturbance. The great adversary to our purity and peace is then most industrious to ruffle us when we should be most composed. When the sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord Satan will be sure to come among them, Job i. 6. [4.] She continued to do this from year to year, not once or twice, but it was her constant practice; neither deference to her husband nor compassion to Hannah could break her of it. [5.] That which she designed was to make her fret, perhaps in hopes to break her heart, that she might possess her husband’s heart solely, or because she took a pleasure in her uneasiness, nor could Hannah gratify her more than by fretting. Note, It is an evidence of a base disposition to delight in grieving those that are melancholy and of a sorrowful spirit, and in putting those out of humour that are apt to fret and be uneasy. We ought to bear one another’s burdens, not add to them.

      (4.) Hannah (poor woman) could not hear the provocation: She wept, and did not eat, v. 7. It made her uneasy to herself and to all her relations. She did not eat of the feast; her trouble took away her appetite, made her unfit for any company, and a jar in the harmony of family-joy. It was of the feast upon the sacrifice that she did not eat, for they were not to eat of the holy things in their mourning,Deu 26:14; Lev 10:19. Yet it was her infirmity so far to give way to the sorrow of the world as to unfit herself for holy joy in God. Those that are of a fretful spirit, and are apt to lay provocations too much to heart, are enemies to themselves, and strip themselves very much of the comforts both of life and godliness. We find that God took notice of this ill effect of discontents and disagreements in the conjugal relation, that the parties aggrieved covered the altar of the Lord with tears, insomuch that he regarded not the offering, Mal. ii. 13.

      (5.) Elkanah said what he could to her to comfort her. She did not upbraid him with his unkindness in marrying another wife as Sarah did, nor did she render to Peninnah railing for railing, but took the trouble wholly to herself, which made her an object of much compassion. Elkanah showed himself extremely grieved at her grief (v. 8): Hannah, why weepest thou? [1.] He is much disquieted to see her thus overwhelmed with sorrow. Those that by marriage are made one flesh ought thus far to be of one spirit too, to share in each other’s troubles, so that one cannot be easy while the other is uneasy. [2.] He gives her a loving reproof for it: Why weepest thou? And why is thy heart grieved? As many as God loves he rebukes, and so should we. He puts her upon enquiring into the cause of her grief. Though she had just reason to be troubled, yet let her consider whether she had reason to be troubled to such a degree, especially so much as to be taken off by it from eating of the holy things. Note, Our sorrow upon any account is sinful and inordinate when it diverts us from our duty to God and embitters our comfort in him, when it makes us unthankful for the mercies we enjoy and distrustful of the goodness of God to us in further mercies, when it casts a damp upon our joy in Christ, and hinders us from doing the duty and taking the comfort of our particular relations. [3.] He intimates that nothing should be wanting on his part to balance her grief: “Am not I better to thee than ten sons? Thou knowest thou hast my entire affection, and let that comfort thee.” Note, We ought to take notice of our comforts, to keep us from grieving excessively for our crosses; for our crosses we deserve, but our comforts we have forfeited. If we would keep the balance even, we must look at that which is for us, as well as at that which is against us, else we are unjust to Providence and unkind to ourselves. God hath set the one over-against the other (Eccl. vii. 14) and so should we.

Fuente: Matthew Henry’s Whole Bible Commentary

Introduction to Books of Samuel

The Books of First and Second Samuel were originally considered one book. First Samuel records the end of the judgeship in Israel, and the beginning of the kingdom. It has been suggested that they take their name, Samuel, from the fact that they begin with the career of Samuel, who was the last judge, and who anointed both Saul and David, the first kings of Israel. Of course the events recorded go far beyond the lifetime of Samuel, although it appears that he lived to be a very old man, almost to the end of Saul’s forty years’ kingship.

It is not likely that any of the events recorded are the inspired record of Samuel’s own writing, for the Books show the hand of a single author. The human author is anonymous, therefore. It is quite likely that Samuel, as well as the prophets Gad and Nathan, left records, though uninspired, of events of the times in which they were involved. Some time later someone was inspired to record the things in First and Second Samuel that have come down to the present time.

The events of First and Second Samuel begin with the birth of Samuel and extend to very near the death of King David, a period of about one hundred and forty years (cf. Act 13:20-22). It has been conjectured that the originally inspired record of the Books of Samuel was completed about the time of David’s death, but before it occurred. The death of David is not recorded, but is left to the inspired author of the Books of Kings. Chronologically, the time is about 1104 to 965 B. C. The major characters are Samuel, Saul, and David.

Author’s Note: The parallel sections of Samuel, especially the Second Book, with the Book of First Chronicles, are discussed comparatively. In this Commentary the reader will find that only the nonparallel and non-chronological chapters of the Books of Chronicles are noted separately.

First Samuel – Chapter 1

Elkanah’s Family, v. 1-8

It is refreshing to the Bible student to find that not all the Levites of Israel were like the two who were seen in the closing chapters of the Book of Judges. Though Elkanah was guilty of plural marriage, he was nevertheless a devout and godly man. Elkanah was of the Kohathite family of the Levites, which was also the priestly family, though he was not a priest (see 1Ch 6:22-28). He had his residence in Ramah in the area known as Zuph, in the tribe of Ephraim.

Though the Lord allowed plural marriage in Israel, it was not according to His creative design of one man and one woman (Gen 2:24; Mat 19:4-6). The problems it caused were many, one of which is very apparent in this account. There is hateful jealousy and rivalry between Peninnah and Hannah, and Elkanah is caught up in it. It is agitated by the very evident partiality of Elkanah for Hannah Such would not go unnoted by the children.

The family of Elkanah comes into focus as they make their yearly trek to the tabernacle in Shiloh. The tabernacle was erected here soon after the conquest under Joshua (Jos 18:1). The account notes that Hophni and Phinehas, the corrupt priest-sons of the high priest, Eli, were then in authority there. This is in anticipation of the sequel in chapters 2-4. At their arrival in Shiloh Elkanah would give portions in celebration of the feast to Peninnah and her children, but he would give a “worthy” portion to Hannah, as a demonstration of his surpassing love for her, although she was barren and had no children. By this act Elkanah doubtless provoked Peninnah, who in turn provoked Hannah in retaliation. In other words, she mocked Hannah because she could have no children.

Hannah would become so bitter that she would lose her appetite and weep continuously. All the importunity of Elkanah and the protestation of his deep love for her was unavailing. Hannah desired children as did all the godly women of Israel.

Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary

CRITICAL AND EXPOSITORY NOTES.

1Sa. 1:1. The site of Ramath-Zophim is declared by Dean Stanley to be the most disputed problem of sacred topography. It is universally allowed, and it is implied by Josephus to be the Ramah in which Samuel lived, died, and was buried; but next to nothing of its position can be gathered from the narrative. It is here said to be in Mount Ephraim, but the limits of that district are uncertain. The name Ramathaimthe double eminenceprobably points to a city whose site was on two hills. But there were several cities of this name in the land of Israel, and all on more or less elevated sites. No certain explanation has ever been given of the addition Zophim. There was such a place on the east of Jordan (Num. 23:14), and the land of Zuph is mentioned in chapter 1Sa. 9:5. The region may have derived its name from Elkanahs ancestor. Some regard it as a common noun signifying watch-towers from the high position of the city. Elkanah. The Levitical descent of Elkanah and Samuel is put beyond doubt by a comparison of the genealogy here with those in Chronicles (1Ch. 6:22 sq., and 1Ch. 1:33 sq.). Samuel is here shown to belong to the Kohathites. Elkanah, i.e., he whom God acquired or purchased, is both in its signification and use a Levite name. All the Elkanahs mentioned in the Old Testament (leaving out the one in 2Ch. 28:7, whose tribe is not stated) were demonstrably Levites, and belonged mostly to the family of Korah, from whom Samuel was descended (Langes Commentary).

MAIN HOMILETICS OF 1Sa. 1:1

THE VALUE AND USE OF A GENEALOGY

I. The man who possesses a genealogy knows who and what he represents in the world. Every human creature, in fact everything in the world that possesses life, represents more than he or it is. A single corn-seed represents all the grains by which it has come into existenceall the seeds which have lived and germinated and brought forth fruit between itself and the original grain from which it sprung in the beginning. Every man knows that he represents numerically more than he is, and very possibly more intellectual power or moral greatness than belongs to him as an individual, but only he who possesses a genealogy knows certainly who and what he represents. The written pedigree of his ancestors makes him realise his oneness with the ages that are past, and he will feel ennobled or dishonoured by the record according as the lives of his forefathers accord with, or are opposed to, what he considers worth representing. Elkanah knew that he represented a line of ancestors in one of the most remarkable tribes in the Jewish nationa tribe which had numbered among its members men of great mental power and high moral wealth. Although personally he was inferior to some of these great men, he felt in some degree that he belonged to themthat he represented their worth and greatness. A tree growing in this country may have sprung from the seed of a tropical tree. It may attain to sufficient size and beauty to be a worthy representative of its tropical ancestors, but the difference of climate, as well as some inherent weakness in the tree itself, may prevent it from reaching their gigantic staturefrom branching forth into their vast proportions. So it may be with many a man who represents an old and worthily renowned family; circumstances, as well as mental inferiority may prevent them from attaining the renown of their ancestors, although they may be good and true men and worthily fill a small space in the world. Such men represent more than they arenot only in numbers, but in ability and renown. Elkanah was such a representative man. Being able as he was to trace his ancestry, he knew that he belonged to the tribe whence came the most remarkable man of the ancient worldone who has left an impress upon the nations which will last as long as time. Elkanah, by the possession of a genealogy, knew that he had the honour of numbering Moses among his ancestors, and although he knew he could never attain to the renown of his great forefather, he must have felt there was honour in belonging to the same tribe as the Jewish lawgiver. He knew that he belonged to a stock who on one memorable occasion had given proof that they preferred moral right to blood relationshipwho had declared themselves on the Lords side in the day of Israels first idolatrywho said unto his father and to his mother, I have not seen him, neither acknowledged his brethren, nor knew his own children (Deu. 33:9), in other words, preferred the honour of Jehovahs name to all human claims (Exo. 32:26-28).

II. The value of such a possession, and the teaching it might suggest.

1. The knowledge that those to whom we are related by ties of blood-relationship have been great and noblehave done deeds and spoken words which reflect a lustre upon their descendants long after they have left the worldought to inspire those descendants with resolution to tread in their footsteps. Although the times in which they live may not demand the same sacrificesmay not admit of the same renownyet the principles which govern the lives of the truly great and good are the same in all ages, and under all conditions of life. Although Elkanah could not be a Moses, he could emulate his moral excellence; although he was not called to make such a remarkable demonstration of his fidelity to Jehovah as his fathers had made in the wilderness, he could always act upon the principle of preferring duty to God before any human tie or any mere earthly consideration.

2. The knowledge that we belong to the great and good is also a source of lawful comfort and satisfaction, if we ourselves have enough godliness not to disgrace our ancestry. To feel that we are the children of those who have served their generation according to the will of God, and have perhaps been called by Him to some great and special service, cannot fail to afford lawful satisfaction to any man. Doubtless Elkanah, in his humbler and more limited sphere, felt a special gratification that he was linked in tribal relationship with him whom the Lord knew face to face (Deu. 34:10), and that he was one of that chosen tribe who were elected by God to be the teachers of Israel and the body-guard of the sacred structure which was the sign of the presence among the people of their unseen KingNum. 1:51; Num. 18:22. (See on Levi Smiths Dictionary of the Bible.)

3. A genealogy teaches a man his own mortality and immortality, and the mortality and immortality of his fathers. Every family register proclaims the mortality and the immortality of man. It tells of the body whose dust is still with us, and of the spirit that is absent from the body. The life once lived upon the earth made a genealogy possiblelinked the individual with the long line of progenitors who had gone before him and with all those who have come and will come after him. This life could not have been lived without the body which was mortal and has returned to the earth, yet that body would never have been more than lifeless clay if it had not been animated by a living soul, who was, and is still, the man himselfstill living and feeling and acting in another part of Gods universe. To the Old Testament saints a genealogy spoke of those who were gathered to their fathers (Gen. 49:29, etc.); to us it tells of just men made perfect in the city of the living God (Heb. 12:23), who died as to bodily life, but who live still as to spiritual life. It teaches also the earthly immortality of the race. The man passes awaythe race remains. He leaves the world, but his are left in it. Abraham was long ago called away, but his descendants are with us to this day. Levi had quitted the world long before the days of Elkanah, but he lived still in Canaan in his representatives.

Fuente: The Preacher’s Complete Homiletical Commentary Edited by Joseph S. Exell

I. THE JUDGESHIP OF SAMUEL 1Sa. 1:1 to 1Sa. 12:25

1. The Birth and Infancy of Samuel, 1Sa. 1:1 to 1Sa. 2:11.

Samuels Simple Surroundings. 1Sa. 1:1-8

Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:

2 And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

3 And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there.

4 And when the time was that Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions:
5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the Lord had shut up her womb.
6 And her adversary also provoked her sore, for to make her fret, because the Lord had shut up her womb.
7 And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of the Lord, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat.

8 Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?

1.

Who were the parents of Samuel? 1Sa. 1:1-2; 1Sa. 1:20

Elkanah was a descendant of Kohath, who was of the tribe of Levi. Levi, of course, was the ancestor of all who were eligible for the priesthood. Elkanah is also known as an Ephraimite. Ephraim became the name of all the country or the tribes north of Judah. Levis descendants had no inheritance in the promised land. Their inheritance in the promised land consisted of cities assigned them by the other tribes. Elkanah lived in the land assigned to the tribe of Ephraim. Although he was a Levite, he was also known as an Ephraimite. Samuels mother was named Hannah. Elkanah is from two Hebrew words meaning whom God has acquired. Hannah is from the Hebrew word which means grace or favor.

2.

Was Samuel a priest?

Samuel was of the tribe of Levi. All priests were Levites, but not all Levites could be priests. The priests were taken from the descendants of Aaron, the brother of Moses. Aaron was the son of Amram and Jochebed. He was thus descended from Kohath, who was also one of the ancestors of Samuel. Since Samuel was from the tribe of Levi, many Bible scholars conclude that he was a priest. It would seem better, however, to hold that Samuel was not a priest since he was not descended from Aaron. Samuel did serve as a priest, but his appointment seems unusual. He replaced Eli as the spiritual leader of Israel, but it would be better to think of Samuel as a judge and a prophet and not a priest in the fullest sense of the word.

3.

Where did they live? 1Sa. 1:1; 1Sa. 1:19

They were from Ramathiam-zophim. The word Ramah means hill. The word Ramathaim means double hill. The word Zophim is a derivative of the word Zuph. Hence Rammathaim-zophim means The double hill of the country belonging to the descendants of Zuph.

Mount Ephraim designates the hill country of Ephraim. Palestine was divided generally into four different sectionsthe hill country, the sea coast, the Jordan valley, and the Negeb, or the South. The center of the land was hilly, and the highest portion was known as the hill country of Ephraim. Here it is called Mount Ephraim.

4.

Who was Zuph, the Ephrathite?

Zuph was an ancestor of Samuels who gave his name to the home, Ramathaim-zophim. The fact that he was called an Ephrathite has led some to believe that his home was south of the land of the tribe of Benjamin and near Bethlehem. Bethlehem is sometimes known as Ephrath (Rth. 1:2). It is apparent from this reference and also the reference in 1Ki. 11:26, however, that Ephrathite is sometimes used interchangeably with Ephraimite. The importance of his place in the ancestry of Samuel has been lost to us; but when this was written, he was perhaps a well-known ancestor of Samuel.

5.

Who was Peninnah? 1Sa. 1:2

Peninnah was one of the wives of Elkanah, Samuels father. Her name comes from a Hebrew word meaning coral. All we know about Peninnah is recorded here in these verses. No other mention is made of her in the Scriptures outside this place. We are left to wonder if she was the older wife since she is mentioned as having children before any children were born to Hannah.

6.

Was Hannahs barrenness a punishment? 1Sa. 1:2

There are times in the Scripture when barrenness is called a punishment. Such was the case with regard to the people of Philistia in the days of Abimelech and Isaac. In this case, however, it seems that barrenness was not a punishment for any wrong which Hannah or Elkanah had committed, It was rather a withholding of blessing.

7.

What was Elkanahs yearly custom? 1Sa. 1:3

Elkanah went up to the tabernacle to worship and to sacrifice, The institution of the pilgrimage is as old as the existence of the institutions, Although it is not stated that this was the time of the Passover, the Passover was the one great feast of the Jews; and this is probably the feast he attended yearly, Simply because it is not stated that he went up thrice yearly is not grounds for saying that he did not observe the feasts as he had been commanded in the law. He would attend each given feast yearly.

8.

Where was Shiloh? 1Sa. 1:3

Shiloh was also in the hill country of Ephraim. It was located east of the main road from Jerusalem to Bethel and Shechem. Shiloh itself was situated about five miles north of Bethel. This had been the site of Israels center of worship from the time of Joshua. The tabernacle had been located here by Joshua, and the tribes had gathered here to receive their inheritance in the Promised Land (see Joshua 13-21). All in all, it was a good choice for a location for the tabernacle. It was centrally located, and quite accessible to all the tribes of the children of Israel. As a priest, Eli was directly descended from Aaron. Aaron had four sonsNadab, Abihu, Ithamar, and Eleazar. Nadab and Abihu were slain when they offered strange fire before the Lord (see Leviticus 10). The priestly families were thence all descended from Aarons two sons, Ithamar and Eleazar. Eli was descended from Aaron through Ithamar (Lev. 10:1-2; Lev. 10:12). This appears from the mention of Abiathar, who was a descendant of Eli (1Ki. 2:27), This man had a son Abimelech, who is expressly stated to have been of the sons of Ithamar (1Ch. 21:3; cf. 2Sa. 8:17). Eli is generally supposed to have been the first of the line of Ithamar to hold the office of high priest (Josephus, Antiquities, V, v, 2). His name means God is high. His two sons were called Hophni and Phinehas, names without particular meanings in the Hebrew language. Phinehas was also the name of Eleazar, the son of Aaron.

9.

Who were the priests? 1Sa. 1:3

Hophni and Phinehas, Elis sons, were priests. It is necessary that Eli should be mentioned because he appears in the immediate sequel. By understanding that his sons were priests, we will refrain from indicting Eli for much of what afterwards happens. As priests, they should have been an example to the people of Israel.

10.

What indication do we have of Elkanahs love for Hannah? cf. 1Sa. 1:4-5; 1Sa. 1:8

Whenever Elkhanah offered, he gave to Peninnah, his wife, and to all her sons and daughters, portions: but to Hannah he gave a WORTHY portion; for he loved Hannah. This, together with his statement that he meant more to her than ten sons, showed his love (cf. 1Sa. 1:4-5; 1Sa. 1:8). Various translations of this passage have been made, showing that Elkanah gave Hannah a double portion, or a portion equivalent to that which he gave to two other persons. All of this would express his love for her.

11.

Meaning of double portion? 1Sa. 1:5

(cf. Gen. 43:34; Deu. 31:17; 1Sa. 1:5) The meaning is that he gave more to Hannah because of his love for her. The custom of showing respect to distinguished guests by giving them the largest and best pieces (1Sa. 9:23-24; Homer, Iliad II, 7, 321; 8, 162, etc.) is met with elsewhere. This is done by giving double portions (e.g. the kings among the Spartans, Herod 6, 57), and even by fourfold portions in the case of the Archons among the Cretans (Heraclid, Polit. 3). Among the Egyptians, the number five appears to have been preferred to any other (see Gen. 41:34; Gen. 45:22; Gen. 47:2; Gen. 47:24; Isa. 19:18). The double portion of Elijah is not the same as the double portion here and in the case of Joseph. This double portion is called a worthy portion in the King James Version.

12.

What was Peninnahs attitude toward Hannah? 1Sa. 1:6-7

When Elkanah gave Hannah a double portion as an expression of his love for her, Peninnah must have been jealous. Peninnah constantly taunted Hannah to irritate her. She was not necessarily interested in making her angry, but she was wanting to put Hannah into inward commotion and to excite her. Just as Elkanah showed his love to Hannah at every sacrificial festival, so did Peninnah repeat her provocation, the effect of which was that Hannah gave vent to her grief in tears, and did not eat. Peninnahs attitude may be called a habitually scornful treatment. She taunted Hannah about her barrenness. Her treatment was so shameful that she is called Hannahs adversary (1Sa. 1:6).

13.

What effect did this have on Hannah? 1Sa. 1:7-8

She wept, and would not eat, and was sore grieved. Hannah no doubt reproached herself with her shortcoming, though it was not voluntary. Her husband exhorts her not to blame herself, which is precisely what she was doing. The Scriptural picture of Hannah is not that of one who with hysteria would continually berate herself and those about her, but rather of one who would carry a heavy burden with meekness. Those who were intimately acquainted with her would know of her grief, and she shared her burden in silent prayer to God. Casual acquaintances would hardly know the nature of her burden. It was very cruel of Peninnah to provoke her about it.

14.

What did Elkanah say to Hannah to comfort her? 1Sa. 1:8

Elkanah asked a rhetorical question. The first question is followed by a second. All this was said to comfort her, but the very mention of the word sons must have started the springs of grief afresh, because it was for his sake that Hannah wished to bear children. The answer would have been in the affirmative, and otherwise would have been no consolation. Although he asked the question without expecting an answer, he must have asked it in good humor. We smile when we think of a man who thinks he brings more happiness to his wife than a great number of children.

Fuente: College Press Bible Study Textbook Series

(1) Now there was a certain man.Literally, And there was, &c. These introductory words do not signify that this history is the continuation of the Book of Judges or of any preceding writing. It is a common historical introductory formula. We find it at the commencement of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Kings, Esther, Ezra, Ezekiel, &c. The circumstances under which this record was probably compiled are discussed elsewhere.

Of Ramathaim-zophim.The name Ramathaimliterally, The Two Ramahsis the dual of the well-known Ramah, the appellation by which this city is usually known. The old city was, no doubt, built on two hills, which looked one on the other: hence perhaps the name Zophim, the watchers. Possibly at an early date watch-towers or outlooks, to enable the citizens to guard against surprise, were built on the summit of these hills. Either of these suppositions would account for the suggestive name by which Ramah was once known, the Ramahs of the Watchers.

Others would connect the appellation Zophim with the family of Zuph, from whom Elkanah descended. (See 1Ch. 6:35, and 1Sa. 9:5, where the land of Zuph is mentioned.) An interesting. though fanciful, derivation refers Zophim, watchers, to the prophet-watchmen of the house of Israel, as Ramah in after years was a school of the prophets.

On the whole, the simplest and least strained explanation is the one given above, which refers the name to the hills so placed that they watched one another, or better still, to the watch-towers built at an early date on the two summits.
Ramah lay among the mountains of Ephraim, which extended into the territory of Benjamin, in which tribe the city of Ramah lay.

His name was Elkanah.Elkanah, the father of the future prophet-judge, was a Levite of the family of Kohath (compare the genealogy given here with 1Ch. 6:22). He is here termed an Ephrathite: that is, an Ephraimite, because, as far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim.

Some have found a difficulty in reconciling the Levitical descent of Samuel with his dedication to the Lord by his mother, supposing that in the case of a Levite this would be unnecessary; but the dedication of Samuel, it should be remembered, was a life-long one, whereas the Levitical service only began when the Levite was twenty-five years old; and even then the service was not continuous.

Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)

1. Ramathaim-Zophim The name means, the double height of the watchers, and was probably so called because of two heights on which the city stood, or with which it was in some way associated. Some scholars are inclined to identify it with the modern Soba, some seven miles west of Jerusalem; but their opinion is based on the assumption that it is the same city where Saul was anointed, (1Sa 9:6,) an assumption that has no sufficient support. A comparison of this verse and 1Sa 1:3 with 1Sa 1:19 and with 1Sa 2:11, makes it certain that Ramathaim-Zophim is the same as Ramah, but a fuller form of the name. Ramah was situated about five miles north of Jerusalem, and was not only the birthplace of Samuel, but his home through life, (1Sa 7:17,) and the place of his death and burial. 1Sa 25:1. The Hebrew name of this place, as well as its modern Arabic name er-Ram, means the height, and this may explain the appended name Zophim, which means watchers, for the heights of Ramah would afford a fitting station for watchmen, who could from its heights command a wide prospect on every side, and see at a great distance any signal of danger or alarm that might be given. Compare “the field of Zophim on the top of Pisgah.” Num 23:14. Others think that Zophim was the name of the country round Ramah, called after Zuph, one of Elkanah’s ancestors. Hence “land of Zuph” in 1Sa 9:5.

Mount Ephraim See note on Jdg 17:1.

Son of Jeroham A comparison of this genealogy with 1Ch 6:34-35, shows that Elkanah (and therefore Samuel) was a descendant of Levi through Kohath. No other special notice is taken of Samuel’s Levitical descent, because his work and authority as Reformer and Judge in Israel were not owing to this fact, but, rather, to his special divine call from the Lord.

An Ephrathite Grammatically, this word is in apposition with a certain man, that is, Elkanah. He was reckoned as to his civil standing with the tribe of Ephraim, for the Levites, having been set apart to the service of the sanctuary, had no separate portion of the Promised Land assigned to them, (Jos 14:4,) but were reckoned to the tribes in which they had their homes. Ten cities were allotted to the children of Kohath, in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh. Jos 21:5.

Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

The Events That Lead Up To Samuel’s Birth ( 1Sa 1:1-20 ).

We should note initially the godliness of both Elkanah and Hannah. The writer’s aim is to bring out that they were worthy and godly people. The message is that when God seeks to do a work it is usually to such sources that He looks, and that always in every age, however dark the hour, He has such people to call on. And their godliness emphasises that what is to follow is the doing of YHWH. They stand in stark contrast both to Elkanah’s disgruntled second wife, Peninnah, and to the two sons of Eli. The stress is on the fact that, while the country might time and again be almost on its knees, there are always those who trust in YHWH. And that is the picture being depicted here.

For us there is the message that often what appears to be a tragedy in our lives is actually God’s way of bringing about His purposes, so that we can confidently look forward and say, ‘all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose’ (Rom 8:28).

The Household of Elkanah ( 1Sa 1:1-8 ).

The writer commences with a detailed description of the household of Elkanah. In it he reveals that one of Elkanah’s wives who is named Hannah (meaning ‘grace) is barren and in great distress because she has had no child.

Analysis.

a Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of the hill-country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite, and he had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of other Peninnah, and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children (1Sa 1:1-2).

b And this man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to YHWH of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests to YHWH, were there (1Sa 1:3).

c And when the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions (1Sa 1:4).

d But to Hannah he used to give a double portion, for he loved Hannah. But YHWH had shut up her womb (1Sa 1:5).

c And her rival behaved towards her with great provocation, in order to upset her, because YHWH had shut up her womb (1Sa 1:6).

b And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of YHWH, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat (1Sa 1:7).

a And Elkanah her husband said to her, “Hannah, why are you crying, and why do you not eat, and why is your heart grieved? am not I better to you than ten sons? (1Sa 1:8).

Note that in ‘a’ Hannah had no children, but she had a worthy husband, and in the parallel her husband asks whether he is not better to her than tens sons. In ‘b’ Elkanah went up on a regular basis to sacrifice, and in the parallel he does the same. In ‘c’ we have a description of Elkanah’s provision for Peninnah and her children, and in the parallel we have described Peninnah’s attitude towards Hannah. Centrally in ‘d’ we have described Elkanah’s special love towards Hannah. Note also the repetition of the phrase ‘YHWH had shut up her womb’, a kind of pattern of repetition that occurs regularly in Biblical chiasmuses.

1Sa 1:1-2

‘ Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of the hill-country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite, and he had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of other Peninnah, and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.’

The importance of what is about to be described is revealed in the detail given about Elkanah’s ancestry. For this is to be seen as also the ancestry of Samuel (Shemuel). He was an Ephrathite (Ephraimite) descended from Zuph. 1Ch 6:33-38 reveals further that Zuph was a Levite descended from Kohath, the son of Levi. Thus Samuel (Shemuel) was of Levite origin, and descended from the Levites who had settled among the Ephraimites (Jos 21:20). Elkanah (‘bought by El’) in fact appears from its uses to be a Levite name. Given that Salmon, the seventh from Judah in descent, entered Canaan with Joshua, we might assume that Zuph, the seventh from Levi, did the same, which would explain why he was seen as so important. He was the original dweller in the land.

Elkanah lived in Ramathaim-zophim. Ramathaim (LXX Armathaim) means ‘the twin heights’ (ramah = ‘height’) and its whereabouts is disputed, but it is presumably the same as the Ramah (1Sa 1:19) which was Samuel’s birthplace and later headquarters (1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 8:4 ff; 1Sa 9:6 ; 1Sa 9:10; 1Sa 25:1). Zophim may indicate that it was in the land of Zuph (1Sa 9:5 ff). It has been suggested that it is the same as the later Arimathea (Joh 19:38).

“Of the hill country of Ephraim.” This was the central mountainous district of Palestine, made up of limestone hills intersected to a certain extent by fertile valleys which were watered by numerous springs. Deborah’s palm tree was ‘between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim’ (Jdg 4:5).

“And he had two wives. The name of the one was Hannah, and the name of other Peninnah, and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.” Elkanah was a polygamist. He had two wives. Polygamy was practised in the Old Testament quite regularly and was tolerated by the Law (Deu 21:15-17), even though not in line with the creation ordinance (Gen 2:24). Abraham and Jacob were both polygamists, and there is never any hint that polygamy was frowned on by God or man. Indeed the impression given is that God was quite reconciled to the idea. However, with the exception of kings and chieftains (Abraham and Jacob were chieftains) it does not appear to have been frequent, and no example of it is found in Scripture after the exile. It was, however, left to Jesus to make clear the importance of Gen 2:24.

“Hannah” means ‘grace’, and Peninnah means ‘pearl’ or ‘coral’. But only Peninnah was blessed with children. This would be a great hardship to Hannah who would feel that she was failing in her duty. Every Israelite woman longed to produce children. It was that that gave her status. And she felt it to be her responsibility. The situation was somewhat similar to that of Hagar and Sarah, with Sarah being barren. In that case also there was grave disquiet between the two. It was an inevitable consequence of polygamy. It may well be that Elkanah had married Peninnah because Hannah was childless.

1Sa 1:3

‘ And this man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to YHWH of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests to YHWH, were there.’

Elkanah went up from Ramah to Shiloh on a regular basis for the great feasts. Shiloh was the central sanctuary of Israel where the Tabernacle had been erected, and a number of buildings had been built around it. Some of these buildings have been excavated. It would seem also that as time passed the entrance gateway had been made more permanent (1Sa 1:9). But as a result of the capture of the Ark by the Philistines Shiloh would later cease to be the central sanctuary, and it is possible that it was even destroyed by them (Jer 7:12), although that is open to question. We should note that Samuel would operate from there for some time (1Sa 3:21). It would, however, emerge later in Nob as again in operation (1 Samuel 21).

“From year to year.” Literally ‘from the days to days’. Compare Exo 13:10; Jdg 11:40. This may therefore indicate attendance at all three major feasts during the year (Exo 34:23; Deu 16:16) rather than just the one.

Operating as priests at Shiloh at this time were the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, whose behaviour left much to be desired (1Sa 2:12-17). Note the parallel of the ‘two sons’ with the ‘two’ wives of Elkanah. But at least in the case of the wives one was godly, whereas in the case of the brothers neither were. The mention of his sons may suggest that Eli was in semi-retirement. Or the writer’s point may simply have been to bring out that all this happened when things were at their lowest ebb.

“To sacrifice to YHWH of hosts.” This is the first use of this title for God, a title which would be regularly used from now on. Here the emphasis is probably on the fact that YHWH was seen as supreme commander of the hosts of Israel (1Sa 17:45), but the title also came to include His being Lord of the heavenly hosts (the angels) and of the hosts of heaven (sun, moon and stars) and may already have done so here. In the light of the Philistine menace ‘YHWH of the hosts of Israel’ was very relevant.

1Sa 1:4-6

‘ And when the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions, but to Hannah he used to give a double portion, for he loved Hannah. But YHWH had shut up her womb. And her rival behaved towards here with great provocation, in order to upset her, because YHWH had shut up her womb.’

Regularly Elkanah would offer his peace offerings and thanksgiving offerings of which all would partake in feasting once the priests had received their portion (Lev 7:11-18). And when he did so he would give Peninnah and her sons and daughters their portions. But to Hannah he would give a larger portion (‘a portion of the face’). This is said to be because he loved her. He may also have had in mind that she was his first wife and therefore worthy of extra honour. It is a reminder of how in that society a meal consisting of meat was a special treat. Usually they were limited to a fruit and vegetable diet.

In contrast with his love for Hannah and the extra portion that he gave her was the fact that YHWH had ‘shut up her womb’. It appeared that she was husband-blessed but not God-blessed. In view of what would happen this is a reminder to us that when God is silent it does not always mean quite what we might at first see it as meaning. For unknown to them all God was planning for her a blessing almost beyond telling. It is a reminder that for those who know God, when things are darkest it is often because there is going to be a glorious dawn.

“ And her rival behaved towards her with great provocation, in order to upset her, because YHWH had shut up her womb.” Sadly Elkanah’s second wife did not behave well. Instead of rejoicing in the fact that God had been good to her, she gloated over her rival’s misfortune. She behaved towards her with great provocation so as to upset her, constantly drawing her attention to her failure to give Elkanah a son, and presumably also drawing her attention (with a satisfied smirk) to the fact that it demonstrated that at least she was not YHWH’s favourite. She was aware that Elkanah showed a special preference for Hannah and was jealous. How often we overlook how God has blessed us because we are jealous of what other people have, and thereby lose out and belittle ourselves. Peninnah has gone down in history as a shrew. And yet God would use her spite to drive Hannah to prayer.

Such behaviour is ever so when favouritism is shown. How careful we should be to avoid it within families. It was always especially a danger in a polygamous marriage, but it is equally a danger with our children. Remember what happened to Joseph because he was his father’s favourite. Such favouritism is devilish and ungodly.

1Sa 1:7

‘ And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of YHWH, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat.’

This situation went on for years, and thus whenever they went up to the house of YHWH the provocation continued, and it reduced Hannah to weeping, and to not partaking of the feast. Of what benefit was a double portion in such circumstances? It was a blessing to no one. It is a sad thing to think that such a joyous occasion as going up to the house of YHWH to celebrate and rejoice was being marred by such human sinfulness. But the writer is seeking to bring out that that is what life is like, and yet that God Who is over all can use such circumstances for His own glory.

“And did not eat.” Eating indicated rejoicing, and she felt that she had nothing to give thanks for.

1Sa 1:8

‘ And Elkanah her husband said to her, “Hannah, why are you crying, and why do you not eat, and why is your heart grieved? am not I better to you than ten sons?” ’

Elkanah tried his fumbling best. He hated seeing his beloved Hannah in such distress. So with a man’s lack of insight he asked her why she was so grieved over not having son, when she had him and his love. Was he not better to her than ten sons? While he was around she did not need a son to look after her and care for her needs (compare 1Sa 4:15). And it may be that he was not as insensitive as he seemed. For what other consolation could he offer her? He was doing his best. Note the threefold ‘crying — not eat — grieved at heart’, indicating her ‘complete’ misery. (Three regularly indicates completeness). We also have here an example of the use of ‘ten’ to mean ‘a number of’ (compare Gen 31:41).

The great emphasis on Hannah’s predicament is intended to be in contrast with the great work that God was going to do. It brings out that out of suffering would come blessing. That is often God’s way. ‘The corn of wheat to multiply, must fall into the ground and die’ (Joh 12:24).

Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett

Hannah’s Prayer’s 1Sa 1:1-28 records the story of Hannah’s prayer for a son and the birth of Samuel. Hannah must have prayed for years and wept for years from grief (1Sa 1:7). Leonard Ravenhill notes the increasing intensity in the order of events in Hannah’s prayer vigil:

1. Hannah prayed (1Sa 1:10)

2. Continued praying (1Sa 1:12)

3. “Poured out (her) soul” (1Sa 1:15)

Also:

4. Hannah wept (1Sa 1:8)

5. Hannah wept sore (1Sa 1:10)

Note: She was a woman desperate for a remedy:

1. She was grieved (1Sa 1:10)

2. “in bitterness of soul” (1Sa 1:10)

3. Her state of affliction was called “my complaint and grief” (1Sa 1:16)

4. So, fasting food and drink (1Sa 1:8; 1Sa 1:15)

5. Made a vow (1Sa 1:11) [14]

[14] Leonard Ravenhill, Revival Praying (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, c1962, 1999), 46.

1Sa 1:1  Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:

1Sa 1:1 “Now there was” Comments – A number of books in the Old Testament begins with the common Hebrew idiom “and it came to pass” ( ), made from the conjunction ( ) “and” and the imperfect verb ( ) “to be.” Douglas Stuart identifies the books that commence with this Hebrew construction as Joshua, Judges, 1 Samuel, Ruth, Esther, Jonah, and Lamentations ( LXX). [15] This phrase is used at least three hundred eighty eight (388) times in the Old Testament to begin narrative stories, and to move the plot from one scene to another within the narrative material. Although some of the books listed above are a part of a collection of narratives that follow a chronological order, Stuart believes this opening phrase is intended to begin a new book.

[15] Douglas Stuart, Hosea-Jonah, in Word Biblical Commentary: 58 Volumes on CD-Rom, vol. 31, eds. Bruce M. Metzger, David A. Hubbard and Glenn W. Barker (Dallas: Word Inc., 2002), in Libronix Digital Library System, v. 2.1c [CD-ROM] (Bellingham, WA: Libronix Corp., 2000-2004), “Introduction: Form/Structure/Setting.”

1Sa 1:1 “a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim” – Comments – Ramathaim Zophim is usually referred to as “Ramah” (1Sa 1:19). This will become the home of Samuel during his adult life. Strong says t he name “Ramah” (H7414) means, “height,” and comes from a root word (H7311) meaning “to be high.” JFB says the towns in the Old Testament to which this title applied seem all to have stood on elevated sites. “ There were five cities of this name, all on high ground. This city had the addition of Zophim attached to it, because it was founded by Zuph, ‘an Ephrathite,’ that is a native of Ephratha. Beth-lehem, and the expression ‘of Ramathaim-zophim’ must, therefore, be understood as Ramah in the land of Zuph in the hill country of Ephratha.” [16]

[16] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown. The First Book of Samuel, in Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, Electronic Database (Seattle, WA: Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1997), in P.C. Study Bible, v. 3.1 [CD-ROM] (Seattle, WA: Biblesoft Inc., 1993-2000), notes on 1 Samuel 1:1.

1Sa 1:19, “And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the LORD, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah : and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her.”

1Sa 1:1 “and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph” – Comments – Note this same genealogy in 1Ch 6:27, “Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son.” This genealogy is found within the tribe of Levi (1Ch 6:1). Thus, Samuel was of tribe of Levi, since he is listed in this same passage (1Ch 6:25-28).

1Ch 6:1, “ The sons of Levi ; Gershon, Kohath, and Merari.”

1Ch 6:25-28, “And the sons of Elkanah; Amasai, and Ahimoth. As for Elkanah : the sons of Elkanah; Zophai his son, and Nahath his son, Eliab his son, Jeroham his son, Elkanah his son. And the sons of Samuel ; the firstborn Vashni, and Abiah.”

1Sa 1:1 “an Ephrathite” Comments – Bethlehem Ephratah was later called Bethlehem Judah. Note the following passages:

Mic 5:2, “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah , though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.”

Rth 1:2, “And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah .”

1Sa 17:12, “Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Bethlehemjudah , whose name was Jesse;”

Jeroboam was an Ephrathite:

1Ki 11:26, “And Jeroboam the son of Nebat, an Ephrathite of Zereda, Solomon’s servant, whose mother’s name was Zeruah, a widow woman, even he lifted up his hand against the king.”

1Sa 1:2 Comments – From the context of the book of 1 Samuel, this lengthy genealogy opening the book is probably placed there in order to establish Samuel’s Levitical lineage, since he became a priest/judge over the nation of Israel.

1Sa 1:2  And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

1Sa 1:3  And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the LORD, were there.

1Sa 1:3 “And this man went up out of his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts” – Comments – The Hebrew term “Lord of Hosts” is translated “Lord of the Sabaoth” in the New Testament (Rom 9:29, Jas 5:4). Its first use in the Old Testament is found in 1Sa 1:3. During the period of the judges the nation of Israel needed a deliverer from the oppressive armies of surrounding nations. They continually depended upon the Lord of Hosts to defeat these armies in battle.

Rom 9:29, “And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.”

Jas 5:4, “Behold, the hire of the labourers who have reaped down your fields, which is of you kept back by fraud, crieth: and the cries of them which have reaped are entered into the ears of the Lord of sabaoth.”

1Sa 1:3 “in Shiloh” Comments – Shiloh is the place where the Tabernacle was set up after the conquest of Joshua (Jos 18:1). Strong says the name “Shiloh” (H7887) means, “tranquil.” The children of Israel were commanded to worship the Lord at one place (Deu 12:5; Deu 16:16).

Jos 18:1, “And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there. And the land was subdued before them.”

Deu 12:5, “But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come:”

Deu 16:16, “ Three times in a year shall all thy males appear before the LORD thy God in the place which he shall choose ; in the feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast of tabernacles: and they shall not appear before the LORD empty:”

1Sa 1:5  But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion; for he loved Hannah: but the LORD had shut up her womb.

1Sa 1:5 “but the Lord had shut up her womb” – Comments – Note other places in Scripture where the Lord shut or opened the womb of women.

Gen 20:18, “For the LORD had fast closed up all the wombs of the house of Abimelech, because of Sarah Abraham’s wife.”

Gen 29:31, “And when the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb: but Rachel was barren.”

Gen 30:22, “And God remembered Rachel, and God hearkened to her, and opened her womb.”

Luk 1:36, “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.”

1Sa 1:8  Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?

1Sa 1:8 Word Study on “ten sons” – The phrase “ten sons” is similar to the phrase “ten times” and both probably mean a great number of sons or occurrences. The Hebrew phrase “ten times” ( ) is made up of two words, “ten” ( ) (H6235), and “times” ( ) (H6471). Although the literal translation is, “ten times,” John Gill understands the phrase “ten times” in Num 14:22 as an idiom to mean a rounded number, which is equivalent to “time after time,” thus “numerous times.” He says that although the Jews counted ten literal occasions when Israel tempted the Lord during the wilderness journeys, Aben Ezra gives this phrase a figurative meaning of “many times.” [17] T. E. Espin adds to the figurative meaning of Num 14:22 by saying that Israel had tempted the Lord to its fullness, so that the Lord would now pass judgment upon them, even denying them access into the Promised Land, which is clearly stated in the next verse. [18] We can see this same phrase used as an idiom in several passages in the Scriptures:

[17] Gill lists ten literal occasions, “twice at the sea, Exodus 14:11; twice concerning water, Exodus 15:23; twice about manna, Exodus 16:2; twice about quails, Exodus 16:12; once by the calf, Exodus 32:1; and once in the wilderness of Paran, Numbers 14:1, which last and tenth was the present temptation.” John Gill, Numbers, in John Gill’s Expositor, in e-Sword, v. 7.7.7 [CD-ROM] (Franklin, Tennessee: e-Sword, 2000-2005), comments on Numbers 14:22.

[18] E. T. Espin and J. F. Thrupp, Numbers, in The Holy Bible According to the Authorized Version (A.D. 1611), with an Explanation and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation, by Bishops and Clergy of the Anglican Church, vol. 1, part 2, ed. F. C. Cook (London: John Murray, 1871), 702.

Gen 31:7, “And your father hath deceived me, and changed my wages ten times; but God suffered him not to hurt me.”

Num 14:22, “Because all those men which have seen my glory, and my miracles, which I did in Egypt and in the wilderness, and have tempted me now these ten times, and have not hearkened to my voice;”

Neh 4:12, “And it came to pass, that when the Jews which dwelt by them came, they said unto us ten times , From all places whence ye shall return unto us they will be upon you.”

The NAB translates this phrase in Gen 31:7 as “time after time.”

NAB, “yet your father cheated me and changed my wages time after time . God, however, did not let him do me any harm.”

The number ten represents a counting system that is based on ten units. Thus, the number ten can be interpreted literally to represent the numerical system, or it can be given a figurative meaning to reflect the concept of multiple occurrences.

1Sa 1:7-8 Comments The Jewish Festival was a Time to Rejoice – The annual trip to Shiloh for the Jewish people was a festive season in which they ate and rejoiced for the blessings that God had bestowed upon them, but Hannah carried a sorrowful spirit in the midst of these events.

1Sa 1:10  And she was in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the LORD, and wept sore.

1Sa 1:10 Illustration – A woman in the New Testament prayed like this. See Mary in Joh 11:32-33.

Joh 11:32-33, “Then when Mary was come where Jesus was, and saw him, she fell down at his feet, saying unto him, Lord, if thou hadst been here, my brother had not died. When Jesus therefore saw her weeping, and the Jews also weeping which came with her, he groaned in the spirit, and was troubled,”

Is not God’s heart moved at a prayer like this? John chapter eleven reveals clearly how God’s heart is moved at this attitude of prayer.

1Sa 1:11  And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.

1Sa 1:11 “And she vowed a vow” Comments – Note laws regulating a vow that someone makes unto God:

Lev 27:1-4, “And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the LORD by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels.”

Deu 23:21-23, “When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee. But if thou shalt forbear to vow, it shall be no sin in thee. That which is gone out of thy lips thou shalt keep and perform; even a freewill offering, according as thou hast vowed unto the LORD thy God, which thou hast promised with thy mouth.”

1Sa 1:11 “O LORD of hosts” Comments – Hannah is the first person to use the title “Lord of Hosts.” She gives a prophecy in 2Sa 2:1-10 when little Samuel is brought to the Tabernacle and handed over to the high priest. We see within this prophecy a description of the Messiah as a man of war who would conquer His enemies and bring restitution to the poor and oppressed.

1Sa 1:11 “but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child” Comments – Leonard Ravenhill says that Hannah did not just pray for a child, but for higher stakes. A child would remove her shame, but a man-child would bring her honour. Yet, it is God that works in us both to will and to do of his good pleasure (Php 2:13). God wanted a prophet. [19]

[19] Leonard Ravenhill, Revival Praying (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, c1962, 2005), chapter 4.

Php 2:13, “For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.”

1Sa 1:11 “and there shall no razor come upon his head” Comments – 1Sa 1:11 describes a Nazarite who separates himself in a vow for service to God (Num 6:5).

Num 6:5, “All the days of the vow of his separation there shall no razor come upon his head: until the days be fulfilled, in the which he separateth himself unto the LORD, he shall be holy, and shall let the locks of the hair of his head grow.”

1Sa 1:11 Comments – There are numerous examples of people making vows in the Scriptures. We can read about the vows of Jephthah (Jdg 11:30), Hannah (1Sa 1:11), Absalom (2Sa 15:8), David (Psa 56:12), Solomon (Pro 7:14), Jonah (Jon 2:9), and Paul (Act 18:18).

Jdg 11:30, “And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands,”

1Sa 1:11, “And she vowed a vow, and said, O LORD of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the LORD all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head.”

2Sa 15:8, “For thy servant vowed a vow while I abode at Geshur in Syria, saying, If the LORD shall bring me again indeed to Jerusalem, then I will serve the LORD.”

Psa 56:12, “Thy vows are upon me, O God: I will render praises unto thee.”

Pro 7:14, “I have peace offerings with me; this day have I payed my vows.”

Jon 2:9, “But I will sacrifice unto thee with the voice of thanksgiving; I will pay that that I have vowed. Salvation is of the LORD.”

Act 18:18, “And Paul after this tarried there yet a good while, and then took his leave of the brethren, and sailed thence into Syria, and with him Priscilla and Aquila; having shorn his head in Cenchrea: for he had a vow.”

1Sa 1:11 Comments – Leonard Ravenhill says that Hannah offered herself as a means to answer the prayer. She offered nine months of gestation and enduring, then two years of days and nights ministering to raise the child. It involved much suffering, and it affected her whole manner of life. Like revival praying, we offer ourselves at a cost of changing our lives and suffering. Prayer not only changes things, prayer changes people. As Hannah was provoked to desire a child, we also must be provoked by God doing so much in other churches and desire that in our live. This is like Rachel’s cry, “Give me children lest I die.” (Gen 30:1)

Gen 30:1, “And when Rachel saw that she bare Jacob no children, Rachel envied her sister; and said unto Jacob, Give me children, or else I die.” [20]

[20] Leonard Ravenhill, Revival Praying (Minneapolis, Minn: Bethany House Publishers, c1962, 2005), chapter 4.

1Sa 1:11 Comments – The story of Hannah’s prayer illustrates the divine principle of prayer and giving. Hannah had prayed for a son for years, but it was not until she gave a gift in the form of a vow that God answered her prayer. The vow mixes prayer with giving. We see how God also responded to Cornelius because he also was a man of prayer mixed with giving (Act 10:1-2). In addition, Hannah wept before the Lord. Prayer with tears moves the heart of God. One of the quickest ways to receive from God is to mix tears with your prayers.

Act 10:1-2, “There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.”

1Sa 1:13 Comments – Eli thought Hannah to be drunken because this was a festive season.

1Sa 1:17  Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him.

1Sa 1:17 Comments – We see in 1Sa 1:17 that Eli came into agreement with the prayer of Hannah. We know that when two agree on earth, a matter is established (2Co 13:1). This is called the prayer of agreement (Mat 18:19).

2Co 13:1, “This is the third time I am coming to you. In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.”

Mat 18:19, “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.”

1Sa 1:18  And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight. So the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.

1Sa 1:18 “and her countenance was no more sad” – Comments – Hannah had faith that God had heard her prayer, especially after Eli’s blessing.

1Sa 1:20  Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD.

1Sa 1:20 Word Study for “Samuel” Gesenius says the name “Samuel” (H8050) means either “heard of God,” or “name of God.” Strong says it means, “heard of God.” The context of 1Sa 1:20 seems to better support the meaning, “heard of God.”

1Sa 1:23  And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the LORD establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.

1Sa 1:23 Comments – Elkanah honored his wife’s vow. According to Num 30:1-16, he could have annulled his wife’s vow, but, in divine respect, he honoured her vow.

Fuente: Everett’s Study Notes on the Holy Scriptures

The Unhappiness and the Prayer of Hannah

v. 1. Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim, of Mount Ephraim, usually called Ramah, some six miles northwest of Jerusalem, in the territory of Benjamin, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, after whom this special region was named, an Ephrathite, Cf 1Ch 6:22-27, belonging to the tribe of Levi;

v. 2. and he had two wives: the name of the one was Hannah (charm, grace), and the name of the other Peninnah (coral, pearl); and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. The bigamy of Elkanah, though tolerated by God among the Jews, was opposed to the original divine institution of monogamy, and the misfortune which attached to this relation appeared in Elkanah’s married and family life.

v. 3. And this man went up out of his city yearly, year after year, to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh, evidently at the Feast of Passover and of Unleavened Bread, since he took his whole household along. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there. This notice is here inserted by the author to prepare for the subsequent history. Elkanah, as a true Israelite, worshiped the great Lord of hosts, the one true God, and be brought his sacrifices of peace offerings in order to strengthen his fellowship with this God.

v. 4. And when the time was that Elkanah offered, it happened on the day that he brought his sacrifice, he gave to Peninnah, his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions, as their part of the sacrificial feast, Deu 12:11-13;

v. 5. but unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion, a double portion; for he loved Hannah, she was his favorite wife, as Rachel had been Jacob’s; but the Lord had shut up her womb, He had given her no children, and childlessness was rightly held to be a great misfortune, a reproach, even a divine punishment, Gen 19:31; Gen 30:1-23.

v. 6. And her adversary, Peninnah, who was jealous of Elkanah’s special love for Hannah, also provoked her sore for to make her fret, to make her worried and excited, because the Lord had shut up her womb, while Peninnah, more fortunate in child-bearing and therefore boastful, made it a point to vex her with her childlessness.

v. 7. And as he, Elkanah, did so year by year, followed the same custom, when she went up to the house of the Lord, so she, Peninnah, provoked her, for she had her flock of children about her and made use of the occasion to sneer at lonely Hannah; therefore she wept and did not eat, she was too deeply hurt to have any appetite.

v. 8. Then said Elkanah, her husband, to her, Hannah, why weepest thou, and why eatest thou not, and why is thy heart grieved? This is a climax showing his deep anxiety and solicitude for her. Am I not better to thee than ten sons? The deep and tender love of the husband tried to console her in her great disappointment.

v. 9. So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk, at the conclusion of the sacrificial meal. Now Eli, the priest, the high priest at that time, sat upon a seat by a post of the Temple of the Lord, at the entrance to the Tabernacle of Jehovah, the palace of the Lord.

v. 10. And she was in bitterness of soul, on account of the continuance of her hopelessness and of the vexations which she suffered from her adversary, and prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore, her many tears being an expression of her grief because all her petitions up to that time had been unheard.

v. 11. And she vowed a vow and said, O Lord of hosts, Jehovah of Sabbath, if Thou wilt indeed look on the affiliation of Thine handmaid, the misery of her childlessness, and remember me, and not forget Thine handmaid, but wilt give unto Thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, consecrate him for lifelong service in the Tabernacle, to which the Levites were not pledged otherwise; and there shall no razor come upon his head, he was to be a perpetual Nazarite, Num 6:2 ff.

v. 12. And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the Lord, in a long and urgent prayer, that Ell marked her mouth, for she was evidently out in the court of the Tabernacle, not far from the altar of burnt offerings.

v. 13. Now Hannah, she spake in her heart, literally, “to her heart”; she was so deeply engrossed with her trouble that she forgot her surroundings. Her face was full of expressive eagerness and emotion, but her communing with the Lord was all in her heart. Only her lips moved, in the intensity of her fervor, but her voice was not heard. Therefore Ell, drawing a. rash and profane conclusion, thought she had been drunken, having partaken of too much wine at the sacrificial meal.

v. 14. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? Put away thy wine from thee, namely, by sleeping off its effects in secret, where her supposed condition would offend no one.

v. 15. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord; I am a Woman. of a sorrowful spirit, in deep trouble, this being an emphatic and indignant denial of Eli’s suspicions; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, a very intoxicating beverage made of barley, dates, and honey, but have poured out my soul before the Lord. Cf Psa 42:5.

v. 16. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial, be was not to place her on a level with worthless bad women; for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto, while Eli had observed her.

v. 17. Then Eli answered and said, not only retracting his accusation, but remembering the dignity of his office, Go in peace; and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of Him. not a prophecy, but a sincere wish and prayer.

v. 18. And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight, she showed her modesty, reverence, and humility in accepting the kind wishes of the high priest. so the woman went her way and did eat, her heart was eased, so she could partake of food, and her countenance was no more sad. The right conclusion of a prayer is a confident Amen, which testifies that we are sure of the hearing of our prayer by God in advance.

Fuente: The Popular Commentary on the Bible by Kretzmann

THE EARLY LIFE OF SAMUEL.

EXPOSITION

THE GENEALOGY AND BIRTHPLACE OF SAMUEL (1Sa 1:1-8)

1Sa 1:1

There was a certain man of Ramathaim-Zophim. Though Samuel belonged to the tribe of Levi, yet no special mention is made of the fact, because he owed his importance and rank as a judge not to his Levitical origin, but to the gift of prophecy, which was independent of the accidents of birth and station. In the First Book of Chronicles, 1Sa 6:1-21; his parentage is twice given, that in 1Ch 6:22-28 being apparently the family genealogy, while that in 1Ch 6:33-38 was probably taken from the records of the temple singers, sprung from Heman, Samuel’s grandson (1Ch 6:33). His name there appears as Shemuel, our translators not having perceived that it is the same as that for which elsewhere they give the familiar rendering, Samuel. The variations Elkanah, Jeroham, Elihu, Tohu, Zuph (1Sa 1:1); Elkanah, Jeroham, Eliab, Nahath, Zophai (1Ch 6:26, 1Ch 6:27); Elkanah, Jeroham, Eliel, Toah, Zuph (ibid. 1Ch 6:34-35), are interesting as showing that the genealogies in Chronicles. were compiled from family documents, in which, as was usual in the case of proper names, there was much diversity of spelling, or possibly of interpreting the cumbrous signs used for letters in those early days. The variations, however, in Elihu (God is he), Eliab (God is Father), and Eliel (God is God) were probably intentional, as were certainly other changes in names, such as that of Ishbaal into Ishbosheth. The name of Samuel’s father, Elkanah (God is owner), is a common one among the Kohathites, to which division of the sons of Levi Samuel belonged.

The prophet’s birthplace was Ramathaim-Zophim, no doubt the Ramah which was Samuel’s own head-quarters (1Sa 7:17; 1Sa 15:34; 1Sa 16:13; 1Sa 19:18-23; 1Sa 25:1); the place where he dwelt, wrought, died, and was buried, and the Arimathsea of the Gospels. The Septuagint generally gives the name in full, but this is the only place where it is so written in the Hebrew. Ramah signifies a height, and the dual Ramathaim the double height, the town being situated on a hill ending in two peaks. But which it was of the many Ramahs, or hill towns, in the Holy Land, is hotly contested; probably it was the Ramah in Benjamin, about two hours’ journey northwest of Jerusalem. Its second name, Zophim, is taken from Zuph, Samuel’s remote ancestor, with whom the genealogy here begins. Zuph had apparently emigrated from Ephraim, one of the three tribes (Ephraim, Manasseh, Dan) to which the Kohathites were attached, and was a person of sufficient power and energy to give his name to the whole district; called the land of Zuph in 1Sa 9:5. His descendants, the Zophim, had Ramah as their centre, and Elkanah, as their head, would be a man of wealth and influence. Though actually belonging to the tribe of Benjamin, Ramah is said to be upon Mount Ephraim, because this limestone range extended to and kept its name almost up to Jerusalem (see Jdg 4:5, and 2Ch 13:4; 2Ch 15:8, compared with 2Ch 13:19). Elkanah too is called an Ephrathite, i.e. an Ephraimite, no doubt because before Zuph emigrated the family had belonged to Ephraim, it being apparently the practice to reckon Levites as pertaining to the tribes to which they were attached (Jdg 17:7). The Hebrews Ephrathite is rightly rendered Ephraimite in Jdg 12:5, and should be so translated here, and in 1Ki 11:26. In Rth 1:2; 1Sa 17:12 it means Bethlehemite, that town being also called Ephratah, the fruitful; Ephraim has the same meaning, but being a dual, no adjective can be formed from it.

1Sa 1:2

As a wealthy man, Elkanah had two wives, Hannahthe Anna of Virgil, who very properly gives this name to the sister of the Phoenician Dido, the language of Phoenicia being identical with Hebrewand Peninnah. The word Hannah signifies gracefulness, while Peulnnah is the red pearl, translated coral in Job 28:18, but ruby in Pro 3:15, etc. Its ruddy colour is vouched for in Lam 4:7. The Hebrew names for women generally bear witness to the affection and respect felt for them; while those for men are usually religious. Though polygamy was a licence permitted to the Jews, it does not seem to have been generally indulged in, except by the kings. Here, as elsewhere, it was the ruin of family life. In Christianity it was marked for final extinction by the rule that no polygamist should be admitted even to the diaconate, and much less to higher office (1Ti 3:2, 1Ti 3:12).

1Sa 1:3

This man went up out of his city yearly. Once in the year Elkanah went up to offer sacrifice before the ark. The original command had required this thrice a year of all Israelites; but though a Levite and a religious man, Elkanah went up but once; and such apparently was the rule in our Lord’s time (Luk 2:41), the season preferred being naturally the passover, while the other feasts gave opportunities for the performance of this duty to those unable to leave their homes at so early a period of the year. The ark was now at Shiloh, a town in Ephraim, about ten miles south of Shechem; for Joshua had removed it from Gilgal (Jos 18:1), not merely because Shiloh occupied a more central position, but as marking the primary rank of his own tribe (1Ch 5:1, 1Ch 5:2). Its destruction by the Philistines after the capture of the ark (1Sa 5:1) was so complete, and attended apparently by such barbarous cruelties (Psa 78:60-64), that it never recovered its importance, and Jeroboam passed it by when seeking for places where to set up his calves.

To sacrifice unto the LORD of hosts. This title of the Deity, “LORD (in capitals, i.e. Jehovah) of Hosts,” is a remarkable one. Fully it would be “Jehovah God of Hosts,” and the omission of the word God shows that the phrase was one of long standing shortened down by constant use. And yet, though found 260 times in the Bible, this is the first place where it occurs. “Lord of Hosts” (Lord not in capitals, and meaning master ruler) occurs only once, in Isa 10:16. “God of Hosts,” Elohim-Sabaoth, though rare, occurs four times in Psa 80:4, Psa 80:7, Psa 80:14, Psa 80:19. The word Sabaoth, hosts, does not mean armies, inasmuch as it refers to numbers, and not to order and arrangement.. It is usually employed of the heavenly bodies (Gen 2:1; Deu 4:19; Deu 17:3), which seem countless in multitude as they are spread over the vast expanse of an Oriental sky (Gen 15:5); and as their worship was one of the oldest and most natural forms of idolatry (Deu 4:19; Job 31:26-28), so this title is a protest against it, and claims for the one God dominion over the world of stars as well as in this lower sphere. Its origin then is to be sought at some time when there was a struggle between the worship of the sun and stars and the pure monotheism of the Hebrews. Occasionally the angels are called “the host of heaven” (1Ki 22:19; Psa 103:21; Psa 148:2), whenever the allusion is to their number, but when the idea is that of orderly arrangement they are called God’s armies (Gen 32:2).

The two sons of Eli … were there. The right translation of the Hebrew is, “And there (at Shiloh) the two sons of Eli … were priests.” Eli apparently had devolved upon his sons his priestly functions, while he discharged the duties only of a judge. His position is remarkable. In the Book of Judges we find a state of anarchy. The people are rude, untutored, doing much as they pleased, committing often atrocious crimes, yet withal full of generous impulses, brave, and even heroic. There is little regular government among them, but whenever a great man stands forth, the people in his district submit themselves to him. The last judge, Samson, a man of pungent wit and vast personal prowess, seems to have been entirely destitute of all those qualities which make a man fit to be a ruler, but he kept the patriotism of the people alive and nerved them to resistance by the fame of his exploits. In Eli we find a ruler possessed of statesmanlike qualities. The country under him is prosperous; the Philistines, no longer dominant as in Samson’s time, have so felt his power that when they gain a victory the Israelites are astonished at it (1Sa 4:3). Moreover, he is not only judge, he is also high priest; but instead of belonging to the family of Phinehas, the dominant house in the time of the Judges, he belongs to that of Ithamar. When, to solve the problem, we turn to the genealogies in the Chronicles, we find Eli’s house omitted, though, even after the massacres at Shiloh and Nob, his grandson Ahimelech was still powerful (1Ch 24:3), and one of his descendants returned from Babylon as jointly high priest with a descendant of Phinehas (Ezr 8:2). How long a space of time elapsed between the rude heroism of Samson’s days and Eli’s orderly government in Church and State we do not know, but the difference in the condition of things is vast. Igor do we know the steps by which Eli rose to power, but he must have been a man of no common ability. Warrior as well as statesman, he had delivered the people from the danger of becoming enslaved to the Philistines. In his own family alone he failed. His sons, allowed to riot in licentiousness, ruined the stately edifice of the father’s fortunes, and the Philistines, taking advantage of the general discontent caused by their vices, succeeded in once again putting the yoke on Israel’s neck.

1Sa 1:5

A worthy portion. This rendering is based upon the idea that the Hebrew, which is literally “one portion of two faces,” may mean “one portion enough for two persons.” But for this there is no sufficient authority, and though the word is a dual, it really signifies the two sides of the face, or more exactly “the two nostrils,” and so simply the countenance. The Syriac translation, “a double portion,” is based upon an accidental resemblance between the words. As the term sometimes signifies anger from the swelling of the nostrils of an enraged person, the Vulgate translates, “And Elkanah was sad when he gave Hannah her portion; for ” The Septuagint has a different reading, epes for apaim, and though the words look different in our writing, they are nearly identical in Hebrew. This is probably the true reading, and the translation would then be, “And to Hannah he gave one portion only (because she bad no child, while Peninnah had many portions, as each son and daughter had a share); for he loved Hannah, though Jehovah had shut up her womb.” These portions were of course taken from those parts of the victim which formed a feast for the offerers, after Jehovah and the priests had had their dues. It is plain from this feast that Elkanah’s annual sacrifice was a peace offering, for the law of which see Le 1Sa 7:11 -21.

1Sa 1:6, 1Sa 1:7, 1Sa 1:8

Her adversary also provoked her sore. The pleasure of this domestic festival was spoiled by the discord of the wives. Peninnah, triumphant in her fruitfulness, is yet Hannah’s adversary, because, in spite of her barrenness, she has the larger portion of the husband’s love; while Hannah is so sorely vexed at the taunts of her rival, that she weeps from sheer vexation. In vain Elkanah tries to give her comfort. The husband really is not “better than ten sons,” for the joy of motherhood is quite distinct from that of conjugal affection, and especially to a Hebrew woman, who had special hopes from which she was cut off by barrenness. In 1Sa 1:7 there is a strange confusion of subject, owing to the first verb having been read as an active instead of a passive. It should be, “And so it happened year by year: when she (Hannah) went up to the house of Jehovah she (Peninnah) thus provoked her, and she wept and did not eat.” It must be remembered that the Hebrews had no written vowels, but only consonants; the vowels were added in Christian times, many centuries after the coming of our Lord, and represent the traditional manner of reading of one great Jewish school. They are to be treated with the greatest respect, because as a rule they give us a sense confirmed by the best authorities; but they are human, and form no part of Holy Scripture. The ancient versions, the Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Vulgate, which are all three older than the Masoretic vowels, translate, “And so she (Peninnah) did year by year;” but this requires a slight change of the consonants.

HOMILETICS

1Sa 1:1-3

Transitions.

The main facts implied or expressed in this section are

1. A state of national degeneracy.

2. A scarcity of spiritual illumination.

3. A family morally imperfect and troubled, yet rigidly observant of religious duties.

4. A Divine will using that family for the further unfolding of Messianic purposes.

I. AN UNBROKEN CONTINUITY runs through the revelations of the Old Testament, analogous to that of the physical order and the education of the individual. It is only ignorance of the Bible that can suppose it to be destitute of the unity in variety which is known to characterise the material creation. Separate books, like diverse strata in the crust of the earth, are preliminary to what is to follow; and the character of the events recorded, and the condition of morality and religious light referred to, must be considered as related to the one general purpose. Sometimes the transition seems to be sudden and abrupt, and a totally new set of subjects appears; but, as in the reference here to a “certain man,” whose life was chiefly spent during the era covered by the latter part of the Book of Judges, so generally connecting links may be found.

II. THE CONSERVATION AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHOSEN RACE are subservient to the development of the Divine purpose in Christ. History is the basis of revelation. Man is not to be saved by abstract truth, but by an historical Christ. The historical Christ is to appear in the “fulness of time,” not from the skies, but from a human line well authenticated. Human factors are the transitory element in the Divine unfolding of salvation in Christ. That God should use men, during a long succession of ages, as the channel through which his mercy should embrace all the world, is as natural and reasonable as that he should perfect his will in the beautiful order of the earth by a long series of changes in crude material elements. God did not make imperfect men perfect in order to use them; but showed his wisdom in training and holding together the chosen race just as they were. Degenerate as they were during the period of the Judges, they were not cut off forever, but chastened and quickened. Thus the process was continued, until the purpose was ripe for the appearing of the Christ, and his proper identification, by the combination of history and prophecy.

III. THE FORM AND DEGREE OF REVELATION vouchsafed to an age are largely dependent on the ideas and moral character previously attained to. Man at first entered on life devoid of ancestral literature; and so Adam’s descendants, in succeeding ages, inherited less of knowledge and experience in proportion as they were nearer to the founder of the race. It is not wise to import our modern ideas into the minds of those who, in the days of Jacob, Moses, and the Judges, had not been fashioned by our inheritance of knowledge. The devout men and women of Elkanah’s time, having acquired knowledge of the existence of hosts of intelligent beings, took a wider conception of God’s sovereignty (verses 3, 11) than was possible to men of an earlier age. God conveyed truth in so far as men were able to bear it. It would be as unnatural for Isaiah’s lofty teachings to follow at once on the scanty illumination of the era of the Judges, as for philosophical conceptions to be set before children. Divine wisdom shines through the graduated teaching of Israel’s history (Mat 19:7, Mat 19:8).

IV. THE EDUCATION OF A PEOPLE, with ulterior view to the world’s instruction, by provisional, not final truth, necessitates eras of transition. All through the ages God was educating a race for the benefit of the world; and, as education means steady development, widening vision, the elements of things would form the staple of early teaching. Times came when a new feature had to be introduced, and early arrangements to give place to something more suited to the wider truth to be taught. The occasional vision and message, suited to patriarchal life, were followed by the systematic symbolism and rigid rules appropriate to national consolidation under Moses. The casual illumination of the Judgeship, also, yields to the more steady teaching and guidance of the prophetic schools inaugurated by Samuel. Later on, the early dawn of the prophetic ages gives place to the “dayspring” which reveals the Sun of righteousness. As in nature, so in revelation, stage succeeds stage; transitions are according to law.

V. THE INSTRUMENTS FOR EFFECTING A TRANSITION are duly chosen, and are silently, unconsciously prepared for their work. The world little knew of the germinal Divine purpose working out in an obscure home of Mount Ephraim; nor did the “certain man” know how the conflicting elements in his home were being graciously over ruled to the development of a piety not surpassed in Old Testament history, and the sending forth of one who should be a blessed forerunner of One greater still. Germs of future good lie in undreamed of places and persons. Out of the vast storehouse of the universe the all-gracious God is constantly preparing some new channel of good to his creatures. In the scattered villages and towns of the land there are being nurtured, unconsciously, the lives that in days hence shall be foremost in the Redeemer’s host. “Little Bethlehem,” and the lowly Joseph and Mary, were in reserve for the greatest of events. Any new advances to be made by the Church in the future are sure to be provided for by chosen men, possibly unknown to the world, and silently trained by Providence for their work.

VI. PERSONS, PLACES, AND EVENTS, IN THEMSELVES OBSCURE, BECOME IMPORTANT when associated with the unfolding of high spiritual purposes. It was the connection of Samuel with Christ’s glorious kingdom that linked a “certain man” and his wife with the same, and so raised them from obscurity. Spiritual uses give real value to things. The frail and insignificant becomes enduring and important when blended with the interests of the “kingdom that cannot be moved.” Every member of Christ’s body is precious to him. Names are recorded in heaven which enter on no earthly roll. The life and spirit of every lowly Christian are known by God to exercise a widespread, abiding influence in the invisible sphere. As the kingdom is to be eternal, so, whatever part each one may take in its unfolding, that item will be saved from the transitoriness and oblivion of other toil. Fame in the world is not the criterion and measure of real usefulness. The chief concern should be so to live as to be, in some form, useable by God for advancing the glory of Christ. All are morally great when employed in his service to the full extent of their capacities.

VII. A DILIGENT USE OF SUCH LIGHT AS IS BESTOWED, especially in degenerate times, may qualify even obscure men for rendering important service. The family religion of a “certain man” bore its fruit. The moral ground of usefulness lies in character, and character is spiritually strong in so far as improvement is daily made of privileges, however few they may be. Men’s fitness to confer benefits on the world is more connected with a wise use of what they have and know, than with the absolute possession of knowledge. A little goodness, and a humble routine of devotion in a dark age, shines the brighter because of the surrounding gloom. From the ranks of pious men in modern times, who cared for piety at home, there have gone forth many sons distinguished for service in the Church of God. It is worthy of note how fixed ordinances and seasons of Divine worship nourish whatever of piety may be struggling here and there against degenerate manners and official corruption. The usual services of the tabernacle and the recurring festivals, though despised and profaned by many, furnished comfort and cheer to the faithful few. In spite of unworthy priests, God is found in his courts by all who seek him.

1Sa 1:4-8

Domestic troubles.

The facts given in this section are

1. Hannah’s grief and disappointment.

2. Peninnah’s cruel jealousy.

3. Elkanah’s efforts to console.

I. PROVIDENCE sometimes seems to RUN COUNTER TO WHAT IS MOST DESIRABLE, in withholding gifts where they would be devoutly valued and wisely used. Humanly speaking, Hannah was the most fit person to be blessed with offspring to be nurtured. The course of nature which finds expression in family life is of God. Though the free element of human action plays a part, yet God is supreme. Providence is over the home of the pious. Poverty and riches, new life and bereavement, are of the Lord. Looked at in its early stages, and tested by our range of vision, the course of Providence is often the reverse of what makes for the joy of the home and the good of the world. Often the illiberal spirit holds wealth, while the loving heart has only good wishes. Many a good, Christlike heart laments that it has not the means of clothing the poor, and sending forth messengers of the cross. Men of very slender abilities and lowly position, but of intense enthusiasm for Christ, may wonder why they have not been endowed with the intellectual and social qualities which would enable them to stem the tide of scepticism, and gain over to Christianity persons now inaccessible to them.

II. PROVIDENCE, for reasons net obvious, sometimes SEEMS TO FAVOUR INFERIOR CHARACTERS, bestowing gifts where there is not the purest spirit to improve them. Peninnah was immensely inferior to Hannah in all that makes character to be admired. If judged by the benefits conferred on some persons, and the disposition to use them, Providence would be said to have erred. The writer of Psa 37:1-40. and 73, had once bitter reflections on this subject. The causes of the Divine conduct lie deep in hidden counsels. The inequalities and disproportions of life clearly show that we see only the beginning of things, and that there is a future where every man shall receive according to his work. It is enough to know, that in the abundant blessings which often fall to the lot of the inferior and the bad, they have experienced goodness and mercy, so as to be without excuse for ingratitude, and that the Judge of all the earth cannot but do right.

III. INTENSE GRIEF IS NATURAL ON THE BLIGHTING OF A SUPREME HOPE. Every one must see the naturalness of Hannah’s grief. The ordinary course of nature fosters hope; it is the basis of reasonable expectations. A well balanced mind lives in strong sympathy with nature’s ways, for they are of God, and always beneficent in final issue. God is not displeased with grief, not discontent, when it comes in the order of Providence, even though the grief rise from a wish that he had ordered otherwise. Tears have been consecrated by Christ. The wail over Jerusalem was not unconnected with blighted hope. But so far as men are concerned, the roots of their sorrow frequently lie in their ignorance of God’s times and methods. He doth not willingly afflict or grieve the children of men. There is some undeveloped purpose for their good which will yet vindicate his goodness.

IV. To have a deep and SACRED GRIEF INTENSIFIED BY UNMERITED AND CONTINUOUS REPROACH is the climax of domestic suffering. The griefs of private life are sacred. The wounded spirit shuns the inquisitive eye. Sorrow often seeks sad comfort in self-isolation. The cruel jibes of her rival were agony to Hannah’s gentle spirit. So the Man of sorrows felt the bitter reproach of his own people as a most painful addition to that secret sorrow he ever carried in his heart. In many an unhappy home there is yet to be found a meek, loving soul grieving over deferred hope of a husband or children saved, and compelled also to bear scorn, and perhaps ill treatment, from those most dear. A patient, Christlike spirit is the Divine counterpoise of such suffering.

V. LONG YEARS OF MEEKLY ENDURED TRIAL MAY BE THE DIVINE TRAINING for subordinating natural gratification to high spiritual ends. Completed history gives the clue to the enigmas of its early stages. Posterity has seen that the long trial of Hannah was not without its blessed uses in sublimating her hopes, and deepening her piety. It is a first principle that trial to the devout is essentially a good. The spirit of the sufferer has to grow up to the Divine intent by meek submission. Like many mothers, Hannah might have rested in the simple joy of bearing offspring had not a merciful God prepared means for directing her desires to a higher good. When sympathy with the holy purposes of Christ is developed in the soul, natural desires will fall into harmony with his will, and be laid at his feet. And the deepened piety of a mother tells most powerfully on the subsequent nurture of her child.

VI. It is possible for HIGH RELIGIOUS FESTIVALS TO BE

(1) embittered by the presence of wicked jealousies,

(2) marred by an outburst of pent up grief.

The holy sanctuary is frequented by the devout and the profane, and the longing heart of a Hannah is fretted by the unkind expressions of a Peninnah. Side by side before the holy throne may be found men and women embittered by the very presence of each other. Divine worship and hallowed festivities should be the occasion when all animosities and vexations of spirit are lost in the calm, holy joy of God’s favour. But when the wounded heart is pierced afresh in the house of God, or amidst Zion’s rejoicings, the very joyousness of the occasion makes sorrow more sorrowful. Many are the tears shed in the sanctuary! The heart speaks its woes the more that joy becomes the place.

VII. INDISCREET FAVOURS IN A HOME ONLY ADD TO TROUBLE. Monogamy is the dictate of religion and of philosophy. Trouble must arise in society by departure from the prime law. Elkanah’s troubles were his own seeking, and no amount of affection ostentatiously bestowed availed to cover the original error, or to lessen the inconveniences of it. Persons committed to conflicting domestic obligations, and beset with difficulty, need to exercise more than ordinary discretion in the expression of their feelings. Even in properly constituted homes, unwise preferences lay the foundation for alienation and strife.

VIII. MEN OF TENDEREST AFFECTION AND ORDINARY GOODNESS MAY BE INCAPABLE OF FULLY APPRECIATING THE GREAT SORROW OF THEIR HOME. With all his kindness, Elkanah was unable to enter fully into the grief of his wife. Natures move in diverse spheres. Some lack responsiveness to the deepest experiences of their kindred and friends, or they have not the spiritual insight to recognise more than secular elements in trouble. The full bliss of one is not a standard for another. There are incommensurable joys, and joys inconceivable. A husband’s love is a perfect, beautiful thing. A wife’s joy in holy offspring is also perfect and beautiful. The presence of the one blessing may console, but cannot compensate for the absence of the other. The “woman of sorrowful spirit” yearned to be the means of advancing Messiah’s kingdom, and mourned that the joy was not hers; no assurance of affection could satisfy such an unrealised yearning. And so, good as the love of friends may be, it can never give full rest to the souls that peer into the future, and long to have the bliss of contributing their best to the Redeemer’s glory.

Hence the Practical suggestions:

1. Be not hasty in forming a judgment on the course of Providence.

2. Cherish sympathy with those whose hopes are deferred.

3. Be careful and sow not in the home, by some irrevocable action, the seeds of permanent discord.

4. Avoid partiality where vows and relationships demand equal treatment.

5. Adore the wisdom that can out of our failings and errors elicit a future blessing.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

1Sa 1:1-8. (RAMAH.)

A Hebrew family.

The family is a Divine institution. It is the most ancient, most needful, and most enduring form of society; and, in proportion as it accords with the plan of its original constitution, it is productive of most beneficent effects, both temporal and spiritual, to the individual and the community. In times of general laxity and anarchy it has been, in many instances, a little sacred islet of purity, order, and peace, and nurtured the elements out of which a better age has grown. The real strength of a nation lies in its domestic life, and Israel was in this respect eminent above all other ancient nations. Even in the days of the judges, when “there was no king in Israel,” and “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jdg 21:25), there were many godly families scattered through the land. One of these was that which gave birth to SAMUEL, the last of the series of the judges, the first of the order of the prophets, and the founder of the Hebrew monarchy. This family is introduced with a brief description (1Sa 1:1, 1Sa 1:2). The residence of the family was Ramah (the Height), or, more fully described, Ramathaim (the Two Heights). Here Samuel was born and nurtured; had his permanent abode during the latter portion of his life; died, and was buried. There is not a more sacred spot on earth than the home which is endeared by tender association and religious communion.

“A spot of earth supremely blest;
A dearer, sweeter spot than all the rest.”

“Things are not to be valued on account of places, but places for the good things which they contain” (Bede). “God chooses any common spot for a mighty incident or the home of a mighty spirit.” Consider the family as

I. ORDERED BY A GODLY HEAD (1Sa 1:3). His piety was shown

1. By his regular attendance on Divine ordinances. He worshipped “the Lord of hosts,” not Baalim and Ashtaroth (1Sa 7:4); in the way of his appointment, at the tabernacle in Shiloh, at the proper season, and with the prescribed sacrifices; not according to his own reason or inclination merely, a will worship which is not acceptable to God.

2. By his sincere and spiritual service, in contrast to the formal, worthless, and hypocritical service of others, especially the sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas (1Sa 2:12), and undeterred by their evil conduct in the priestly office.

3. By his faithful performance of his vows (1Sa 1:21).

4. By his conversation and prayer in his own house (1Sa 1:23).

5. By his conducting all the members of his family to “the house of the Lord” (1Sa 1:7), in the exercise of his parental authority, accompanied by instruction and example. The words of the Law of Moses were evidently familiar to him (Deu 6:6-9), and happy is the family in which they are obeyed.

II. UNITING IN SOCIAL FESTIVITY (1Sa 1:4, 1Sa 1:5). Once a year he took his journey, in company with his family, from Ramah to the central sanctuary of the Divine King of Israel, for the twofold purpose of worshipping (lit; bowing down) and sacrificing before Jehovah. The sacrifice he offered was a peace offering (Deu 27:7), in which, when the animal was killed, the priest received its breast and right shoulder as his lawful portion, whilst the rest was given back to the worshipper that he and his family might feast on it before the Lord. Their festivity was

1. Religious. It was the festivity of those who were received into communion with God. They were guests at his table, and overshadowed by his presence. It is said of the elders of Israel that they “saw God, and did eat and drink” (Exo 24:11). And if no such visible sign of his glory now appeared, yet their consciousness of his presence (according to his promise, and symbolised by the ark of the covenant) would give solemnity to their repast, and prevent improper indulgence and revelry, which were but too common in this corrupt time (1Sa 1:14; Jdg 21:19, Jdg 21:21). It should ever be the same when Christians join in social festivity.

2. Joyous (Deu 12:12; Deu 16:11). Its religiousness did not detract from its gladness, but made it pure, elevating, and refreshing. “The joy of the Lord is your strength.”

3. Participated in by the whole family, children as well as adults. As the fathers the women and the children took part in idol feasts (Jer 6:18), so they should take part in “feasting before the Lord.”

4. It also called forth expressions of affection (1Sa 1:4). The kindness of God to all should lead to kindness one toward another, and the example of kindness set by the head of the family should be followed by all its members. Even the ordinary family meal may and ought to be such a scene of sacred festivity, but the highest realisation of it on earth is in “the Lord’s Supper” (1Co 11:20). And how great is the blessing which rests upon the family, all the members of which partake together of the “cup of blessing,” and are “all partakers of that one Bread.”

III. DISQUIETED BY DOMESTIC TROUBLE (1Sa 1:5-8). It was natural that Hannah should feel disappointed at being childless. Her condition was deemed a reproach, and a sign of Divine displeasure. But her grief arose chiefly from the conduct of her rival, Peninnah. There was thus an element of discord and trouble in the family. This trouble

1. Existed where it might have been least expected. The family was distinguished by earthly prosperity and genuine piety. But what home is there on earth wholly free from trouble? Beneath the fairest appearances there is seldom wanting a cause of disquiet, to check self-complacency and teach the soul its true rest.

2. Was occasioned by want of conformity to a Divine ordinance. The introduction of a second wife by Elkanah was not according to the Divine appointment “in the beginning” (Gen 2:24; Ma Gen 2:15; Mat 19:4). The violation of that appointment had taken place at an early period (Gen 4:19); it was sanctioned by long usage; and it was permitted under the Law “for the hardness of their hearts,” and until they should be educated up to a higher moral condition. But it was followed by pernicious consequences (Gen 4:23; Gen 30:8), as it always is in those families and nations where it obtains. Ignorance of the laws of God may mitigate or exempt from guilt; but it does not do away with all the evil consequences of their violation; for those laws are rooted in the fixed relations and tendencies of things.

3. Was immediately caused by the indulgence of improper feeling and unseemly speech. Peninnah may have been jealous of the special love shown to Hannah by her husband (1Sa 1:5). She was proud and haughty on account of her own sons and daughters, and, instead of sympathising with her who had none, she made her defect a ground of insult; and trials ordained by Divine providence are peculiarly severe when they become an occasion of human reproach. Finally, she gave free play to “an unruly evil” (Jas 3:8), especially at those seasons when it should have been held under restraint. Such things are the bane of domestic life.

4. Disturbed the proper performance of sacred duties. Peninnah could have little peace in her own breast, and be little prepared for Divine worship or sacred festivity. As for Hannah, although she did not angrily retaliate, but patiently endured the reproaches cast upon her (affording an admirable example of meekness), yet “she wept and did not eat” (1Sa 1:7), and her joy was turned into mourning. Domestic disturbances tend greatly to hinder prayers (1Pe 3:7).

5. Was alleviated by affectionate expostulation (1Sa 1:8). “In Elkanah we have an example of a most excellent husband, who patiently tolerated the insulting humour of Peninnah, and comforted dejected Hannah with words full of tender affection, which was truly, in St. Peter’s words, to dwell with them according to knowledge” (Patrick). Let each member of the family endeavour to soothe and alleviate the sorrows of the rest, and all learn to find their own happiness in promoting the happiness of others.

6. Was over ruled by Divine providence for great good. In her trouble Hannah was led to pray fervently, and her prayer was answered; sorrowing gave place to rejoicing; the family was benefited; and the people of God were greatly blessed. So, in his wonderful working, God “turned the curse into a blessing” (Neh 13:2).D.

1Sa 1:3. (SHILOH)

Public worship.

Worship is worship, the honour paid to superior worth; more especially it is the reverence and homage paid to God in religious exercises. Public worship (as distinguished from private and family worship) is designed to give an open expression, before men, of the praise and honour which are his due (Psa 145:10-12); a purpose which is not fulfilled by those who neglect it, and is forgotten by those who observe it only as a means of obtaining their own spiritual benefit. It is often enjoined in the word of God, and is commended by the example of good men. The conduct of Elkanah is suggestive of useful hints concerning

I. GOING TO WORSHIP. Persuaded of the obligation and privilege, “he went up out of his city” and home. He did “not forsake the house of the Lord” (Neh 10:39; Heb 10:25). Neither the distance, nor the trouble involved, prevented him; nor did the unworthy conduct of many of the worshippers keep him away. He took all his family with him, except when any of them were hindered by sickness or necessary duties (1Sa 1:20). He thought of the purpose for which he went, and made the needful preparation for “worshipping and sacrificing unto the Lord.” He was careful to be in time; and, doubtless, sought the blessing of God on his service, entertained the journey with profitable conversation, and came with reverence and self-restraint (Ecc 5:1).

II. THE OBJECT OF WORSHIP. “The Lord of hosts.” He did not worship an “unknown God.” Man must worship because he is a man; but he will worship a false or unworthy object, as well as in a wrong manner, unless he be Divinely taught, because he is a sinner. He “knew what he worshipped,” even the living and true God, who had revealed himself to his people; Creator, Redeemer, Ruler; holy, just, and merciful (Exo 34:6, Exo 34:7). Our knowledge of God is necessarily imperfect (Job 11:7); but it may be true as far as it goes, and the true idea of God is “the root of all absolute grandeur, of all truth and moral perfection” (Joh 17:3).

III. THE PLACE OF WORSHIP. He went to worship in Shiloh (Deu 16:15), where the tabernacle, made in the wilderness, having been first pitched at Gilgal, had now been standing 300 years. It was the palace of the great King. Here his servants the priests ministered, and offerings were presented by his subjects at his altar in the outer court (1Sa 2:33); the lamp of God (1Sa 3:3), the altar of incense (1Sa 2:28), and the table of shew bread (1Sa 21:4) stood in the holy place; and the ark of the covenant (1Sa 4:3) in the holiest of all (Heb 9:25). These were symbols of spiritual truth and means of Divine communion (Exo 29:43; Deu 16:11). The ideas that underlay them are fully realised in Christ and his Church, and the symbols are no longer needed; nor is there any more one central and sacred spot “where men ought to worship” (Joh 4:20, Joh 4:23). God draws nigh to us, and we can call upon him “in every place.” The presence of holy souls makes all places holy, in so far as any place can be so called.

“What’s hallowed ground? ‘Tis what gives birth
To sacred thoughts in souls of worth.”

Common worship, however, renders necessary special places of worship, the declared purpose and holy associations of which make them dear to good men and helpful to their devotions, so that they are sometimes constrained to say with Jacob, “How dreadful is this place,” etc. (Gen 28:17). “A fearful place, indeed, and worthy of all reverence, is that which saints inhabit, holy angels frequent, and God himself graces with his own presence.”

IV. THE TIME OF WORSHIP. “He went up yearly,” or from year to year, and continued several days. The Law required that the tribes should assemble at the sanctuary three times a year; but in those unsettled times it appears to have been the custom for them to attend only once, probably at the passoVerse What acts of worship he performed, or what times he observed at Ramah, we are not told. The Sabbath (though not mentioned in the Books of Samuel) we may be sure was not neglected by him, nor should it be by us. The spirit of continual Sabbath keeping (Heb 4:9) is, indeed, of greater importance than the observance of one day in seven; but its observance, with reference to the higher truths which the first day of the week commemorates, is most needful and beneficial.

V. THE MANNER OF WORSHIP. “He went up to worship and sacrifice.” His worship consisted of adoration, confession, petition, thanksgiving. It was connected with and embodied in sacrifices of various kinds, and of different significance: expiatory (sin offerings), self-dedicatory (burnt offerings), and eucharistic (peace offerings). They had a real and deep relation to the sacrifice of Christ. From it they derived their worth, and by it they have been done away. Our worship demands spiritual sacrifices, the broken and contrite heart, the “presenting of our bodies as a living sacrifice,” prayer, thanksgiving, holy and benevolent dispositions and conduct. “By him, therefore (who brings us nigh to God, and makes, us capable of serving him aright): let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, etc. (Heb 13:16.)

VI. RETURNING FROM WORSHIP. After the sacred feast was over, he and his family “rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord, and returned” (1Sa 1:19). Morning is a most favourable season for devotion (Psa 5:3); and those who are about to take a journey or enter on a new enterprise do well to rise up early and seek the Divine guidance and help. Elkanah showed that he was not weary of his devotions, but desired to avail himself to the utmost of the opportunities afforded him; and, by doing so, he obtained the greatest permanent benefit from his visit to the sanctuary. The manner in which we return from public worship greatly influences its permanent results (Mat 13:4, Mat 13:19; Luk 11:28). And our aim and endeavour, when we return, should be to sanctify all places, all times, all occupations by the spirit of unceasing prayer and thanksgiving, and so make the whole of life a preparation for the services of the heavenly temple.D.

1Sa 1:3, 1Sa 1:11. (SHILOH.)

The Lord of hosts.

There is no subject more worthy of study than the nature and character of God. His perfections are often called his Name, and his Name is expressed by various words, all of which are significant. They are not merely designations, but also descriptions. The word God is commonly supposed to mean the Good One, but it probably denotes “he on whom one calls,” or “he to whom one sacrifices; “the word Lord = Giver or Distributor of bread; Deity (Sanscrit, Dyaus) = the Resplendent, Light giving Heaven, the Shining One, showing the pure conception which the ancient Aryans (the ancestors of the Indo-European nations) entertained of the Divine Being. But the Bible mentions other names of God, which were either in common use among the Semitic nations, or given by special revelation to the Hebrews; and of these one of the most noteworthy is that of “the Lord of hosts” (Jehovah Sabaoth), which occurs no less than 260 times, this being the first instance of its use. Observe

I. ITS HISTORICAL USE.

1. Founded on what had been previously known or revealed. Jehovah Sabaoth = Jehovah, Elohe (God of) Sabaoth (Keil; 2Sa 5:10). El (Beth-El, Isra-El, El-kanah, Samu-El)the Strong or Mighty One; used in the plural as “comprehending in himself the fulness of all power, and uniting in himself all the attributes which the heathen ascribe to their divinities.” Jehovah (Yahveh) = he who is, or he who will be, the Being, the Absolute One, the Cause and Support of all other beings, the Eternal, the Unchangeable; employed with special reference to his personality, unity, his close relationship to his people, and his promise to be their God; the Proper Name of Israel’s God (Exo 3:14; Exo 6:3). Sabaoth (hosts) = the heaven and the earth (Gen 2:1; Deu 4:19), the angels (Gen 32:2, where, however, another word of similar import is used; Psa 103:21), and more commonly armies of men (Gen 21:22; Exo 6:26; Jos 5:14). The whole name = “Jehovah, the God of the armies of Israel, the Giver of the victory in battle, of the stars and of the angels.”

2. First used when he was about to make a fresh display of his power and grace to his people under their anointed king (1Sa 4:4; 1Sa 17:45; 2Sa 6:1-23 :27). By Hannah, the most spiritually minded person of that age (see Wordsworth’s ‘Com.’).

3. “Rose into new prominence in proportion as the people came into contact with the Assyrian and Chaldaean races, by whom the worship of the heavenly bodies was systematised into a national religion, and was therefore perpetually on the lips of Isaiah and Jeremiah as a protest against it” (Isa 6:1-13.; Jer 46:18; Jer 48:15).

4. Most frequently used by the later prophets, “who doubtless sought to counteract by this means the fear which the Jews, as a poor, despised people, had of the power of the Gentiles, and to prove to them that the God in whom they believed had hosts enough to protect them, though they should be devoid of all earthly might wherewith to defend themselves against their enemies” (Roos).

5. Only once employed, in direct statement, in the New Testament (Jas 5:4); other and still higher revelations of his character being made by Jesus Christ.

II. ITS SUBLIME IMPORT. “God alone is great.”

1. His personality and unity, as opposed to “the gods many and lords many” worshipped by the heathen; the keystone of the faith of Israel being, “The Lord our God is one Lord.” This is not contradictory to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which signifies a threefold distinction in the One God.

2. His supremacy. He is higher than the highest, the great King and Law-giver, whose will all must obey (Psa 24:10; Ma 1:14).

3. His immensity. He fills all space; rules over sun, moon, and stars; myriads of angels; nations, families, and individual men. “All are thy servants.”

4. His omnipotence. “Lord God Almighty.” “Power belongeth unto God.” “It is the flower of his crown imperial, which he will suffer none to usurp. If the proudest of creatures go beyond the bounds and limits of his present permission, he will send worms to eat them up, as he did Herod” (Owen). “Thine omnipotence is not far from us when we are far from thee”, Other revelations have now been given. “God is spirit.” “God is light.” “God is love.” “Our Father which art in heaven.” But his name as the Lord of hosts ought often to be an object of devout contemplation.

III. ITS PRACTICAL INFLUENCE. It is adapted

1. To correct error: atheism, polytheism, pantheism, positivism, scepticism, secularism, etc.

2. To elevate our conceptions of him, and fill us with humility, reverence, and adoration.

3. To encourage us to pray to him, with strong confidence that we shall be heard (1Sa 1:11; Zec 8:21; Mat 26:53; Eph 3:20).

4. To strengthen us in labour. “Work: for I am with you, saith the Lord of hosts” (Hag 2:4).

5. To incite us to contend against his foes, to “fight the good fight of faith.” “I come to thee in the name of the Lord of hosts” (1Sa 17:45).

6. To console us in trouble. “The Lord will protect his own” (Psa 34:7; Isa 8:13). He is the Protector and Avenger of the oppressed (Jas 5:4). “He calls God the Lord of hosts in order to strike terror into those who think that the poor have no protector” (Bede).

7. To warn all who disobey his voice, and set themselves in opposition to him and his people. “Beware, therefore.”D.

1Sa 1:9-28

EXPOSITION

HANNAH‘S PRAYER FOR A SON (1Sa 1:9-18).

1Sa 1:9

After they had eaten …. after they had drunk. The Hebrew favours the translation, “After she had eaten in Shiloh, and after she had drunk;” the somewhat forced rendering of the A.V. having arisen from a supposed discrepancy between this verse and 1Sa 1:7. Really there is none. The words simply mean that Hannah took part in the sacrificial banquet, though she did so without appetite or pleasure; and thus they connect her visit to the temple and her prayer with the most solemn religious service of the year. To take part in this banquet was a duty, but as soon as she had fulfilled it she withdrew to the temple to pour out her grief before God. There Eli, the priest, i.e. the high priest, as in Num 26:1; Num 27:2, was seated upon, not a seat, but the pontifical throne, placed at the entrance leading into the inner court of the tabernacle, so that all who came to worship must pass before him. It is remarkable that the tabernacle is called the temple (so 1Sa 3:3; Psa 5:7), or, more literally, the “palace” of Jehovah, his royal residence; and it thus appears that the name had come into use before Solomon’s building was erected. The curtains (Exo 26:1) also had given place to a mezuzah, translated a post, but really a sort of porch, with doors, as appears from 1Sa 3:15 (comp. Exo 21:6; 1Ki 7:5). As the tabernacle remained stationary at Shiloh for 300 years, naturally numerous buildings of a more solid nature grew up around it.

1Sa 1:10, 1Sa 1:11

She prayed unto the LORD. Kneeling down in the inner court, but within sight of Eli, whose throne in the porch probably overlooked the whole inner space, Hannah prays unto “Jehovah of Sabaoth” for a male child. Her humility appears in her thrice calling herself Jehovah’s handmaid; her earnestness in the threefold repetition of the entreaty that Jehovah would look on her, and remember her, and not forget her. With her prayer she also makes a twofold vow in case her request is granted. The son given her is, first, to serve not for a stipulated number of years, as was the law with the Levites (Num 4:3), but for life; and, secondly, he is to be a Nazarite. We gather from Num 6:2 that Moses found this singular institution in existence, and only regulated it, and admitted it into the circle of established and legalised ordinances. Essentially it was a consecration to God, a holy priesthood, but not a sacrificing priesthood nor one by right of birth, as the Aaronic, but personal, and either for a limited period, or for life. During the continuance of the vow, a Nazarite might

(1) partake of no produce of the vine, signifying thereby abstinence from self-indulgence and carnal pleasure. He might

(2) take no part in mourning for the dead, even though they were his nearest relatives, because his holier duties raised him above the ordinary joys and sorrows, the cares and occupations of every day life. Lastly, no razor might come upon his head, the free growing hair being at once the distinctive mark by which all men would recognise his sacred calling, and also a sign that he was not bound by the usual customs of life. By Hannah’s first vow Samuel was devoted to service in the sanctuary, by the second to a holy consecrated life. This institution remained in existence unto our Lord’s days; for John the Baptist was also consecrated to God as a Nazarite by his mother, though not as Samuel, also given to minister in the temple.

1Sa 1:12-18

She continued praying. Hannah’s prayer was long and earnest, but in silence. She spake not in, but “to her heart,” to herself. It was an inward supplication, which only her own heart and God heard. Eli watched, and was displeased. Possibly silent prayer was something unusual. It requires a certain advance in civilisation and refinement to enable a supplicant to separate the petition from the outward expression of it in spoken words, and a strong faith before any one can feel that God hears and knows the silent utterances of the heart (comp. Mat 8:8-10). Naturally men think that they shall be heard for their much speaking, and for speaking aloud. Unused then to such real prayer, Eli, as he marked the quivering lips, the prostrate form, the face flushed with earnestness, came to the coarse conclusion that she was drunken, and with equal coarseness bids her “put away her wine from her,” that is, go and sleep off the effects of her debauch. Hannah answers indignantly, “No, my lord.” She is “a woman hard of spirit;’, heavy hearted, as we should say, and she had been lightening her heart by pouring out her troubles before Jehovah. She is no “worthless woman;” for Belial is not a proper name, though gradually it became one (2Co 6:15), but means worthlessness, and “a daughter of worthlessness” means a bad woman. “Grief” is rather provocation, vexation. Hannah cannot forget the triumph of her rival, exulting over her many portions, while for her there had been only one. Convinced by the modesty and earnestness of her answer, Eli retracts his accusation, gives her his blessing, and prays that her petition may be granted. And Hannah, comforted by such words spoken by the high priest (Joh 11:51), returned to the sacrificial feast, which apparently was not yet finished, and joined in it, for “she did eat, and her countenance was to her no more,” that is, the grieved and depressed look which she had so long borne had now departed from her. There is no reason for the insertion of the word sad.

HANNAH‘S PRAYER ANSWERED (1Sa 1:19, 1Sa 1:20).

1Sa 1:19, 1Sa 1:20

They rose up. After solemn worship early the next morning Elkanah returned to his home at Ramah, and God answered Hannah’s prayer, and gave her the wished for son. She calls him Samuel, lit. Shemuel (Num 34:20; 1Ch 7:2), which was an ordinary Hebrew name, and means “heard of God,” not “asked of God,” as in the margin of the A.V. It seems to have been the mother’s right to give names to her children (Luk 1:60), and Hannah saw in Samuel, whom she had asked of God, a living proof that she had been heard by him. The name, therefore, is of fuller significance than the reason given for it. Ishmael has virtually the same meaning, signifying “God heareth.”

THE VOW FULFILLED (1Sa 1:21-28).

1Sa 1:21

Elkanah… went up. When at the return of the year Elkanah went up as usual to Shiloh, Hannah remained at home, purposing to wait there till her son was old enough to be given to the Lord. This followed soon after his weaning, which in the East is delayed much longer than with us. In 2 Macc. 7:27 we find three years mentioned as the usual period of lactation, but the chief Jewish authorities make the time one year shorter. At three years old a child in the East would cease to be troublesome; but besides this, there was an order of women attached to the sanctuary (see on 1Sa 2:22), and probably regulations for the training of children devoted to the temple service. The yearly sacrifice, lit. “sacrifice of days,” would include among its duties the carrying to Shiloh of the tithes which were to be consumed before the Lord (Deu 12:17, Deu 12:18), and the payment of those portions of the produce which belonged to Jehovah and the priests, and had become due during the year. His vow shows that Elkanah had ratified Hannah’s words, by adding thereto a thank-offering from himself.

At Shiloh Samuel was to abide forever; his dedication was to be for his whole life. And when Elkanah prays, Only the Lord establish his word, it is evident that he and Hannah expected that a child born under such special circumstances would, like so many children of mothers long barren, be intended for some extraordinary work. The word of Jehovah referred to is that spoken by Eli in Verse 17, which contained not merely the assurance of the birth of a son, but a general confirmation and approval of all that Hannah had prayed for. In Verse 24 the Septuagint reads, “a bullock of three years old,” probably on account of the one bullock mentioned in Verse 25; but as three-tenths of an ephah of flour formed the appointed meat offering for one bullock (Num 15:8-10), the mention of a whole ephah confirms the reading three bullocks. Probably the one bullock in Verse 25 was the special burnt offering accompanying the solemn dedication of Samuel to Jehovah’s service, while the other two were for Elkanah’s usual yearly sacrifice, and the thank offering which he had vowed. At the end of the verse the Hebrews reads, “And the child was a child,” the word in both places being na’ar, which may mean anything up to fifteen years of age. The child really was about three years old, and the Sept. is probably right in reading, “And the child was with them.” Both the Vulgate, however, and the Syriac agree with the Hebrew.

1Sa 1:28

I have lent him. The word lent spoils the meaning: Hannah really in these two verses uses the same verb four times, though in different conjugations, and the same sense must be maintained throughout. Her words are, “For this child I prayed, and Jehovah hath given me my asking which I asked of him: and I also have given back what was asked to Jehovah; as long as he liveth he is asked for Jehovah.” The conjugation translated to give back what was asked literally means to make to ask, and so to give or lend anything asked. The sense here requires the restoration by Hannah of what she had prayed for (comp. Exo 12:35, Exo 12:36), but which she had asked not for herself, but that she might devote it to Jehovah’s service. At the end of 1Sa 1:28 the sing. “he worshipped” is rendered in the pl. by all the versions except the Sept; which omits it. But he, i.e. Elkanah, includes all his household, and it may be correctly translated in the pl; because the sense so requires, without altering the reading of the Hebrew. In the sing. it puts an unnecessary difficulty in the way of the ordinary reader.

HOMILETICS

1Sa 1:9-18

Trial sanctified.

The main facts are

1. Hannah, impelled by trouble, goes to the sanctuary and records her wish in a vow.

2. Eli misjudges her character, but hearkens to her self-defence.

3. Eli discovers therefrom her real piety, and helps to create within her heart an assurance of answer to prayer.

4. Hannah enters on a brighter path.

I. IT BRINGS THE SOUL DIRECT TO GOD. It was doubtless good for Hannah to join the family worship, and derive all possible comfort from the festivals which to the devout mind told of a “mercy” which “endureth forever;” but when sorrow is of the godly sort, when the gentle or heavy hand of God has been duly recognised in trial, the soul needs more than the prayers of others. Heart and flesh then cry out for the living God. There are clearly traceable stages in trial before this result ensues. In the case of Hannah, which is typical of many others, it began with a fond hope deferred, awakening only the anxiety common to such domestic incidents. Then, as time wore on, grief was generated, wearing away the strength of the spirit. Years of silent waiting on Providence followedwonder, doubt, occasional hope, and corresponding despair filling up the experience. The weary heart would turn sometimes to God, and social worship would be valued as a means of grace, but without relief. Sadder and sadder, increasingly sensible of dependence on God, and impelled by the discovery that not even a husband’s love can enter into the deepest sorrow, a strong resolve is taken to seek refuge in God by an act of urgent appeal to him. Such is the proper issue of all trials when sanctified. There is no morose repining, no internal war against the Supreme Will, no utter abandonment to despair, no resting in the sympathy and counsel, or even prayers, of the Church; the soul wants God, and, as never before, carries its load straight to him.

II. IT LEADS TO THE MERCY SEAT. There is all the difference between fleeing to God in ignorant desperation, and recognising his covenant mercies in Christ. No doubt there is compassion forevery poor dark creature who under the impulse of trouble cries out to the invisible God; but it was not without a reason that the devout Hebrew preferred to retire to the place where the ark of the covenant and the mercy seat were kept. She knew, as the most enlightened of her people knew, that there was a way to God, and drawing nigh towards the mercy seat was a distinct recognition of One in whom the troubled might expect to be blessed. Trial still leads us to God, not trusting in our righteousness, but by the “new and living way” consecrated by Christ. And though that invisible mercy seat is ever near, it is the wont of those who are being blessed by trial to seek the house of God, and there, pleading his mercy, find relief and lay off their burdens.

III. IT MAKES NATURAL DESIRES FOR AN EARTHLY GOOD SUBORDINATE TO HIGH RELIGIOUS FEELING. It is not certain at what stage in the providential discipline the event occurred, but the fact is clear that there was a time in the process when a natural love of offspring, per se, became absorbed in a passion for devoting the most precious of gifts to God. It is difficult to trace the purifying process by which pure and lofty spiritual feeling emerges out of the fires, but experience in all ages attests the fact that it does. It is an evidence that trouble is blessed when one can say, “There is none on the earth that I desire beside thee.” All good things are intended to be helpful to our higher spiritual life, and it is a sign of spiritual health when the possession of them is sought primarily for the furtherance of religious ends, either in self or in the world. Religion is not in antagonism with nature. It rather purifies and ennobles it. Personal endowments, reasonable desires for family, or influence, or wealth, are laid at the cross when self is lost in zeal for God. There were a few features in Hannah’s experience which correspond with the action of sanctified trial on others.

1. She learnt the vanity of life apart from God’s blessing. Unless he made life rich with the desired good, there was no sense of joy or perfection in life. It is a great gain to learn the lesson of our need of God in order to feel life to be a daily bliss.

2. She, by the action of long trial, was being weaned from dependence on earthly good for the joy of life, and hence was more free to cherish awakening sympathy with the enduring kingdom of God. Disappointment in temporal affairs has often been blessed to a deepened interest in the unseen realities of Christ’s kingdom.

3. Her religious sensibilities, being gradually quickened and refined, rendered her increasingly sensitive to the terrible abominations of the age, and hence opened her eyes to see the need of some great reformer of the nation. Thus would the natural desire for offspring merge into the hope that she might send forth the man. It is when souls are more alive to their own spiritual condition that they long also for means by which to check prevailing sin.

IV. IT ISSUES IN THE HIGHEST FORM OF PERSONAL CONSECRATION. Solemn vows are the strongest expression of self-surrender. In Hannah’s case a mother gives up her body and soul, her present powers and future possessions and influence, specifically to God. It was not possible for female service to go further. The routine service of the Levite, to be entered on at a definite age, was not enough for the now sanctified woman. Her heart was not satisfied even with the prospect of a son who should grow up in blamelessness of life. It was not the personal comfort of the presence in the house of a loving, pious child that stirred the soul to pray: a vision, given of God, of the coming Messiah imparted spiritual tone to her nature, and nothing would, therefore, give satisfaction short of the consecration from infancy, to the service of the sanctuary, of a son, to be thus prepared for holy labours among the degenerate people, and to be a faint type and useful forerunner of a still more blessed Child. Thus, the limits set by nature, the requirements of an emergency, and the prospective honour of Christ are recognised in an intelligent consecration brought about by the all-wise discipline of him who knows how to qualify for noble service. The exalted ideal of life attained to by this “sorrowful woman” bespeaks the thoroughness of the discipline through which she passed. A young life habituated to the calm and elevating influences of the sanctuary, separated from the sad and sorrow producing evils of the age, untouched by the artificial appliances of man, and nourished in health without the man created stimulants which give so much unreality to conducta very Nazarite in spirit and in bodythis rose before the mind as an object of fond desire, and was laid lovingly at the throne of God; doubtless, also, in prediction of the One true and perfect life.

V. IT QUALIFIES FOR RENDERING CONTINUOUSLY IMPORTANT SERVICE TO THE CHURCH. No better service can be rendered to the Church than to nurture a life in such a way as to impart to it a tone far above the average of spirituality, and while doing that to pour forth from the heart sentiments that shall act as an inspiration to the wise and good in all ages. It was worth while for Hannah to spend years of sorrow, to issue, under the blessing of God, in the superbly beautiful nurture of a son like Samuel, and in the lofty strains of her celebrated song. Sanctified affliction enriches the soul with qualities permanent in value. The invalid gains spiritual power which in daily prayer brings down blessings on those nigh and afar off. The devout mother who has quietly borne reproach for Christ’s sake, sweetens home all the rest of her days by her calm faith in God and ever present gentleness. The merchant who has endured adversity as befits a child of God, gathers from the deep sorrows of his life power to pray and live for imperishable good far in excess of his former capacity. It is good to be afflicted.

If these things be so, there arise several Practical questions deserving conscientious replies:

1. Is desire for temporal good toned and regulated by regard for spiritual usefulness?

2. Do the private unspeakable sorrows of life draw us nearer to God, or render us sullen and bitter?

3. In our approaches to God do we sufficiently recognise the mercy seat of the New Testament?

4. Have we ever consecrated ourselves or our belongings to God by deliberate vow, and as far as nature permits, and the claims of religion require?

5. Does our personal consecration, or the devotion of our offspring to God, approach toward the Nazarite ideal consecration of perfect freedom of life from all that is artificial and unwholesomea holy simplicity?

1Sa 1:9-18

Character misjudged.

I. A RARE FORM OF WORSHIP. It was a rare thing for a solitary woman to be seen offering prayer without audible words and with a semblance of folly. The vicinity of the sanctuary was the scene of many strange and painful events in those days; but here was singularity combined with and expressive of the deepest piety. Prayer, though not in form of set phrase, is true worship when characterised by the features seen in that of the “sorrowful “woman: such as longing of the heart for a definite object, intense fervour of spirit, reverent submission to the will of God, profound regard in what is sought for the Divine glory, and directed to the Source of all power through the mercy seat in Christ. The question of set forms of utterance for public worship must be settled by considerations covering the range of history, and the order and welfare of the Church. The heart of the true Christian will contain petitions which no words can anticipate or express. It is not just to prescribe how individuals shall pray, for a living piety must grow according to its inner laws, which partake of our own individuality. Sometimes the Church may witness the spectacle of unusual acts of worship, and it is good for the world when they arise. Spurious worship, eccentricity in the name of religion, can be readily detected. Deviation from ordinary forms where piety is sincere may occur when intense feeling precludes or subdues utterance. Sighs, tears, groans may be prayers. Or the privacy of the request, though it be made under the eye of worshippers in the house of God, is unsuited to the public ear. Many a secret vow is made on the Sabbath in the sanctuary. And sometimes the spirit may know its want, but cannot speak to God for very awe of the Divine presence.

II. A MISTAKEN JUDGMENT. Eli erred in judgment when he classed among the vile the most devout and holy of the age. Here was an instance of the guardian of the sanctuary, and the chief authority in law and religion, judging from appearance, and not from the heart. The causes of the error were probably such as frequently act among men.

1. Natural inability of man to read the real character by casual outward appearances. The heart is too deep to be penetrated by aid of occasional signs, for the same outward action may proceed from diverse internal motions.

2. Strong tendency in some persons to estimate others by the standard of their own experience. The area of one man’s life may be much broader than that of another. The form, therefore, of religion in the one may be far beyond the appreciation of the other.

3. The strong hold on some good men of conventional modes of worship. Religion in some instances has been trained to find outward expression for itself by rule, and hence whatever expression deviates from the conventional type is liable to be regarded with suspicion.

4. In some cases men hold office in connection with public worship whose sympathies are not broad enough for the varieties of character and want that come under their observation.

III. A NOBLE SELF–VINDICATION. The “sorrowful spirit” of the worshipper shrinks from the very thought of being counted vile and a defamer of the place she loved. The cruel pang of the accusation only developed the strength and beauty of her piety. The depth of her sorrow and the utter absorption of her spirit in the one longing of her life, coupled with a sense of her unworthiness to be used in the high service of Messiah, checked any tendency to anger and recrimination. True self-vindication can dispense with passion. Its qualities are calm self-possession even under cruel wrong, a gentleness of spirit which knows how to be firm, a respectful deference to authority when confronting it, a delicate reference to self and the private sorrows that may have occasioned the misapprehension, an abstention from all that would exasperate, and a plain and fearless assertion of innocence. The comfort of the misjudged lies much in the conviction that God knows all. Religion gains much when the injured exhibit the spirit inculcated and exemplified by Christ. It requires much grace to be a Christian indeed. The world is slow to practise what it always in its heart admires, when the misjudged vindicate themselves after the Saviour’s example.

IV. A LIGHTENED HEART. It was a morn of joy after the long night of sorrow, when, giving a true interpretation to the official words of the high priest, Hannah rose from prayer and went her way. The free, joyful heart shone forth in the countenance, and gave ease to every common duty of life. When God makes us glad, new energy enters into our nature. Hence, true religion, bringing to men elasticity of spirit, increases a man’s power as a citizen, improves his capacity for business, lends lustre to the home, and, in fact, becomes an important element in the material wealth of nations. And what is most important is, the joy which God gives is real, permanent, resting on foundations which abide amid all change. In so far as the really devout are concerned, the lightened heart is the result of

1. The relief natural to true prayer. Even when specific answers are not obtained, the believer is rested and relieved by laying the burden before the mercy seat.

2. Clear indications of God’s acceptance. These vary with the age and circumstances. The high priest was endowed under special conditions with the power of indicating the Divine approval. External channels may convey unmistakably the will of God. The immediate course of events may be seen to correspond to the request. God is at no loss to convey outward intimations that the prayer of faith is not in vain.

3. The inward witness may be given, clear and strong, when God has important ends to accomplish thereby. The Spirit of God is in direct contact with the human, and can make known a truth. Christ’s people know his voice. As the Spirit moved St. Paul to go to definite places, so he moves the true heart to believe in coming answer to prayer.

Practical suggestions:

1. Much prayer may be offered when forms of worship are lacking, in the sanctuary, in the city, on the open sea, and at daily toil.

2. Encouragement may be found in remembering that God understands our thoughts “afar off,” and when words fail.

3. We should not estimate the value of prayer in others by what we can ascertain of it by our observation.

4. The guardians of pure worship have much need of charity and a discriminating spirit.

5. Errors of judgment should be freely admitted when ascertained.

6. The quiet dignity of truth befits all acts of self-defence.

7. The joy coming from God is the real strength and beautifier of life.

1Sa 1:19-28

Conjugal sympathy.

The facts are

1. Hannah, having independently fixed the future of her offspring, reveals the vow to her husband.

2. Elkanah acquiesces in her vow, and allows her will in respect of time and method of perfecting it.

3. A united and solemn surrender of Samuel to his life work.

I. QUALIFIED WIFELY INDEPENDENCE. Although Elkanah knew his wife’s great sorrow, yet in the matters connected with its removal and in the subsequent transactions she evidently followed her own course. It was a great decision to fix a child’s lot in life apart from consultation and consent. The spontaneous choice of a name, though harmonious with a mother’s secret knowledge of past experiences, was in any case, and more so in Hebrew instances, a bold undertaking. The event of naming furnished, most probably, the occasion for explanation and revelation of the anterior vow, and was faced with the most perfect composure. The mother’s feelings are ever to be considered in parting with children as they enter on life’s work; but here the time and method appear to have been fixed by the mother taking the initiative, and, contrary to rule, the wife is the prominent figure in the religious ceremonial of dedication, whose set purpose throughout therein attains its goal. No law of social and domestic life is more clearly laid down in Scripture than the subordination of the wife to the husband, and though there are principles which limit the subordination, and sentiments which convert it into blissful freedom, yet independence of action where offspring are concerned, is as rare as it is, per se, undesirable. The high intellectual and moral qualities which render wifely action free and firm within the sphere of private affairs, are perverted when applied to the independent determination of the destiny of a son. The spirit of self-assertion will have no place in a well ordered home. The grace and the moral power of woman vanish or become enfeebled when deeds are done in secret, and the natural authority of the head of the house is anticipated. Yet there are conditions which render such independence for a season both necessary and even religious.

1. Hannah’s conduct was connected with an event in her religious experience too sacred even for a loving husband to be acquainted with. One cannot unbosom, even to the dearest earthly friend, the deep and passionate longings of the soul after God. The child of promise belongs primarily to the one to whom the promise is made, and so a special proprietorship is created which gives right to choice as to the use to be made of the gift.

2. Confidence in a husband’s sympathy with lofty religious aims will justify wifely freedom, when that freedom is employed to perfect holy purposes. There are great and noble deeds within the proper right of a husband which he would only rejoice to see independently performed by a confiding wife. Where mutual confidence is fortified by years of common sorrow, no great error will be committed in interpreting religious wishes.

3. The soul that is bent on the realisation of a great religious hope, and has pondered it for years, best knows the means by which it may be secured. None but Hannah could see clearly the need of winning over the assistance of Eli, and the previous interview of the woman of “sorrowful spirit” with the high priest required that she should figure in the great ceremonial of devoting a child to God.

II. WISE HUSBANDLY CONSIDERATION. The legal rights secured by Divine law (Num 30:6-8) are at once surrendered by acquiescence in a holy, God-honouring vow; acceptance of a memorial name; deference to wishes in matters of detail, and cheerful cooperation in completing the vow. Piety and prudence combine in making concessions where pure motives have influenced conduct, and where the ends sought are wise and useful. Exacting men never enjoy the full love and confidence of their home. It would be blessed for many homes were the holy daring of Hannah and the wise, gentle bearing of Elkanah more frequent. The key to such conduct lies not in rigid conformity to excellent rules prescribing spheres of action, nor in mutual watchfulness, but in pure affection for a loving, faithful wife; a quick perception of the special providence which overrules earthly trials; sympathy with the noble piety that could so spontaneously and cheerfully surrender the realised hope of many a weary year; a conviction that a devout soul so evidently led on by God is by far the safest guide in matters pertaining to completed vows, and an unexpressed joy in the honour of being permitted to join in offering to God the precious treasure he had given. Hence we may learn a few

General lessons:

1. Personal and private decisions based on a supreme regard for the glory of God, and free from selfishness, are sure to be appreciated in a pious home.

2. A loving recognition of individuality and force of character is essential to perfect domestic harmony.

3. Personal influence in the sphere of home becomes powerful when holy discipline has purged selfishness and brought the spirit into deep sympathy with the kingdom of God.

4. There is no pain, but joy, in sacrifice when our possessions are recognised as truly God’s, and we perceive the honour of their being employed in his name.

5. It is a blessed thing for children to be spontaneously consecrated to God by the prayers of self-sacrificing parents.

6. Those who by reason of circumstances cannot serve in the sanctuary, may perhaps be permitted to nurture children for the ministry of the word.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE.

1Sa 1:9 (1Sa 3:3). (SHILOH.)

The temple of the Lord.

Most of the religious ideas and expressions with which we are familiar had their origin far back in distant ages; and it is interesting and instructive to trace them to their source, and mark their alteration and expansion in the progressive course of Divine revelation. This is the first instance in which the expression “the temple of the Lord” occurs. Notice

I. ITS SCRIPTURAL APPLICATIONS.

1. A material structure. “In the earliest ages God was worshipped without any distinction at any time and at any place, whenever and wherever the promptings of devotion moved in the hearts of his creatures; more especially, however, under the shadow of embowering trees, on hills and mountains, and in places where they had experienced some special manifestations of his favour” (Jahn). The first erection (with the exception of altars) was

(1) the tabernacle or tent (Exo 25:8), here called the temple or (more literally) the palace of Jehovah, as the royal residence of the king of Israel. Afterwards

(2) the temple of Solomon;

(3) of Zerubbabel; and

(4) of Herod.

2. The incarnate Word (Joh 1:14; Joh 2:21; Col 2:19).

3. Christian men. The body of each (1Co 6:19). The whole assembly (1Co 3:16; 2Co 6:16; Eph 2:20-22; 1Pe 2:5). Observe the progress:God for us, with us, in us; Father, Son, Spirit.

4. The heavenly world. Although there is no temple therein Rev 21:22), yet heaven is altogether a temple Rev 7:15).

II. ITS MAIN SIGNIFICANCE in all these applications. It is

1. Set apart for the Lord. Selected, separated, and consecrated as his possession, and for his use.

2. Inhabited by him. His throne is there. He dwells between the cherubim, in fellowship with the redeemed.

3. Manifests him in his holiness and love. His glory appears, his voice is heard, his will is declared (Exo 25:22; Heb 4:16).

4. In it service is rendered to him. At first it was chiefly in outward symbolical acts; afterwards of the man himself, “body, soul, and spirit” (Rom 12:1; 1Pe 2:9; Rev 1:6). In each of these particulars we see the principle of progress, from the natural to the spiritual (1Co 15:46).

III. ITS SPIRITUAL SUGGESTIONS.

1. That the place in which man worships is of far less importance than man himself and his possession of a holy character. No place or building can be holy in the full sense of the word. For holiness implies intelligence, affection, freedom; and these make him unspeakably greater than all “the gorgeous palaces and solemn temples” which the earth contains. “To this man will I look,” etc. (Isa 57:15; 67:1, 2; Mat 12:6). “Let more regard be paid to the promotion of religion than the decoration of churches; for although it is a good thing that churches should be beautiful edifices, yet virtue forms their best crown and ornament. It seems to us that the building of handsome churches pertains rather to the Old Testament, whilst the improvement of character and life is the more peculiar work of the Christian dispensation”.

2. That the pattern to which the character of man must be conformed is Jesus Christ. He is not only the Living Stone to whom every one must come that he may be built up into the “spiritual house,” the Chief Cornerstone on which the whole building rests, but also the perfect Model according to which each and all must be fashioned (Rom 8:29).

3. That the character of man is conformed to its Divine pattern by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost.

4. That only those in whom God dwells here will be fit to dwell with God hereafter, and constitute the heavenly tabernacle and temple Rev 21:3). Above all things, seek to be in the building which God is rearing for his habitation, and for an everlasting monument to his praise.D.

1Sa 1:9-13. (SHILOH.)

Effectual prayer.

Prayer is converse with God. The general principles which are necessary that it may be acceptable and effectual were exemplified by Hannah in the prayer which she offered at the porch of the tabernacle in Shiloh, whilst other and more special principles were contained therein. She was possessed of great intelligence, sensibility, meekness, and spirituality of mind, and embodied the noblest spiritual element existing amongst her people, even as she was a type of their history (ever rising out of weakness and distress through humiliation, faith, and prayer, into strength, and joy, and triumph). Consider her prayer as

I. BORN OF DEEP SORROW. “She was in bitterness of soul, and wept sore “(1Sa 1:10). Seemingly forgotten of God, an object of reproach and scorn, without indulging feeling’s of resentment, unable to tell her trouble to any one else, she betook herself to him who is “a Refuge for the oppressed in times of trouble.” Prayer is the best resource at such times; and grief of heart, together with the loneliness which it usually causes, often lead to “the pouring out of the soul before the Lord.” What a beneficent power is sorrow in a world like this! And how blessed are the fruits which, through Divine grace, it produces! (Psa 55:22; Hos 2:15; 1Pe 5:7).

II. UTTERED ONLY IN THE HEART (1Sa 1:13). The first recorded instance of silent or mental prayer. The ordinary worshippers at the tabernacle prayed with audible words, and significant gestures; and in the East to this day the people pray in the same manner, and have little or no idea of praying only in the mind. They are more demonstrative than ourselves. “Mental prayer is a lifting up of the mind to God in actual or virtual supplication for what we desire.” It is

1. Frequently a necessity; inasmuch as it would not be always proper to express in the presence of others the desires of the heart.

2. Presumptively sincere; inasmuch as it consists of direct intercourse with the Invisible and Omniscient One, and cannot spring from a desire to be seen or heard of men.

3. Highly beneficial; inasmuch as it serves to strengthen the spirit of prayer, and is heard of God (Neh 2:4). Even when it does not shape itself in words within the mind, but consists of aspirations and “groanings which cannot be uttered,” “he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the spirit” therein (Rom 8:27).

III. EXPRESSIVE OF FERVENT DESIRE. Desire is the soul of prayer. It arises from, and is proportionate to, the sense of need. Its intensity is not always manifested by audible words; for sometimes its strength is dispersed and exhausted thereby; whereas silence condenses and increases it. “Deepest waters stillest flow.” Our desires cannot be too fervent, or our requests too importunate, provided they be for things which are according to the will of God (Rom 12:12; 1Jn 5:14, 1Jn 5:15).

“Fervent love

And lively hope with violence assail
The kingdom of the heavens, and overcome
The will of the Most High; not in such sort
As man prevails o’er man; but conquers it
Because ’tis willing to be conquer’d; still,
Though conquer’d by its mercy conquering.”

Dante, ‘Div. Com.,’ Par. 20.

IV. EXHIBITING GENUINE FAITH. “O Lord of hosts,”etc. (1Sa 1:11). Like Abraham, she “believed in the Lord” (Gen 15:6); trusted, leant on him, as a child rests on the bosom of a parent. She had exalted conceptions of his character; believed in

(1) his living personality, supreme dominion, power, goodness, faithfulness (Heb 11:6); relied on

(2) his promises, summed up in the assurance, “I will be your God” (Exo 6:7; Le Exo 26:12); and

(3) although she had no express promise of the particular blessing which she desired, yet, inwardly taught, she applied the general promise to herself, and had “confidence respecting things hoped for” (Heb 11:1). When express promises are wanting, it behoves us to seek particular blessings with the utmost dependence and submission; but, so far from being prohibited from seeking them, we are encouraged to do so by the unlimited range of such directions as this: “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray,” etc. (Mar 11:24).

V. DISTINGUISHED BY ENTIRE SELF–SURRENDER. Once and again she called herself the “handmaid” of the Lord, as belonging to him, and wholly devoted to his service. Her will she freely offered up in sacrifice to his, and made a fresh surrender of herself in her solemn engagement to render back to him the gift he might bestow. She sought not her own gratification, but his glory and the welfare of his people. “The vow of the Nazarite embodied the yearning of the better part of the nation for a moral and religious reformation, as the only hope of Israel. It symbolised Israel’s perfect calling of voluntary self-surrender to God” (Edersheim). When we seek not our own, but make it subservient to higher and larger good, we place ourselves in a line with the Divine purposes, and may entertain sure and steadfast hope of success.

VI. OFFERED WITH STEADFAST PERSEVERANCE. “She continued praying before the Lord” (1Sa 1:12). It was not a momentary ebullition of feeling, but the fixed direction of her whole soul (Gen 32:26; Luk 11:8; Luk 18:1; Eph 6:18).

VII. FOLLOWED BY AN ABUNDANT BLESSING. The benediction of the high priest (1Sa 1:17) was to her an oracle of God, to be in due time fulfilled; whilst the immediate effect on her heart was peace and gladness, and “she went away, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.” “Prayer is heart’s ease to the gracious soul.”D.

“Lord, what a change within us one short hour,
Spent in thy presence, will prevail to make;
What heavy burdens from our bosoms take;
What parched grounds refresh as with a shower!”

(Trench).

1Sa 1:11 (21, 23, 28). (SHILOH.)

Vows.

“And she vowed a vow.” The first recorded instance of a religious yowls that of Jacob (Gen 28:20; Gen 31:13). Under a sense of obligation to God, he entered into a spontaneous and solemn engagement before him to do what he believed would be pleasing in his sight, joining with it the desire of obtaining certain benefits at his hand. He did not, as it has been said, make a bargain with God; but gratefully repeated what had been virtually promised (“if” or “since God will be with me,” etc.), and simply desired those blessings, without which it would be impossible for him to fulfil his purpose. Directions concerning the practice of making vows were given in the Law (Lev 27:1-34.; Num 6:1-27; Num 30:1-16.). The age of the judges was an age of vows. “Then appears a new power of the age, the binding vowa spasmodic impulse, dangerous to many, yet in the greatest emergencies of life indispensable; bracing up the deepest energies, and working the greatest marvels; often renovating, or else entirely transforming, whole nations and religions; assuming a thousand forms, and in all, while the first fidelity endures, exercising an indomitable power” (Ewald). JephthahSamsonSamuel. Vows are seldom alluded to in the New Testament (Luk 1:15; Act 18:18; Act 21:23). In some of their forms, and in so far as they might embody a legal spirit, they are done away. But they are not prohibited; and, understood as denoting a solemn binding of ourselves to the service of God, or resolutions and engagements made before him to perform or omit certain definite acts, they are often needful and beneficial. Consider that

I. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS TO WHICH THEY MAY LAWFULLY PERTAIN.

1. Things over which we possess a rightful authority. We may not vow what does not belong to us.

2. Things which ought to be done, independently of vows; but the obligation of which is felt for the first time, or with unusual force.

3. Things which are in themselves indifferent; being right or wrong according to the individual conscience, but with reference to which a vow creates a new obligation. The vow of a Nazarite to abstain from wine, etc.

4. Things, more particularly, that relate to the use of

(1) property (Gen 28:22; 1Co 16:2);

(2) time;

(3) influence over others, especially in the training of children;

(4) the various powers of body and soul (Rom 12:1).

II. THERE ARE SPECIAL OCCASIONS ON WHICH THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY MADE.

1. Severe troublepersonal affliction, nearness to death, bereavement; bringing the invisible and eternal nigh, teaching dependence on God, and exciting desire for his help (Isa 66:13, Isa 66:14).

2. Singular prosperityunexpected recovery from illness, extraordinary deliverance from danger, unwonted providential and spiritual benefits, temporal success.

3. Spiritual exercisesin public worship, private meditation, religious profession.

4. Starting points of lifea birthday, the first day of a new year, the commencement of a fresh enterprise. These things are often occasions of spiritual illumination and impression, mountain heights that rise above the mists of ordinary life; and it is well to embody the views and feelings then entertained in fixed purposes, definite resolutions, solemn vows for future guidance and help. “Vow, and pay unto the Lord your God” (Psa 76:11).

III. THEY SHOULD ALWAYS BE MADE IN A PROPER SPIRIT. With

1. Due deliberation (Ecc 5:2), so as to ascertain “what the will of the Lord is,” and what we may reasonably hope to accomplish, lest they should become a burden and temptation.

2. A sense of dependence on Divine grace; and not in a self-righteous spirit, as if our service were exceedingly meritorious, and deserved to be richly rewarded.

3. Humble and earnest prayer for the aid of the Divine Spirit. Vows made in our own strength are “as the morning cloud and the early dew.”

4. Faith in Christ, the perfect pattern of self-surrender and self-sacrifice, the way of approach to God, the medium of Divine blessing. “Bind the sacrifice with cords, even unto the horns of the altar” (Psa 118:27).

IV. WHEN MADE THEY OUGHT TO BE STRICTLY FULFILLED. Their making is optional, voluntary; not so their performance. Their obligation

1. Changes not with a change of feeling, even with respect to those things which are, in themselves, indifferent.

“The things which are in insight willed
Must be in hours of gloom fulfilled.”

2. Rests upon the same ground as that of the obligation of promises generally, and is specially strong because of their sacred character.

3. Is enforced by the consequences of their observance or neglect. Their fulfilment is a means of grace. Broken vows undermine the foundations of character, interfere with Divine fellowship, and pave the way to destruction (Ecc 5:4-6).

4. Requires their performance with sincerity (in the sense intended, not by the substitution of something else, not in part merely), cheerfulness (Psa 116:17, Psa 116:18), and promptitude. “Defer not.” “There is a Greek mythical story of the treatment of the goddess Juno by Mandrabulus the Samian. This man had, under her auspices, and by her directions, discovered a golden mine. In the first flush of gratitude he vowed to her a golden ram; however, he presently exchanged that for a silver one, and again that for a very small brass one, and that for nothing at all” (Trench). “It is storied of a merchant that in a great storm at sea vowed to Jupiter, if he would save him and his vessel, to give him a hecatomb. The storm ceaseth, and he bethinks that a hecatomb was unreasonable; he resolves on seven oxen. Another tempest comes, and now again he vows the seven at least. Delivered, then also he thought that seven were too many, and one ox would serve his turn. Yet another peril comes, and now he vows solemnly to fall no lower; if he might be rescued, an ox Jupiter shall have. Again freed, the ox sticks in his stomach, and he would fain draw his devotion to a lower rate; a sheep was sufficient. But at last, being set ashore, he thought a sheep too much, and purposeth to carry to the altar only a few dates. But by the way he eats up the dates, and lays on the altar only the shells. After this manner do many perform their vows”.D.

1Sa 1:13-18. (SHILOH.)

Undeserved rebuke.

The duty of rebuking others when they do evil is often enjoined (Le 1Sa 19:17; 1Th 5:14), and is especially incumbent on those who occupy positions of authority. But how seldom is rebuke given or received aright! Eli, the aged judge and high priest, sitting on the judgment seat, “by a post of the temple of the Lord,” and observing a woman exhibiting signs of excited feeling, severely rebuked her for being intoxicated with wine. In his words, and what followed, we have rebuke

I. UTTERED WITHOUT JUSTICE (1Sa 1:13, 1Sa 1:14). There was certainly apparent ground for the judgment he formed; for excitement caused by wine was probably no uncommon thing at the tabernacle in those corrupt times. But he did not “judge righteously” (Joh 7:24). Learn

1. That apparent ground for censure is often found on inquiry to be really groundless. Therefore there should be proof before reproof.

2. That the most excellent are often the most misjudged, especially in religious matters. Whilst sensual excitement was often seen, spiritual excitement was rare. Religious services were formal, cold, and dead; and holy fervour was naturally misunderstood and misinterpreted by superficial observerses So they who were filled with the Spirit on the day of Pentecost were accused of being filled with new wine. And men of large views, disinterested motives, and exalted aims are often condemned by the ignorant, selfish, and unspiritual.

3. That the highest in authority are liable to err in judgment. Infallibility belongs to God alone. The assumption of it by men is rebuked by their own manifest mistakes and failings, and is an insult to heaven.

4. That persons who think that they see clearly the faults of others are commonly blind to their own transgressions (Mat 7:3; Rom 2:1). Eli was unconscious of his own easily besetting sin, which consisted in his indulgent treatment of his children and their vices.

5. That those who censure others should themselves be undeserving of censure.

6. That our own exposure to judgment should make us cautious in passing judgment on others (Mat 7:1-5).

7. That it is the part of charity to put the best construction on their conduct. “Believeth all things; hopeth all things.” Eli exhibited a want of knowledge, consideration, charity, and tenderness. How different the High Priest and Judge “with whom we have to do”!

II. BORNE WITH MEEKNESS. Hannah was not only innocent of the vice for which she was rebuked, but was at the time uttering a vow that if the Lord would give her a son he should be a Nazarite, and a life long protest against that vice and other prevailing evils. Her fervour of spirit was equalled by her calmness, self-control, and discreet answer to the reproach of Eli (1Sa 1:15, 1Sa 1:16). Learn

1. That resentment and retaliation toward unjust accusers afford no evidence of innocence. Some persons when rebuked fly into a passion, and utter worse judgments on others than have been pronounced on themselves.

2. That a good conscience can be calm under accusation.

3. That appearances which seem to justify censure should be as fully as possible explained.

4. That those who say they are not guilty of sin should show their abhorrence of sin. “Call not thine handmaid a daughter of Belial” (‘a worthless woman’). In her view intoxication was a great sin, and deserving of severe condemnation.

5. How beautiful is “the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit.”

6. To look to Christ as the perfect pattern of the spirit here exhibited, and the source of the grace which is needed for its exercise (1Pe 2:20-23). “Let me find grace in thy sight.”

III. TURNED INTO BENEDICTION (1Sa 1:17, 1Sa 1:18). Learn

1. That those who see that they have erred in judgment should be ready to acknowledge their error.

2. That meekness and patience are adapted to change a severe reprover into a kind friend.

3. That the endurance of rebuke in a right spirit is often a means of obtaining a favourable answer to prayer. God himself spoke through the voice of the high priest (1Sa 1:17; Joh 11:51).

4. That it also causes perturbation and sorrow to give place to peace and joy (Mat 5:5, Mat 5:11). “Strive to rejoice when others use towards thee words of injury or rebuke, or despise thee. For a rich treasure lies hid beneath this dust; and, if thou take it willingly, thou wilt soon find thyself rich unperceived by those who have bestowed this gift upon thee” (Scupoli).D.

HOMILIES BY D. FRASER

1Sa 1:13-18

Harsh judgment meekly answered.

We hear much of the mothers of eminent men, and it is easy to see whence Samuel derived his elevation of mind, his religious temperament, and the natural aptitude to be a seer and prophet of God. It was from his motherthe sensitive, poetical, devout, unselfish Hannah. Her prayer at the house of the Lord in Shiloh shows her in a noble light. She asked for no vengeance on her adversary Peninnah, who had so often taunted her, but only for a son whom she might devote as a pure Nazarite to Jehovah’s service. Her thought recurred to the last great judge of Israelthe Nazarite Samson. The work which he might have performed had been very imperfectly done; and Hannah’s devout and patriotic wish Was to give birth to one who might repair the failure of Samson, as well as remedy the evil wrought by the sons of Eli, and work a great deliverance for Israel.

I. PIOUS EMOTION HARSHLY CENSURED. If Hannah’s prayer had been mocked by the profane, it had not surprised her; but this was her trial, that the venerable priest, whose duty it was to recognise and encourage religious aspiration, cruelly misconstrued her agitation, and charged her with wickedness. Eli was weak towards men, stern to a woman. He could not restrain his own sons, but he could speak sharply and severely to Hannah. The only palliation of his readiness to impute evil to her lies in the fact that, through his weakness, there had come to be a great license of manners at the time, and women of Israel misconducted themselves at the very seat of worship. Eli took Hannah for one of these, and her holy ardour for the agitation of one unduly excited by wine. Religious emotion, especially in persons of a sensitive and pensive nature, may resemble the effect of “wine wherein is excess” in the eyes of a careless or unsympathetic obserVerse And this applies to the joyful as well as to the sorrowful in spirit. On the day of Pentecost, when the power of the Spirit descended on the disciples of our Lord, and joy in the Holy Ghost expressed itself in their looks and words, some of the bystanders began to mock and say, “These men are full of new wine.” That religious fervour should be unappreciated by worldly minds need cause no wonder. That tears and prayers poured forth before the unseen God should be despised as drivelling superstition, or the flush of spiritual gladness derided as irrational frenzy, by persons of a cold, unbelieving temper, is what may be expected. But it is hard to bear misconstruction from men like Eli, who ought to understand that the spirit of man or woman sometimes faints, sometimes leaps for joy before the Lord.

II. THE EQUANIMITY OF A GOOD CONSCIENCE. When one is quite conscious of Innocence he can meet accusations with calmness, and repel them without passion or bitterness. If Hannah had been unguarded in eating or drinking at the feast after the sacrifice in Shiloh, she would probably have given a sharp answer to Eli, and exonerated herself from his charge with some heat of temper. But her conscience was quite clear in the matter. From her vow to make the son for whose birth she prayed a Nazarite, we infer that she was strongly sensible of the evils which indulgence in wine, and consequent licentious excess, had brought on the nation. So her answer to the priest, while firm, was calm, and even meek: “No, my Lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit.”

III. THE TRUE RESOURCE OF THE SORROWFUL. “I have poured out my soul before the Lord.” Hannah abhorred the kind of evil of which Eli accused her. “Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial.” Alas, how many, because they are in low spirits, or vexed with their lot, seek exhilaration in wine or strong drink! It is a gross and dangerous consolation, fit for children of Belial, not for children of God. “Is any afflicted? Let him pray.” Is any anxious? Let him by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, make his request known to God. To be excited with wine is to have the imagination and passions fired through the flesh and the senses. For a time care or grief may be forgotten, and the mind may seem to become gay and brilliant; but as the appetite grows, and the fallacious pleasure beguiles, there ensues degradation and sorrow upon sorrow; the mind is clouded and enfeebled, and the heart made selfish and gross. How different from the excitement of the praying heart that is ” filled with the Spirit!” This takes hold of the best and highest part of our nature, and from this acts on the whole mansubdues sensual passion, scatters delusion, and while it may for a time agitate the frame, as Hannah’s was agitated, never disturbs or unhinges the regulative principles of reason and conscience within.

IV. THE COMFORT AFTER PRAYER. Whatever the worth of Eli’s personal character, his office gave weight to his words; and when he invoked from the God of Israel an answer to Hannah’s petition, she received his words with reverence, and went homo with a glad assurance in her heart. Have not we a great High Priest who misunderstands no one, requires no corrective explanation, discourages no suppliant; and is it not he who has said, “What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them”? Look to Jesus, and where is your burden? It is gone. Where are your tears? They are wiped away. Where is your desired thing, your Samuel? It is at hand. Go your way when you have poured out your prayer, for he has heard you, and “let your countenance be no more sad.”F.

HOMILIES BY B. DALE

1Sa 1:19-28. (RAMAH and SHILOH)

Samuel’s birth and infancy.

(References1Ch 29:29, “the seer;” Psa 99:9; Jer 15:1; Act 3:24; Act 13:20; Heb 12:1-29 :32; Apoc. Ecclus. 46:13-20.) Consolation and hope were from the first associated with the birth of children (Gen 3:15; Gen 4:1, Gen 4:25; Gen 5:29; Gen 21:6). More than ordinary joy (Joh 16:24) was felt at the birth of Samuel by his mother, because of the peculiar circumstances connected therewith, and the expectations entertained by her of the good which he might effect for Israel. Often as she looked upon her God-given infant she would think, “What manner of child shall this be?” (Luk 1:66), and ask, “How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?” (Jdg 13:12). Nor did she fail to do her utmost towards the fulfilment of her exalted hopes. The child was

I. REGARDED AS A DIVINE GIFT (Psa 127:4). Every little infant bears the impress of the “Father of spirits” (Jas 3:9).

“Trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home.”

The gift of a fresh, new, mysterious human life, with its vast capabilities, is a great gift, and demands grateful acknowledgment of the Divine goodness; hut it is not an absolute gift; it is rather a trust which involves serious responsibilities on the part of those into whose hands it is placed. God says in effect, “Take this child,” etc. (Exo 2:9).

II. DESIGNATED BY AN APPROPRIATE NAME (1Sa 1:20). Samuel = heard of God. “The mother names, the father assents, God approves, and time confirms the nomination” (Hunter). Like other personal names in the Bible, it was full of significance; being a grateful memorial of the goodness and faithfulness of God in the past, and a constant incentive to faith and prayer in the future. “Our very names should mind us of our duty.” The name “Samuel” was uttered by the Lord as mindful of his history, and recognising his special relation to himself (1Sa 3:10). The name of a child is not an unimportant matter, and it should be given with due consideration. When parents give their children names borne by excellent men, they should train them to follow in the footsteps of such men.

III. NURTURED WITH MOTHERLY TENDERNESS (1Sa 1:22-25). His mother was herself his nurse (1Sa 1:23), not intrusting him to others, and not neglecting him, whereby many young lives are sacrificed; but thoughtfully, carefully, and constantly ministering to his physical needs, praying over him, and directing his thoughts, with the earliest dawn of reason, toward the Lord of hosts. That she might the more perfectly fulfil her trust, she remained at home, and went not up to Shiloh until he was weaned. Her absence from the sanctuary was justifiable, her worship at home was acceptable, and the service which she rendered to her child was a service rendered to God and to his people. “A mother’s teachings have a marvellous vitality in them; there is a strange living power in that good seed which is sown by a mother’s hand in her child’s heart in the early dawn of the child’s being, when they two are alone together, and the mother’s soul gushes forth on her child, and the child listens to his mother as a God; and there is a deathless potency in a mother’s prayers and tears for those whom she has borne which only God can estimate” (W.L. Alexander). “Who is best taught? He that is taught of his mother” (‘Talmud’).

IV. PRAYED OVER WITH FATHERLY SOLICITUDE. Elkanah consented to the vow of his wife (Num 30:6, Num 30:7), and appears to have made it his own (1Sa 1:21). He was zealous for its performance, and whilst he agreed with her in the desire of its postponement for a brief period, he expressed the wish in prayer, “Only the Lord establish his word” (1Sa 1:23). “Word, that is, may he fulfil what he designs with him, and has promised by his birth (1Sa 1:11, 1Sa 1:20). The words refer, therefore, to the boy’s destination to the service of God; which the Eternal has in fact acknowledged by the partial fulfilment of the mothers wish” (Bunsen). HIS PRAYER indicates, with respect to the Divine word

1. Confidence in its truth. He believed

(1) that it was his word which had been uttered by the high priest (1Sa 1:17);

(2) that its Divine origin and faithfulness had been in part confirmed by his own act (1Sa 1:20); and

(3) that it would be completely established by his bringing about the end designed.

2. Desire of its fulfilment.

(1) As a matter of great importance.

(2) Deeply felt. “Only.”

(3) Through the continued and gracious operation of God. “The Lord establish his word.”

3. Obedience to its requirements. In order to its establishment, cooperation on their part was

(1) Necessary. God’s purposes and promises are fulfilled in connection with human endeavour, and not independently of it.

(2) Obligatory. It had been solemnly promised by them, and was a condition of the bestowment of the Divine blessing.

(3) Fully resolved upon. “His father used to open his breast when he was asleep and kiss it in prayer over him, as it is said of Origen’s father, that the Holy Ghost would take possession thereof” (‘Life of Sir Thomas Browne’).

V. CONDUCTED TO THE HOUSE OF THE LORD. As soon as he was weaned “she took him up with her” (1Sa 1:24), and “they brought the child to Eli” (1Sa 1:25). Children are in their right place in the temple (Mat 21:15, Mat 21:16), and their praises are acceptable to the Lord. Even infants (sucklings) belong to the kingdom of heaven, and are capable of being blessed by him (Mat 19:13). Therefore the “little ones” should be brought unto him (Mat 18:14).

VI. DEDICATED TO A LIFE–LONG SERVICE (1Sa 1:25-28), i.e. a continual (and not a limited or periodical) service at the sanctuary as a Levite, and an entire (and not a partial) service as a Nazarite. It was done

(1) with a burnt offering,

(2) accompanied by a thankful acknowledgment of the goodness of God in answer to prayer offered on the same spot several years previously, and

(3) in a full surrender of the child. “My child shall be entirely and absolutely thy servant. I give up all my maternal rights. I desire to be his mother only in so far as that he shall owe his existence to me; after that I give him up to thee” (Chrysostom). “For this child I prayed, and the Lord hath granted me my request which I asked of him; therefore I also make him one asked of the Lord all the days that he liveth; he is asked of the Lord” (Keil). So the vow was performed. And in the spirit of this dedication all parents should give back to God “the children which he hath given them.”

VII. FOLLOWED BY PARENTAL PRAYERS AND THANKSGIVINGS. “He (Elkanah) worshipped the Lord there” (1Sa 1:28). “And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the Lord.” (1Sa 2:1). “And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house” (1Sa 2:11). The sacrifice made in learning the child behind was great, but it was attended, through Divine grace, with great joy. The more any one gives to God, the more God gives back to him in spiritual blessing. Hannah felt little anxiety or fear for the safety of her child, for she believed that he would “keep the feet of his saints” (1Sa 2:9). What holy influences ever rest on children whose parents pray for them “without ceasing!” and what multitudes have by such means been eternally saved!D.

“The boy was vowed

Unto the temple service. By the hand
She led him, and her silent soul, the while,
Oft as the dewy laughter of his eye
Met her sweet serious glance, rejoiced to think
That aught so pure, so beautiful, was hers,
To bring before her God.
I give thee to thy Godthe God that gave thee,
A wellspring of deep gladness to my heart!

And precious as thou art,

And pure as dew of Hermon, he shall have thee,
My own, my beautiful, my undefiled!

And thou shalt be his child.

Therefore, farewell!I go, my soul may fail me,
As the stag panteth for the water brooks,

Yearning for thy sweet looks.

But thou, my firstborn, droop not, nor bewail me!
Thou in the Shadow of the Rock shalt dwell,

The Rock of Strength.Farewell!”

(Mrs. Hemans).

Fuente: The Complete Pulpit Commentary

1Sa 1:1. A certain man of Ramathaim-zophim This might be translated, the Ramahs of the guards; possibly because the village was divided into two parts, situated each upon a hill, where there might be a watch-tower, and centinels placed. Various other reasons are given for the name; for which see Buddaeus, Hist. 5: tom. 2. By comparing the words in this verse with those in 1Ch 23:32; 1Ch 23:32 and the following, it appears, that Elkanah was of the tribe of Levi and of the family of Kohath, and consequently was not a priest, as some have supposed, much less the high-priest. See Selden de Success. in Pontif. lib. 1: cap. 18.

Fuente: Commentary on the Holy Bible by Thomas Coke

FIRST PART: SAMUEL

1 Samuel 1-7

Samuels Life and Work as Judge, Priest and Prophet, Directed Towards a Through Reformation of the Theocracy and Laying the Foundation of the Theocratic Kingdom

____________

FIRST DIVISION: SAMUELS EARLY LIFE

1 Samuel 1-3

____________

FIRST SECTION
Samuels Birth in Answer to Prayer to the Lord

1Sa 1:1-20

I. Samuels parents, the Ephrathite Elkanah and the childless Hannah. 1Sa 1:1-8

1Now [om. Now1] there was a certain [om. certain] man of Ramathaim-zophim,2 of Mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of 2Elihu, the son of Tohu, the Son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah 3had children, but [and] Hannah had no children. And this man went up yearly out of [from] his city to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts [Hosts] in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there [And there the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, 4were priests of Jehovah3]. And when the time was that Elkanah offered, Hebrews 5 gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions; but unto Hannah he gave a worthy [double4] portion, for he loved Hannah, but [and] 6the Lord [Jehovah] had shut up her womb. And her adversary also [om. also] provoked her sore [ins. also], for [om. for] to make her fret because5 the Lord [Jehovah] 7had shut up her womb. And as he did so [And so it happened6] year by year; when she went up to the house of the Lord [Jehovah], so she [she thus] provoked 8voked her, therefore [and] she wept and did not eat. Then said Elkanah her husband [And Elkanah her husband said] to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?

II. Hannahs Prayer far a Son. 1Sa 1:9-18 a

9So [And] Hannah rose up after they [she7] had eaten in Shiloh, and after they [she] had drunk. Now [And] Eli the priest sat upon a [the] seat by a [the] post 10of the temple [Sanctuary8] of the Lord [Jehovah]. And she was in bitterness of 11soul, and prayed unto the Lord [Jehovah], and wept sore. And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts [Jehovah of Hosts], if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thy handmaid, but [and] wilt give unto thine handmaid a male-child, then I will give him unto the Lord [Jehovah] all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his 12head. And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the Lord [Jehovah], 13that Eli marked her mouth. Now [And] Hannah, she [om. she9] spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore [and] Eli 14thought she had been [was] drunken. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou 15be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong16drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord [Jehovah]. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial [dissolute woman10]; for out of the abundance 17of my complaint and [ins. my] grief have I spoken hitherto. Then [And] Eli answered and said, Go in peace; and the God of Israel grant thee [om. thee] thy 18a petition that thou hast asked of him. And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight [thine eyes].

III. Samuels Birth. 1Sa 1:18-20

18b So [And] the woman went her way and did eat, and her countenance was no 19more sad.11 And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord [Jehovah], and returned and came to their house to Ramah. And Elkanah 20knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord [Jehovah] remembered her. Wherefore [And] it came to pass, when the time was come about, after Hannah had [that Hannah] conceived, that she [and] bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because [For, said she,] I have [om. have] asked him of the Lord [Jehovah].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL12

I. Samuels Parents. 1Sa 1:1-8

1Sa 1:1-2. And there was a man of Ramathaim-zophim.Here an account is given of Samuels genealogy and birth-place.

There is no sufficient ground for adopting (as Thenius does) the reading of the Sept. MS. R. (Vat.) [there was a man] instead of [and there was a man], since this latter does not affect the independence of the Books of Samuel; for the [and] does not indicate attachment to something preceding, the continuation of the Book of Judges, but [and there was] stands here, as it often does at the beginning of a narrative, as historical introductory formula, Jos 1:1; Jdg 1:1; Rth 1:1; 2Sa 1:1; 1Ki 1:1; Est 1:1; Ezr 1:1; Eze 1:1; Jon 1:1.

The father of Samuel was a man of Ramathaim-zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim, named Elkanah. The place Ramathaim () is doubtless the same that is called in 1Sa 1:3 his city, and afterwards in 1Sa 1:19; 1Sa 2:11 by the shorter name Ramah (), whence it appears that it was not merely the family-residence, but also Elkanahs abode, where he had his house. The full name Ramathaim-zophim is found here only. The dual Two-hills points to the site of the place as on the sides or summits of two hills. It is the birth-place of Samuel (1Sa 1:19); the same Ramah in which he had his house (1Sa 7:17), the central point of his labors (1Sa 8:4; 1Sa 15:34; 1Sa 16:13; 1Sa 19:18-22) and his abode as long as he lived, and where he was buried (1Sa 26:1; 1Sa 28:3). But this Ramah of Samuel, according to Pressels clear statement in Herzog (R.-E. s. v. Rama), is most probably identical with the Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:25); for the statement of Josephus (Ant. 8, 12, 3) that Ramathon,13 which = [Ramathaim] and is therefore doubtless the Ramah of Samuel, was forty Stadia from Jerusalem, and that of Eusebius (Onomast. s. v. ) that it was somewhat farther north in a line from Jerusalem towards Bethel, carry us into the territory of Benjamin. If it be urged against this view that, according to Jdg 4:5 and this passage, Ramah of Samuel was in the mountains of Ephraim, and therefore in the Tribe-territory of Ephraim, it is to be observed on the other hand that the mountains of Ephraim stretch into the Tribe of Benjamin, and not only include its northern mountains, but extend towards Jerusalem and unite with the mountains of Judah. The Ramah of Samuel lay in Benjamin near Gibeah, Sauls home, and Mizpah. The addition zophim () distinguishes it from the other places of the same name, and indicates the district (the land of Zuph 1Sa 9:5) in which it lay, whose name is to be derived from the family of Zuph or Zophim from whom Elkanah descended (comp. 1Ch 6:11; 1Ch 6:20). Since, according to this, Zophim indicates a region, which took its name from the descendants of Zuph, the place Sba, which has lately been discovered west of Jerusalem, cannot be the Ramah of Samuel, as Robinson and Ritter suppose (see Then. schs, exeget. Studien, II. 134 sq., and Ewald, Gesch. II. 595). It is rather to be sought in the site of the present Er-Ram between four and five (Eng.) miles, as Josephus states, from Jerusalem on the summit or side of a conical mountain on the road from Jerusalem to Bethel. When Saul (in 1Sa 9:5) comes into the land of Zuph, he straightway finds Samuel in this city. That this city, Samuels abode, is identical with Ramathaim-zophim here is beyond doubt. But against the view that it, together with the region Zuph, belonged to Benjamin, and in support of the view that it is different from Ramah of Benjamin, and lay in the territory of Ephraim, the principal consideration adduced is Sauls route (1Sa 9:4 to 1Sa 10:2): on the return from Ramah to Gibeah, Saul, it is said, certainly took the directest road; but, according to 1Sa 10:2-5, he first crossed the border of Benjamin (1Sa 10:2), and then came into the neighborhood of Bethel (1Sa 10:3), which lay close to the border of Benjamin and Ephraim; according to this, Ramah of Samuel was situated north of Bethel in Ephraim not far from Gibeah (1Sa 1:20) but near Shiloh (1Sa 1:24), for if it had been far from Shiloh, the animals for offering would not have been carried from home. So Then. on 1Sa 9:5, p. 34. But the assumption that Saul went the directest way to Gibeah is not certain. In 1Sa 1:3, remarks Winer correctly (W.-B. s. v.), nothing is said really of the neighborhood of Bethel, but only that Saul should meet men who were going to Bethel, from what direction we know not. And Ramah of Benjamin was so near Shiloh, that there was no need14 to drive thither the animals which could not easily be purchased on the spot.15 The other geographical term Ephraimite (which must not be connected with (Luth.) in which case it would have been ) certainly describes Elkanah as an Ephraimite, who belonged not only to the mountains, but also to the Tribe of Ephraimand not as a Bethlehemite, as Hoffmann (Weissag. u. Erfll. II. 61) and Robinson (Pal. II., 583 [Am. ed. 1Sa 2:7 sq.])sup. pose; for in 1Sa 17:12 and Rth 1:2, to which appeal is made, the word is further expressly defined by the phrase of Bethlehem. It by no means follows, however, from this description of Elkanah (comp. Then. p. 2) that Ramathaim-zophim pertained to the territory of Ephraim, but only that Elkanahs family had settled in this Ramah, and had afterwards moved to Ramah in Benjamin (Keil, p. 18). As Elkanah came from the Levitical family of Kohath, son of Levi, whose land lay in Ephraim, Dan and Manasseh (Jos 21:5; Jos 21:21 sq.), and as the Levites generally were counted as citizens of the tribes in which their residence was, it is not strange that Elkanah is here designated as an Ephraimite according to his descent, while he lived in Benjamin, whither his forefathers had immigrated.

The family of Elkanah is here traced back only through four generations to Zuph, no doubt with reference to the preceding designation Zophim, because Zuph had settled in this district with his family, and it had taken its name from him. It would therefore properly be written Zuphim. This explanation of the name is certainly more natural than that which supposes that the district in which it lay, the land of Zuph (1Sa 9:5) was so called from its abundant supply of water, and than the explanation of some Rabbis, Ramathaim of the watchers or prophets. [The first question with regard to this word, whether we read Zophim or, with Erdmann, Zuphim, is a grammatical one: is the combination Ramathaim-zophim in accordance with Heb. usage? In proper names the rule is that the first word of a compound is in the construct. state, but the two exceptions, compounds with meadow, Gen 50:11, etc., and plain, Gen 14:5, seem to prove the possibility of an appositional construction, so that we must admit (against Wellhausen Der Text. d. Bcker Sam. in loco) Ramathaim-zophim to be a possible form. But, as Zophim never appears again as an appendage to Ramathaim, and the old vss. Chald. and Syr. render it as an appellative, it would perhaps be better, with Wellhausen, to suppose that the final m comes by error of transcription from the following word, and to read a Zuphite, which would then correspond to the Zuph at the end as an Ephraimite does to Mount Ephraim.Tr.]. From a comparison of the two genealogies in 1Ch 6:26-27 (Hebrews 11, 12) 34, 35 (Heb. 19, 20) with this genealogy of Samuel it appears that they agree except in the last three names, which in the first list in Chr. are Eliab, Nahath and Zophai, and in the second, Eliel, Toah and Ziph. They are plainly the same names with various changes of form. These changes are probably to be ascribed to differences of pronunciation or to the mis-writing of the original forms which are preserved in this passage (comp. Then. 2).

The Levitical descent of Elkanah and Samuel is put beyond doubt by a comparison of the genealogy here with those in Chronicles. In the first of these, 1Ch 6:22 sq. (Hebrews 7 sq.) the genealogical list descends from the second son of Levi, Kohath, to Samuel and his sons; in the second, 1:33 sq. (Heb. 18 sq.), it ascends from the singer Heman, Samuels grandson, to Kohath, Levi and Israel. These Levites of the Family of Kohath had their dwellings appointed them in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh. As the Levites were usually designated by the tribes in which their dwellings were fixed (Hengstenb. Beitr. [Contributions] zur Einl. ins. A. T. III. 61), the name Ephraimite here cannot be adduced against the Levitical descent of Samuel, as is done by Knobel (II. 29, Anm. 2), Nagelsbach (Herzog, R.-E. s. v. Samuel) and others. The latter himself refers to Jdg 17:7; Jdg 19:1 as cases where a Levite is described as belonging to another tribe, but thinks it strange that, while in those passages the Levitical descent of the men is also expressly mentioned, Elkanahs descent from Levi is here not hinted at, and this is all the more surprising, if he was really a Levite, when his ancestor came from Ephraim to Ramah and gave his name to the region. But the author of the Book of Judges had a special motive for mentioning the Levitical character of those persons, while our author had little or none, since in his narrative of Samuel he lays all the stress on his prophetic office, and writes, as we have seen, from a prophetic stand-point. There was the less need to emphasize Samuels Levitical character because, as Ewald (II. 594) remarks, the Levites that were not of Aarons family, seem in early times to have been more blended with the people. And the statement in Chronicles of Samuels Levitical descent was not occasioned by the fact that the prophet performed priestly functions (Knobel ubi sup.), nor is it to be explained by saying that perhaps quite early the conviction that Samuel must have been a Levite grew out of the difficulty which every Levite must have felt at the discharge of priestly duties by Samuel, if he were not of the stem of Levi (Nagelsbach, ubi sup.)nor to be referred, with Thenius (p. 2), to the fact that, perhaps in later times the genealogy given in our Book was attached to that of Levi in order thus to justify Samuels offering sacrifices. Chronicles throughout makes its statistical-historical statements from the Levitical point of view, and thus supplements the history of David and Samuel in our Book. Hengstenberg well says (ubi sup.): We cannot suppose these genealogies to be an arbitrary invention, simply because, if the author had been disposed to this, he would doubtless have put Samuel among the descendants of Aaron. Ewald remarks, Anyone who looks narrowly at the testimony in Chronicles cannot possibly doubt that Samuel was of a Levitical family, while our author attached no importance to this fact (ubi sup. Anm. 2). So Bunsen (in loco), referring to Jos 21:21, where the dwellings of the Kohathites are fixed in Mount Ephraim also, says: The Levitical descent of Samuel is certain; only it is not made specially prominent here. Ngelsbach himself is obliged to admit that the proofs of Samuels Levitical descent are convincing; for 1) looking at Chronicles (1Ch 25:4; comp. 1Sa 6:18 sq.), he is obliged to concede that Samuels posterity is very decidedly considered as belonging to the Levites, since Heman, the renowned singer, grandson of Samuel and father of a numerous posterity, has an eminent place in the lists of Levites of Davids day; and 2) he urges further as a not unimportant consideration the name of Samuels father, Elkanah, that is, he whom God acquired or purchased, for this name is both in signification and use exclusively a Levite name, and all the Elkanahs mentioned in the Old Test, (leaving out the one in 2Ch 28:7, whose tribe is not stated) were demonstrably Levites, and belonged mostly to the family of Korah from whom Samuel also was descended. See Simonis Onomast., p. 493; Hengstenb., ubi supra 61; Keil in loco.The further objection is made that Samuel was really dedicated to the Sanctuary-service by his mothers vow, which would not have been necessary if Elkanah had been a Levite. To this the answer is not that Hannahs vow referred to the Nazariteship of her sonfor though all Nazarites were specially consecrated to the Lord, they did not thereby come under obligation to serve in the Sanctuary like the Levitesbut rather that in Hannahs vow the words all the days of his life (1Sa 1:11; 1Sa 1:22) are to be emphasized. While she consecrates him to the Lord as Nazarite, she at the same time by her vow devotes him for his whole life to the service of the Lord in the Sanctuary; while the Levites did not enter the service till the age of twenty-five or thirty (Num 8:23 sq.; Num 4:23; Num 4:30; Num 4:47), and then needed not to remain constantly at the Sanctuary, Samuel as soon as he is weaned is destined by his mother to continual service there (1Sa 1:22), and while yet a boy wears there the priestly dress.It is again urged against the Levitical descent of Elkanah that, according to the Septuagint rendering of 1Sa 1:21 (which adds all the tithes of his land), he brought tithes (Then.); but the genuineness of this addition is very doubtful, and, even if it be received, the bringing of tithes is no evidence of Elkanahs non-Levitical character (Josephus, who relates the Levitical descent, makes no difficulty in speaking of the tithe-bringing), for, according to the Law, the Levites had to bestow on the priests, as gift of Jehovah, one-tenth of the tenth which they themselves received from the other tribes, Num 18:26 sq.; comp. Neh 10:38 (Keil 26, Note). Ewald (II. 594) says: The tithe which Elkanah (according to 1Sa 1:21, Sept.) brought proves nothing against his Levitical cha racter. See his Alterthmer (Archology), p. 346. Thenius refers the fulfilment of the prophecy in 1Sa 2:35 to Samuel, and thereon bases the assertion that Samuels Levitical descent is set aside by the prophecy; but, even if his reference be conceded, this consequence does not follow, for in this prophecy the sense requires us to emphasize not the priest but what is predicted of him.

, , Hannah (found in Phnician also; Didos sister was named Anna), a common name for women among the Hebrews, signifying charm, favor, beauty, and in a religious sense grace.

Elkanahs bigamy with Hannah and Peninnah (coral, pearl), like the custom of taking concubines along with the proper wives, is fundamentally opposed to the original divine ordination of monogamy. The Mosaic Law does not forbid polygamy, but never expressly approves it; it accepts it as a custom and seeks to restrict and govern it by various regulations (Lev 18:18; Exo 21:7-10; Deu 17:17; Deu 21:15-17). According to Gen 4:19 it was a Cainite, Lamech, that first violated the original ordinance. As it was usually only the men of more wealth and higher position that took two or more wives, we may suppose that Elkanah was a wealthy man.The curse which attached to this relation appears in Elkanahs married and family-life; Peninnah, who was blessed with children, exalts herself haughtily above the childless Hannah, and embitters her soul. The resulting discord in the family-life shows itself at the holy place, where Hannahs heart is continually troubled by her adversary, while Elkanah seeks to console her by all the more affectionate conduct.

1Sa 1:3-5. Elkanahs yearly worship and sacrifice at Shiloh. And this man went up, etc.16The expression from year to year ( ) is used in Exo 13:10 of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and so elsewhere (Jdg 11:40; Jdg 21:19). On the traces of the Passover in the Period of the Judges see Hengstenberg Beitr. [Contrib.] 3. 7985. It is this Feast that is meant here. For Elkanah is said in the text to have traveled regularly every year with his whole household. (1Sa 1:21) to the Sanctuary. This journey was not taken at pleasure, but at an appointed time, and therefore at one of the festivals at which the people were required by the Law to appear before the Lord, Exo 34:23; comp. Deu 16:16. It was only at the Passover that the whole family were accustomed to go up to the Sanctuary, only then that every man without exception went. But Elkanah attended the feast regularly only once a year. Nothing but the Passover, therefore, can be meant here. At this feast Elkanah went up once every year to the Sanctuary with his whole family. [This statementthat the feast which Elkanah attended was the Passoverwould be probable, if we could assume regularity in carrying out the Mosaic Law at this time; but this cannot be assumed. See Judges 17., 18., 19.; 1Sa 2:12-17. Some prefer to see here a feast different from any of the three great festivals, referring to the feasting (1Sa 1:9) and Davids yearly sacrifice, 1Sa 20:6; comp. Deu 12:11-14 (Bib. Comm. in loco). This, however, is not conclusive; feasting would be appropriate at the great festivals, (see Lev 23:40; Neh 8:12); and the question what occasion this was must be left undecided.Tr.].

To worship and to sacrifice.The beautiful picture of Israelitish piety which we have in the following account of Elkanah and Hannah is introduced by these features as the chief and fundamental ones. The worship relates to the name of the Lord who dwells in His chosen place in the Sanctuary, and is the expression of the remembrance of this name before the Lord. The sacrifice is the embodied prayer; in the sacrifice worship is presented to the Lord as the act by which the offerer brings himself, and all that he has, to the Lord. According to the Law (Exo 23:15; Exo 34:20; comp. Deu 16:16) those who came to the Sanctuary to attend the festival were not to appear empty-handed before the Lord, but every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He hath given thee. The (to sacrifice) is to be understood of the Shelamim, which consisted of free-will offerings (Deu 16:10), partly from the tithes set apart for this purpose (Deu 14:22 sq.) and the first-born of cattle (Deu 15:20; Num 18:17), which were preceded by burnt offerings, (Num 10:10) and followed by joyful feasting. (Oehler, Herzog R.-E. IV. 386). With reference to this sacrificial meal, which belonged essentially to the peace-offerings (Shelamim), the whole act of sacrifice is designated by , because this word denotes slaying with reference to a meal to be afterwards held, and the expressions (peace-offerings) and (sacrifices) are exactly equivalent, the (to sacrifice a sacrifice) being used of the Shelamim. This peace-offering, whose performance is called slaughter, was preceded by a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, of which the former removed the alienation from God occasioned by sin, and the latter through the worship offered made the offerer acceptable in the sight of God; and thus the peace-offering was the representation and confirmation of the relation of integrity, the peaceful and friendly communion between the Lord and the man who was brought near to Him ( integer fuit); comp. Oehler in Herzog 10:637, Hengstenb. Beitr. III., p. 85 sq.

To the Lord of Hosts, Jehovah Sabaoth. Elkanah draws near with worship and with sacrifice. The signification of the name [Jahveh, which probably, and not Jehovah, is the correct pronunciation,Tr.] is the ground of the worship and of the presentation of the offering. The living, unchangeable eternal God, who by His historical self-revelation as His peoples Covenant-God has prepared Himself the name by which they are to know and call Him, and by which He comes into direct intercourse with them, has thus first made possible for His people the worship and sacrifice which they are to bring to His honor, and also made it a sacred duty.

In Shiloh Elkanah brings his offering to the Lord of Hosts. Shiloh (, that is, Rest) lay in the territory of Ephraim, on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem and on the south of Lebonah, Jdg 21:19. Here the Sanctuary of Israel, the Tabernacle with the Ark, which immediately after the entrance into Canaan was placed in Gilgal (fifty stadia from Jordan, ten from Jericho), was located from the time mentioned in Jos 18:1 (the sixth year after the passage of the Jordan according to Joseph. Ant. 5., 1. 19), to the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. For a time only, during the Benjamite war (Jdg 20:27), the Ark was in Bethel. Shiloh was the permanent seat of the Sanctuary till the unfortunate Philistine war under Eli. And this Sanctuary was, during the whole period of the Judges up to Samuels time when the Ark fell into the hands of the Philistines, the only one that the people of Israel had, the national Sanctuary instituted by Moses, where men came into the presence of the Lord, where all sacrifices were offered and the great festivals celebrated, where the whole nation assembled: the dwelling, the house, the temple of God (1Sa 1:7; 1Sa 1:9; 1Sa 1:22). In regard to Shiloh as the religious centre of the people during the whole period of the Judges on account of the location there of the Sanctuary with the Ark by Joshua, see for further details Hengstenb. Beitr. [Contrib.] III., p. 52 sq. Shiloh was the home of the prophet Ahijah under Jeroboam II. (1Ki 11:12; 1Ki 11:14) and was still in existence at the time of the Exile (Jer 41:5). Jerome found there some ruins and the foundation of an altar (see on Zep 1:14). According to Robinson (3:302 sq. [Am. ed. II. 267270]) and Wilson (The Lands of the Bible, II. 292 sq.) the ancient Shiloh is the present ruin Seiln, whose situation answers exactly to the description in Jdg 21:19. The position of the place was such that, in accordance with its name, the Sanctuary of Israel could there have a quiet permanent place. This quiet place, situated on a hill (Psa 78:54) was the scene of the mighty revolution brought about in the history of the Theocracy by the call of Samuel to be the Prophet of God and by the overthrow of the priestly house of Eli.

Instead of and there the two sons, etc. ( ) the Sept. gives (and there Eli and his two sons, 1Sa 1:3), as if the text had read and there Eli, etc. ( ); but this is clearly a change of the original text occasioned by the fact, which seemed strange to the translator, that not Eli but his two sons are mentioned at the beginning of the Book. This mention of the priests accords with the following narrative, which speaks of the sacrificial function, which Eli on account of age no longer discharged. Eli, though termed only priest, yet filled the office of High-priest, but had made over the priestly duties to his sons; hence it is that they, and not he, are here specially mentioned as persons who were priests to the Lord ( ), by which it is intimated that there were others who performed this priestly service before the Lord. From the fact that only these two, with their father, are here mentioned expressly, it has been concluded that the Priesthood was numerically very meagre and simple; but this conclusion is wholly unfounded; for, on the one hand, not all the priests are mentioned here, but only the two who figure in the succeeding history and illustrate the corruption of the Priesthood, and, on the other hand, from the fact that all Israel sacrificed at the Sanctuary at Shiloh it is clear that two or three priests would not suffice for the service, comp. 1Sa 2:14; 1Sa 2:16. What a contrast is given us here in the two sons of Eli, representatives of a priesthood inwardly estranged from God and sunk in immorality, and the pious God-fearing Elkanah and his consecrated wife Hannah!

1Sa 1:4. The day (), that is, on the day when he came to Shiloh to sacrifice.17

That Elkanahs sacrifice () was a praise or thank-offering is clear from what follows; for, according to the Law (Lev 7:15) the flesh of this offering, of which the offerer kept a part, had to be eaten on the day on which it was brought. This praise-offering or thank-offering is (Lev 7:11 sq.) the first and principal sort of the peace-offering ( = or 1Sa 1:13; 1Sa 1:15), the sacrifice of the thankful recognition of Gods undeserved benefits. The second sort of peace-offering is the vow-offering (), which was promised when a request was made for Gods favor, and offered when it was granted; the third sort is the free-will-offering () for a special experience of Gods favor, and in a wider sense a voluntary contribution to the Sanctuary and its furniture [Exo 35:29.Tr.].Elkanahs whole family took part in the feasts which he made there from the Shelamim [peace-offerings] in accordance with the provision of the Law, Deu 12:11-12; Deu 12:17-18. These meals had a joyful character, comp. Deu 12:12; Deu 16:11; Deu 27:7. In Elkanahs household this joy was disturbed all the while by the childlessness of Hannah.

While he divided to Peninnah and her children their pieces, parts, portions of the flesh of the offering, he gave Hannah

1Sa 1:5. . Of the various explanations of these words (in which the makes the difficulty), only two now deserve consideration; the first (Syr., Targ., Gesen., Winer, De Wette, Bunsen, Keil [Wordsworth, Bib. Com., Cahen]) takes in the sense of persons, so that it would read a, portion for two persons, or for persons ([Frst], Bunsen, that is, a large piece); the second (Thenius, Bttcher, neua exeget. krit. Aehrenlese z. A. T., p. 85 sq.) after the Vulgate and Luther renders sad, or better, displeased, unwilling. Against the first explanation is the fact that the sing. never has the meaning person, nor can it be shown that this meaning belongs to the dual; it means countenance, but it is only by forcing that the signification person can thence be gotten (Keil) on the ground that is equivalent to in 1Sa 25:23, and is used for person in 2Sa 17:11. It is, however, on linguistic grounds, better to explain the word, according to its usual signification, as expressing a displeased disposition or emotion, akin to anger. It is then to be taken adverbially (as, for example, the opposite feeling , Deu 23:24; Hos 14:5) equivalent to in Dan 11:20, in anger. In contrast with the joy which ought to have reigned undisturbed at this feast, Elkanahs heart was full of sadness because his beloved Hannah remained without the blessing of children, while her adversary, proud of her children, vexed her with it; for childlessness was held to be a great misfortune, a reproach, yea a divine punishment (Gen 19:31; Gen 30:1; Gen 30:23). The one portion, which alone he could give Hannah, was a contrast to the many portions which he gave to Peninnah and her sons and daughters, and was, as it were, the mark of her desolate despised condition over against the fortunate and boastful Peninnah.

[It is difficult to give any satisfactory rendering of this much-disputed phrase. The word has only three meanings in the Old Test. (excluding this passage): 1) nostrils (Gen 2:7; Lam 4:20); 2) face (1Sa 20:41); 3) anger (1Sa 11:6). The rendering, therefore, sadness, displeasure, defended above by Dr. Erdmann, is hardly allowable. Nor does the word mean person; in 2Sa 17:11 (adduced by Keil) the similar word means not persons, but presence, and offers no support to this rendering. The Chaldee translation a chosen portion takes it in the sense presence, a portion worthy to be set in ones presence, as the bread in the Tabernacle was called bread of presence, show-bread. Another translation (mentioned by Gesenius, Thesaurus s. v.) is one portion of faces, that is, two slices of bread with meat between. The Syriac translation double is apparently based on an accidental resemblance in two words. The Sept. omits the word and renders one portion, but the context requires an explanatory word here. The original strictly allows only two translations, either a portion of anger (so Abarbanel, who speaks of two angers or griefs which Elkanah had), which seems out of keeping with Elkanahs character, or a portion set in ones presence, that is, an offered portion, which is jejune. In this failure of the strict rendering to make sense, it is perhaps better to conjecture a meaning persons for , (following Syr. and Arab.) and render a double portion.TR.].

1Sa 1:6-8. Hannah, provoked by her adversary, consoled by Elkanah. Peninnah is Hannahs adversary on account of Elkanahs special love for the latter (1Sa 1:5); out of jealousy she is her rival. Bigamy, which is in opposition to Gods appointment, bears its bitter fruits for Elkanah and his house. with anger (or vexation) also. is not simply vexation in a subjective-intransitive sense, but is found also in an objective-transitive sense, as in Deu 32:27 (the wrath which the enemy produces in me) and 2Ki 23:26 (, provocations to anger, in reference to God). This last is the sense here also, and the (also) indicates the heaping up of anger and vexation which Peninnah occasioned in Hannah. In what sense and with what design Peninnah did this is shown by the following words ( etc.). The word ()in Hiph. means to rouse, excite, put in lively motion; here, as the context ( ) shows, against God; she not only held up before her her unfruitfulness, itself reckoned a reproach, but represented it also as a punishment from God, or at least as a lack of Gods favor.In 1Sa 1:7 Elkanah cannot be taken as subject, as is done in the present pointing (); for in the preceding independent sentence (1Sa 1:6) Peninnah is the subject; still less, for the same reason, can the suffix in (when she went up) according to this construction be referred to Hannah. In accordance with the tenor of the narrative it is better, with Luther, De Wette, Bunsen, Thenius, to read and translate and so it happened. [Others read not so well and so she did.Tr.]. The two (so so) correspond therefore in relation to Peninnahs conduct, not in relation to Elkanahs bearing towards Hannah, and Peninnahs provocation (Keil). So it happened (in reference to Peninnah) etc., thus she provoked her (Hannah). The words and she wept, etc. () are referred naturally to Hannah by a sudden change of subject, which is allowable only in this understanding of the subjects from it happened () on.In 1Sa 1:8 Elkanahs consoling address is contrasted with Peninnahs provocations. After Hannah the Sept. adds: and she said, Here am I, my lord, and he said; but we are not to suppose (with Thenius) that the corresponding Hebrew words have fallen out of the text, for this phrase, a very common one in the circumstantial accounts of speeches and conversations, is here clearly an insertion. The attempt to give a more fitting expression to Elkanahs feeling gives too subjective a character to this reading; and this feeling is sufficiently portrayed by the Masoretic text, in which the first three questions about the why or wherefore of her grief set it forth in a climax (weeping, not eating, grief of heart). The translation of the Sept. (what is to thee that) does not warrant us in taking (with Thenius) for the original text the corresponding Heb. ( ) instead of why (), for, comparing it with [why] for the second and third why of the Heb., it is easily explained as a freedom of the translator. Elkanah, by the reference to himself, am I not better to thee than ten children? will comfort his wife for her lack of children. This supposes that she feels herself united to him by the most cordial love. We here have a picture of deepest and tenderest conjugal love. The number ten is merely a round number to express many.

I. Hannahs Prayer For A Son. 1Sa 1:9-18 a

1. First in 1Sa 1:9-11 an account is given of her prayer and vow before the Lord. The eating and drinking is the sacrificial meal of the whole family, at which Hannah was present, though out of sorrow she ate nothing, and at the conclusion of which she rose up in order to pray to the Lord. As it is expressly said, she ate nothing, and Elkanah asks why eatest thou not? we must not, with Luther, translate after she had eaten, on the groundless assumption that she had done so on Elkanahs consoling address (Von Gerlach). The Sept. renders rightly according to the sense [after they had eaten], though this does not justify us (Then.) in so reading the Heb. (). The passage from rose up () to drunk ( on this Inf. Abs. for Inf. Con., see Ewald, 339 b) is to be connected with prayed, 1Sa 1:10 () the latter expressing the act which followed her rising from the meal; the rest, from Eli to soul is parenthesis, which, in two circumstantial sentences, gives the ground and explanation of the following narrative. Elis sitting at the entrance of the Sanctuary is specially mentioned because of his after conduct to the praying Hannah; Hannahs bitterness of soul is mentioned because it was the reason of her praying to the Lord. [The Heb. favors the translation, 1Sa 1:9, after she had eaten and drunk; it may be a mere general expression, or she may have yielded to her husbands request. There is no contradiction in this case between 1Sa 1:7 and 1Sa 1:9. See Bib. Comm. in loco.Tr.].

In distinction from his sons, who are called priests of the (to the) Lord ( ), Eli is called the priest (). Though called simply the priest, he yet filled the office of High-Priest (Aaron and Eleazar, his son, are so called Num 26:1; Num 27:2). In the beginning of the period of the Judges Phinehas, son of Eleazar, was High-Priest, Jdg 20:28. This office was bestowed not only on him, but also on his posterity, Num 25:13. At the end of the period of the Judges it is in the possession of Eli, who, however, was a descendant, not of Eleazar and Phinehas, but of Ithamar, Aarons fourth son. In 1Sa 2:28 the continued existence of the High-priesthood from its institution to Eli is taken for granted, and is confirmed by Jewish tradition (Josephus, Ant. 5, 11, 5). According to this the High-priesthood continued to exist indeed in the period of the Judges, but did not remain, in accordance with the promise in Numbers 25, with the seed of Phinehas, but passed over to the family of Ithamar. It is not our authors purpose to tell anything of the history of the High-priests and Judges. What he relates in the beginning of his Book of Eli and his sons serves only to illustrate the history and importance of Samuels call, and to show that it was a historical necessity that the reformation of religious-moral life should be undertaken by the Prophetic Order which entered with Samuel as a new and mighty factor into the development of the Theocracy over against the corrupted priesthood.The door-post (), at which Eli sat, hardly accords with the curtain which formed the entrance to the Holy Place, except on the supposition that, after the Sanctuary was permanently fixed in Shiloh, a solid entrance-way, perhaps of stone, with doors, was built; this is favored by 1Sa 3:15, where the doors are presupposed by the door-post here. is the Tabernacle in relation to God as King of Israel; it is his palace where, in His royal majesty as King of glory (Psalms 24), He dwells in the midst of His people, meets with them, and holds with them covenant-communion (Exo 25:8; Exo 29:45-46).Hannah was in bitterness of soul ( ) at the continuance of her hopelessness, and the vexations which she suffered from her adversary (comp. 2Ki 4:27).Her supplication was the outpouring of her troubled soul before the Lord, and the words of the prayer (that her request for a son might be heard) were accompanied with many tears ( ); that was the expression of her grief because her petitions had been hitherto unheard.

1Sa 1:11. And she vowed a vow is, as it were, the superscription and theme of the following words, which form a vow-prayer. The word here used () usually means the positive vow (Num 6:2-5 is an exception), the promise to return fitting thanks to the Lord, in case the petition is granted, by something performed for His honor or by an offering (the first ex. is in Gen 28:20-22); the negative vow, the promise to refrain from something, is or =obligatio (Num 30:3). The former is connected with the Shelamim, as here Hannahs vow with Elkanahs peace-offering. [For the law of vows in the case of married women, see Num 30:6-16.Bib. Comm. in loco.TR.]Hannah addresses Jehovah Sabaoth in view of His all-controlling power, by virtue of which He can put an end to her disgrace. The if () denotes not doubt, but the certainty of the fact, that, etc. The three-fold expression: if thou wilt look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget, betokens in the clearest manner her confidence that God cares for her, has fixed His eyes on her person and her troubles, and characterizes the fervor and energy of her believing prayers. The thrice-repeated thy handmaid expresses the deep humility and resignation with which she brings her petition to the Lord. The object of her petition is male seed, a son. (, plural of comp. Ewald, 186 f.)[The Sept. has , which are the identical words of the Magnificat. He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden (Luk 1:48). Bib. Comm. in loco.TR.]The vow (then I will give him, etc.) has two parts: 1) the consecration of the son all the days of his life to the Lord; she will give him to the Lord for His own, that he may serve the Lord all his life in the Sanctuary.18 The emphasis is on the words all the days ( ): the son was already called and pledged as Levite to service in the sanctuary, but not till his thirtieth or twenty-fifth year, and then to periodical service; Hannah consecrates him to the Lord all the days of his life, that is, to a life-long and constant service in the sanctuary. But this is entirely independent of the second part of the vow. 2) No razor shall come upon his head, that is, he shall be a Nazir (), one set apart to the Lord. The nazirate (nazariteship), as we see it in its representatives in the time of the Judges, Samson and Samuel, belonged to the holy institutions with which special consecration to God was connected. The Nazarite-vow belonged to the negative or abstinence-vows. According to the legal prescriptions in Num 6:1 sq. (which indeed presuppose the nazirate as a custom, and only regulate it, and affirm its importance), the characteristic marks of the Nazarite were the refraining from wine and all intoxicating drinks, letting the hair grow, and avoiding defilement by corpses even of the nearest kin. The one controlling ethical principle in these three negative prescriptions is expressed in 1Sa 1:2; 1Sa 1:5; 1Sa 1:8 : the separation or abstinence is for the Lord; the Nazir is holy to Jehovah ( ). To the negative element answers the positivethe special devotion and consecration of person and life to the Lord. This shows itself 1) in the abstinence from intoxicating drinks, which betokens the maintenance of complete clearness of mind for the Lord in the avoidance of sensual indulgences which destroy or hinder communion with God; 2) in avoiding contact with the dead, which sets forth the preservation of purity of life against all moral defilement, and its complete devotion to the living God, and 3) in keeping the razor from the free-growing hair, which indicates the refraining from intercourse with the world, and the consecration of the whole strength and the fulness of life, whose symbol is the free growth of hair as the ornament19 ( of the Lord, 1Sa 1:7) of the head. It is in keeping with the great importance which is attached (in 1Sa 1:7) to the hair of the Nazarite as consecration () of his God upon his head, that here this mark alone is mentioned, and Hannah thereby distinguishes her desired son as one vowed to God, see Num 6:11. Comp. Oehler in Herzogs R.-E. s. v. Nasirat. [A similar omission occurs in the case of Samson, Jdg 13:5, who is, however, called a Nazarite. It may, perhaps, be doubtful whether all the conditions of the Nazirate were observed in these cases. Comp. the fuller statement concerning John the Baptist, Luk 1:15. The Sept. inserts And he shall drink neither wine nor strong drink, plainly an addition to bring it into exacter accordance with the law in Numbers 6. It is possible that some freedom was used in making the vow, as the time was left at the option of the consecrator. Samuel was what the Talmud calls , a perpetual Nazarite.The preservation of the hair does not seem to symbolize withdrawal from the world; and in fact the Nazarite did not lead a secluded life. The view of Oehler, adopted above by Erdmann, that the hair represents vigor and life, is perhaps supported by the connection between the hair and strength in Samsons case. Another view, that it symbolizes the subjection of man to God, is adopted by Baumgarten and Fairbairn; the latter refers to Pauls teaching in 1Co 11:10. On the general subject see Smiths Bib. Dict., Fairbairns Typology II. 346.Tr.]The nazirate is in its essential elements related to the priesthood, and represents the idea of a truly priestly life withdrawn from earthly-worldly things and devoted to God. But it has nothing in common with the priestly order as such; it was, along with that, a special temporary form of consecration to the Lord in opposition to the unholy, impure life of the world. The Nazarites were not bound to service in the sanctuary, and not all who were called to this service were Nazarites. The son whom Hannah had consecrated by her first vow to life-long service in the sanctuary she consecrated by her second to be a Nazarite for life. The latter was the condition and foundation of an all the more hearty and faithful devotion to the Lord in His sanctuary-service. The life-long nazirate, to which children could be devoted before birth, as was true here and with Samson (comp. John the Baptist), was the highest and most comprehensive presentation of that idea. This double vow of Hannah and its fulfillment gave to Samuel from childhood on the disposition of heart and direction of life towards the Lord, in which all the powers of his mind, all the striving and struggling of his inner and outer life were consecrated for the performance of the holy mission which he had received from the Lord.

2. 1Sa 1:12-13. Elis profane view of the condition of the praying Hannah. Her manner of praying is very distinctly described: 1) she prayed much and long, before the Lordthis marks the energy of thorough devotion and ardent piety towards God; 2) she spake to her heart ( is not in, nor is it=, Gen 24:25, where there is a similar phrase); in her prayer Hannah looked altogether into her heart, that she might obtain consolation and rest for it, and thus it was certainly in fact speaking in her heart. This marks the deep sincerity of heart, the profound concentration and emotion of soul with which she prayed; it was so intense that only her lips moved as the involuntary expression of her emotion, and her voice was not heard, which was the necessary result of the fact that her heart was turned in on itself and thoroughly immersed in God.In contrast with this picture of the believing suppliant, Elis conduct is portrayed as really profane; his view of Hannahs condition is precisely the opposite of the truth. He appears here as a very bad Judge. He judges merely from the outward appearance; he looks only at the movement of her lips (), which from the Heb. expression () must have been lively; he remains fixed at the surface, while, considering the source of Hannahs emotion, he ought to have seen the prayerful energy of her heart through the outward appearance; he passes rash judgment on her, holding her from the signs of her emotion to be a drunken woman; instead of making the best of what seemed to him strange, he suspiciously takes it in the worst sense, for he must have seen that Hannah came to pray, and was really praying, and need not have thought of drunkenness to explain her demeanor. There is a noteworthy irony in the fact that, while the High-priest takes her to be drunk, she has made a vow for her son which looks to the very opposite. This conduct is characteristic of Eli. With all his piety and good nature, he was lacking religiously and morally in proper earnestness and true depth and thoroughness. To the same source, his natural-fleshly disposition of heart, whence came his conduct towards his unworthy sons, we must refer his profane conduct and his so false judgment on the praying Hannah. Yet there was some ground for his hasty suspicion of Hannah in the frequent occurrence of such cases in connection with the sacrificial meals; and this points to a certain externalized and brutalized condition of the religious-moral life in the very precincts of the sanctuary under a brutalized priesthood. Such heartfelt prayer seems not to have been usual at that time (Bunsen).

3. 1Sa 1:14-18 a. Hannahs conversation with Eli concerning her prayer shows again the striking contrast between Elis pre-judgment of her condition and her real frame of heart (1Sa 1:14-15), and Hannahs deep heart-felt piety as the source of her supplication (1Sa 1:15-16), but brings out also Elis better nature, the expression of which is the wish for a blessing (1Sa 1:17-18).

1Sa 1:14. Eli sat at the door-post of the sanctuary no doubt to keep watch and prevent all things improper; but his address to Hannah shows how unworthily he did it. The question How long wilt thou be drunken? must have wounded her heart all the more in the sorrowful mood of her prayer, and grieved her no less deeply than Peninnahs speech. (On the form see Ewald, 191, and Gesen., 47, 3). The order: put away thy wine from thee, that is, take steps to get sober again, or go and sleep off thy debauch (comp. 1Sa 25:37), is as rude and profane as the questionleast of all becoming to, and to be expected from, a priest. Here, looking at Elis sons, we cannot but think of the German proverb: The apple falls close to the tree.20 It is the same unworthy littleness that we see in Act 2:13 (they are full of new wine). The Sept. has here in Elis interests inserted youth, servant () before Eli, and put the rudeness off on him; but then his dismissal must have been mentioned here, and Hannah could not have answered the servant: no, my lord, which words are addressed to Eli (comp. Bttch. against Thenius). To Thenius remark that the masoretic recension has here for unknown reasons abridged, we reply that such abridgement, which sets Eli in so bad a light, certainly cannot be regarded as probable. In reference to the servant of the Septuagint, the canon of criticism holds that the harder, more offensive reading is to be preferred.

1Sa 1:15 sq. Hannahs answer is an energetic denial of Elis charge; in the spirited fulness of her reply, we may see something of the indignation which Elis unworthy speech had called forth in her heart. Her language is in part a denial of his assumption, in part an explanation of her condition of mind as the reason of her conduct in prayer; each of these parts has a three-fold expression, so that each denial answers to an explanation. First, she denies simply and sharply with no, my lord ( ) the drunkenness imputed to her, and explains that her condition of soul is one of deep sorrow. According to the masoretic text Hannah says: I am hard of spirit ( ). Though in Eze 3:7 the similar phrase hard of heart ( ) means obstinate, stiff-necked, yet the combination of this Adj. () in the signification heavy (Jdg 4:24 [the hand was heavy against Jabin]; Exo 18:26) with the subst. (= disposition, mind, Gen 41:8; Psa 34:19 [18]) may give the signification heavy-hearted. It is not clear why it should sound strange (as Thenius thinks) that Hannah, in her condition, should speak of herself as heavy-hearted; the expression is so natural in reply to Elis outspoken suspicion, that she had dulled her mind with intoxicating drink. Hence, also, follows immediately the express denial of this suspicion. The Sept., on the other hand, has the strange expression: (I am a woman in a hard day). This is based on the reading hard of day ( ), an expression which in Job 30:25 [in trouble] describes one who has a hard day, a hard life, is unhappy. So the Vulg.: infelix nimis ego sum, I am very unfortunate. Perhaps this is the original reading, as Thenius supposes. Clericus: This reading is not to be wholly despised.The negation advances from the simple no, my lord, to the denial that there is anything in her case to produce drunkenness, that is, that she has drunk wine or any intoxicating drink (); with this denial she connects, so as to bring out a sharp contrast, the explanation and assurance that she has poured out her soul before the Lord. Comp. Psa 42:5 [4]: I pour out my soul in me; Psa 42:9 [8]: Pour out your heart before him; and Psa 142:3 [2]: I pour out my complaint before him. This expression, common in German [and English] also and Latin (fundere preces), indicates the lightening of the deeply moved, sorrowful heart by complaints, petitions, etc., before God the Lord, based on humble submission to His will and trust in His help, that is, on the opposite of the feeling which Peninnah wished to excite in Hannah (1Sa 1:6). Comp. Calvin on Psa 142:3 : He sets the pouring out ones thoughts and telling ones trouble over against the confused anxieties which unhappy men nurse in their hearts, preferring to gnaw the bit rather than flee to God. Such pouring out of the heart before the Lord witnesses for Hannah of itself against Elis charge of intemperance and drunkenness.A third and still stronger denial she makes (1Sa 1:16); and this time it refers to the bad, worthless character which he had imputed to her. Daughter of worthlessness (on the etymology of , comp. Gesen. s. v.)=bad woman. The words count not, etc. ( etc.).cannot be explained: Do not make me the scorn of bad women (Clericus), but must be rendered: Do not in thought set thy handmaiden before () a worthless woman, that is, let not thy handmaid be taken for a worthless woman, do not liken her to such a one. She grounds her denial of this bad opinion of her on the assurance, which answers to the two positive explanations, and forms their conclusion, that out of the abundance () of her complaint and grief she had spoken hitherto (), that is, as long as Eli had observed her.Comp. Calvin ad h. I.: Consider the modesty of Hannah, who, though she suffered injury from the High-priest, yet answers with reverence and humility.

1Sa 1:17. Elis reply. Eli, as Calvin remarks, not only insulted a feeble woman, but blasphemed against God Himself, though unintentionally. Now he retracts his accusation; indeed, he really, though silently, accuses himself of injustice to Hannah, in that 1) he replies with the usual parting-formula Go in peace ! and 2) he adds the wish that her request may be granted. ( is for ). There is no prophecy in this; it was a wish which God fulfilled.

1Sa 1:18. Hannahs answer does not ask for his mediation (Keil), but is a respectful request that the High-priest would further grant her his favor, as he had already done (comp. 1Sa 1:26).[There seems to be no advantage in closing this section in the middle of 1Sa 1:18. The latter part of the verse forms a fitting conclusion to the interview of Eli and Hannah, since it describes the result to Hannah of her prayer and conversation, and 1Sa 1:19 begins a new narrative, as in Eng. A. V.TR.]

III. The Answer to the Prayer. 1Sa 1:18-20

Hannah went her way, namely, back to her husband. The words of the Sept.: and she went to her inn, and (after she did eat) with her husband and drank, are explanatory and descriptive additions to the original text: it is inconceivable why these words, if they stood in the text originally, should have been left out. [The words and did eat are wanting in the Syriac and Arabic versions and in five MSS. of Kennicott, and were omitted perhaps because supposed to be inappropriate; but they fitly describe Hannahs more cheerful mood.TR.] And her countenance was no more to herthat is, her countenance was no longer disturbed as before. There are similar expressions in German. Comp. Job 9:27, where, from the context, the word countenance () is likewise to be taken in the sense sad countenance [heaviness in Eng. A. V.Tr.].21

1Sa 1:19 describes circumstantially and vividly, almost solemnly, the return to Ramah after early worship together before the Lord. Elkanah knew his wife (, know, as in Gen 4:7). The Lord remembered her, indicates the fulfilment of her request; the divine control, under which (1Sa 1:11) she had placed herself, is quite appropriately here again expressly mentioned. At the end of the verse the Sept. (Alex.) adds and she conceived, explaining and filling out the remembered. There is no necessity for supposing (with Thenius, following the Sept.) that this expression has fallen out of the original text, where it was a needful explanation of the remembered, since in the following 1Sa 1:20 the significance of the latter is expressed, though it cannot be considered a mere addition. [The change in the text of the Sept. (in the Vat., not Al.) is easily explained. The Heb. (1Sa 1:20) reads and in the course of time Hannah conceived and bare a son. The Greek translator stumbled at the place assigned the conceiving, and therefore changed the word from after to before the course of time. The difficulty is removed when we remember that conceived and bare as the common phrase to express the birth of a child. The other versions sustain the Heb. order of words.Some Heb. MSS. read in the course of a year (so De Wette), or, as some translate, at the beginning of the new year (in the autumn, Feast of Tabernacles), but there is no authority for this.Abarbanel: At the end of a month.Tr.].

1Sa 1:20. Up to the circuit or conclusion of the days or of the regular timethat is, not in the space of a year, but at the conclusion of the period of pregnancy (Thenius), at the end of the time necessary for what is afterwards said.She bare a son, whom she called Samuel. Hannah her-self gives the explanation of this name, not etymological but factual, I asked him from the Lord. (On the form see Gesen. 44, 2, Rem. 2.) According to this explanation the name (which belongs to two other persons only, Num 34:21; 1Ch 7:2) is formed by contraction from , the falling out (Ewald, Gr. 275, A. 3). The Rabbinical derivation from , whence and is far-fetched and improbable. [That is, asked of God]. The name signifies literally heard of God, auditus Dei. For Samuel was for his mother the sign of a special answer to prayer. Similar names of children, suggested by their mothers experiences at their birth, are found elsewhere, for example, in Jacobs children (Gen 29:32 sq.; 1Sa 30:5 sq.).The omission of and she said is original; the Sept. has clearly again here filled out and explained (against Thenius). Hannahs saying, introduced without this addition, is thereby characterized as an explanation, historically handed down, of this name in reference to what preceded Samuels birth. [This whole incident is discussed in the Talmudical Tract Berakoth, fol. 31 b, but the discussion offers nothing of special value.Tr.].

HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL22

[This is the appropriate place to introduce a brief statement of the chronological relation between the latter part of Judges (end of chap. 16) and the beginning of Samuel. We shall not attempt to discuss the various schemes of the chronology which have been presented by different writers, but merely give the biblical data for determining the chronological relations of Samson, Eli, and Samuel. The first datum is given in 1Ki 6:1, and, putting the fourth year of Solomon B. C. 1012, fixes the Exodus in B. C. 1492, the entrance into Canaan B. C. 1452, while Davids accession falls B. C. 1056. The second datum is found in Jephthahs statement, Jdg 11:26, according to which the beginning of his judgeship falls 300 years after the entrance into Canaan, that is, B. C. 1152. From this time to the death of Abdon (Jdg 12:7-15) is thirty-one years, and Abdons death is to be put B. C. 1121. We have thus between the death of Abdon and the accession of David a space of sixty-five years in which to put Samson, Eli, Samuel, and Saul. It is clear that their histories must be in part contemporaneous. Eli dies an old man, while Samuel is yet a youth, and Samuel is an old man when Saul is anointed king. The following table may give approximately the periods of these men:

Samsons Judgeship,

B. C. 11201100

Elis Life (98 years)

B. C. 12081110

Elis Judgeship (40 years)

B. C. 11501110

Samuels Life

B. C. 1120 (or 1130)1060

Sauls Reign

B. C. 10761056

According to this view the judgeships of Samson and Eli were in part contemporaneous, and Samuel was twenty (or thirty) years old when Samson died, the work of the latter being confined to the west and south-west, while Samuel lived chiefly in the centre of the land. The forty years of Philistine oppression (Jdg 13:1) would then be reckoned B. C.11201080, reaching nearly up to Sauls accession, and the third battle of Ebenezer would fall in B. C. 1080 when Samuel was forty years old. Hannahs visit to Shiloh occurred about (or, a little before) the time that Samson began to vex the Philistines, but it is probable that the hostilities were confined to the territories of Judah and Dan. Partly for this reason, and partly because the history has been given already in the Book of Judges, our author does not mention Samson, whose life had no point of contact with that of Samuel, who is the theocratic-prophetical centre of the Books of Samuel. On the general subject see Herzog, Art. Zeitrechnung (biblische), Smiths Dict. of Bible, Art. Chronology, Comm. on Judges in Langes Bible-work, and Smiths Old Testament Hist., chap. 17, Note (A) and 1 Samuel 19, Note (A). But it is doubtful whether we have sufficient data at present for settling the question.Tr.].

1. The beginning of the Book of Samuel coincides with a principal turning-point in the history of the kingdom of God in Israel, introducing us into the end of the Period of the Judges, which is to be included with the Mosaic under one point of view, namely, that of the establishment of the Theocracy on its objective foundations. The Mosaic Period of the development of the Israelitish religionwhich is based on Gods revelation in the Patriarchal Period in order to the choice of the one people as the bearer of the Theocracy, first in germinal form in the family, and then in its first national development in Egyptshows us the firm establishment of the Divine Rule, which embraced and shaped the whole life of the people, on the theocratic law-covenant, and on the word of the divine promise. The establishment of the Rule of God in His people, in their outer and inner life, in all things great and small, by means of the institution of the Law, in which His holy will is the norm for the peoples life, is the aim of the whole revelation of God in the Mosaic Period, as it appears in commandments, statutes, holy institutions, and legal principles. The land in which this God-rule in the chosen people was to reach historical form and development, was the object of the promises in the Patriarchal Period, and the period of Joshua and the Judges shows how this promise was fulfilled in the acquisition and division of the land. What sudden changes, from complete defeats to glorious victories in battle against the heathen peoples in and out of the land of promise, from divine deliverances to apparently complete abandonment by God, as a consequence of the vacillation of the people between idolatrous apostasy from the living God, and return to His help forced on them by need and misery, are exhibited in the history of the post-Mosaic times! But through all the gloom shines out continually the goal, the fulfilment of the promise of the complete possession of the land; and in the midst of the peoples sin and misery the Theocracy stands fast unshaken, with its Mosaic law controlling the popular life, and all its great objective institutions which, even in times of most wretched disorder, marked Israel as the chosen people of the living God. The Mosaic period of development of the Theocracy in Israel up to the end of the period of the Judges is therefore the time of its establishment in the chosen people by the institution of the covenant of the law and the geographical-historical realization of the idea of the Theocracy in the permanently acquired land of promise.

But now came the task of bringing the people, they being at rest and permanently fixed in Canaan, face to face with their theocratic destination and their calling (Exo 19:6) in their whole inner and outer life. The content of the revelations, which had produced the covenant of the law and the fulfilling of the promise in the Mosaic Period, was to be inwardly appropriated and become the life of the people in knowledge, heart and will. For this there was needed on Gods side the progressive realization and announcement of His counsel of revelation; and on mans side there was the unceasing obligation to penetrate with the whole inner life, with understanding and feeling, with mind and will, into Gods revelation in law and promise, and appropriate inwardly its content. This taskthe deep, inward implanting of the revelation of God in law and promise in the heart and feeling of individuals and in the life of the whole nationcould be fulfilled neither by the judges, the lives of some of whom corresponded poorly to their theocratic calling, nor by the priesthood, which showed its fall from its original theocratic elevation in the transition from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar and in the house of Eli, nor by the mere existence and use of the objective theocratic-historical institutions, national sanctuary, feasts, offerings. This impossibility is vividly set before us in the beginning of the Books of Samuel. But we are there at the same time pointed to the new element in the development of the Theocracy, the prophetic office, which was to be the instrument of fulfilling this task, and of realizing the idea of mediation between God and His people through their living permeation by23 His objective revelation of word and promise; so Moses, as type of prophecy, represented it. The turning-point from the Mosaic to the prophetic period of development of the Theocracy falls in the beginning of the Books of Samuel; that is, in the first years of Samuels life. (Comp. Oehler, Prolegom. zur Theol. des A. T., 1845, pp. 87, 88; and W. Hoffmann, Die gttliche Stufenordnung im A. T. in Schneiders Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1854, Nr. 7, 8.) From Samuels time Peter (Act 3:24) dates the prophetic office; from then on the prophets, devoted to the service of the Theocracy, form a separate Order, and, as organs of Gods revelations to His people, a continuous chain. (See Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, 2 ed. 1861, p. 26.)

2. The end of the Period of the Judges, like its previous history, reveals a deep disorder of the theocratic life, which neither judges nor priests could help, because they were themselves affected by its corrupting influences, as is shown by the histories of Samson and Eli. The unimportance and weakness to which the Judgeship was fallen may be inferred from its connection with the High-priesthood in the person of Eli, the latter office having evidently passed from Phinehas family to Ithamars, contrary to the promise in Num 25:11-13, because the condition of zeal for the Lord was not fulfilled. And the conduct of Eli and his sons, and especially Gods judgment against his house, show how badly the High-priesthood was represented in him. The political life of the nation was crushed under the constant oppression of external enemies, the heathen nations on the east, and especially the Philistines on the west, and under internal national distraction; the tribes were at enmity with one another, did not unite against foreign foes, and could gather together as one man only against one of themselves (Benjamin), and that was the last time (Judges 19-21).24 And though individual men, called of the Lord to be deliverers, exerted a mighty influence on the distracted national life, yet their influence was restricted to particular tribes, and was not permanentwas always followed by a sinking back into the old wretched condition. The cause of this was the deterioration of religious life, which was wide-spread among the people; the worship of the living Covenant-God was mingled with the nature-worship of the Canaanitish nations, not all of whom were completely conquered, and especially with the Baal-worship of the Philistines; or it was suppressed by these heathen worships. Gideons ephod-worship (Jdg 8:27) and Micahs image-worship (Judges 17, 18.) belonged also to this corruption of the religion of Jehovah. With this moral decline and distraction of theocratic life was connected corruption of moral life, such as we see in some parts of Samsons history (he succumbs morally, as well as physically, to the Philistines), in the crime of the Benjamites (Judges 19), which calls forth all the rest of the nation against them in stubborn, bloody war, and in the unworthy character of the sons of Eli, who disgrace the sanctuary itself with their wickedness. The whole popular life had fallen into an anarchy in which every man did that which was right in his own eyes (Jdg 21:25).

3. The necessity for a reformation of the whole national life from within outward, that is, a renewal of the whole Theocracy on a religious-moral basis meets us at the beginning of the Books of Samuel. The holy institutions, the ordinances of divine worship, and the theocratic legislation of the Mosaic Period are present indeed in the time of the Judges (comp. the exegetical explanations). The people had their national central sanctuary in Shiloh as sign of Gods abode among His people, celebrated their festivals, and brought their offerings there. The priestly service in the sanctuary was arranged; the nazirate and the institution of holy women25 in connection with the sanctuary were the special forms of consecration of life to Jehovahs service. It is a false view to regard the time of the Judges as a period of fermentation, out of which first arose fixed legal institutions and appointments. Rather the whole Mosaic legislation and the history of the establishment of the Theocracy on the basis of the covenant of law is in many places presupposed in the Book of Judges and in the beginning of the Books of Samuel themselves (comp. Hengst., Beitr. III. 40 sq. [Eng. transl., Contributions to an Introd. to the Pentateuch, Clark, Edinb.]). But it is true (as is expressly stated in Jdg 2:10 sq.), that in the religious-moral life of the people there was a general defection from the living God to strange gods. Though in particular circles and families (as Samuels, for ex.) there was true service of God and piety, yet the national and political life of the distracted and shattered people was on the whole not in the least in keeping with its priestly calling. The gap between the peoples religious-moral condition on the one hand, and the theocratic institutions and the demands of the divine law on the other was become so wide and deep, that a great reformer was needed, who, by special divine call and in the might of the Spirit of God, should turn the whole national life to the living God again, and make Him its unifying centre. To this need of a reformation of the Theocracy by new revelations of the covenant-God, and by the return of the covenant-people to communion with their God answered the special divine working by which the prophetic office, instead of the priesthood, was united with the true theocratic Judgeship in the mighty God-filled personality of Samuel.

4. The special divine working shows itself in the providential plan by which God chose and prepared the great instrument for leading His people into the path, in which they were to find their holy calling and merge their whole life in the divine rule and communion. The reformer of the Theocracy, the second Moses, sprang from a thoroughly pious family, faithful and obedient to the law of the Lord. In its very commencement his life is specially consecrated by the hearing which God vouchsafed to the prayer of his pious mother for a son. In the same Tribe, whence came the saviour of the people from the bondage of Egypt and the founder of the Theocracy through Gods wonderful working, and which by divine appointment represented the whole people in the Sanctuary-service, was born the man of God, who in the highest sense as Prophet of the Lord, was all his life to do priestly service in renewing the theocratic life, and restore it from its alienation from the living God to communion with Him. Specially also it was the energy and earnestness of his mothers piety which from the first gave to this great mans life the direction and determination by which he became Gods instrument for the regeneration of His people. Hannah, in devoting her child to the perpetual service of the Lord (thus giving Him back what her prayer had obtained from Him), did unconsciously and silently, under the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord, a holy deed, which, taken into the plan of the divine wisdom, was the beginning of that series of great God-deeds by which, through this chosen instrument, a new turn of world-historical importance was given to the history of Israel. The name which she gives her son marks him out for the people as an immediate gift of God, through which, as Calvin says, God in His mercy ordained a reformation of His worship in the people.

5. In Samuels early life we see again the importance (even for the Kingdom of God) of the theocracy of a truly pious family-life in the Old Dispensation. There were still in Israel houses and families in which the children (who, according to the Law, were not usually carried to the great feasts celebrated at the Sanctuary), were introduced to the public religious life, and accustomed to the religious service of the people; and this is a sign that, in spite of the desolation of the theocratic life and the degradation of the religious-moral life, there still lay hidden in domestic life a sound germ of true piety and fear of God. From this uncorrupted vigorous germ which appears religiously in the earnest life of prayer of the parents, and ethically in their tender, considerate conjugal love, Samuels life sprouts forth as a plant consecrated from its root directly to the Lords special service.

6. Thus the religious-moral life was not so far gone that it could not, by Gods power, produce from the narrow circle of the house and family such a person as Samuel; nor, in spite of the general depravation and disruption of the theocratic-national life, was it impossible for Samuel, as Gods instrument sprung from this soil, to find positive points of connection and a responsive receptivity for his work of reform as Judge and Prophet. The spirit which gave shape to his childhood and youth from the first moments of his life, had shown itself, sporadically it is true, yet living and powerful in individual facts in the time of the Judges (comp. Deborahs Song, Judges 5; Gideons word Jehovah shall rule over you, Jdg 8:23; and especially the energetic reaction of the theocratic zeal of the whole people against the Tribe of Benjamin, who, contrary to the command be ye holy, had refused to deliver up the offenders, by whose execution evil was to be put away out of the midst of Israel, Judges 20) The prophetic reformer, called by God out of the domain of a deeply pious family-life, found in that theocratical spirit, which was concealed under the general corruption, the receptive ground on which he could plant himself in order to gather the whole people about the living God and His word, and press His revelations into their very heart and soul.

7. The divine name Jehovah Sabaoth ( ), which does not occur in the Pentateuch or in the Books of Joshua and Judges, is found here for the first time, and seems to have come into general use particularly in the time of Samuel and David (comp. 1Sa 15:2; 1Sa 17:45; 2Sa 7:8; 2Sa 7:26 sq.; Psa 24:10). It seldom occurs in the Books of Kings, is found most frequently in the Prophets, except Ezekiel and Daniel, and never in Job, Proverbs, the later Psalms and the post-exilian historical books, except in Chronicles in the history of David, where it is to be referred to the original documents.The word Sabaoth is never found in the Old Test, alone. The Sept. sometimes gives it as a proper name, , as here, where it has also the full form (Lord God), which answers to the proper complete expression of this divine name, Jehovah God of Sabaoth ( comp. Amo 3:13; Amo 4:13; Amo 5:14; or ), of which Jehovah Sabaoth is an abbreviation.26

The signification God of war? (see Exo 7:4; Exo 12:41, where Israel is called the hosts of Jehovah, ) cannot be regarded as the original sense of this expression, though the latter includes the glory of God manifested in His victorious power over His enemies. If this were the proper and original signification, it would be inexplicable why the name is wanting precisely in the histories of those wars and battles, which were Jehovahs own (Num 21:14), though Israel is expressly called His hosts. Appeal is made in support of this signification to passages like 1Sa 17:45 (God of the armies of Israel), and Psa 24:8-10, (Jehovah strong and mighty, mighty in battle); but as these phrases are attached to the name Jehovah of Hosts, they show (as Hengstenberg, on Psalms 24, and Oehler, ubi sup. point out) that the latter means something different, that Jehovah of Hosts means something higher than Israels God of war. Its meaning must be derived from Gen 2:1, where the host of them refers properly only to heavensand only by zeugma to earth (Oehler). Comp. Psa 33:6; Deu 4:19; Neh 9:6, where all the host of them refers exclusively to the heavens. The hosts are always the heavenly hosts, not created things in general (Hengstenberg). They are of two classes, however, the material, the stars, and the spiritual, the angels. In reference to the stars as the host of heaven (Psa 33:6) and the host of God, praise is rendered to Gods power and government of the world, by which He controls these glorious objects (Isa 40:26; Isa 45:13), against the Sabian worship of the stars as divine powers, and against the danger to which Israel was exposed of perversion to such star-worship. This danger became great enough in the Period of the Judges and in the beginning of the Kingly Period to make the supposition allowable that the expression, with the sense of opposition to idolatry, came into use at this time. In Isa 24:23 this meaning of Jehovah Sabaoth comes out unmistakably in the reference to Gods creative power which is loftier than the splendor of the stars, and in the contrast between His worship and that of the stars. The reference of the name God of hosts in Psa 89:8 sq. to the angels is equally certain. The angels are marshalled around Jehovah in heaven, awaiting His commands, ready to perform His will on earth, especially as His instruments for the execution of His will in grace and judgment, for the protection of His people, for the overthrow of His enemies (1Ki 22:19 sq.; Job 1:2); they go along with God in the revelation of His judicial-kingly power and glory (Deu 33:2; Psa 68:18); they form the Lords heavenly battle-host (Gen 32:1-2; Jos 5:14 sq.; 2Ki 6:17). By the reference to the two hosts, of stars and angels, which represent the creation in its loftiest and most glorious aspect, this expression sets forth the living God in His majesty and omnipotence over the highest created powers, who are subject to His control and instruments of the exercise of His royal might and power in the world; But Gods glory, in His majesty and power over the star-world, and in His lordship over the spirit-world which stands ready to do His bidding in the world, exhibits Him of necessity in His royal omnipotent control of the whole world; and so Jehovah Sabaoth means in several passages the almighty controlling world-God, who has His throne in heaven, of whose glory the whole world is full, who is called the God of the whole earth, who buildeth His upper-chamber in heaven, and foundeth His arch on the earth. So Psa 24:8-10; Isa 6:3; Isa 54:5; Amo 9:5-6. In connection with the name Jehovah the expression indicates, with special reference to Israel, the almighty and victorious God, who overcomes the enemies of His people and His kingdom, who is the protection and help of His people against all the powers of the world.The name occurs frequently in connection with wars and victories, in which God helps and protects His people against hostile powers; 1Sa 15:2; 1Sa 17:45; 2Sa 7:8; 2Sa 7:26 sq.; Psa 24:10; Psa 46:8; Psa 80:8; Psa 80:15; Isa 24:21-23; Isa 25:4-6; Isa 31:4-5. This name of God, Lord of Hosts, first appears in the beginning of the Books of Samuel, near the end of the Judges, and just before the kingdom was established, and occurs most frequently in the time of the Kings; and this fact has its deepest ground herein, that during this time Gods royal power as almighty lord and ruler of the world and heavenly king of Israel first unfolded itself in all its fulness and gloryin victories over the enemies of His kingdom in Israel, in the almighty protection which He vouchsafed His people in the land of promise, and in the powerful aid which He gave them in establishing, fixing and extending the theocratic kingly power.27

8. A characteristic mark of Hannahs sincere piety is the vow (v. 11) which she makes to the Lord. The vow, from the Old Testament-point of view, is the solemn promise by which the pious man binds and pledges himself, in case his prayer is heard or his wish fulfilled, to show his thankfulness for the Lords goodness by the performance of some special outward thing. Hence vows are almost always connected with petitions, though never as if they were the ground for Gods fulfilment of the request. The positive vow (), the promise of a special offering as a sign of gratitude, includes also the negative element of self-denial, so far as it is a relinquishment of ones own possessions, which are given to the Lord. This customnamely, by a special promise making a particular act or mode of conduct a moral duty, and basing the obligation of performance not on the divine will, but on a vow made without divine directionanswers to the legal standpoint of the Old Testament and the moral minority founded on it. Forbearing to vow, was however, by no means regarded as sinful (Deu 22:22); thus not only was the moral principle of voluntariness brought out, but the idea that the vow was in itself meritorious, was excluded. The vow, as a custom corresponding to moral weakness and consciousness of untrustworthiness in obedience to the Lord, is never legally commanded, nor even advised (comp. Pro 20:25; Ecc 5:4, with Deu 23:22); but it is required that a vow made freely shall be fulfilled (Num 30:3; Deu 23:21; Deu 23:23; Psa 50:14; Ecc 5:3). But, as the hearing of a prayer is conditioned strictly on true piety, so, that a vow should be well-pleasing to the Lord, presupposes an humble, thankful soul which feels itself pledged and bound to the Lord, to devote everything to Him. The ethical idea of the vow finds its realization and fulfilment, as well as its clear and true apprehension, from the New Testament stand-point also in the vowing and dedicating to the Lord for life in baptism the personality renewed by the Holy Ghost, (who in the Old Testament also is recognized and prayed for as the source of sanctification, Psalms 51). Hannahs vow is an analogue of Christian baptism in so far as it (the vow) consecrates the life of the child obtained by prayer wholly to the Lord for His property and for permanent service according to the stand-point of Old Testament piety, but this from the New Testament point of view comes to full truth only in the free spiritual devotion of the heart and the whole life to the Lord. [There is no warrant for introducing the lower Old Testament conception into an ordinance of the New Testament. Christian baptism, into the name of the Trinity, sets forth the free and full consecration of the believer to God, as Dr. Erdmann points out, and is no otherwise a vow, is never so spoken of in the New Testament.Tr.].

HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL28

1Sa 1:2. Holy Scripture lets us see how not merely single sins in disposition, word and deed, but also general conditions and customs which spring from sinsuch as polygamyare the object of Gods patience and long-suffering, and how there is in this no hindrance to the purposes of Gods love and wisdom, but rather all such things are overruled by Him for good. [Hall: Ill customs, where they are once entertained, are not easily discharged: polygamy, besides carnal delight, might now plead age and example; so as even Elkanah, though a Levite, is tainted with the sin of Lamech, like as fashions of attire, which at the first were disliked as uncomely, yet, when they are once grown common, are taken up of the gravest. Yet this sin, as then current with the time, could not make Elkanah not religious.Tr.]. Cramer: God distributes His gifts in a wonderful manner, to one He gives, the other He suffers to want, Gen 29:31. Temporal gifts God gives not only to the worthy, but also to the unworthy, Mat 5:45.

1Sa 1:3. Starke: Worship stands first, to show with what devoutness and reverence he makes his offering, and at the same time that praying is better than offering. [Comp. Cornelius: Thy prayers and thine alms, Act 10:4.Tr.].The offering was the deed which established the truthfulness of the praying word. Calvin: This subject-matter of adoration is to be referred to the three following heads: first, that when about to adore God we recognize that we owe all things to Him, and in giving thanks for past blessings we implore a still further increase of His gifts, and help in difficulties and perplexities; secondly, that confessing our sins as suppliant and guilty, we pray Him to grant us true knowledge of our sins and repentance, and to have mercy on us who pray for pardon; thirdly and finally, that denying ourselves and taking His yoke upon our shoulders, we profess ourselves ready to render Him due obedience, and to conform our affections to the rule of His law and to His will alone. [1Sa 1:4. The whole family take part in the feast of the peace-offerings. So as to the idol-worship in Jer 7:18, The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven. Both this passage and that, as to true religion and false, may impress upon us the importance of family worship and family religion.Tr.].

1Sa 1:4-8. Elkanahs love to Hannah is a model of the true inner love with which husbands should not merely love their wives in general, but as regards their special troubles and sorrows, instead of being worried and vexed at them should rather feel these as their own, and with them bear in patience and gentleness whatever lies heavy upon their heart and weighs them down (1Sa 1:5), and also protect them against provocations and vexations, which in an unrighteous and ill-disposed way are inflicted upon them (1Sa 1:6-7), and refresh them with consolation and encouragement (1Sa 1:8).[1Sa 1:5. Children were regarded as a blessing, by Hannah and the women of Israel in general (comp. Gen 30:23; Luk 1:25), and the lack of them as a sad deprivation; and the correctness of this view is distinctly confirmed by the inspired writers, Psa 113:9; Psa 127:3-5; Psa 128:3. The contrary feeling which is now so rapidly growing in America is evil, both in its causes and in its consequences. The subject would require delicate handling in public discourse, but is exceedingly important.Tr.]. When the Lord refuses us a gift which we are begging Him to grant, and the heart is full of mourning at the deprivation, then the temptation lies near to grumble about it against the Lord and quarrel with Him. This temptation comes partly from our own heart, which is a perverse and desponding thing, and will not reconcile itself to the dispensation of the Lord; partly it comes in upon us from without, through men who by their unloving conduct excite and embitter our hearts, and infuse into them the poison of discontent with those leadings of the Lord which contradict our desire and hope (1Sa 1:6-7).In a devout marriage the love of the one party should not merely be to the other a fountain of consolation and of quieting as to painful dispensations of the Lord, but for whatever by the Lords will is lacking in good fortune and joy it should seek to offer all the richer compensation (1Sa 1:8).Every violation of the holy ordering of God upon which marriage and the family life should rest, has as a necessary consequenceas is true of bigamy hereits punishment in the grievous disorder of conjugal and domestic life, in the destruction of peace in heart and home by all manner of sins, such as envy and jealousy.Hannah makes no reply to the bad words of her adversary, and bears her hostility with patience.Starke (1Sa 1:7): A Christian must not requite evil with evil, railing with railing, but bear all patiently and hope in God; for His hand can change every thing (Psa 77:11 [Eng. A.V. 1Sa 1:10. Luther translates it: But I said, I must suffer that; the right hand of the most High can change everything, but this rendering is not authorized by the Hebrew.Tr.]).

1Sa 1:8. Seb. Schmid: For the lack of one good, God knows how to compensate the pious by a greater and more manifest good.J. Lange: As the marriage-bond is much closer than that between parents and children, it follows that husband and wife must hold each other nearer and dearer than all children. Each must help to bear the others burdens, and seek to lighten them, Gal 6:2.

1Sa 1:1-8. The priestly calling of the man in his house: 1) in the close connection of his whole house with the service in the house of the Lord (prayer and offering); 2) in the nurture and admonition of the children for the Lord; 3) in expelling and keeping at a distance the evil spirit of unlovingness and dissension amid the members of the family; 4) in the constant exhibition of faithful, comforting, helping love towards his wife.A truly pious house is that which 1) is at home in Gods house, 2) diligently performs divine service in prayer and offering, in which 3) tender and true conjugal love dwells, and 4) the sufferings and deprivations imposed by the Lord are borne with patience and resignation.The preservation of genuine piety amid domestic troubles: 1) in persevering prayer, when the Lord proves faith by not fulfilling particular wishes and hopes; 2) in enduring patience towards vexatious members of the family; 3) in consoling and supporting love towards members of the family who are easily assailed.

1Sa 1:9-14. Amid vexations and assaults, what should impel us to prayer? 1) The certainty that if men do us hurt, it does not occur without Divine permission. 2) The feeling that even the best human consolation cannot satisfy the heart which thirsts to be consoled. 3) Firm confidence in the help of the Lord, who in His faithfulness will help and in His power can help, when men will not help or cannot.[Chrysostom: When standing to pray she did not remember her adversary, did not speak of her revilings, did not say, Avenge me of this vile and wicked woman, as many women do; but not often remembering those reproaches, she prayed only for things profitable to herself. This do thou also do, O mando not pray against thy enemy, but beseech God to put an end to thy despondency, to quench thy grief. By so doing this woman derived the greatest benefits from her enemy. For her enemy contributed to the bearing of the child. And how, I will tell. When she reproached her and made her distress greater, from the distress her prayer became more intense, the prayer drew Gods favor and made Him consent, and so Samuel was born. So then if we be watchful, not only will our enemies be unable to do us hurt, but they will even bring us the greatest benefits, making us more zealous towards every thing.TR.].The prayer of faith in heart-grief and trouble: 1) Its nature is that the heart (a) weeps itself out before the Lord, to whom tears wept before Him are well-pleasing, (b) pours out all its sorrow before the Lord, who wishes us to cast all outward cares upon Him; 2) Its reliance is (a) on the power of the Lord of Sabaoth to help, (b) upon His faithfulness, wherein He knows the special grief and woe of His children, and does not forget them; 3) It leads (a) to a firm hope that the request will be heard and granted, (b) to a joyful vow, that what the Lord graciously gives shall be thankfully given back to Him.What parents, especially mothers, so rear their children as to honor and please the Lord? Those who 1) bear them, from the beginning of their life, prayerfully on the heart, 2) devote them, for their whole life, as an offering to the Lord.The highest appreciation of childrens souls consists in 1) regarding them as a gracious gift from the Lord, and 2) designing them as a grateful gift to the Lord.[Hall: The way to obtain any benefit is to devote it, in our hearts, to the glory of that God of whom we ask it: by this means shall God both pleasure His servant, and honor Himself.Tr.].

1Sa 1:12. Starke: A devout prayer must proceed from the very bottom of the heart, and may be offered without outward words as with them, Psalm 19:15 [Psa 19:14]; Psa 27:8; Psa 62:9 [Psa 62:8], Isa 29:13-14.

1Sa 1:13-14. A Christian should not be too swift in judging, Luk 6:37; 1Co 4:5; Pro 17:27. Even upon pious or innocent people there are often many unjust judgments passed. J. Lange: We must be very careful in deciding from appearances, lest we sin against our neighbor, Act 2:13. Even pious teachers may err and mistake in judging their hearers, and regard some as ungodly who are truly pious.

1Sa 1:15. Cramer: He who is reviled, let him revile not again, but save his innocence with mild words, Rom 12:17. [Chrysostom speaks eloquently of the fact that Hannah did not scornfully neglect, and did not bitterly resent, the unjust accusation.Tr.].Prayer serves to lighten the heart; well for thee, O soul, if thou often seekest thus to lighten it, Psa 42:5 [4]; Psa 62:9 [Psa 62:18].

1Sa 1:17. Osiander: God is certain to hear our prayer, proceeding from true faith, and if He does not help us at all according to our will and as seems good to us, yet this is done for our best good, as He knows that it is most profitable for us.When one has erred he should confess it, and also recall his error.[Hall: Even the best may err, but not persist in it. When good natures have offended, they are unquiet till they have hastened satisfaction.Tr.].

1Sa 1:18. J. Lange: It is a property of faith that it makes the heart happy and joyous for everything.

1Sa 1:19. Starke: A Christian must not only pray, but work; both bring blessings, Psa 128:2.Cramer: Although God never forgets His own, yet He often acts as if a stranger, Psa 13:2 [1]; Jer 14:8; Son 2:9.Starke: When pious parents receive their children with calling on God and in His fear, then is every child a Samuel.Osiander: When we have received a benefit from God, we should not forget gratitude to Him.

1Sa 1:12-20. The fervent prayer of troubled souls: 1) measures itself not by time, but exalts the soul above time into eternity; 2) troubles itself not about human observation and judgment, but is a pouring out of the heart before the living God; 3) suffers not itself to sink into grief and sorrow, but has for its fruit a joy given by the Lord.Defence against unjust accusations: 1) For what purpose? As a tribute to truth, for the honor of the Lord, for the maintenance of our own moral worth; 2) In what manner? In quietness and gentleness without sinful passion, in humility and modesty; 3) By Gods help, with what result? Convincing the accusers of their wrong, changing their bad words into blessings, lightening our own heart of a heavy load.The naming of children no indifferent matter for pious parents: Thankfully regarding the grace of the Lord, who has given them; 2) Earnestly regarding the destination for the Lord, to whom they are to lead them.

Footnotes:

[1][1Sa 1:1. The , being a part of the introductory narrative-formula, and not a connective with some other narrative, is better rendered by the presentative now than by the connective and; and is best omitted entirely.Tr.].

[2][1Sa 1:1. Vat. has , which points to a Zuphite; Targ. renders of the disciples of the prophets, Pesh. from the hill of the watchers, both of which point to the present text, but are not probable translations.Tr.].

[3][1Sa 1:3. It is not said that these were the only priests.Tr.].

[4][1Sa 1:5. See Notes, in loco.Tr.].

[5][1Sa 1:6. It was over this that the adversary designed to make Hannah fret.Tr.].

[6][1Sa 1:7. The verb is probably to be pointed .Tr.].

[7]1Sa 1:9. The Infin. refers here rather to Hannah.Tr.].

[8][1Sa 1:9. is not necessarily temple, but any large structure.Tr.].

[9][1Sa 1:13. The Heb. inserts the pron. she, but our Eng. does not well permit it.Tr.].

[10][1Sa 1:16. worthlessness should not be rendered as a proper name in O. T.; Eng. A. V. frequently renders sons of B. by ungodly or wicked.Tr.].

[11][1Sa 1:18. See Notes.Tr.].

[12][In the German exegetische erluterungen, exegetical explanations.Tr.].

[13][So Josephus; but the text of Erdmann has Ramathaim.Tr.].

[14][That is, it was not necessary to drive the animals thither beforehand, since, the distance being so small, they could be sent for when needed.Tr.].

[15][The difficulties in the way of identifying Ramathaim (-Zophim) on the supposition that it is the same with this city (1Sa 9:6) are almost insuperable. The conditions to be met are 1) the place is in Mt. Ephraim; 2) it is apparently south of Rachels tomb (1Sa 10:2); 3) it was Samuels residence Ramah. They decide the question against Er-Ram, which is north of Rachels tomb. The only solution is that which rejects the above supposition. If the city in which Saul was anointed was some other place, or Sauls residence at that time was not Gibeah, then Er-Ram may be Ramah, and in other respects this answers better than any other place to the circumstances. But the question must be regarded as undecided. See Stanleys Sinai and Palestine, Note to 1 Samuel 4, and Mr.Groves Articles (Ramah, Ramathaim) in Smiths Dictionary, with Dr. Wolcotts additional remarks.Tr.].

[16]The addition of the Sept. does not warrant the supposition that the corresponding Heb. expression has fallen out after , but seems to be an explanation of the translator. not at his usual time (Luther), nor statutis diebus but from year to year, yearly (Exo 13:10), comp. 1Sa 2:19; the yearly offering.

[17][The phrase means once, or it happened once, the Heb. using the Def. Art. (because the day is defined by what follows) where we use an indefinite phrase. See 2Ki 4:8; 2Ki 4:11; 2Ki 4:18.Tr.].

[18][This local service promised by the mother was afterwards interrupted, chiefly by the call of Samuel to higher duties as prophet. To the mother the Sanctuary-service seemed the best pursuit of life; but God had something better for the son. Yet Hannahs devout spiritual purpose is maintained in her sons life.Tr.]

[19][This word in Num 6:7 means consecration, not crown, or ornament. The root (Arab. nadhara) means to set, impose, and thus is applied to setting apart the Nazir, or to setting a crown on the bead of a priest or king.Tr.]

[20][Equivalent to the Eng.: Like father, like son.Tr.]

[21][So the Vss.: Chald. bad countenance; Syriac disturbed count.; Vulg. in diversa mutati; Arab. changed on account of the reproach of her rival; Sept. her countenance no longer fell.Tr.]

[22][The German is Reichsgeschichtliche und biblisch-theologische Ausfilhrungen, literally theocratic-historical and biblical-theological developments (or comments).Tr.].

[23][Germ: durch das Flssigwerden seines objectiven Offenbarungswortes, etc.Tr.]

[24][This civil war occurred, however, soon after Joshua, since Phinehas, grandson of Aaron, was then High-priest (Jdg 20:28); whether there was afterwards a general national uprising, we do not know.Tr.]

[25][See note on 1Sa 2:22.Tr.]

[26]And as the combination is not unfrequent (Psa 59:6; Psa 80:5; Psa 80:8; Psa 80:15; Psa 84:9) and in the mas. text the , when precedes, never has the points of but always of and further as the word as a proper name cannot be construed with a Gen.the combination is not to be taken as stat. const., but as a breviloquence or ellipsis, the general notion God being supplied from the proper name Jehovah. So (against Gesenius and Ewald) Oehler in Herzog s. v., Hengstenberg, Christologie I. 436 sq. [Eng. tr. I. 375] and Keil, Comm. 16 [Eng. trans. p. 19]. See Smiths Bib. Dict., Am. ed., Tsebaoth.Tr.].

[27][For a good exposition of Jehovah Sabaoth, see Plumptres Biblical Studies.Tr.].

[28][In the German literally Homiletical Hints.Tr.]

Fuente: A Commentary on the Holy Scriptures, Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical by Lange

CONTENTS

This Chapter opens with an account of Samuel’s family; of his father Elkanah, and his mother Hannah, particularly. The distress of his mother, by reason of her being childless; the temptation of her adversary on this score: her earnest prayer to God; Eli the Priest taking notice of her fervor in prayers and mistaking for drunkenness, what he saw of her wrestling in prayer with God, reproves her; Hannah satisfies Eli, and obtains his good wishes, that the Lord might hear and answer her petition: Hannah is blessed of God, with a son, and Samuel is born; offerings are made in consequence thereof, to the Lord, in Shiloh. These are the principal things contained in this Chapter.

1Sa 1:1

(1) Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:

Perhaps the pedigree of Samuel is here noticed, by way of manifesting the particular tribe of Israel, to which he belonged.

Fuente: Hawker’s Poor Man’s Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

Samuel the Seer

In Samuel we have a deep stretch of condescension God in communion with the life of a child.

I. Was he a miracle this little Samuel? No in the view characteristic of the Bible he is the real and normal aspect of humanity. All seers of God’s kingdoms have seen it by the light of their childhood. We do not drop our childhood when we become men, we carry it with us into the life of men. Every sage bears within his bosom a little Samuel an instinctive child life which concludes without reasoning, adores without arguments, worships without symbols, prays without words. The man who listens to this voice is a prophet of the kingdom.

II. There are two things about Samuel’s illumination which are very prominent, and which seem to be typical of religious illumination in general.

( a ) The call of Samuel does not come to him as a call from heaven, but as a voice from earth. The voice of God has assumed the accents of a man. Our deepest impressions of spiritual things come to us indirectly. It is not by a voice from heaven that a man believes himself to be in the presence of God; it is by the blending of earthly voices.

( b ) From the moment in which he recognized the real origin of the message, he perceived it to be something which would disturb the calm of his life. It brought not peace, but a sword. Although the case of Samuel is an accentuated one, the call of duty is nearly always a struggle. The very idea of duty implies restraint.

III. There were three great functions in the Jewish nation whose simultaneous existence was contemporary with the life of Samuel the Prophet, the Priest, and the King.

( a ) The Priest is the representative of the past. He exists as a salve to the pains of memory.

( b ) The King represents the present. He exists to guide the hand at the actual hour.

( c ) The Prophet is the representative of the future. He exists to tell not merely of forthcoming events, but of eternal principles. And therefore it is that the organ of the prophetic life is ever the spirit of the child. Childhood is the time that looks forward.

G. Matheson, The Representative Men of the Bible, p. 239.

References. I. 16. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi. No. 1515. I. 20, 21. Williams, Characters of the Old Testament, p. 160. I. 22. J. Keble, Village Sermons on the Baptismal Service, p. 292. II. 1. H. J. Wilmot-Buxton, Sunday Lessons for Daily Life, p. 37. II. 2. F. Corbett, The Preacher’s Year, p. 115. II. 3. Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxix. No. 1736.

Fuente: Expositor’s Dictionary of Text by Robertson

1Sa 1

1. Now there was a certain man [literally, one man] of Ramathaim-zophim [abbreviated to la-Ramah. The village of Ramah was built on two hills], of mount Ephraim [the hill country of Ephraim], and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite [this tracing through four generations agrees with the family registers in 1Ch 6 The epithet belongs to Elkanah, not to Zuph]:

2. And he had two wives [Lamech was the first to violate the law of one wife only]; the name of the one was Hannah [grace or favour], and the name of the other Peninnah [modern: Margaret, coral or pearl]; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

3. And this man went up out of his city yearly [to the feast of unleavened bread] to worship, and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts [the first time in the Old Testament that the name Jehovah Sabaoth occurs, it occurs two hundred and sixty times in the Old Testament. It is used sixty times by Isaiah, and about eighty times by Jeremiah] in Shiloh [rest: a sacred city in Ephraim]. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there [Eli himself is not mentioned. He was still high priest, but too old to take part in the offering of sacrifice].

4. And when the time was that Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions:

5. But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion [one portion for two persons: a double portion]; for he loved Hannah: but the Lord had shut up her womb.

6. And her adversary [her rival] also provoked her sore, for to make her fret [so much for polygamy!], because the Lord had shut up her womb.

7. And as he did so year by year, when she went up to the house of the Lord, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat [of her portion].

8. Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons [a round number to signify many]?

9. So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh [after the sacrificial meal was over; literally, after she had eaten in Shiloh, and after she had drunk], and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat [a chair, or throne of state] by a post of the temple [palace] of the Lord.

10. And she was in bitterness of soul [literally, bitter of soul], and prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore [“Prayers and tears are the saints’ great guns and scaling-ladders.” Luther ].

11. And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head [a perpetual Nazarite].

12. And it came to pass, as she continued praying [as she multiplied to pray] before the Lord, that Eli marked her mouth.

13. Now Hannah, she spake in [to] her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken [made possible by the moral degradation of the time].

14. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken [knowing that she had newly risen from a feast]? put away thy wine from thee.

15. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord.

16. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial [the devil]: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto.

17. Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him.

18. And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight. So [having cast her burden on the Lord] the woman went her way, and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.

19. And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord, and returned, and came to their house to Ramah: and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord remembered her.

20. Wherefore [and] it came to pass, when the time was come about [literally, at the revolution of the days] after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel [heard of God], saying, Because I have asked him of the Lord.

21. And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice, and his vow [vows were characteristic of this particular age of the Judges],

22. But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned [weaning took place very late among the Hebrews usually for two years, sometimes for three], and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever.

23. And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the Lord establish his word [may the Lord fulfil his designs]. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him.

24. And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks [one for a burnt offering, the two were yearly], and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the Lord in Shiloh: and the child was young.

25. And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli.

26. And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth [an oath peculiar to the Books of Samuel and to the Books of Kings], my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the Lord.

27. For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath given me my petition which I asked of him.

28. Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he liveth he shall be lent to the Lord. And he [“Neither Elkanah nor Samuel have been mentioned, and cannot therefore be meant. Hannah must be the subject, and the masculine of the verb is used, as in 1Ch 6:7 , though the subject is feminine.” The Speaker’s Commentary ] worshipped the Lord there.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

The Birth of Samuel

1Sa 1:20

HANNAH, the wife of Elkanah, besought the Lord for a man child. This draws our attention to the scope of human prayer. Men cannot pray by rule. We do but mock men when we say, You must pray for this and not for that. Such an exhortation may do for a man when his heart is not inflamed by the passion of godly desire; it may do for him in his coldest and most indifferent mental states. But when he is in his most vehement and determined moods, he cannot be fettered and limited by such exhortations. We need something more for our guidance than mere maxims. A maxim is too narrow for life. We need principles which can shrink into maxims and can expand into revelations as the exigencies of life may require. Sometimes we are cold and dull, then a maxim will do: sometimes our strength rises to full flood, then we need inspiration. You cannot conduct life in its highest phases and its intensest desires by any set of maxims. You can only control and elevate life by having principles which can shrink and expand, adapt themselves when man’s moral temperature rises, when his strength rises, and suit themselves to all the varying phases and wants of his life. Tell Hannah that she ought not to pray for what God has not seen fit to give her, and she scorns your formal piety and your tabulated counsels. Why? She is not in a mood to receive that kind of instruction; there is a hunger in her heart; through her own love she sees far into the love of God; and by the eagerness of her desire she goes far away, with bleeding weary feet, from beaten paths and accepted roads, that she may bind God by the very importunateness of her love. That is not the kind of woman into whose ear you can drop a little formal maxim with any effect Your religion will be to her profanity, if you cannot address her in a higher tone meet her just where her soul is. She is borne away by the passion of her desire; there is one dominating force in her nature that transfigures everything, that defies difficulties, that surmounts obstacles, and that waits with trembling nervous patience till God come. What is love if it be not fiery? What is prayer if it be not the heart on a blaze? Prayer is not mere articulation; prayer is not mere words. Prayers are battles; prayers are the thunders which call for God when he seems to be far away!

Yonder is a wild goat, living on stony hills and desert places. He has wandered a long way from pasture, from food of any kind. In the madness of his hunger he sees on farther edge, five hundred fathoms above the level, just one little tuft of grass the only green thing within a circuit of miles. It is a dangerous place, but then he is in a dangerous condition. He climbs to it, the rock almost trembles under him. A moment more, and, hundreds of fathoms below, he lies a bleeding mass. But impelled by hunger, he does what only the fierce courage of despair dare do. So it is with that keener hunger of human souls. We do sometimes pray for things that lie away from the line of ordinary devotion; we would not pray for them but for that over-mastering, irresistible, spiritual force that holds us in its mighty hand. If we were in coolness and sobriety of spirit and temper, we should be able to reason about it and to put things together and to draw inferences. Man is not fully man when he stands upon his feet; he touches the highest point of his manhood when he lifts the pinions of faith and hope, and goes off into the Unknown if haply he may find God! If you do not know what the hunger is you do not know what the prayer is. You cannot feel as Hannah did without you have been in great straits, and when for the time you have been the willing’ victim of a glowing and grand desire. But is there not a limit? Yes, there is a limit, and it is sometimes well not to look at it in the light of a limit. It is true that we are shut up like the sea and watched like the whale, but that is no reason why we should shrivel into a pool or dwindle into a minnow. What is the limit of our prayer? This: “Not my will, but thine, be done!” Is that a limit? it is glorious liberty! Not my will, but thine, not a little will, but a great will, not my thought, but thine, not my love, but thine! Is that a limit? It is the lark rising from its field-nest into the boundless liberty of the firmament! Truly we do not limit ourselves when we exchange the creature for the Creator. When we take up our little thought and say, “Lord, this is what we want, but not our will but thine be done,” do we then throw away the greater for the less? It is a contrast, and only such a contrast as you find in the earth and heaven, in the blazing sun and the misty night.

Need we say that there are some things which are not fit subjects for prayer? that there are some things which do not lie directly in the devotional line? For example, no man is at liberty to pray for wealth, merely as such. “Lord, give me riches,” would not be prayer; it would be profanity, it would be covetousness carried to the point of blasphemy. Wealth, as such, does not lie in the line of devotion, but far away from it, and can only be made incidental to it by certain moral considerations which the possessor of wealth may possibly know nothing at all about. Looked at in itself, Hannah’s prayer was selfish and poor in its spiritual tone; but the woman did not know what she was praying for altogether. It is so with us in our highest devotions. God inspires the prayer, and then answers it; dictates the language, and then satisfies the petition. So that persons who are asking for what may be called a little ordinary daily blessing, may, in reality, be asking for a gift the influence of which shall reach through ages, shall palpitate through eternity. Hannah says, Give me a man child! She knows not the destinies that are involved in that prayer. And that prayer is not her own. Her petition is but the echo of a higher voice. Herein is the mystery of prayer. There be cold, formal, rudimentary prayers; there be labial prayers prayers that come from the lips only; and there be words which are revelations of Christ subdued sighings of the soul, which God prompts and regulates, and which are sent for the trial of our patience and strength, that God may bring in upon our little petition a greater answer than our fancy ever dreamed, than our love ever dared expect!

We shall see in what an extraordinary mental and spiritual state Hannah was, as we read from the twelfth to the sixteenth verses:

“And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the Lord, that Eli marked her mouth. Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto.”

There are three remarkable things in this case. First: Here is a religious household disquieted by one unhappy element. Hannah’s life was lived under the harrow of Peninnah’s reproach. The household was a religious one. Elkanah went out of the city to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh. Hannah was a praying woman. We have every reason to suppose that, speaking in general terms, the household was markedly religious; yet there was shot through it one unhappy, disquieting, poisoning element. Let us get away from all that is merely local in the incident, and dwell upon the principle that one sinner destroyeth much good. The head of the house is a worshipping man, reverent, strong in faith, punctilious in religious observances; those that are round about him have religious convictions and religious strength. Yet there is something in the household just one little microscopic thing that spoils the heaven. You cannot exhort people to get out of that The element is little and insignificant in itself; but still it requires a vital remedy. The disquieting cause is different in different houses. In almost every house there is some little spiteful spirit; in almost every family there is somebody that has the power of sneering at other people; in most households undoubtedly there are members who can drop just one scalding drop into a sore place and make it sorer. It can be done so that you cannot print it and publish it; it can be done so that you cannot report it; it can be done so that you can only feel it These are the miseries that spoil many lives. Who are we happily situated, having little or nothing to interrupt our domestic joy that we should in an off-handed manner exhort people to be more patient, and to be this and that and the other, when we ourselves could not be so if we were under the same circumstances? Understand, it is these little, insignificant things that destroy the happiness of a human home. Not great fights, not periodical revolutions in the domestic state; but hasty little words, untimely shruggings of the shoulder, and sneers that are no sooner on the lip than away. What is the cure for all that kind of disease? There is only one cure, and that is, Crucifixion with Jesus Christ Observe, not mere crucifixion. You may nail a man’s hand both hands, both feet and crush thorns into his temple till he is bathed in blood; but you may not touch the devil that is in him. He must be crucified; but he must be crucified with Christ in his spirit, thoughts, and purposes. Sympathy with the cross of Christ takes out of human nature the last drop, the final dreg and sediment of evil, hatred, and bitterness; and nothing but that will touch the disease. We may compromise; we may bear and forbear; we may make our life a game at setting up little pieces of wood, and piling up little cards in a certain shape, keeping every breath of wind away lest the little structure should be overturned. That is not life. The only true life is based on right, love, nobleness, law, charity, kindness. All this we find only in that manly, womanly, godly Heart that burst on Calvary.

The second remarkable thing is: A religious use of a daily provocation. Peninnah persecuted Hannah daily; laughed at her, mocked her, jeered her, provoked her sore to make her fret; provoked her to tears, to fasting, to grief of heart. Hannah was in bitterness of soul and wept sore. What use did she make of this daily torment? Do not let us fix upon the one particular thing that she had in view, or the one special difficulty that annoyed and perplexed her; but get into the principle of the case. What was the use which she made of this daily torment? It was a religious use. She prayed unto the Lord; she rose up and went forward that she might pray mightily before God; she spake in her heart and she poured out her soul before God. That was conquest, that was victory! There is a possibility of having a daily annoyance, and yet turning that daily annoyance into an occasion of nearer and nearer approach to God. Let us then endeavour to turn all our household griefs, family torments into occasions of profound worship and loving homage to God. It was in human nature to avenge the insult; to cry out angrily against the woman who delighted in sneering and in provoking. But there is something higher than human nature, something better. And is it not our business, is it not better, indeed, that we should try, at all events, to get away from the human nature, which we are too prone to worship in its generalisation, and seek the divine nature, which has in it the interpretation of every difficulty and the remedy for every affliction? It could not be easy to bear the daily annoyance. A footfall heard in the house might mean a coming sorrow; a sound heard in the distance might awaken painful memories; a turn of a sentence, though it might be unintentional and unconscious on the part of the guilty individual, might afflict the soul. The worst suffering is subtle and unspeakable, and hardly to be told or to be hinted at, made up of ten thousand little things, any one of which is not worthy of a moment’s consideration. Yet here is a woman who was able to triumph over all these things, and to bring them in as helps to her continual prayer.

The third thing that is remarkable is, the religious recognition of family mercies. When the son was born the son for whom Hannah had been praying many a day she called his name Samuel, “heard of God.” Let us dwell carefully on this point, because everybody is embraced in the application of this truth. We have prayed for a long time for a given object; that object has at length been yielded to us. What then?

“And Hannah prayed, and said, My heart rejoiceth in the Lord, mine horn is exalted in the Lord: because I rejoice in thy salvation. There is none holy as the Lord; for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God…. The Lord maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, and he hath set the world upon them. He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail” ( 1Sa 2:1-2 , 1Sa 2:7-8 , 1Sa 2:9 ).

It was thus with one man. He was very ill; a great strong man in his day; yet disease touched him, shrivelled him up, laid him upon a lowly bed, made him pray to the humblest creature in his house for favours hour after hour. As he lay there, in his lowliness and weakness, he said, “If God would raise me up I would be a new man, I would be a devout worshipper in the sanctuary, I would live to his glory.” And God lifted him up again; did not break the bruised reed, did not quench the smoking flax, but permitted the man to regain his faculties. And he was not well one month before he became as worldly as he was before his affliction. He prayed as if his heart loved God; and when he got his health back again he was a practical atheist he was virtually the basest of blasphemers.

It was thus with another man. He had nothing when he started in life. He used to run errands; to sweep doorsteps, and burnish bells in order that he might get some little gifts to buy his next meal with; and he went on suffering daily. He said, “If God would but bring a turn upon my fortune so that I could make something, I would turn all his gifts to the blessing of my fellow-men; I would show the true use of riches; I would be a Christian; in the midst of my abounding prosperity, I would give a spiritual meaning to all the material gifts of God.” His little was doubled, then his little became much, and his much became more, and he became, what? He would not look at a poor man; he was ashamed to be seen of men who knew him in his low estate; he was a conceited, swaggering fool! Now the reverse in both these cases is possible. It is possible to be lifted up from the bed of affliction and become a burning, shining light in fulfilment of a vow. It is possible to get on from nothing to little, from little to much, and in the midst of abounding prosperity to be a thankful recipient of God’s mercies, a gentle little child, made for the time being a steward of God’s gifts.

Blessed are the men who have had praying mothers. The influence of that fact they cannot shake off. They may curse and swear, and go to the very boundary of the pit; nay, go into it, and we doubt whether in all their suffering they can ever shake off the influence of having had a praying mother. The mother’s devotion comes up in the boy’s veneration, love of right, conscientiousness, magnanimous hope, gentle courage. As with the boy and the mother, so with the girl and father. Sex is not a physiological question only. We find the sex element in disposition, in thinking, in quality of strength. Blessed are they who have had a praying ancestry. As for such as have not had praying forefathers, there is no reason why they should be lost and thrown away. God is our Father; and when father and mother forsake us, he will take us up. He will lift the beggars from the dunghill and set them among princes, and make them inherit the throne of glory.

Let no man be cast down. Let those who have had praying mothers be charged, as by a captain of the Lord of hosts, that they go to the front of the fight, and be the most valorous men in God’s camp. Let those who have been born into the world, and have had nothing but darkness and sorrow ever since they came into it, know that Jesus Christ receiveth sinners and eateth with them; and that when he looks upon a sinner the sinner is transfigured into the son of Abraham, as when the morning light looks upon a folded flower it opens its beautiful leaves and shows its thankfulness by telling all the secrets of its heart!

Selected Note

It is on the mother of Samuel that our chief attention is fixed in the account of his birth. She is described as a woman of a high religious mission. Almost a Nazarite by practice ( 1Sa 1:15 ) and a prophetess in her gifts ( 1Sa 2:1 ), she sought from God the gift of the child for which she longed with a passionate devotion of silent prayer, of which there is no other example in the Old Testament, and when the son was granted, the name which he bore, and thus first introduced into the world, expressed her sense of the urgency of her entreaty Samuel, “the asked or heard of God.”

Living in the great age of vows, she had before his birth dedicated him to the office of a Nazarite. As soon as he was weaned, she herself, with her husband, brought him to the tabernacle at Shiloh, where she had received the first intimation of his birth, and there solemnly consecrated him. The form of consecration was similar to that with which the irregular priesthood of Jeroboam was set apart in later times ( 2Ch 13:9 ) a bullock of three years old (LXX.), loaves (LXX.), an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine ( 1Sa 1:24 ). First took place the usual sacrifices (LXX.) by Elkanah himself, then, after the introduction of the child, the special sacrifice of the bullock. Then his mother made him over to Eli (1Sa 1:25 , 1Sa 1:28 ), and (according to the Hebrew text, but not the LXX.) the child himself performed an act of worship.

The hymn which followed on this consecration is the first of the kind in the sacred volume. It is possible that, like many of the Psalms, it may have been enlarged in later times to suit great occasions of victory and the like. But 1Sa 1:5 specially applies to this event, and 1Sa 1:7 and 1Sa 1:8 may well express the sense entertained by the prophetess of the coming revolution in the fortunes of her son and of her country.

Prayer

Almighty God, we are all thine; we are twice thine. Thou didst make us, and not we ourselves, and thou didst redeem us with the precious blood of Christ, and bring us out of a worse than Egyptian bondage. We wrestle not with flesh and blood against these there is an answer, sure and unchangeable but with principalities and powers, with spiritual temptations, with difficulties of the soul, with nameless forces and malignest mysteries of darkness. These are our foes; we cannot see them; we cannot touch them or name them; they are here, there, on the right hand, on the left hand, around us, above us, never sleeping, always watching. Against these thou dost call us to do battle; but thou dost call us to put on the armour which thou hast thyself provided, and being clothed in that steel of heaven, we may go on from conquering to conquer, slaying mightily and completely all evil forces and winning the Lord’s battles in the Lord’s great strength. Thine eye is upon us; it melts with compassion, it gleams with complacency, and if now and again it is bright with anger, we know the justice of the indignation, for we have sinned and done evil in the Lord’s sight. We come to thee to find pardon, and through pardon to enjoy peace yea, to begin the eternal Sabbath of the heavens, the calm of eternity, the peace which passeth all understanding. Thou wilt not disappoint us; if we have made any effort to come to thine house, thou wilt doubly reward us. No man can serve God for nought. If we have put ourselves to any inconvenience, thou wilt surely magnify thy grace towards us, and send a plentiful rain of blessing upon thirsty hearts. Pity us in all our littleness and weakness. Remember that our days when they are all counted are but a handful which a child might carry; and remember that we are made out of the dust of the ground, and that the dust still claims much of us. Remember the difficulty of life: its daily burden, its certain care, its sorrows, so heavy and bitter. Remember the deaths which have bereaved us, the losses which have made us poor the disappointments which have torn and stung our hearts; and then let thy mercy come to us in no few, scanty drops of pity, but in great rains of compassion, and let thy heart be moved towards us in all tenderness and grace. But why should we argue with thee, or plead with thee as if thou wert reluctant? The willingness is upon thy side; thou dost wait to be gracious. Again and again, amid all our peevish reasoning, thou dost remind us that if thou didst not spare thine only Son, but freely gavest him up for us all, how much more wilt thou with him also freely give us all things. We forget the love of the cross, and therefore we doubt the love of the providence. The Lord forgive us Amen.

Fuente: The People’s Bible by Joseph Parker

II

THE EARLY LIFE OF SAMUEL

1Sa 1:1-4:1 a and Harmony pages 62-66.

We omit Part I of the textbook, since that first part is devoted to genealogical tables taken from 1 Chronicles. That part of Chronicles is not an introduction to Samuel or Kings, but an introduction to the Old Testament books written after the Babylonian captivity. To put that in now would be out of place.

We need to emphasize the supplemental character of Chronicles. Our Harmony indeed will show from time to time in successive details the very important contributions of that nature in Chronicles not found in any form in the histories of Samuel and Kings, nor elsewhere in the Old Testament; but to appreciate the magnitude of this new matter we need to glance at it in bulk, not in detail, as its parts will come up later.

There are twenty whole chapters and parts of twenty-four other chapters in Chronicles occupied with matter not found in other books of the Bible. This is a considerable amount of new material, and is valuable on that account but it is still more valuable because it presents a new aspect of Hebrew history after the captivity. The following passages in Chronicles contain new matter: 1Ch 2:18-55 ; 1Ch 3:19-24 ; 1Ch 4:9 ; 1Ch 11:41-47 ; 1Ch 11:12 ; 1Ch 15:1-26 ; 2Ch 6:40-42 ; 2Ch 11:5-23 ; 2Ch 12:4-8 ; 2Ch 13:3-21 ; 2Ch 14:3-15 ; Ch_15:1-15; 2Ch 16:7-10 ; 2Ch 2 Chronicles 17-19; 2Ch 20:1-30 ; 2Ch 21:2-4 ; 2Ch 21:11-19 ; 2Ch 24:15-22 ; 2Ch 25:5-10 ; 2Ch 25:12-16 ; 2Ch 26:5-20 ; 2Ch 27:4-6 ; 2Ch 28:5-25 ; 2Ch 29:3-36 ; 2Ch 29:30-31 ; 2Ch 32:22-23 ; 2Ch 32:26-31 ; 2Ch 33:11-19 ; 2Ch 34:3-7 ; 2Ch 35:2-17 ; 2Ch 35:25 ; 2Ch 36:11-23 .

Whoever supposed that there was that much material in the book of Chronicles that could not be found anywhere else? One can study Chronicles as a part of a Harmony with Samuel and Kings, but if that were the only way it could be studied he would never get the true significance of it, as it is an introduction to all of the later Old Testament books. In the light of these important new additions, we not only see the introduction of all subsequent Old Testament books and also inter-Biblical books by Jews, but must note the transition in thought from a secular Jewish kingdom to an approaching spiritual messianic kingdom.

We thus learn that Old Testament prophecy is not limited to distinct utterances foretelling future events, but that the whole history of the Jewish people is prophetic; not merely in its narrative, but in its legislation, in its types, feasts, sabbaths, sacrifices, offerings; in its tabernacle and Temple, with all of their divinely appointed worship and ritual, and this explains why the historical books are classed as prophetic, not merely because prophets wrote them, which is true, but also because the history is prophetic.

In this fact lies one of the strongest proofs of the inspiration of the Old Testament books in all of their parts. The things selected for record, and the things not recorded, are equally forcible. The silence equals the utterance. This is characteristic of no other literature, and shows divine supervision which not only makes necessary every part recorded, but so correlates and adapts the parts as to make perfect literary and spiritual structure which demands a New Testament as a culmination.

Moreover, we are blind if we cannot see a special Providence preparing a leader for every transition in Jewish history. Just as Moses was prepared for deliverance from Egypt, and for the disposition of the law, so Samuel is prepared, not only to guide from a government by judges to a government by kings, but, what is very much more important, to establish a School of the Prophets a theological seminary.

These prophets were to be the mouthpieces of God in speaking to kingly and national conscience, and for 500 years afterward, become the orators, poets, historians, and reformers of the nation, and so, for centuries, avert, postpone, or remedy, national disasters provoked by public corruption of morals and religion.

Counting great men as peaks of a mountain range, and sighting backward from Samuel to Abraham, only one peak, Moses, comes into the line of vision.

There are other peaks, but they don’t come up high enough to rank with Abraham, Moses, and Samuel. A list of the twelve best and greatest men in the world’s history must include the name of Samuel. When we come, at his death, to analyze his character and posit him among the great, other things will be said. Just now we are to find in his early life that such a man did not merely happen; that neither heredity, environment, nor chance produced him.

Samuel was born at Ramah, lived at Ramah, died at Ramah, and was buried at Ramah. Ramah is a little village in the mountains of Ephraim, somewhat north of the city of Jerusalem. It is right hard to locate Ramah on any present map of the Holy Land. Some would put it south, some north. It is not easy to locate like Bethlehem and Shiloh.

Samuel belonged to the tribe of Levi, but was not a descendant of Aaron. If he had been he would have been either a high priest or a priest. Only Aaron’s descendants could be high priests, or priests, but Samuel belonged to the tribe of Levi, and from 1Ch 6 we may trace his descent. The tribe of Levi had no continuous landed territory like the other tribes, but was distributed among the other tribes. That tribe belonged to God, and they had no land assigned them except the villages in which they lived and the cities of the refuge, of which they had charge, and so Samuel’s father could be called an Ephrathite and yet be a descendant of the tribe of Levi that is, he was a Levite living in the territory of Ephraim.

The bigamy of Samuel’s father produced the usual bitter fruit. The first and favorite wife had no children, so in order to perpetuate his name he took a second wife, and when that second wife bore him a large brood of children she gloried over the first wife, and provoked her and mocked at her for having no children, and it produced a great bitterness in Hannah’s soul. The history of the Mormons demonstrates that bitterness always accompanies a plurality of wives. I don’t see bow a woman can share a home or husband with any other woman.

We will now consider the attitude of the Mosaic law toward a plurality of wives, divorce, etc. In Deu 21:15-17 we see that the Mosaic law did permit an existing custom. It did not originate it nor command it, but it tolerated the universal custom of the times, a plurality of wives. From Deu 24:1-4 , we learn that the law permitted a husband to get rid of a wife, but commanded him to give her a bill of divorcement. That law was not made to encourage divorcement, but to limit the evil and to protect the woman who would suffer under divorce. Why the law even permitted these things we see from Mat 19:7-8 . Our Saviour there tells us that Moses, on account of the hardness of their hearts, permitted a man to put away his wife. That is to say, that nation had just emerged from slavery, and the prevalent custom all around them permitted something like that, and because they were not prepared for an ideal law on the subject on account of the hardness of their hearts, Moses tolerated, without commending a plurality of wives or commanding divorce both in a way to mitigate the evil, but when Jesus comes to give his statute on the subject he speaks out and says, “Whosoever shall put away his wife except for marital infidelity and marries again committeth adultery, and whosoever shall marry her that is put away committeth adultery.” A preacher in a recent sermon, as reported, discredited that part of Matthew because not found also in Mark. I have no respect for the radical criticism which makes Mark the only credible Gospel, or even the norm of the others. Nor can any man show one shred of evidence that it is so. I have a facsimile of the three oldest New Testament manuscripts. What Matthew says is there, and may not be eliminated on such principles of criticism.

The radical critics say that the Levitical part of the Mosaic law was not written by Moses, but by a priest in Ezekiel’s time, and that Israel had no central place of worship in the period of the judges, but this section shows that they did have a central place of worship at Shiloh, and the book of Joshua shows when Shiloh became the central place of worship. The text shows that they did come up yearly to this central place of worship, and that they did offer, as in the case of Hannah and Elkanah, the sacrifices required in Leviticus.

In Jos 18:1 we learn that when the conquest was finished Joshua, himself, placed the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle at Shiloh, and constituted it the central place of worship. In this section we learn what disaster ended Shiloh as the central place of worship. The ark was captured, and subsequently the tabernacle was removed, and that ark and that tabernacle never got together again. In Jer 7:12 we read: “But go ye now unto my place which was in Shiloh, where I caused my name to dwell at the first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel.” Jeremiah is using that history as a threat against Jerusalem, which in Jeremiah’s time was the central place of worship. His lesson was, “If you repeat the wickedness done in Samuel’s time God will do to your city and your home what he did to Shiloh.” It is important to know the subsequent separate history of the ark and the tabernacle, and when and where another permanent central place and house of worship were established. The Bible tells us every move that ark and that tabernacle made, and when, where, and by whom the permanent central place and house of worship were established.

Eli was high priest at Samuel’s birth. In those genealogical tables that we omitted from 1 Chronicles we see that Eli was a descendant of Aaron, but not of Eleazar, the eldest son; therefore, according to the Mosaic law, he ought never to have been high priest, but he was, and I will have something to say about that when the true line is established later. 1Sa 4 , which comes in the next chapter, distinctly states that Eli judged Israel forty years, and he was likely a contemporary of Samson. But Eli, at the time we know him, is ninety-eight years old, and nearly blind. He was what we call a goodhearted man, but weak. That combination in a ruler makes him a curse. Diplomats tell us “a blunder is worse than a crime,” in a ruler. He shows his weakness in allowing his sons, Hophni and Phinehas, to degrade the worship of God. They were acting for him, as he was too old for active service. The most awful reports came to him about the infamous character of these sons, who occupied the highest and holiest office in a nation that belonged to God.

This section tells us that he only remonstrated in his weak way: “My sons, it is not a good report that I hear about you,” but that is all he did. As he was judge and high priest, why should he prefer his sons to the honor of God? Why did he not remove them from positions of trust and influence? His doom is announced in this section, and it is an awful one. God sent a special prophet to him and this is the doom. You will find it in 1Sa 2 , commencing at 1Sa 2:30 : “Wherefore the Lord, the God of Israel, saith, I said indeed that thy house, and the house of thy father, should walk before me forever: but now the Lord saith, Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come, that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall not be an old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation (Shiloh), in all the wealth which God shall give Israel: and there shall not be an old man among thy descendants forever. And the descendants of thine, whom I do not cut off from mine altar, shall live to consume thine eyes and grieve thine heart: and all the increase of thine house shall die in the flower of their age.”

Or as Samuel puts it to him, we read in 1Sa 3 , commencing at verse 1Sa 3:11 : “And the Lord said unto Samuel, Behold I will do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle. In that day I shall perform against Eli all things that I have spoken against his house: when I begin I will also make an end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knoweth, because his sons made themselves vile and he restrained them not; therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged with sacrifice nor offering forever.”

What was the sign of his doom? The same passage answers: “And this shall be a sign unto thee, that shall come upon thy two sons, on Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall die both of them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind: and I will build him a sure house; and he shall walk before mine anointed forever. And it shall come to pass, that everyone that is left in thy house shall come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread.” That was the sign. In the time of Solomon the priesthood goes back to the true line, in fulfilment of the declaration in that sign. The priesthood passes away from Eli’s descendants and goes back where it belongs, to Zadok who is a descendant of Aaron’s eldest son.

The Philistine nation at this time dominated Israel. The word, “Philistines,” means emigrant people that go out from their native land, and it is of the same derivation as the word “Palestine.” That Holy Land, strangely enough, takes its name from the Philistines. The Philistines were descended from Mizraim, a child of Ham, and their place was in Egypt.

Leaving Egypt they became “Philistines,” that is, emigrants, and occupied all of that splendid lowland on the western and southwestern part of the Jewish territory, next to the Mediterranean Sea, which was as level as a plain, and as fertile as the Nile Valley. There they established five independent cities, which, like the Swiss Cantons, formed a confederacy. While each was independent for local affairs, they united in offensive and defensive alliances against other nations, and they had complete control of Southern Judea at this time. Joshua had overpowered them, but the conquest was not complete. They rose up from under his power, even in his time, and in the time of Samson and Eli they brought Israel into a pitiable subjection. They were not allowed to have even a grindstone. If they wanted to sharpen an ax they had to go and borrow a Philistine’s grindstone, and what a good text for a sermon! Woe to the man that has to sharpen the implement with which he works in the shop of an enemy! Woe to the Southern preacher that goes to a radical critic’s Seminary in order to sharpen his theological ax!

Speaking of the evils of a plurality of wives, we found Hannah in great bitterness of heart because she had no child, and we saw her lingering at the central place of worship, and without saying words out loud, her lips were moving, and her face was as one entranced, so that Eli thinks she is drunk. The New Testament tells us of a certain likeness between intoxication with ardent spirits and intoxication of the Holy Spirit. She told him that she was praying. When her child was born she came back and said to him, “I am the woman that you thought was drunk, but I was praying,” and then she uses this language: “I prayed for this child,” holding the little fellow up in her hands, “and I vowed that if God would give him to me I would lend him to the Lord all the days of his life,” and therefore she brings him to be consecrated perpetually to God’s service. The scripture brings all that out beautifully.

So the text speaks of the woes pronounced on a parent who put off praying for and restraining his children until they were grown. Like Hannah we should commence praying for them before they are born; pray for them in the cradle, and if we make any promise or vow to God for them, we should keep the vow.

I know a woman who had many children and kept praying that God would send her one preacher child, promising to do everything in her power to make him a great preacher. The Lord gave her two. One of my deacons used to send for me when a new baby was born, to pray for it. Oliver Wendell Holmes says a child’s education should commence with his grandmother. Paul tells us that this was so with Timothy. The Mosaic law required every male to appear before the Lord at the central place of worship three times a year. The text says that Elkanah went up yearly, but does not state how many times a year. The inference is fairly drawn that he strictly kept the Mosaic law.

Samuel had certain duties in the tabernacle. He slept in the Lord’s house and tended to the lights. It is a great pity when a child of darkness attends to the lights in God’s house. I heard a preacher say to a sexton, “How is it that you ring the bell to call others to heaven and you, yourself, seem going right down to hell?” And that same preacher said to a surveyor, “You survey land for other people to have a home, and have no home yourself.” So some preachers point out the boundaries of the home in heaven and make their own bed in hell.

Samuel’s call from God, his first prophecy, and his recognition by the people as a prophet are facts of great interest, and the lesson from his own failure to recognize at once the call is of great value. In the night he heard a voice saying, “Samuel! Samuel!” He thought it was Eli, and he went to Eli and said, “Here I am. You called me.” “No, I didn’t call you, my son; go back to bed.” The voice came again, “Samuel, Samuel,” and he got up and went to Eli and said, “You did call me. What do you want with me?” “No, my son, I did not call you; go back and lie down,” and the third time the voice came, “Samuel, Samuel,” and he went again to Eli. Then Eli knew that it was God who called him, and he said, “My son, it is the Lord. You go back and when the voice comes again, say, Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth,” and so God spoke and the first burden of prophecy that he put upon the boy’s heart was to tell the doom of the house of Eli. Very soon after that all Israel recognized Samuel as a prophet of God.

The value of the lesson is this: We don’t always recognize the divine touch at first. Many a man under conviction does not at first understand its source and nature. Others, even after they are converted, are not sure they are converted. It is like the mover’s chickens that, after their legs were untied, would lie still, not realizing that they were free. The ligatures around their legs had cut off the circulation, and they felt as if they were tied after they were loose. There is always an interval between an event and the cognition of it. For example, when a shot is fired it precedes our recognition of it by either the sight of smoke or the sound of the explosion, for it takes both sound and sight some time to travel over the intervening space. I heard Major Penn say that the worst puzzle in his life was the experiences whereby God called him to quit his law work and become an evangelist. He didn’t understand it. It was like Samuel going to Eli.

I now will give an analysis of that gem of Hebrew poetry, Hannah’s song, showing its conception of God, and the reason of its imitation in the New Testament. The idea of Hannah’s conception of God thus appears:

There is none besides God; he stands alone. There is none holy but God. There is none that abaseth the proud and exalteth the lowly, feedeth the hungry, and maketh the full hungry, except God; and there is none but God that killeth and maketh alive. There is none but God who establisheth this earth; none but God who keepeth the feet of his saints; none but God that has true strength; none but God that judgeth the ends of the earth, and the chief excellency of it is the last: “He shall give strength unto his king and exalt the horn of His Anointed.” That is the first place in the Bible where the kingly office is mentioned in connection with the name “Anointed.” The name, “Anointed,” means Christ, the Messiah.

It is true that it was prophesied to Abraham that kings should be his descendants. It is true that Moses made provision for a king. It is true that in the book of Judges anointing is shown to be the method of setting apart to kingly office, but this is the first place in the Bible where the one anointed gets the name of the “Anointed One,” a king. Because of this messianic characteristic, Mary, when it was announced to her that she should be the mother of the Anointed King, pours out her soul in the Magnificat, imitating Hannah’s song.

The state of religion at this time was very low. We see from the closing of the book of Judges that at the feast of Shiloh they had irreligious dances. We see from the text here that Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of religion, were not only as corrupt as anybody, but leaders in corruption. We see it declared that there is no open vision, and it is further declared that the Word of God was precious rare.

I will now explain these two phrases in the texts, 1Sa 1:16 (A. V.), where Hannah says, “Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial,” and in 1Sa 2:12 (A. V.), where Hophni and Phinehas are said to be the “sons of Belial.” The common version makes Belial a proper name; the revised version does not, and the revised version is at fault. If you will turn to 2Co 6:15 , you will see that Belial is shown to be the name of Satan: “What concord hath Christ with Belial?” Get Milton’s Paradise Lost, First Book, and read the reference to Hophni and Phinehas as sons of Belial, and see that he correctly makes it a proper name.

Samuel was not a descendant of Aaron. He was merely a Levite, but he subsequently, as we shall learn, officiated in sacrifices as if he were a priest or high priest. It will be remember-ed that the priesthood was under the curse pronounced on Eli, and Samuel was a special exceptional appointee of God, as Moses was.

Dr. Burleson, a great Texas preacher, and a president of Baylor University, preached all over Texas a sermon on family government, taking his text from 1Sa 2:31 .

There are some passages and quotations from Geikie’s Hours With the Bible on the evils of a plurality of wives that are pertinent. Commenting on Elkanah’s double marriage he says, “But, as might have been expected, this double marriage a thing even then uncommon did not add to his happiness, for even among the Orientals the misery of polygamy is proverbial. ‘From what I know,’ says one, ‘it is easier to live with two tigresses than with two wives.’ And a Persian poet is of well-nigh the same opinion: “Be that man’s life immersed in gloom Who needs more wives than one: With one his cheeks retain their bloom, His voice a cheerful tone: These speak his honest heart at rest, And he and she are always blest. But when with two he seeks for joy, Together they his soul annoy; With two no sunbeam of delight Can make his day of misery bright.” An old Eastern Drama is no less explicit: “Wretch I would’st thou have another wedded slave? Another? What? Another? At thy peril Presume to try the experiment: would’st thou not For that unconscionable, foul desire Be linked to misery? Sleepless nights, and days Of endless torment still recurring sorrow Would be thy lot. Two wives! O never! Never! Thou hast not power to please two rival queens; Their tempers would destroy thee; sear thy brain; Thou canst not, Sultan, manage more than one. Even one may be beyond thy government!”

QUESTIONS

1. Why omit Part I of the textbook?

2. What, in bulk, is the supplemental matter in Chronicles, and what its importance?

3. What and where is the place of Samuel’s birth, residence, and burial?

4. What is his ancestry and tribe?

5. If he belonged to the tribe of Levi, why then is he called an Ephraimite, or Ephrathite, which in this place is equivalent?

6. Show that the bigamy of Samuel’s father produced the usual bitter fruit.

7. What was the attitude of the Mosaic law toward a plurality of wives, and divorce, and why?

8. Why did the law ever permit these things?

9. What is the bearing of this section of the contention of the radical critics that the Levitical part of the Mosaic law was not written by Moses, but by a priest in Ezekiel’s time, and that Israel had no central place of worship in the period of the Judges?

10. When did Shiloh become the central place of worship, how long did it so remain, and what use did Jeremiah make of its desolation?

11. Trace the subsequent and separate history of the ark of the covenant and the tabernacle, and show when and where another permanent central place and house of worship were established.

12. Who was high priest at Samuel’s birth, how was he descended from Aaron, and what the proof that he also judged Israel?

13. With which of the judges named in the book of Judges was he likely a contemporary?

14. What was Eli’s character, sin, doom, sign of the doom, and who announced it to him?

15. What nation at this time dominated Israel?

16. Give a brief and clear account of these people.

17. Show how Samuel was a child of prayer, the subject of a vow, a Nazarite, how consecrated to service, and the lessons therefrom.

18. How often did the Mosaic law require every male to appear before the Lord at the central place of worship, and to what extent was this law fulfilled by Samuel’s father and mother?

19. What were the duties of the child Samuel in the tabernacle?

20. Give an account of Samuel’s call from God, his first prophecy, his recognition by the people as a prophet, and the lesson from his own failure, for a while, to recognize the call.

21. Analyze that gem of Hebrew poetry, Hannah’s song, showing its conception of God, and give the reason of its imitation in the New Testament.

22. What was the state of religion at this time?

23. Explain the references to Belial in 1Sa 1:16 ; 1Sa 2:12 .

24. As Samuel was not a descendant of Aaron, but merely a Levite, why does he subsequently, as we shall learn, officiate in sacrifices as if he were a priest or high priest?

25. What great Texas preacher preached all over Texas a sermon on family government, taking his text from 1Sa 2:31 ?

26. Cite the passages and quotations from Geikie’s Hours With the Bible on the evils of a plurality of wives.

Fuente: B.H. Carroll’s An Interpretation of the English Bible

1Sa 1:1 Now there was a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name [was] Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:

Samuel was in the number of those few in Scripture, that lived and died with glory. His birth, life, and acts take up a great part of this book, which seemeth to have been written by some disciple of his, who, in honour of his master, called it by his name. Like Anna Comnena, daughter of Alexius Comnenus the Emperor, wrote the history of her father’s deeds and called it Alexias.

Ver. 1. Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim. ] Called also Ramah, and Arimathaea. The Hebrews a say it was a school of prophets, who are frequently in Scripture called Zophim, that is, watchmen, and that Elkanah himself was a prophet, as being of the sons of Korah, who are called prophets. See 1Ch 6:22 ; 1Ch 6:27 ; 1Ch 6:33 , compared with those titles of Psalms “to” or “of the soils of Korah.” Of that gainsaying “sinner against his own soul,” came Samuel, Homo ille virtute simillimus.

An Ephrathite. ] So called, because he dwelt in the tribe of Ephraim, as Jdg 12:5 ; likeas those Jews are called Cretes and Arabians, Elamites and Parthians, &c., Act 2:9-10 because they sojourned in those countries.

a Chald. Paraph., Kimchi, Ben-Gerson.

Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)

mount = hill country of.

Elkanah = Acquired by God, i.e. perhaps in exchange

for firstborn (Num 3:13, Num 3:45), a son of Korah. See Exo 6:24.

Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics

This book presents the history, the personal history of Samuel who was the last of the Judges. It ushers in the beginning of the period of the kings in the children of Israel, or among the children of Israel.

There’s a certain man of Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah. He had two wives; one was Hannah, the other Peninnah: Peninnah had children, Hannah had no children. This man went out of the city yearly to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh. [Which at that time was the religious center of the nation.] And the two sons of Eli, [Who was the high priest at that time] Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there. And it came when the time was that Elkanah offered, he gave to Peninnah, and her children portions: But unto Hannah he gave a goodly [or an extra] portion; because he loved Hannah very much: but God had shut up her womb [and that she was barren] ( 1Sa 1:1-5 ).

So the scene is set the man living in polygamy, two wives. One he loved more than the other. One had many children, but the one he really loved could not have any children.

And so her adversary ( 1Sa 1:6 ),

That is Hannah’s adversary, or the other wife. So there was friction in the house between the two wives as they bide for the attention and the love of the one man. As I said this morning, any man’s a fool who thinks that he can satisfy all of the needs of two women. You’re bound to have problems. So they did.

The inner strife within the house as

Peninnah provoked Hannah, made her fret, because that she was barren ( 1Sa 1:6 ).

Really pressed the issue, really taunted her over her inability to have children. So Elkanah was heading for Shiloh, vacation time, feast time. Time of celebration, it’s to be a time of merriment and rejoicing as you go up to the house of God to worship. It’s interesting to me that God wants the rejoicing to, or the worship of Him to be a rejoicing, happy experience. They called them the “feasts” and they were just feasts. People would go up and just have a great feast. It was a holiday, a time in which they worshiped God and gathered before Him, a time of rejoicing and happiness. So Elkanah was heading up for this time and taking his wife Hannah with him. She was weeping all the time and wouldn’t eat.

So Elkanah said to her, Why do you weep? why aren’t you eating? why is your heart so grieved? am I not better to you than ten sons? [“Can’t you be happy with me?”] So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. And Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the Lord. And she was in bitterness of soul, and she prayed unto the Lord, and she wept sore. And during this period she vowed a vow unto the Lord, and she said, Lord if you will indeed look upon the affliction of your handmaid, and remember me, and not forget me, but if you will give unto me a man child, [“Give me a boy”] I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head ( 1Sa 1:8-11 ).

“Lord if you’ll just give me a son, I’ll give him back to You, but I want a son, I’ll give him back to You all the days of his life.”

Now there are many times when we pray and we wonder why our prayers are not answered immediately. There are some times in which God delays the answer to our prayers. Here’s the case now Hannah no doubt had been praying about a son for a long time. Cursed with barrenness she had no doubt brought it before the Lord many times in prayer. “Oh God give me a son. Lord I want a son. God why haven’t You given me a son?” Yet there seemingly was no answer to her prayer. God delayed the answer.

Now with Hannah there was a reason why God delayed the answer, and with us. If God delays the answer of our prayers there’s a reason for His delay. Often times, with Hannah, the reason being that God is seeking to bring us around to His purposes. The Bible says, “The eyes of the Lord go to and fro throughout the entire earth to show Himself strong on behalf of those whose hearts are completely towards Him” ( 2Ch 16:9 ). So God was waiting, bringing Hannah around to where her heart was completely towards God, and the things of God, and that which God wanted.

God was needing a man to lead Israel during these desperate days of transition. He needed a man that He could speak to, and that would speak to the people for Him. For during this period of their history, they had not really heard from God. It says, “The word of the Lord was precious”, it means it was scarce. God wasn’t speaking to men. There were no men whose ears were really open to God.

So Hannah finally out of the desperation of her soul said, “Lord, if You will just give to me a son, I will give him back to You all the days of his life.” This is what God was desiring, this is what God was looking for, and so when God brought her around to this place of that commitment to God. “Lord, if You’ll just give me a son, I’ll give him back to You.” Then the Lord answered her prayer.

When God now gives, He many times delays giving, in order that He might give more, or in order that what is given is used for His purposes. I feel that many times when we are praying, the Bible says, “We don’t always know how to pray as we ought” ( Rom 8:26 ), and this is very true. We oftentimes pray for things that in our initial prayer, we’re thinking about ourselves. James says, “You haven’t received naught because you asked amiss that you might consume it upon your own lusts” ( Jas 4:3 ). Much of our prayer is that of personal kind of requests to God, as we almost look at God as a Santa Claus kind of “I want this. I want that. I want this.” We’re thinking not really of God, but we are thinking of ourselves. What I want, rather than what does God want.

Now the Bible says, “If we ask anything according to His will, He hears us, and if He hears us, then we have received the petitions that we have asked of Him.” Much of what we ask is not really according to God’s will, it’s according to my own desires. I’m thinking of myself, how I can use it for me.

Hannah no doubt was for a long time just thinking, “Lord, I want a son so that other wife will shut her mouth”, tired of this business of being chided all the time. “Lord, I want a son that I can nurse. I want a son that I can take care of.” She was thinking of herself. Now through the processes of God’s working in her life, she was a godly woman, it is expressed as we get into the next chapter and we read of her rejoicing when God answered her prayer. We see that in the praise of Hannah, there are earmarks of a depth of spirituality. Now she’s brought into harmony with the purposes of God. “God just give me a son, and I will give him back to You all the days of his life.”

Now it came to pass, as she was continuing to pray before the Lord, that Eli the priest sitting there on the post was watching her. [He saw the grimaces on her face, and] he saw her mouth moving [and he listened], but he couldn’t hear any words: and so he just concluded that she was drunk. And he said unto her, Hey woman why are you so drunk? put away your wine. And she answered, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have poured out my soul before the Lord ( 1Sa 1:12-15 ).

Denied the accusations of the priest and just said, “I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit. I poured out my soul to the Lord.”

Don’t count your handmaid for a daughter of Belial: for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken unto the Lord. Then Eli answered and said, Go in peace: and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that you have asked of him. And she said, Let your handmaid find grace in thy sight. So the woman went her way, did eat, her countenance was no more sad ( 1Sa 1:16-18 ).

She believed the word of the Lord. Change of attitude. She didn’t go around looking sad anymore. She didn’t go around not eating. Her husband probably wondered the change in her whole attitude. But it was faith, believing the word of God through the priest. Believing that God was now gonna give her a son. It would be actually contrary to fact for her to go on with sadness and grieving, not eating. God has promised. He’s going to answer.

Herein is of course one of the marks of faith, acting as though you have it, before you actually have it. It’s an attitude. If God has promised to give it to me, why should I go around just moping, and sad, and sorrowful? Why should I go around worried and concerned if God has promised to give it to me? If I really believe the promises of God, I’m gonna start rejoicing. I’m gonna start, actually, my attitude, and my actions are gonna be in harmony with what I actually believe. So because she believed the promise of God, her countenance would change.

She started eating.

And so they rose up in the morning early, and after worship they headed back to their house at Ramah: [Which is just north of Jerusalem, the modern city of Ram Allah.] and Hannah became pregnant; the Lord remembered her. Therefore it came to pass, when the time was come after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, [Which means “asked of God”.] Because I asked him of the Lord. [So Samuel means “asked of God”.] And the man Elkanah, and all of his house, went up to offer to the Lord yearly the sacrifice, and to make his vow. But Hannah did not go up; for she said to her husband, I will not go up until I have weaned the child, and then I will take him to the house of God that he may abide there. So Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seems good; wait until you’ve weaned him; only the Lord establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave, and nursed her son [actually] until she had weaned him. And after Samuel had been weaned, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, a bushel of flour, a bottle of wine, and brought him to the house of the Lord in Shiloh: and the child was young. And they slew a bullock, and brought the child to Eli. And she said, Oh my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that was here, [I’m the woman if you’ll remember that was lying there, and you thought I was drunk.] and I told you I was asking God for a son. And this is the son for whom I prayed ( 1Sa 1:19-27 ).

“Here he is, here’s the proof, here’s my little boy.”

There have been many occasions here at Calvary Chapel where young couples have come up and have expressed their desire to have a child. Maybe they’ve been married four, or five, six years, some of them married ten, twelve years, and they come up and they express their desire for a child. “We’ve been married this long, and we’ve never been able to have a child. Oh, we’re thinking about adopting, but we’d love to have a child.” We have laid hands on them, and prayed for them, and a year or two later, they come up and say, “This is the baby that we prayed for. This is the child.” We have these same kinds of experiences. A lot of little miracle babies around here. Where God has answered the prayer and has blessed the home with children.

She was excited, she said, “Oh my lord, I’m the woman. I’m the one that was here. It was for this child that I prayed. The Lord has given me my petition that I’ve asked of Him.”

Therefore I am giving him back to the Lord; as long as he lives he shall be the Lord’s. And he worshiped the Lord there ( 1Sa 1:28 ).

Now this is where we get the dedication of babies on Sunday morning. It is more or less following this same pattern of Hannah. We’ve asked God to bless, to give us children, recognizing that these children are gifts from God, we bring them back to God and say “God, you have given us this child, but we want to give this child to You, for Your purposes that the child might serve You all the days of their life. That Your purposes and Your will might be accomplished within the child.” So the dedication of our babies unto the Lord.

Now I do not know of any scriptural basis for baptizing babies. I do not know of a single scriptural proof for the baptism of babies. I really believe that baptism is more the act of a conscious adult. There are two scriptures really that deal with baptism. The one is, “Repent and be baptized”. Now I have yet to meet one of these little babies that has repented. In Mark’s gospel it says, “He that believeth and is baptized,” and they really don’t have enough intelligence yet to believe.

Now it doesn’t mean that the child would be lost if it dies. I believe that a child within a Christian home is saved if it dies before an age of accountability. I believe that I Corinthians, the second chapter teaches this. That, “The believing wife, or husband, either of them being a believer, the child is covered by the believing parents, else would your children be unclean. But now,” Paul said, “they are holy.” So the faith of a believing parent covers for that child. You say, “But what about an unbelieving parent?” That I don’t know, the Bible is silent. I must be silent.

You say, “But would it be fair,” well, God will do whatever’s fair. But the Bible doesn’t say specifically, I can’t say specifically. I believe that God will be fair. I’m sure that He’ll be fair. I know He’ll be fair and I rest my case there in the righteousness and the fairness of God. God will be absolutely fair in all His judgments. There’s not one person gonna get a bad deal before the judgment bar of God. There’s not one person’s gonna be a walk away, gonna be able to walk away and say, “That isn’t fair”. God will deal justly with every case and every extenuation in each case. The justice of God is something that I am absolutely convinced of. The absolute righteousness of the judgments of God.

The justice of man is something I have little belief in. I cry with the crowd, “There ain’t no justice,” but that’s only speaking from a human standpoint. But from the divine standpoint the absolute righteousness of the judgment of God is something that I have no question about whatsoever. Thus, I’m not really worried about those people that have never heard of Jesus Christ or the babies who die, or whatever. I know that God is gonna be absolutely righteous and fair in His judgments. So I just rest it there. But babies can be scripturally, can be dedicated or presented to God.

Now in the New Testament when Jesus was born, they came and offered the sacrifices for the firstborn child and they presented Him unto the Lord. The priests lifted Him up in his hands and blessed Him, and said, “Now Lord let thy servant die in peace for You’ve allowed me to see Your salvation.” But again the idea of, “Here’s my child Lord. I present it to You that You might use this life for whatever purposes, that Your influences might come upon this child and lead and guide him as he grows, and develops. And Lord, I give him back to You all the days of his life.” I think that it’s a marvelous gesture on the part of a parent. We dedicated all of our children to the Lord, actually between us dedicated them to the Lord before they were ever born.

Now it is true that when they’re old enough they’ve got to make their own commitments, and their own decisions. The fact that we dedicated them to the Lord doesn’t follow that they are going to consent to that dedication when they get old enough to do what they want. But hopefully by that time we will have given enough spiritual input and all that when they are older, they will not depart from that faith that they have gained while growing up under our tutorage. So it is more than just dedicating; there is a responsibility as parents to train up the child, or to catechize the child in the ways of the Lord. To teach them, to instruct them in the ways of the Lord, so that as they grow older these will be things that have been planted in their hearts and minds deeply, become a very part of their very thinking processes. Chapter 8

Now it came to pass, when Samuel was old, he made his sons the judges over Israel. And the name of his firstborn was Joel; the second was Abiah: and they were judges in Beersheba. [Which is in the south.] But his sons did not walk in his ways, but they turned aside after lucre, they took bribes, and perverted judgment ( 1Sa 8:1-3 ).

So here’s an unfortunate thing. A godly man Samuel, and yet his sons were crooked. These guys were taking bribes, they had coveted after money, they would pervert judgment for bribes.

So all the elders of Israel came to Samuel there at Ramah, And they said, Behold, you are old, but your sons are not walking in your ways: so make us a king to judge us like all the nations. [So now the demand of all of the elders of Israel in order that they might have a king like the rest of the nations.] The thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the Lord. The Lord said to Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people: for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected me, from being king over them ( 1Sa 8:4-7 ).

Now a nation that is governed by God is a theocracy. These people were rejecting now a theocratic form of government and they were demanding now a monarchy. “We want a king like the other nations.” It is a sad step down in their history when they rejected God from being king. However it was because God was not being faithfully represented to them by their rulers, that they were demanding a king like the other nations. The Lord said, “You tell them what a monarchy is going to entail.”

So Samuel told the people all the words of the Lord. When you have a king that reign over you: He’s gonna take your sons, he’s gonna draft them, and appoint them for himself, and for his chariots, that they might be his horsemen; some shall run before his chariots. He’s gonna appoint captains over the thousands, and over the fifties; and he will set them to ear his ground, or to till his soil, to reap his harvest, to make him instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots. And he will take your daughters that they might be his bakers, and cooks, and confectionaries. And he will take your fields, your vineyards, your oliveyards, and the best of them, and he will give them to his servants. You’ll have to start paying taxes of ten percent. [They had it pretty good.] And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your finest young men, your donkeys, and put them to his work. And he’ll take a tenth of your sheep: you’ll be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen; and the Lord will not hear you in that day. Nevertheless the people said, Fine we want a king that we might be like all the nations; that our king might judge us, go out before us, and fight our battles. So Samuel heard the people, he went back and he said, Lord they still want a king. So the Lord said, Hearken to their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said to the men of Israel, Go your way every man to his own city ( 1Sa 8:10-22 ).

Chapter 9

Now there was a man of the tribe of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, he was the son of Abiel,… and he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and [the word] goodly: [is handsome] and there was not among the children of Israel a more handsome person than he: he was head and shoulders taller than anyone else ( 1Sa 9:1-2 ).

Just a big, handsome fellow, Saul the son of Kish. In fact, he was just the most good-looking guy in all of Israel, big, handsome, natural benefits and characteristics.

Now Kish’s donkeys were lost. And he said to Saul, Take one of the servants, and go and look for the donkeys. And so Saul passed through mount Ephraim, passed through the land of Shalisha, but they did not find them: they passed through the land of Shalim, and they did not find them there: so they passed through the land of the Benjamites, they did not find them. When they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, We better get back home, because my father is gonna quit worrying about the donkeys, he’s gonna start worrying about us. So they said, How in the world do we get home from here? we’re lost. [More or less.] So he said, I hear that there is an honourable man; a prophet in this city; let’s go; maybe he can shew us the way we should go. Then Saul said to the servant, But, look, if we go to the prophet we don’t have anything to give him. We’ve spent everything that we have and we have no present to give to the man of God. And the servant answered Saul, and he said, I have here a fourth part of a shekel of silver: and we’ll give that to the man of God, to tell us our way. Now (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: they called the Prophets in those days Seers ( 1Sa 9:3-9 ).

The word “seer” is that which it implies it’s a man that is able to see into the spiritual things, or a man who has spiritual perception, and they were called “seers”, that was the original word for the prophets. Later on they called them prophets. But in the earlier days they were called seers.

Then Saul said to his servant,

Come on that’s good enough, let’s go. So they went to the city where the man of God was. And they went up to the hill to the city, and they found some young maidens going out to draw water, and they said, Is the seer here ( 1Sa 9:10-11 )?

Now can you picture this handsome Saul, big, nobody is more handsome than he and he’s asking these young maidens where the seer is. They are careful to answer him.

And they answered and said, He is; behold, he’s before you: make haste now, for he came today to the city; for there’s a sacrifice of the people today in the high place: As soon as you come into the city, you shall straightway find him, behold he goes up to the high place to eat: for the people will not eat until he comes, for he doth bless the sacrifice; and afterwards they eat those that are bidden. Now if you’ll get up; for about this time you’ll find him. [Hurry.] And so they went up into the city: and when they were come to the city, behold, Samuel came out against them, to go up to the high place. Now the Lord had told Samuel in his ear a day before Saul came, [Isn’t that neat the Lord’s able to talk to Samuel like that? He spoke in his ear.] and said, Hey tomorrow about this time I’m gonna send you a man out of the land of Benjamin, and you are to anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines: for I have looked upon my people, because their cry has come up to me. And so when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said unto him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of. this same shall reign over my people. Then Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and he said, Tell me, I pray thee, where the seer’s house is. And Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer: go up before me to the high place; for ye shall eat with me today, and tomorrow I will let thee go, and tell thee all that is in thy heart. And as for the donkeys that were lost three days ago, don’t worry about them; they’ve already been found. And on whom is all the desire of Israel? Is it not on thee, and on your father’s house ( 1Sa 9:12-20 )?

Now he finds the prophet, and the prophet starts saying some weird things. He says, “Now don’t worry about those donkeys, they’ve already been found. But upon whom is the desire of all Israel?” Israel is desiring a king. “Upon whom is the desire of all Israel, is it not upon you and your father’s house?”

And Saul said, Hey wait a minute don’t lay that on me, I’m a Benjamite, we’re the smallest tribe in Israel? my family is the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin. What are you saying to me man? And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlour, and made them sit in the chiefest place among those that were bidden, which were about thirty persons. And Samuel said to the cook, Bring the portions that I gave thee, of which I said unto thee, Set it by thee. And the cook took up the shoulder, and that which was upon it, and set it before Saul. And Samuel said, Behold that which is left. set it before thee, and eat: for unto this time hath it been kept for thee since I’ve invited the people. So Saul did eat with Samuel that day. And when they were come down from the high place into that city, Samuel communed with Saul upon the top of the house. And they arose early: and it came to pass about the spring of that day, that Samuel called Saul to the top of the house, saying, Up, that I may send thee away. Saul arose, and went both of them, and Samuel, abroad. And as they went down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid your servant to go on in front of us, and stand here for awhile, that I might shew you the word of the Lord ( 1Sa 9:21-27 ).

So Samuel now is getting ready to reveal to Saul the things of God. “Send your servant away.”

Chapter 10

Samuel took a vial of oil, and he poured it over Saul, over his head, and he kissed him, and he said, Is it not because the Lord has anointed thee to be captain over his inheritance? Now when you depart from me today, when you get by Rachel’s tomb, you’re going to see two men; and they will say to you, The donkeys that you were looking for have been found: and, your father’s no longer worried about the donkeys, but he’s worried about you. Then as you go on forward from there, you’re gonna come to the plain of Tabor, and there you’re gonna meet three men that are going up to God to Bethel, and one is carrying three kids, and another’s carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a bottle of wine: They’re gonna greet you, they’re gonna give you to loaves of bread; which you shall receive. And then when you come to the hill of God, where the garrison of the Philistines are: it shall come to pass, that when you’re come near the city, that you shall meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a harp, and a pipe, and a harp, before them; and they shall prophesy: And the spirit of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and shall be turned into another man. And so let it be, when these signs are come to thee, that you do as occasion serve thee; for God is with thee ( 1Sa 10:1-7 ).

So here the prophet is laying out, it’s the trip for him. “When you go out, when you get to Rachel’s tomb, there will be a couple fellows there that are gonna tell you, ‘Hey man the donkeys that you’re looking for were found. Your dad’s really worried about you. He doesn’t know what’s happened to you.’ As you go on a little further, you’re gonna meet three men that are going up to Bethel to worship God. One will have three goats, one will have three loaves of bread, and the other will have a jug of wine. They’re gonna offer you a couple loaves of bread, take them. Then when you go just a little further, when you get near the city, there’s gonna be a bunch of prophets coming down. They’re gonna have some instruments, they’re gonna be playing and singing. As you join them God’s Spirit is going to come upon you. You’re gonna be changed into another man. So at that time do as the occasion seems best, for the Lord is with you.”

And you will go down before me to Gilgal; to offer the burnt offerings, and to sacrifice offerings and the peace offerings: and seven days shalt you wait, till I come to thee, and shew thee what you’re to do. And so it was, that when he had turned his from Samuel, God gave him another heart: and all of those signs came to pass that day. And when they came near the hill, behold, a company of prophets met him; and the spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that, behold, he was prophesying before the prophets, the people said one to another, What is this that’s come to the son of Kish? is Saul among the prophets? And one of the same place answered and said, But who is their father? Therefore it became proverb, Is Saul among the prophets? And when he had made an end of prophesying, he came to the high place. And Saul’s uncle said to him, and to his servant, Where in the world did you go? And he said, To seek the donkeys: and when we saw that they were no where, we came to Samuel. And Saul’s uncle said, Tell me, what did Samuel say to you. And Saul said to his uncle, He told us plainly that the donkeys had been found. But Saul didn’t reveal to his uncle the other things that Samuel had said about him being the choice of God and the people, to be the king. And so Samuel called the people together before the Lord there at Mizpeh; And he said to the children of Israel, Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, I brought up Israel out of Egypt, delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, out of the hand of all of the kingdoms, of those that oppressed you: And you have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations; and you have said unto him, Nay, but set a king over us. Now therefore present yourselves before the Lord by your tribes, and by your thousands. And when Samuel had caused all the tribes of Israel to come near, the tribe of Benjamin was taken. When he caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families, the families of Matri were taken, and Saul the son of Kish was taken: and when they sought him, he could not be found. Therefore he inquired of the Lord further, if the man should yet come thither. And the Lord answered, Behold, he’s hid himself over there in the stuff ( 1Sa 10:8-22 ).

Now the time has come to present to Israel their king. All of the children of Israel are gathered at Mizpeh, this great day, the coronation of the king. And so Samuel is out there, big ceremonies, and he has the various tribes pass forth. And he takes the tribe of Benjamin. He has the families of Benjamin pass forth. He takes the family of Matri. Then out of the family of Matri, he takes Saul, and he says, “All right you’re king. Where is he?”

So he says, “Lord what’s going on here? What’s happening?”

Lord said, “Oh the guy’s hid himself over there in the stuff.”

So they went over there in the stuff and they got Saul out: and they fetched him: and when he stood among the people, he was higher than any of the people from his shoulders upward. [He just stood out in the crowd.] And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there is none like unto him among all the people? And the people shouted, and said, God save the king. Then Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord. And Samuel sent all the people away every man to his house. And Saul went home to Gibeah; and there went with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched. But the children of Belial said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and did not bring him any presents. But he held his peace ( 1Sa 10:23-27 ).

Now there are a couple of things here in this latter portion that interest me and fascinate me. Number one is that anointing of Saul where the Spirit of God came upon him, and he turned into another man, a real kind of conversion kind of an experience. God’s Spirit upon him, and his prophesying, and the heart was changed, a real work of God within his life.

The second thing that interests me is that there went with him a band of men whose hearts God had touched. This scripture always excites me because of its potential. Not that I’m a chauvinist, but I think that there’s nothing more exciting and fraught with possibility than to get a bunch of men whose hearts have been touched by God. To me the potential of a band of men, hearts touched by God, is just incomprehensible. What God can do when He touches the hearts of men!

Now for a long time, Christianity was looked on as almost a sissy, effeminate thing. The women were usually those who were committed to the Lord and trying to drag their husbands along. But that isn’t God’s order. God intended that the man be the head and spiritual leader in the house, of spiritual things. Now if the man isn’t then I believe that the woman needs to take that place. But that is not God’s divine order. It is God’s divine order that the man lead the house in spiritual things. How strong and how blessed is the house where the man assumes the spiritual role of leadership.

But with the church there was sort of an effeminate idea involved in Christianity. Even the ministers talked and acted like a bunch of sissies. You know they sought to be so proper and sweet, and sissified, that it gave Christianity sort of an effeminate kind of a feel to it.

I believe that Jesus Christ challenges the manhood of a man. I think that one of the greatest challenges to any man to really assert the fullness of his manhood is to commit your life completely and fully to following Jesus Christ. I think that’s one of the most manly things you can do. I think it’s powerful. I think it’s dynamic. When you get a bunch of fellows together, who have really committed their lives to Jesus Christ, whose hearts have really been touched by God, you’ve got a potential of turning the world upside down. Men fully committed unto the Lord, unto Jesus Christ, what an exciting potential.

Thus, we see that Saul has many advantages. Comes from a good home, security, love, he knows his dad’s gonna be worried about him when he doesn’t show up. The natural physique, handsome, big all means nothing compared with the Spirit of God coming upon his life, and anointing him, changing his heart, turning him into another man. Then God puts around him a bunch of fellows who are just turned on for God. A band of men whose hearts God had touched. You have now here the potential of marvelous things for God. You’ve got all the ingredients that you need for a real spiritual explosion. But we’ll go on and see how it fizzled and why it fizzled.

When we were kids it used to be we could have legalized firecrackers here in California. We used to light the Black Panthers because they were good loud ones. But every once in awhile, you know, you set the firecracker in the tin can, and you light the fuse, and you go back and you’d wait, and you’d wait, and you’d wait, no explosion, a fizzler. Course we learned when we were kids that you can take the fizzler, break it in two, pour the powder out, light the powder and as it starts to shoot out, if you stop it, gets your foot ajar, but you can really make the thing explode. But we used to always be disappointed with those fizzlers, had the potential, they’d blow and that tin can didn’t do anything, fizzled out.

I look at some people’s lives again, and you see that potential. You see all the ingredients are there, fizzlers. They never make it. What a disappointment the fizzlers are. God help us not to be fizzlers. That’s your lesson for tonight.

Shall we stand?

I pray that God will be with you this week, bless you at your work, that He’ll give you wisdom and guidance. That His love will just really flow through your life in those difficult and adverse circumstances. May the Spirit of God rest upon you, the anointing of His Spirit and power. May you become the man God wants you to be, doing the work God wants you to do for the glory of Jesus Christ. “

Fuente: Through the Bible Commentary

The first Book of Samuel covers a period of transition in the history of the nation, dealing with the process from the judges to the kings. The condition of the people under the Judges, as we have seen, was one of degeneracy.

It was during this period that they practically rejected God as their one King. The clamor for an earthly king which followed was the natural outcome of this practical rejection. The first movement of the Book deals with the story of Samuel, the last, and in some senses, the best of the judges.

It opens with a simple story, full of ordinary human emotion. Polygamy was still practiced. Elkanah was the husband of two wives, Peninnah, and Hannah. Hannah, persecuted by Peninnah, prayed earnestly that she might no longer be childless, making a vow that if a boy were granted to her he would be consecrated to the Lord. The promised consecration was twofold. It was to be life-long. As a Levite, and the son of a Levite, he would be called on to render a certain period of service, but before his birth his mother dedicated him for life. Her vow, moreover, covered not only the length of this service, but its character, as she promised that he would be a Nazarite. Her prayer was answered, and she fulfilled her vow by presenting the boy to Jehovah.

Fuente: An Exposition on the Whole Bible

Hannahs Prayer and Vow

1Sa 1:1-11

Elkanah was evidently a kind husband to Hannah; but marriage had suffered from the general relaxation of morals, and the bitter effects of polygamy are illustrated here. Because Hannah was specially loved, Peninnah hated her.

The grief of the childless wife drove Hannah to God. There she found her only resource. When the heart is nigh to breaking, what else can we do than pour out our complaint before the One who is ever ready to hear our cry? We may trust God with our secrets; He will keep sacred our confidence. Elkanahs love may go a long way, but we have for the most part to tread the wine-press alone. After we have eaten and drunk before our friends, anointing our head and washing our face, that they may not guess what is happening within, we must have a spot where we can unbend and open the sluice-gates of grief. And what place is so good as the Mercy-Seat? We need not vow our vows to bribe God to help us. The gifts of His love are more blessed for Him to give than for us to receive. But out of love we can vow what we will.

Fuente: F.B. Meyer’s Through the Bible Commentary

1 Samuel. 1-4

(with Jdg 21:16-25)

I. With all his virtues and natural advantages Eli had one great fault. He was a good man of the easy type; the kind of man who makes an admirable servant, who does his duty to perfection so long as his duty merely troubles himself, but who has not force of character to interfere with others; to command, to regulate the conduct of others, to incur the ill-will of others. An amiable indolence overspread his whole nature. He was one of the men who have great faith in the power of things to right themselves, in the virtue of leaving things alone, of letting nature take its course. Accordingly he let his own life and fortunes drift and become entangled with the wreck of other men’s misdeeds, and so came to the end he did.

The character of Eli is far from uncommon, and a far larger amount of disaster is produced in the world by such softness than by deliberate wickedness. There are times in most lives when the current of circumstances sets strongly towards sin, and when a man will certainly sin if his rule of life has been to avoid all that is painful and to choose what will for the time give him security and ease.

II. The vices which Eli suffered in his sons did not terminate in themselves, but had the effect of making the worship of God abhorrent and despicable in the country. This may be done not only by the sensuality and greed of the clergy, but in other ways as well. The carelessness about truth, which merely preaches traditionary opinions, brings God’s service into contempt; the indolent formality which accepts stereotyped phrases of devotion or of sentiment and puts no meaning into them; the wrangling and hastiness in discussion which show that love of party is stronger than love of truth; the preaching of doctrine which lowers men’s ideas of God and righteousness; these and many such things make the worship of God contemptible.

III. While God punishes the existing priesthood, He adds a promise of raising Himself up a faithful priest. This promise was fulfilled, first of all, in Samuel, who, though not of the priestly line, did serve in the house of God, and offered sacrifice by an exceptional and special consecration. In Samuel, the asked of God, there is a type of the readiness with which God can provide men for His service; men different from and unaffected by the times in. which they live; men who can grow up pure amidst corruption, who can shake off the ignorance of their teachers and rise above all their contemporaries, who are as truly sent by God as if they were sons of a Virgin or of a Hannah.

M. Dods, Israel’s Iron Age, p. 149.

References: 1Sam 1-3.-S. K. Hocking, Contemporary Pulpit, vol. v., p. 26; E. Conder, Drops, and Rocks, p. 103. 1Sa 1:3.-Sermons for the Christian Seasons, 2nd series, vol. ii., p. 669. 1Sa 1:5.-Expositor, 3rd series, vol. v., p. 55. 1Sa 1:9-28.-F. Langbridge, Sunday Magazine, 1885, p. 670. 1Sa 1:15.-Spurgeon, Sermons, vol. xxvi., No. 1515. 1Sa 1:20.-Parker, vol. vi., p. 218; Expositor, 3rd series, vol. v., p. 57; I.Williams, Characters of the Old Testament, p. 160. 1Sa 1:27.-J. Van Oosterzee, The Year of Salvation, vol. ii., p. 417; Spurgeon, Evening by Evening, p. 265. 1Sa 1:27, 1Sa 1:28.-J. Vaughan, Sermons to Children, 4th series, p. 331. 1Sam 1-4.-R. S. Candlish, Scripture Characters, p. 299. 1Sa 2:1.-H. Thompson, Concionalia: Outlines of Sermons for Parochial use, vol. i., p. 216. 1Sa 2:1-27.-Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. iv., p. 283. 1Sa 2:2.-Parker, vol. vii., p. 56.

Fuente: The Sermon Bible

Analysis and Annotations

I. SAMUEL THE PROPHET AND JUDGE

1. The Birth and Childhood of Samuel

CHAPTER 1

1. Elkanah and his wives (1Sa 1:1-8)

2. Hannahs prayer and vow (1Sa 1:9-18)

3. The prayer answered and Samuel born (1Sa 1:19-20)

4. The child weaned and presented unto the Lord (1Sa 1:21-28)

The descent of Samuel opens the book. The names are of striking significance. Elkanah means acquired of God. He was the son of Jeroham (tenderly loved), the son of Elihu (my God is He), the son of Tohu (prostration), the son of Zuph (honeycomb). They were pious generations from which the great man came. Elkanah had two wives. Hannah (grace) the much beloved was barren; Peninnah (pearl) had children. The fact that Hannahs name stands first makes it probable that her barren condition led Elkanah to marry a second wife. (See Deu 21:15.) Elkanah was an Ephraimite. But from 1Ch 6:20-28 we learn that Samuel and his father were of levitical descent. This has been pointed out as a discrepancy. It is however not at all inconsistent with the statement that Samuels father was of Ephraim. He was one of those Levites to whom cities were assigned in the portion given to the tribe of Ephraim (Jos 21:20).

Each year Elkanah went to Shiloh to sacrifice unto the LORD of Hosts. It is noteworthy that the name of God as LORD of Hosts (Jehovah Zebaoth) appears here for the first time in the Bible. (It is found 281 times in the Bible. It is not found in the Pentateuch; it occurs some 80 times in Jeremiah and 50 times in Zechariah.) It is the name of God as the Lord of power, the Lord of all the hosts of heaven and earth. That it is used the first time in the book which reveals the Kingdom is especially appropriate.

Hannah in her visits to Shiloh presents a sorrowful picture. She is beloved and receives a double portion from Elkanah, while Peninnah, her adversary, provoked her on account of her childless condition, so that she wept and did not eat at the feast. Then she arose from the sacrificial feast which she had not tasted and sought the presence of the Lord. There she wept and vowed a vow that if the Lord of hosts would grant her a man-child she would give him back to the Lord and he should be a Nazarite. She cast herself upon the Lord and laid hold on Him. Samuel therefore was the child of prayer, asked of the Lord; his whole life afterwards manifests the spirit of prayer and dependence.

Then Eli the priest is mentioned for the first time. He was astonished seeing her thus engaged in silent prayer and accused her of drunkenness. His astonishment and accusation are a witness to the sad state of Israel. Evidently few ever sought the presence of the Lord, and his reproof makes it evident that it was not an uncommon thing that drunkenness prevailed during the feasts at Shiloh.

Hannahs prayer was answered. The son is born and was called Samuel, which means heard of God. Little did she know of the mighty work her son was called to do; her prayer was answered far beyond her thought. She did not go up again to Shiloh till the child was weaned. Then she went up to fulfill her vow and presented him unto the Lord. Before Samuel could begin to serve the Lord he had to be weaned. As a weaned child no longer cries, frets, and longs for the breast, but lies still and is content, because it is with its mother, so the soul must be weaned from all discontented thoughts, from all fretful desires of earthly good, waiting in stillness upon God, finding its satisfaction in His presence, resting peacefully in His arms. (Perowne, The Psalm.) He began to minister at once unto the Lord before Eli the priest (2:11). He was brought up in the sanctuary and became that solid, earnest, prayerful man of God. It is the weaning and the sanctuary every servant of Christ still needs. And Hannah had given back to the Lord what He so graciously had bestowed upon her. This should be the case with all our prayer-answers.

Fuente: Gaebelein’s Annotated Bible (Commentary)

Ramathaimzophim: This ancient town, now called Ramla, is, according to Phocas, about thirty-six miles west of Jerusalem, and, according to modern travellers, about nine miles from Joppa and a league from Lydda, between which it is situated. It is built on a rising ground, on a rich plain, and contains about two thousand families. 1Sa 1:19, Mat 27:57, Arimathea

mount: Jdg 17:1, Jdg 19:1

Elkanah: 1Ch 6:25-27, 1Ch 6:34

Zuph: 1Sa 9:5

Ephrathite: 1Sa 17:12, Jdg 12:5, Rth 1:2, 1Ki 11:26

Reciprocal: Gen 35:11 – a nation Gen 48:7 – Rachel Exo 6:24 – Elkanah Jos 18:25 – Ramah Jdg 4:5 – between 1Sa 7:17 – his return 1Ch 6:26 – Zophai 1Ch 6:27 – Eliab 1Ch 6:35 – Zuph Luk 23:51 – Arimathaea

Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge

Notes.

Division 1. (1Sa 1:1-28; 1Sa 2:1-36; 1Sa 3:1-21; 1Sa 4:1-22; 1Sa 5:1-12; 1Sa 6:1-21; 1Sa 7:1-17.)

Samuel: the Representative of the Divine Sovereignty.

Samuel the prophet fittingly introduces the story of the kings, -fittingly crowns the first kings himself. He is the representative of the higher throne from which alone they derive their authority. The prophet (see Deu 18:15, sq., notes), as such, chosen from any class among the people, raised up of God as needed, not deriving his office from any of his predecessors, but from God alone, necessarily expresses the sovereign will of God. Samuel, in the circumstances of his birth, peculiarly does this; still more, under those in which he is brought forward by the Spirit of God, when the priesthood has failed, and the ark is no more sought after, and he has alone to stand in the terrible gap thus made.

But he is also thus the witness of the divine sufficiency. All else has failed, but God has not failed. In the very lowest estate, the Ichabod of the nation Samuel, with nothing to help or accredit him except that God who spike into his ear, lifts up the nation into triumph and blessing.

And here a new title of God is found, which, in connection with those related and contrasted “kingdoms,” which in the Septuagint give such fitting title to the books, claims for the divine not merely supremacy but totality of power. This is “Jehovah of Hosts,” or “Jehovah, God of Hosts”: where there is no need to speculate whether stars or angels, or even the hosts of Israel, are intended. “The God of Hosts” claims all these for Him. In this title the divine kingdom reveals itself in contrast with all others, which are sustained or confounded as they move in subjection to it or not. Thus the moral of the book is given at the opening of it.

1. Samuel’s origin and birth are carefully given to us: we may be sure, not as matters of simply historical interest. What importance, in this case, can we attach to this genealogy of unknown names? Let us remind ourselves that we are in the kingdom of God, where wheel is adjusted to wheel in His chariot of progress. How good it is to be permitted to escape from the babble of the unmeaning into a world like this, where everything is significant! There may be, no doubt, here depths and heights which we cannot explore. Still we are encouraged onward, and at every step gain something in view. How wonderful are these Scripture histories in this way, as making us aware everywhere of the pervasive presence of the Almighty and All-wise!

(1) Nothing, in fact, could be much simpler than is Samuel’s genealogy here, or the steps by which we reach the Nazarite prophet. Reading the five names in reverse order, and remembering that we have thus to read the numerical order also backwards, we find in the fifth place, under the number of responsibility, Zuph, “the watcher,” or “observer.” It is the only name of which the meaning is at all doubtful. Most, perhaps, would render it “honeycomb,” the Hebrew word standing for this. On the other hand, the derivation is as simple for the other meaning; and the alternative reading in Chronicles (Zophai in 1Ch 6:26, and Zuph or Ziph in verse 35), with its presumed connection with Ramathaim-zophim, leads us back to the former, also. In its spiritual connection, certainly, to be an “observer” in the sphere of responsibility is the beginning of all blessings. Zuph is an Ephrathite, therefore “fruitful”; and we cannot wonder that his son Tohu, under the number of experience, speaks of being “low, sunk down,” -humiliation; and this being ever the way of blessing and of the knowledge of the Lord, the next name, under the number of manifestation, is Elihu, “my God” -or my Mighty One -“is He.” Still, in the way of progress, and under the salvation number, we have then Jeroham, “he is tenderly loved”; and we end here, under that of obedience and divine sovereignty, with Elkanah, whom “God has purchased,” or “acquired.” How easily, of such a stock as this, comes forth a Samuel!

Elkanah’s town is that of Samuel afterwards, -Ramah, or ha-Ramah, “the height.” The name we have had elsewhere, but not the place, which here we find in its full title to have been Ramathaim-zophim, “the two heights of the watchers.” The prophet’s place was always that of a watcher, and the prophet’s face always toward the slowly coming dawn; and the “height” is in natural connection with the place: those who are in it are, by that very fact, lifted up out of the world. All this is in perfect keeping with Samuel’s association with Ramah. For us, also, the connection of the dawn with the kingdom for which still we wait is necessary and obvious: but why “two heights”? May it not be that there is the positional height of our place in Christ, of which other Ramahs have already spoken to us (pp. 133, 150), and the spiritual elevation answering to this? Certainly God has thus provided for the Elkanahs, His “purchased” ones today; and this is the place for a Samuel -should there be any now to exercise the judge’s office in Israel. For any right judgment of things at large, the coming of the Lord must be before us, we must be watchers for Him! Is not the state of Christendom, and the cause of that state also, depicted in His own words, -“but if that evil servant shall say, in his heart, My Lord delayeth his coming, and shall begin to smite his fellow-servants, and to eat and drink with the drunken” (Mat 24:48-49)? How unutterably solemn the warning that follows!

We are next told of Elkanah’s two wives, who repeat in some respects the story of Sarah and Hagar. If Sarah be, as we have seen in its place, the principle of grace, the very name of Hannah is “grace.” And she, too, is naturally a barren woman. Peninnah differs, however, in many ways, from Hagar. She is no bondwoman, and would not seem to stand for the principle of law; but is, on the other hand, the “adversary” of her rival, which could not in the same way be said of Hagar. Similarly she flourishes while Hannah is barren, but grows feeble after she has become fruitful. Her name, Peninnah, is of doubtful meaning, but probably signifies “shining, glittering”; and she may represent the earthly objects which so easily distract the heart even of Christians from that which should alone hold it. Would that Elkanah’s bigamy were less easily to be applied to Christians! That it was openly indulged as lawful, instead of marring, this does in fact only make the lesson more forcible: “happy is he who condemneth not himself in that which he alloweth.” After all, Elkanah did love Hannah: but grace cannot be reconciled to a barren love without fruit.

(2) No wonder if the going up to worship the Lord always provokes afresh this sorrow. But now she can bear it no longer: out it bursts in a vow of Nazariteship -of separation to the Lord of the child she covets. Would that all brought forth from us, even by grace, had thus the sign of consecration to God upon its head, the confession of entire dependence upon Him attached to that which is brought forth!

The last of the judges, Samson, who had “begun” to deliver Israel from the Philistines, had been, as we know, a Nazarite also; and we have seen (p. 239) the meaning of this. Here that alone is particularized in which Samson had so signally ailed. How easily the strong man fails in this grace of dependence just by reason of his strength! Samuel is, in fact, the very opposite of Samson. If anything more than another characterizes him it is the spirit of prayer. Was he not himself the fruit of it? Is not that which is brought forth from us all naturally the incarnation, so to speak, of the spirit in which it has been conceived?

The first glimpse of the priest here is already a sad one. Eli, meaning “high,” or exalted,” expresses the moral condition of the priesthood, as we are shortly to be made to see. Personally he had a heart for the Lord, but not sufficiently to stand for Him; and with him the whole order to which he belongs is becoming decrepit. His spiritual sense is blunt, as is his nature. He cannot discern the character of the sorrowing woman before him; sees, indeed, but the moving of lips, and misconstrues it; pronounces a judgment which has speedily to be recalled. Yet this awakens in him no self-judgment, no discernment of his own levity: and this we shall find in Eli all the way through.

The ordered way of blessing is being closed up, and God is finding new channels for His grace to be poured into. Such is His way; for His grace must not lack expression while the need is there that demands it. The cry of distress may be misinterpreted, even by His people; but His own ear cannot be stopped.

(3) We come immediately, therefore, to the realization of this: Samuel is born, and named by his mother “heard of God.” What she says is evidently not the interpretation of the name, but the reason for her giving it him. The name speaks of God as El, the Mighty One, who in might has answered her; the reason speaks of Jehovah. Indeed, how much beyond her prayer has been the answer! For she does not appear to have looked on to this child becoming, as he does, the deliverer of Israel. Perhaps she never lives to see him in this character. God acts in the fullness of His own love and wisdom; and what a light will eternity throw upon the issue of our prayers!

Samuel is born to be in a peculiar way the servant of the Lord; but he must be weaned before he can become this, and we cannot refrain from thinking upon the one hundred and thirty-first psalm here: “Surely I have behaved and quieted myself, even as a child is weaned from his mother; yea, my soul is even as a weaned child.” That is says Perowne, “As a weaned child no longer cries, frets, and longs for the breast, but lies still and is content, because it is with its mother, so my soul is weaned from all discontented thoughts, from all fretful desires of earthly good, waiting in stillness upon God, finding its satisfaction in His presence, resting peacefully in His arms.” This surely is what is required for proper service: the childlike spirit, but the spirit of a weaned child. Alas, how few, proportionately, of the professed servants of Christ have attained to this!

The weaning accomplished, Samuel is taken and presented to the Lord, with a bullock for a burnt-offering. The type of whole-hearted consecration in service is easily to be read in this; but it is Christ of whom it speaks, in whom alone servant and service can be accepted of God. He who serves best will be most conscious of this. The servant, too, to serve aright, must be trained up in the sanctuary. There alone we can get clear eyes for it, and the light of heaven. So, as we will remember, the Levites were given to the priests; and the book of the Sanctuary, Leviticus, precedes the wayside service of the book of Numbers. The last words of the Chapter refer, I suppose, and as the connection would imply, to Samuel. He would be, according to the commentators, about three years old, which in Palestine would be, however, proportionately older than with us.

Hannah’s heart is full, and bursts out in prophetic song, in which God’s ways with her are expanded into general principles, which, in the end, are applied to the purification and blessing of the earth under God’s King -Messiah. The king and the kingdom thus are introduced at the beginning of the book, and yet go beyond David or any successor of his in the days that immediately follow, and take in the whole breadth of the earth, and the final rule of Christ over it.

The song has four parts, -the first of which celebrates as the God of her salvation the faithful, omnipotent, and omniscient God (verses 1-3). Her heart is joyful, her strength is raised up, her mouth utters boldly her challenge to all enemies. Jehovah is her joy and exultation: for it is He who has become her Saviour. None is holy as He; nay, none can be put beside Him: the rock is a faint image of His faithfulness, who is not simply her -but “our” -God. Well may man’s pride be abased, and the loose ungoverned speech hushed before Him: for all knowledge is His, and actions are weighed by Him.

The second is the salvation part (verses 4, 5), -which includes in it, also, the bumbling of the adversaries. The bows of the mighty are broken: their weapons of war are no more; they that stumbled for very weakness, are, on the other hand, given a strength that girds or braces them up for activity. They that were full to satiety with bread have now to hire themselves out to obtain it, while the hungry now are in turn filled. Now she comes to her own case, though not, of course, in the details: the barren has borne seven, and she that has borne many is grown feeble.

These, of course, are simply specimen deliverances; but we have to go further to find the full thought, and that resurrection is a principle of the Lord’s ways: he is the God of resurrection. That He should abase pride and destroy the wicked, that is easy to understand; but resurrection means that for the righteous also the way of life must be first of all a way of death. Pride in them, also, must be abased: they must learn in themselves what man is, and the righteous penalty for what he is; in the prostration of human strength they must learn the power and grace that consist with holiness in the Lord’s salvation. So now the third part (verses 6-8 a):

Jehovah kills and makes alive, too: He brings down to Hades, and brings up out of it. And from the poor and needy -from the dunghill itself -He lifts up those that He makes His princes, and sets on a throne of glory.

These principles are of the widest application, and will receive the widest application in a coming day, when the strife between good and evil shall be coming to a final end: and this is the thought of the fourth part (verses 8b-10)

For the pillars of the earth belong to Jehovah: that is, the foundations of the dry land which are set up in the deep, and upon which the world that men inhabit stands. All that sustains the present condition of things, she tells us, depends upon the will of Jehovah, unchangeably holy as He is. Thus these principles will finally and everywhere prevail. He keepeth the feet of His saints, and the wicked are silent in darkness [such is the day that is rapidly drawing near]: for by strength shall no man prevail. They that strive with Jehovah shall be broken in pieces; out of heaven shall He thunder upon them; [now we see the day in its broad features]: Jehovah shall judge the ends of the earth; and shall give strength unto His King, and exalt the horn of His Anointed.”

Here is plainly the day of Christ; and the regeneration of the earth will exhibit fully all these principles. Israel must herself go down into the depths, and come up in resurrection. All the pride of man shall be abased, and the Lord alone exalted in that day. To this Hannah, with her prophetic eyes, looks on, and the whole of the “books of the kingdoms.” How clearly is their character marked by the song of this Israelite woman!

2. We have now put before us, in manifestly contrasted paragraphs, the degradation of the priesthood and the rise of the prophet that is soon to be. God has thus provided that the link between Himself and His people should not be snapped even in the awful disaster that is about to overtake them. How good is He, and how righteous in His goodness! Yet how easily may we mistake Him, too! He who would judge with God must not judge by the appearance: the moral and spiritual are the only means of it; and this must seem a thing so evident as to need no enforcement; yet the apostle did not think so, and the history of Christianity in every generation shows abundantly the need.

The moral degradation of the priesthood is here shown as complete. The mercy of God warns repeatedly, in vain, of impending judgment. Eli is morally weak; his sons utterly profane; and alas, the people, save a small remnant, are away from God. Many are the lessons of such a contrast as is here presented to us.

(1) This one verse, with its simple statement, may seem too insignificant altogether to form even the smallest section. But even this may serve to point a moral in such a connection as this. God concerns Himself with what is little: yea, there is nothing that is too little for Him. And here was a fresh affirmation in this new beginning, -His power to exalt and to abase, His refusal of evil wherever found, and the individuality also of each soul with Him. What a gospel in the Old Testament for children is in the notice and acceptance of this little child! A little child this, that ministered not to Eli merely but to Jehovah, and finding his record in the inspired Word!

(2) In contrast with Samuel’s service is now shown us the sin of the priests, a profanity which, in its essential features, has been often enough repeated since. External nearness to God, without the knowledge of Him, has ever been the occasion of the worst departures from Him. To one away from the sanctuary some sense of the divine would naturally more attach to it, which in the daily intercourse with sacred things tends more and more to pass away. Eli’s sons are thus practisers and preachers of a godlessness which at first shocks and then communicates itself to the people round. A holiness that is but external is the worst unholiness. Here nothing but the rites remained to speak of God; but even these were impiously violated by the rude hands of those whose duty it was to lead men in obedience. Shamelessly and openly they made themselves fat with the offerings of Jehovah’s people, and that with violence which defied Him to His face.

(3) The narrative returns, after this recital, which has shown the moral state leading to the collapse of the priesthood shortly in Israel, to show us Samuel, clothed anticipatively with the priestly ephod. This was, as we have seen (Exo 28:5-14, n.), essentially the shoulder-piece, and which held (in the case of the high-priest) the breastplate also. Girt about the person, it was the expression of a service whereby the people of God were sustained before God in a love which never forgot that which was due to Him. It was the mediator’s robe, and the priests were thus characterized as those who “wore a linen ephod.” (ch. 22: 18.) No other did this besides the priest,* except here Samuel, and upon one great occasion (2Sa 6:14) David, and these two cases are strictly parallel: in each it showed that the burden of Israel’s maintenance before God had devolved upon the person wearing the ephod.

{*Samuel is shown, in the book of Chronicles, to have been, by descent, a Levite (1Ch 6:8-35); and thus, it has been asserted, could wear the ephod; but we have no hint in Scripture of the Levites doing this, but the opposite.}

It is true that the materials were different: there was here no beauty of various color, nor gold, as in the high-priest’s dress, the full blossom of the priestly. But on the other hand, the simple white linen* was that in which the priest went on the day of atonement into the holiest of all, and speaks of the absolute purity fit for the presence of Him who dwells in the sanctuary. Thus, while it points to Christ, the antitype all through here, -priest, prophet, king, alike, -it clearly marks the contrast between the man of God’s choice and the licentious priesthood that gives way to him.

{*As here, bad is the word for linen.}

The coat, which year by year his mother brings to him, is in harmony with this. It is the meil, which was also part of the high-priest’s dress, the “robe” of the ephod, although kings, nobles, and others wore it also. The robe of the high-priest, like the ephod, had its distinctive characters; as to that of Samuel we have nothing told us: the connection, however, cannot well be doubted. The ephod must have been furnished by the sanctuary; and thus two witnesses united here their testimony to him. The higher kingdom was thus already manifesting itself.

Hannah also, significant in her name and history, as we have seen, now becomes fruitful. She has three more sons, -four sons, therefore, and two daughters, the presage of the triumph of divine grace. None the less must the holiness of God’s ways be affirmed, and the corruption of the priesthood have its answer in judgment. But “Samuel grew before Jehovah.”

(4) The further fact is now developed that, the priesthood being such as we have seen, there is no power over them to stand for God, and restrain the evil. Eli is in the threefold relation to these wanton transgressors of father, high-priest, and judge in Israel; but he does nothing but expose his incapacity. Nor is it mere age that can account for this. It is significant that for the contempt of Jehovah’s ordinances, which has been already before us, we do not even hear of a rebuke. When to this is added the immorality so naturally connecting itself with it, Eli argues with them and protests, but that is all. He uses not the rod which is put into his hands, and which might have even saved his sons themselves. He leaves them to go unchecked to the divine judgment which he foresees, but does nothing effective to avert; and, in fact, the judgment comes upon them.

Again Samuel is noticed, briefly but in comprehensive contrast. The record anticipates what, long after, is said of the Lord in His childhood, that he grew up in favor both with Jehovah and with men. He is thus every way the opposite of the God-forsaken priests. Though but a child, he is uncontaminated with the evil in the presence of which he grows up, a witness of the individuality that belongs to us, though amid a multitude, and apart even from the restraint and discipline of home. He is a child, but thus with his inheritance in the future, while the priesthood is failing and passing away.

(5) The sentence upon Eli and his house is now pronounced. Of “the man of God” who now comes forward to utter it we know nothing more, -not even his name. The sentence is a decree of degradation for degradation, with the cutting off of Hophni and Phinehas, the chief offenders. God would raise up for Himself a faithful priest to walk before His anointed, -a second intimation of the coming kingdom. Joshua had stood before Eleazar (Num 27:21); and, for the time, the high priest had had the foremost place in Israel. This is to be changed, and even the “faithful priest” is to walk before the king. Priesthood has failed to maintain the link between God and His people. Now the king is to be the link, although he, too, will fail and pass: only the “threefold cord” of prophet, priest, and king, as found in Christ, will not be broken; and power put into His hand cannot fail or be forfeited any more. Toward this all these types point, though Christ is not directly spoken of here. The “faithful priest” was raised up in Zadok, as the representative of the line of Phinehas and Eleazar: Eli was a descendant of Ithamar, Aaron’s fourth son, and not of Eleazar, who thus for a time had lost the high-priesthood promised to Phinehas forever (Num 25:13.) Phinehas has thus the promise fulfilled to him, as it were, in resurrection and abidingly: in the kingdom yet to come, the sons of Zadok will again keep charge of the sanctuary. (Eze 44:15.)

Through all, the typical meaning distinctly shines: for God throughout is thinking of His Son. Eleazar, as we have seen fully elsewhere, is as Aaron’s third son, -in whom, also, after the death of Nadab and Abihu, the priesthood revives, -the distinct type of Christ as a risen Priest, whose intercessory place is the fruit of His work accomplished. His resurrection means the acceptance of His atoning death; and thus He is Eleazar, the true “help of God” for His dependent people.

Ithamar, the fourth son of Aaron, as that, and according to his name, “where the palm is,” implies a practical righteousness, which is connected with practical walk. Now as long as Eleazar retained the high priesthood, Ithamar could serve in his lower place well and acceptably, for “to do good and to communicate,” and thus the whole Christian life, are “sacrifices,” which, as priests, we are called to offer up to God. But these are entirely dependent upon that one only propitiatory sacrifice which Eleazar, the risen priest, reminds us of. Let Ithamar displace Eleazar, then Ithamar himself loses himself hopelessly. Eli, the “exalted,” Hophni, “my fist,” and quite another Phinehas, “mouth of brass,” from the one of the higher line, sufficiently characterize the history here; while the line of Eleazar, when it revives revives in Zadok, “the righteous one,” -righteousness in the right line and Person, “Jesus Christ, the righteous,” -and all is again secured.

Precious it is to see Israel’s sorrowful history written in golden letters such as these! Thus the higher kingdom is in action all through the book, not merely in the lives of individuals, but in the ordering of the state at large. Unto it the lower, when it comes, must be in complete subjection, representing it in character truly among men, or pay the forfeit.

3. The priesthood being thus adjudged, we now find the prophet openly brought forward, God thus providing that there should be no lapse on His side, fail as all else may. Samuel is therefore now called, and established before all Israel as the mouthpiece of Jehovah to them, before the predicted judgment falls upon Eli’s house.

(1) The call comes suddenly at night, when men are asleep, but not the Shepherd of Israel. The dim eyes of the priest, the suggested near failure of the tabernacle-lamp, are no mere embellishments of the picture. Such was the state of things which necessitated the new interposition of the Lord. Eli was there in his place, but the Voice addresses not Eli, -not even though the message concerns him intimately and sadly. For the face of God is averted from him.

To Samuel we find the Voice is something audible, -not a simple intimation or impression on the heart. It is, at the same time, very human: the youth imagines it is Eli that is speaking; and that three times over, for he has not yet learned to recognize Jehovah. Eli himself is thus made also to understand that He is speaking, before the subject of the communication is made known to him, -though his heart, as we see afterwards, presages but too well.

Yet this divine-human Voice, how sweet it is! In all dispensations it is the same. Calling one, too, by one’s name, for by name He knows His sheep. But may we not also, like Samuel here, mistake the voice divine because it is so human, -expect it as afar off, miss it because it is nigh?

(2) The message confirms the previously announced doom of Eli’s house. But what need to repeat again what had already been so fully said? Is not once said enough for God? Does it not imply that God yet waits, even though the thing is said, upon man’s repentance? expects men to cry to Him, to give Him, as it were, opportunity to repent? Why should He warn at all, if not for this?

But Eli, though he bows under God’s hand, does not turn to Him after this fashion. His spiritual sense is dulled, so that he cannot discern the undertone of pity in the threatening wrath; nor has he energy to take up the authority entrusted to him, and act for Him whom he has so long ignored. Thus judgment takes its course.

Samuel, though with a natural fear in which different elements would unite together, approves himself as able to stand for God, and tells him all. His first message is of evil, and to those with whom he has grown up. It is needed, perhaps, for himself, in view of the place that he is to take in the crisis at hand. And though he fears, he does not listen to his fears, nor refuse the burden laid upon him, but bears it faithfully.

(3) Thus Jehovah is with him, and his prophecy finds a wider field. Jehovah reveals himself through Samuel; and thus, on the very eve of judgment, appeal is made anew to the hearts and consciences of the people. It did not avail to prevent disaster; but it did surely to maintain faith in a remnant, and bring some hearts to the living God. But whatever might be the result as to the people, God at least glorified Himself in goodness, as He ever does, and has left us as witnesses of a love, which to us, indeed, has been how much more wonderfully displayed!

4. (1) But now the day of inevitable ruin comes, and Israel is smitten before the Philistines. It would seem by the language as if Israel had provoked the conflict. In striking contrast, and yet in as plain congruity, with what takes place afterward, we are told that they encamped beside Ebenezer, doubly emphasized by two articles, “the stone of the help.” Samuel, we know, actually set up the stone afterwards in commemoration of victory; and this makes the anticipative mention of the name so significant. According to the unchanging nature of God occurred the victory then, the defeat now. Self-confidence goes along with departure of heart from Him, as generally is the case, and insures the issue. Once more smitten with considerable loss, they ask indeed why Jehovah has done this. They realize it to be from Him, and yet do not seriously inquire of Him, nor humble themselves in His presence. Stranger than all, they would bring this God who has smitten them, unappeased, into the camp to fight in their behalf! Perhaps their thought is that this very reliance upon the ark will propitiate Him. How vain, in any case, is such a hope! True, it is the “ark of the covenant of Jehovah”; and, as such, they appeal to it. But was there not the “vengeance of the covenant” as faithfully promised as the blessing for obedience? What a sign of disaster that, as it is written, “Hophni and Phinehas,” with their already predicted doom hanging over them, “were there with the ark of the covenant of God”!

On the other hand, it is no wonder that the Philistines are as much disconcerted, for the moment, by the presence of the ark, as Israel are encouraged. With them the deity was inseparably connected with the symbols of His worship, and they remembered yet the power displayed in Egypt. Jehovah’s witness to Himself there had not been in vain, though men might, after all, refuse it. Alas, they did! Alas, not they alone have done so! So they stiffen themselves in pride, and will be men, -yes, indeed, too surely, “men,” -and are unexpectedly successful: they gain a great victory, slay thirty thousand men, and capture the ark of God itself, -little imagining that they are but fulfilling His word, and instruments in His hand, after all: a lesson in “evidences,” which should at least make us careful. Hophni and Phinehas are slain, and the priesthood necessarily collapses, and is for the time set aside.

(2) Eli’s death ensues upon the news of the disaster. The circumstantial detail fixes the attention and impresses the heart, and is designed to do so. The old man, who has left the glory of God in the hands of his profligate sons, and let the ark go from him at the will of the people, yet manifests at the last the good that is in him, and is taken away from the evil to come. Shiloh passes also out of the history, and the sanctuary of God from Ephraim, the lesson of which has been already suggested (Jos 18:1, n.)

(3) A woman’s voice pronounces the word of distress, stamping it upon the fruit of her womb, Ichabod, “no glory.” This was, indeed, what Israel had brought forth, the fruit of her departure from God: His glory had, in turn, been removed out of their midst. “For they provoked Him to anger with their high places, and moved Him to jealousy with their graven images. When God heard this, He was wroth, and greatly abhorred Israel, so that He forsook the tabernacle of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among men; and delivered His strength into captivity, His glory into the enemy’s hand.” (Psa 78:58-61.) All dooms presage the final doom, and so it is here. The “outer darkness” will be when those who have said to God, “Depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of Thy ways,” shall have their awful prayer fulfilled! And who can imagine what this means? But “there,” we are told, “shall be the wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

5. The history goes with the ark into the Philistines’ land. Their victory becomes their own defeat; which yet, as a testimony to them, might be mercy, -the only mercy that their hostility permitted. They themselves would find, and would have to own, the powerlessness and folly of their idols in the presence of God, with whom they also had to do; although we know of no permanent effect of it, except their restoration of the ark, with offerings for the trespass they had committed.

(1) The ark is taken to the city of Ashdod, the “spoiler,” and put as spoil into the temple of Dagon, the chief Philistine god. Though they know Jehovah’s power as a reality, they look at Him as now subdued by the great might of Dagon: for the gods of polytheism could war against one another, as we know. In thus placing it beside their deity, there seems intimated, however, a certain respect. All the more would be their confusion on finding, the next morning, Dagon prostrate upon his face, as if worshipping before the ark. But they are willing to think it an accident, and they replace the idol in its old position. Next morning it is prostrate again, but not to be so easily replaced, for the human parts -the head and hands -of the composite fish-god are cut off, and lying on the threshold, and only the Dagon, the fish-part, is left him. The confusion man has made is thus undone; the human joined to the bestial is seen to be but contemptible and to be trodden under foot, and the creature is prostrate in the presence of the Creator. How well for them, if they had learnt these lessons! Instead of this, where the desecrated head and hands have lain, the worshipers in Ashdod no more dare to step! So little is idolatry a thing of the mind merely, that, face to face with God, they will pick up and reverence their mutilated idol. “When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” This is the spiritual genealogy of idolatry, wherever it is found. And such is man!

(2) The Lord’s hand falls, therefore, next upon the Philistines themselves; and they are smitten with boils or tumors, which cannot be, apparently, more clearly defined. As with the similar plague in Egypt (Exo 9:8-12, n.), the external plague may naturally symbolize and lay bare the inward condition, the corruption which consumes the sinner, and underlies all his departure from God. Unwilling to humble themselves fully under Jehovah’s hand, they send the ark about from one place to another, only spreading the evil wherever it goes, until they end the unequal conflict by its restoration to the Israelite territory.

(3) Seven months the ark had been in the Philistines’ land. At last they call together the priests and diviners, and inquire how they are to send it back. Their advice is to send back with it a trespass-offering, after their heathen fashion, five golden images of their boils, and five golden mice, which were at the same time ravaging their fields. But, after all, they speak somewhat doubtfully, for where will not unbelief find an argument? -and propose an expedient by which it may be tested whether possibly yet it might be a chance that had happened to them. In result it is proved conclusively that Jehovah is the God. of Creation, supreme above all the natural instincts: the kine, though unaccustomed to a yoke, take the cart with its sacred burden directly away from where their calves are shut up, even while lowing after them, and take the straight road to Bethshemesh, a priestly city near the Israelite border. There, at the border, they stop, still under the eyes of the Philistine lords, at a great stone upon which the Levites place the ark, and where the kine are offered up a burnt-offering to Jehovah.

Thus the Philistines have Jehovah’s sovereignty demonstrated to them in the precise terms which they have themselves chosen, -the goodness of God thus meeting them with what should have turned them from idolatry forever, and brought them to His feet. But they go back, after all, to worship instead the humbled Dagon.

But the men of Bethshemesh also incur divine judgment for their profane treatment of Jehovah’s ark, and follow the example of the Philistines in sending it elsewhere. The men of Kirjath-jearim respond to their invitation, and there it abides for long in the house of Abinadab, kept by Eleazar his son. There David found it afterwards “in the fields of the wood (jaar)” (Psa 132:6). Yet the long-suffering of the Lord endured. He had already provided, as we know, the instrument of deliverance.

{*1Sa 6:14; 1Sa 6:18. The Septuagint reads, “the great stone,” eben for abet. This is probable, though others think abet, “mourning,” to be intended, from the mourning connected with the judgment which follows.}

{*1Sa 6:19. It is impossible to suppose that Bethshemesh had 50,000 inhabitants, still less “men”; and the Hebrew text shows signs of interpolation. Literally it reads, “seventy men, fifty thousand men.” Josephus, and a few of Kennicott’s MSS., omit the larger number, with the approbation of Thenius, Keil, Erdmann, and others. Fausset would read, “seventy men, fifty out of a thousand men.”}

6. (1) Twenty years now elapse. A long discipline of sorrow is required before the humbled people turn with their heart to God. During all this time Samuel is patiently laboring for Him, urging upon them whole-hearted return, and the absolute putting away of all strange gods, the necessary hindrance to their deliverance. At last the Baals and Ashtoreths are put away, and throughout the land Jehovah alone is served. Then the deliverance, which would have been else but a letting loose for evil, is ready to be accomplished.

(2) Samuel now distinctly takes the place of mediator. He is, of course, ideally the prophet, not the priest; but in every type of Christ something of His full place is seen. In connection with the prophet, who brings the message of God, the subjective side of salvation is emphasized -repentance and turning to God; but Samuel turns to God also for the people, and offers even the priestly sacrifice. There is not a hint of what some imagine -the intervention of a priest in this latter case; and in the case of Gideon and others, though not so formally, we have had already the performance of priestly acts. Samuel is the child of prayer, and he is ever also the man of prayer. The repentance of the people enables him confidently to take the place of intercession for them: “Gather all Israel to Mizpah,” he says, (the outward manifestation of the heart-unity now existing among the people), “and I will pray Jehovah for you.” He is, like Samson, the Nazarite, set apart from the womb to Jehovah, and in whom, as not in Samson, the spiritual side of this is shown. He is thus victorious in a strife in which Samson fails, and “not by might, nor by power,” but through the Lord in whom he trusts. All Israel are gathered to Mizpah, and draw water and pour it out before Jehovah, acting out the piteous plea of the woman of Tekoah afterwards (2Sa 14:14): “We must needs die, and are as water spilt upon the ground, which cannot be gathered up again.” But here they own that the dissolution of their lives in vanity and misery is the consequence of their sin: “We have sinned against Jehovah”; and now, according to the principle which has been before announced as to the Lord’s deliverances, that when He delivered He raised up a judge, the judge appears again: “Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpah.”

This brings about the inevitable conflict. They had not gathered for battle; and were, in fact, in the extreme opposite condition to their former self-confidence in which they had provoked the Philistine attack. On the other hand, nothing more surely provokes the attack of the enemy than united Israel suppliant before the Lord. Accordingly, at once we hear of them in movement, while Israel, scarcely armed and helpless, can only urge on Samuel to cry ceaselessly to God for their deliverance. Happily they can say now, with truth of heart, “Jehovah our God”: when did He fail to appear for those who could say so?

Samuel’s reliance is not on spear or shield. He takes one sucking lamb, and offers it as a whole burnt-offering to Jehovah. This is his plea, and thus he cries to God for the people; and Jehovah answers. The offering does not, as most commentators say, represent the newly pledged obedience of the people, -poor ground of confidence as it would be in such a strait: but Christ, from his birth, the absolutely devoted One, the “Lamb,” as in the perfect youth of glorious manhood. How blessed a Substitute for the tardy and spotted obedience of our best performances! While Samuel offers, the Philistines draw nigh. Who shall convert the crowd of feeble and affrighted people into warriors? All the more shall the Lord, therefore, Himself be seen: Jehovah thundered with a great voice on that day against the Philistines”: how would all His former witness in their land interpret to them this voice! “And they were smitten before Israel.”

No great victory, after all, for Israel to boast of; except they will boast themselves in the Lord: a victory, therefore, safe and glorious, -the very best that could be. “And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah, and pursued the Philistines, and smote them as far as below Beth-car,” -the “house of the [skipping] lamb”: Israel, seen now as identified with the lamb sacrificed in their behalf, housed and happy.

So Ebenezer at last gains its name -the “stone of help.” “The Philistines were humbled, and came no more into the border of Israel.” The cities taken by them are restored; and Jehovah’s hand is against them all the days of Samuel. With the rise of the king, matters assume, as we know, another aspect.

(3) Samuel is now the prophet-judge in Israel. The judge shadows the king, although not that; and thus we see in Samuel, as a type of Christ, the intimation of what in Him are united in full reality, -priest, prophet, king. It is only an intimation, not the reality, and thus points, as does the whole Old Testament, beyond itself. All types must, for this reason, be imperfect: the “shadow, and not the very image.” (Heb 10:1.) Yet the shadow has its proportional completeness: the high priest, as answering by Urim, became in so far the prophet and judge, -two things which naturally come together; the king, as we see him in David, is fully the prophet, while he orders the priestly service, and brings the ark to Zion. But here, for reasons we may see afterward, the type cannot be so complete.

There are four stations at which, in yearly circuit, Samuel judges the people. Let us notice, as illustrative of the exact method of Scripture, that three of the places are distinguished from the fourth, which is his own abode. They should thus stand the numerical test throughout; and being in circuit, show, perhaps, an orderly connection in their meanings also. Let us see if this hope be justified.

Naturally, as judicial stations, they will speak of different points of view, according to which judgment will be exercised; according to which Christ, as Son of man (for all judgment is committed to him as that) views the people He has redeemed. This will probably show us, also, why it is the fourth place at which he abides, -Ramah.

Bethel is the first station. It is a name which we are well acquainted with, as with what it stands for. Bethel is the “house of God” (El, the Mighty One), and we see in Jacob the discipline connected with it, as well as the mighty work that is done by this -the transformation of Jacob into Israel. In the order of the Genesis-histories Jacob follows Isaac, in whom we have, as Paul in Galatians teaches us, the children of the free woman, born into the liberty of the sons of God. Bethel is thus a keynote word, which tells of the rule of God as Father over His house, with the blessed consequences of this.

But Christ is “Son over the house of God,”* and this character of judgment must belong to Him. We begin, therefore, first with that which is first of all our place. Children of God, and with the Spirit of adoption, we must be His children (Mat 5:45), acting in character, and showing likeness to Him, as “partakers of the divine nature” (2Pe 1:4). The Father’s judgment is to develop and maintain this in us; and this, therefore, is plainly the first judicial station of our Samuel.

{*Heb 3:6. where we must read, with the Revised Version, “over his house,” -God’s, -not “his own,” as in the common version.}

The second is Gilgal, where the reproach of Egypt was rolled off Israel; and this, as we have elsewhere seen (p. 43), was the reproach of slavery. In what we have just now considered, we have already had implied for us the liberty of sons (and this is the connection with the present); but it is circumcision that at Gilgal brings into practical liberty. Circumcision it is that makes Gilgal; and circumcision is the “putting off the body of the flesh” (Col 2:11, R.V.), “having no confidence in it.” (Php 3:3.) This goes with what is the positive side for the Christian, the worship of God in the Spirit, and glorying in Christ Jesus; and thus the free, holy, happy service of love is maintained.

The negative attainment without the positive is impossible; but it is the negative that is here insisted on: as the second place implies, the deliverance, the setting free. The judgment here is thus the complement of what Bethel has shown us.

The third station is one more difficult to realize in its exact meaning. Mizpah (or Mizpeh) means simply the “watchtower,” and the general thought is susceptible of different applications. (See pp. 104, 134.) The third place, which naturally connects itself with the sanctuary and the presence of God, would suggest, however, that the watching is to be taken as in Hab 2:1, “I will stand upon my watch, and set me upon the tower, and will watch to see what He will say unto me.” The gatherings to Mizpah in the book of Judges (Jdg 20:1-48), and just now, according to the word of Samuel, have both, more or less, this character. It would appear, therefore, that what is implied in it is the watchfulness of one to whom the path of faith is a reality, and thus the positive guidance of God from day to day. So were Israel guided, as we know; and even more does the promise on His part speak the need of it, “I will guide thee with mine eye.” (Psa 32:8.) For this there must be patient and steady watching; and the whole difference between a right path and a wrong is implied in it. Abstract right and wrong are by no means the whole question, and do not settle the matter for us. Beyond this lies all the will of God, personally, for each one of His own, with which is involved His whole right over them, but also the display of His wisdom and goodness abidingly in their behalf. Here, then, is a distinct ground of judgment from either of the former, a third station for our Prophet-Judge.

The fourth is Samuel’s own city, Ramah, the “height.” The name is, in its full length, Ramathaim-zophim, the “two heights of the watchers.” Here we are in connection clearly with the last thought. The meaning and application we have already had. It suggests the place in Christ, linked with his appearance as Man in the presence of God for us, the dwelling-place of the Son of man, that it is His as Man being emphasized by the fourth place here. Yet we have traveled, in fact, in circuit, as Samuel did: for this we cannot disconnect from His own saying, “My Father, and your Father; my God, and your God;” or from the end designed by God, “that He should be the first-born among many brethren.” We are looking, therefore, toward Bethel again.

But here is the abiding ground of judgment, even as “walk ye in Him” is our peculiar responsibility as Christians. With this the circle of responsibility is complete. Here, too, is the altar to Jehovah, our place of acceptance and worship. The Lord make us realize in all this the fullness and depth of His precious word!

The Books of the Kings.

F. W. Grant.

Fuente: Grant’s Numerical Bible Notes and Commentary

SAMUELS BIRTH AND DEDICATION

A SORROWFUL WIFE (1 Samuel 1)

Like Ruth, the opening of First Samuel deals with events in the time of the Judges, and is the book of transition from that period to the monarchy.

1Sa 1:1-8. Though there is difficulty in locating the city named in verse 1, yet it appears that Elkanah was a native of Bethlehem-judah like Elimelech (see the first lesson in Ruth). He was a Levite (see 1Ch 6:33-34), and if it is surprising that he practiced polygamy (v. 2), we must remember the moral condition of the people at this time, but not imagine that God approved it.

1Sa 1:4-5 suggest a situation not unlike that of Jacob and Rachel and Leah (Gen 29:15-35). The latter of the verses is rendered in the Septuagint: But unto Hannah he gave a single portion, because she had no child; howbeit Elkanah loved Hannah. It will be recalled from Lev 3:7 and Deu 12:12 that the offerer received back the greater part of the peace offerings, which he and his family might eat at a social feast in connection with the act of worship, and it is to this that portion alludes. The adversary (1Sa 1:6) is translated rival in the Revised Version and refers to Peninnah.

1Sa 1:9-18. What a beautiful illustration of Psa 50:15 is found in these verses! As Hannah was the wife of a Levite, a son would in any event have belonged to the Lord (1Sa 1:11); but if this one was to be a Nazarite from his birth (Num 6:5; Jdg 13:5) it meant that his residence and service in the sanctuary must begin at an earlier period than usual.

Elis words in 1Sa 1:17 were spoken by the Holy Spirit through him whether he were aware of it or not. And Hannah seemed to understand them as a divine answer to her prayer (1Sa 1:18).

A JOYOUS MOTHER (1Sa 2:1-11)

Hannahs song foreshadows Marys in Luk 1:46-55, and must not be regarded simply as a natural song of thanksgiving, although it came from Hannahs heart. It was a prophecy of the Holy Spirit within her, making her rejoice in praise for those greater blessings in Christ of which the whole race will partake, and of which Samuels birth was an earnest and pledge.

Study the words carefully, and see how they pass over all the intermediate steps of the development of the kingdom of God, and point to the final goal when the dominion is extended over the ends of the earth.

Doctrinally considered, the song expresses joy in the power of God (1Sa 2:1); it praises Him for His holiness and faithfulness, which is as firm as a rock (1Sa 2:2); it extols His providence in His omniscience and omnipotence in dealing with the strong and the weak, the rich and the poor, the high and the low, the godly and ungodly (1Sa 2:3-8); and finally, it bears prophetic testimony to His victory at the end and the establishment of His Kingdom on the earth through Jesus Christ (1Sa 2:9-10).

QUESTIONS

1. How may this book be characterized?

2. To what tribe did Elkanah belong?

3. Can you quote from memory Psa 50:15?

4. Have you read the law of the Nazarite in Num 6:5?

5. What was the nature of Hannahs song?

6. State its scope in a sentence or two.

7. Give a theological or doctrinal exposition of the song.

Fuente: James Gray’s Concise Bible Commentary

1Sa 1:1. Ramathaim-zophim The latter word means watchers, or watchmen, and the former the Ramahs. The place is called Ramah, (1Sa 1:19,) and seems to have been a village situated on two hills, which, on account of their elevation, commanded extensive prospects, and were proper places from which to make observations. Probably there might be a watch-tower and sentinels placed in each. Of mount Ephraim This is added to distinguish this from other places, which had the name of Ramah in other tribes, particularly in that of Benjamin, Jos 18:25. An Ephrathite That is, one of Beth-lehem-judah, by his birth and habitation, though by his origin a Levite.

Fuente: Joseph Bensons Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Sa 1:1. Ramathaim-zophim. The latter name being plural, refers to high towers; but Ramathaim was afterwards called Arimathea, the town of Joseph the ruler, twenty miles from Jerusalem. But Zuph had formerly lived in Bethlehem or Ephrath, as in Rth 1:2.

1Sa 1:3. Went up yearly to worship at the three feasts, as required. Deuteronomy 16.

1Sa 1:9. The temple of the Lord. ha-yecal.

(1) Palaces, or magnificent buildings, as ivory palaces. Psa 45:9.

(2) Temple, a Latin word, designating the place of contemplation or devotion.

The Greek employed the terms and . The neos of the Greeks is the same as the Hebrew , Navah. Habitation, or he dwelt, as in Exo 15:2 : I will prepare him a habitation. The words of Solomon indicate the same; The Most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands. Hence the nave of a church. In simplicity of life, the sacred mysteries were in houses, but when magnificent superstructures were erected for devotion, they were called temples.

1Sa 1:17. Go in peace. Eli generously acknowledged his mistake; and surely the pope is not less liable to err. We never find a highpriest of the Lord who styled himself infallible.

1Sa 1:20. Samuel; that is, asked of God: a memorial of an answer to prayer. Impending circumstances seem to have conferred the most remarkable names on Jews, Greeks, and Romans.

REFLECTIONS.

Before God humbled the haughty house of Eli, he provided a restorer to the house of Israel, uniting in the person of Samuel the glorious characters of prophet and judge. In every step of providence God has his eye on his peoples good. We should therefore never distrust his care, though we should see the sanctuary crowded with profane men, and a dark cloud overspreading the lustre of the church. We have here a fresh instance of the unhappiness occasioned by polygamy. Elkanah, not content without issue, took a second wife, who swelled with the pride of children, and insulted Hannah, the best of women. So was Sarah mocked by Hagar; and so will mischief always attend deviation from the pure and holy law of heaven.

But insults had a happy effect on Hannah. She wept and prayed before the Lord; she poured out all the vehemence and anguish of her soul in Shiloh; and that was far better than to have returned the reproaches of her adversary, in bitterness of language. Thus grace makes favourite souls worthy of its gifts before they are bestowed; and those children which are given in answer to prayer are likely to be the greatest support to a family, and ornament to the church. Let us earnestly plead with God for the good things we want; a praying spirit is a sure sign that some blessing is suspended over our heads. This woman was importunate with God; and so much so, that neither Elkanahs comfort, nor Elis revolting and rash reproof, had effect on her fervent soul. She wept and prayed till her heart had uttered all its anguish, and fully prevailed with God.

But Eli, severe and rash in reproving this afflicted woman, and criminally lenient in reproving his profligate sons, should teach us to examine before we reprove. Ministers especially should be cautious of giving reproof to people in the house of God. A sharp word uttered by his lips, and totally founded on mistake, should put him to the blush. A single error of this kind greatly diminishes the sobriety of his judgment, the weight of his ministry; and may do mischief to the individual for years to come. The smallest atonement for so great a fault is to make, like Eli, a public acknowledgment of his error.

Hannah, to obtain a son, made a vow that she would devote him a Nazarite to the Lord, for regarding a son so given as the peculiar gift of heaven, not less so than the preservation of Moses, and the singular birth of Samson, she conceived herself at liberty to vow in this way; and her husband, not believing till he saw the ground of hope, it would seem, never contradicted her; and hence her words were binding. The laws of a Nazarite have been considered in Numbers 6., and exemplified in the case of Samson. Seeing God was pleased with Hannahs peculiar vows, let all parents learn to devote their children most solemnly to God by prayer, and by baptism; and in the way prescribed by the new covenant, which is made to us and to our children. Samuel at length being born, Hannahs joy, and Israels hope, she gave him a name corresponding with the circumstances of his birth. It is well to raise memorials to perpetuate the mercies of the Lord. This child she carefully nursed; nor would she go to Shiloh till he was weaned, that she might pay her vows in the sight of her son; and till he was so tutored that he could pray, and worship before the Lord. So God changed her tears and prayers to songs of praise and thanksgiving: and so in one way or other, shall all the troubles of good men work for their present and eternal joy.

Fuente: Sutcliffe’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments

1Sa 1:1-8. Elkanah and his Rival Wives.The book opens with a domestic scene which throws light on the practical working of polygamy in ancient Israel. The husband is an Ephraimite, Elkanah of Ramah, i.e. the Height perhaps Rimo, twelve miles west of Shiloh. Elkanah had two wives (a very common arrangement, cf. Rachel and Leah) whose names were Hannah (Grace) and Peninnah (Coral or Pearl). Peninnah had children, Hannah had none. The hero of the story, Samuel, was born as an answer to prayer to a mother hitherto barrenso Sarah and Isaac; Rebekah, Jacob and Esau; Rachel and Joseph. Elkanah and his family went yearly to a festival at Shiloh, probably the Vintage Festival, which was called later on the Feast of Tabernacles, a sort of Christmas away from home. What corresponded roughly to the Christmas dinner was the meal to which the sacrifice served as a somewhat elaborate grace. An ox or sheep was slain; portions were burnt on the altar with appropriate ritual; portions were given as a fee to the priest; the rest was eaten by the offerer, his household, and his guests (cf. 1Sa 2:13, 1Sa 9:12-24). It should have been a very happy occasion, but the two wives were jealous rivals, again like Rachel and Leah. This natural result of bigamy is illustrated by the fact that the one is called the r or rival of the other (1 Samuel 6, so also in the Heb. Sir 37:11, cf. Deu 21:15). Accordingly Peninnahs nagging spoilt the feast.

1Sa 1:1. of Ramathaim Zophim: we should perhaps read of Ramah, a Zuphite.

1Sa 1:3. Lord of Hosts: Yahweh Sebaoth, an ancient name of the God of Israel, a contraction of Yahweh, God of Hosts. The hosts were originally the armies of Israel, so 1Sa 17:45, Exo 12:41. Later on the hosts seem to have been understood as angels, so perhaps Jos 5:14 f, or stars, 2Ki 17:16.

1Sa 1:5. a double portion: the original reading of the Heb, cannot be determined; LXX (cf. RVm) reads, a single portion, because she had no child, yet, etc. This is probably nearer to the original than a double portion.

Fuente: Peake’s Commentary on the Bible

From 1Ch 6:22-28 we learn that Elkanah was a Levite of the sons of Kohath. The names of four of his forebears are recorded in verse 1, which in order of descent are Zuph (meaning “observer”); Tohu (“low, sunk down”); Elihu (“my God is He”); Jeroham (“he is tenderly loved”); resulting in Elkanah (“God has purchased”). These meanings give some indication of the working of God in view of accomplishing His own will in the eventual outcome seen in His servant Samuel.

The two wives of Elkanah, Hannah and Penninah, remind us of Jacob’s wives, Rachel and Leah. Though Jacob loved Rachel, she did not bear children, while Leah did so. Hannah means “she was gracious,” and Peninnah, “glittering.”

Elkanah was a godly Israelite who made a habit of appearing every year to sacrifice to the Lord at Shiloh. In verse 3 is the first time the expression is used in scripture, “the Lord of hosts.” It is used five times in 1 Samuel and six times in 2 Samuel. It is only mentioned that Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, were there. Eli evidently took the place of high priest (though not called that), but left the duties of priesthood to his sons. Though we are told “every priest standeth daily” (Heb 10:10), Eli is not spoken of as standing but twice as sitting (ch.1:9; 4:13) and once as lying down (ch.3:2).

In sacrificing, Elkanah did not forget his wives and the children of Peninnah, but was more favorable toward Hannah because of his love for her. The Lord had, in His wisdom, withheld her from childbearing. On the other hand, Peninnah had children, and became an adversary, provoking Hannah evidently with the taunt that she had none. But Hannah was to learn the lesson, as we all ought to, that “that was not first which is spiritual, but that which is natural; and afterward that which is spiritual” (1Co 15:46). The Lord allows mere human nature to have its way at first in order to prove its own vanity: then He introduces what is altogether superior to it just as Adam was the first man, Christ the second Man.

This is not accomplished in us without exercise of soul, for what is merely fleshly must be judged as worthless. Hannah is therefore seen weeping and fasting because of her inability to bear fruit. Elkanah was a kind, considerate husband, but did not understand the intensity of her grief, for he thought she would consider him better to her than ten sons. However, to apply this spiritually, even though the Lord Himself is sufficient to satisfy out hearts, yet He has implanted within every believer a desire to bear fruit for Him this is only normal and right.

Evidently coming to Shiloh into the Lord’s presence intensified her distress, and at the temple she prayed in bitterness of soul, weeping and vowing that if the Lord would give her a son, she would devote him to the Lord as a Nazarite (Num 6:2-12) all the days of his life. Eli was a stranger to such exercise: he sat on a seat by a post of the temple, virtually sitting as a judge rather than standing as priest. He saw Hannah’s lips move as she prayed silently, and made the sad blunder of judging that she was intoxicated. He knew how to reprove her, but did not provide the help and compassion which was the very purpose of priesthood (Heb 5:1-2).

Hannah’s reply to Eli was most beautiful and precious. Altogether contrary to the effects of liquor, she was a woman of sorrowful spirit who had poured out her soul before the Lord. She pleads with him not to consider her a daughter of Belial, a virtual enemy of the Lord, for the facts were quite the opposite.

One would think her words would be enough to stir Eli’s conscience to be ashamed of the mistake he had made, and apologize to her. But priesthood to him was merely a formal matter with little necessity for the heart to be involved. He does not even inquire as to the reason for her sorrow, but dismisses her “in peace,” expressing the desire that the God of Israel would answer her petition. She, however, in spite of Eli’s lethargy, takes his words as from the Lord, a precious indication of her faith: her sadness was lifted and she returned to normal living.

They returned to Ramah, and very soon she conceived a child for we are told, “The Lord remembered her.” At his birth she named him “Samuel,” meaning “asked of God.” Though she had waited long, yet faith can afford to wait. God answered in His own time, the evidence being clear that this was His sovereign work.

Following this, when Elkanah and the rest of his household went up to Shiloh for the yearly offering, Hannah remained at home with her little child, deciding that she would go only when Samuel was weaned, in order to leave him there with Eli, for when once she brought him to appear before the Lord, she considered he should remain there always. It is precious to see her purpose of heart in regard to carrying out her vow, for it would be no small sacrifice to give up the child for whom she had so longed, and whom of course she deeply loved. But to her the Lord’s interests were first.

The day then comes when she brings the child to the house of the Lord. With him she brings three bullocks, one ephah (three measures) of flour and a bottle of wine. One of the bullocks is sacrificed and the child brought to Eli. She knew this was important. We do not read of any child being rightly presented to the Lord without some symbol of the death of Christ accompanying this; for only on the ground of that death can any human being be acceptable to God. The flour reminds us of the meal offering, typical of the perfection of the humanity of Christ, and the wine symbolizes the joy that results from the value of the sacrifice, both God’s joy and man’s.

In verses 26 to 28 the words of Hannah to Eli are of such importance as to be recorded by the Spirit of God. She reminds him that she was the woman who had stood near him praying to the Lord adding that it was specifically “for this child I prayed.” Since the Lord had graciously answered her prayer she was now returning him to the Lord, not only for a time, but permanently. She considered that the way to accomplish this was by leaving him with the priest at the house of the Lord. We may well doubt that Eli would be able to give him the same solid moral training and care that Hannah could but by faith she was really putting him into the Lord’s hands, and the Lord cared for him in spite of Eli’s inadequacy. In fact, the short time that Hannah had him no doubt left an indelible impression on his young heart that affected his whole life.

We hear nothing of any words that Eli may have spoken at this time: if he spoke, the Spirit of God did not consider his words worth recording. Why did he not heartily commend the faith of Hannah? Perhaps he was rather dismayed to be charged with the responsibility of caring for the young boy. The last sentence, “he worshiped the Lord there” evidently refers to Samuel.

Fuente: Grant’s Commentary on the Bible

1:1 Now there was a certain man of {a} Ramathaimzophim, of mount Ephraim, and his name [was] Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephrathite:

(a) There were two Ramatus, so that in this city in mount Ephraim were Zophim, that is, the learned men and prophets.

Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes

1. Hannah’s deliverance ch. 1

"1 Samuel 1 is presented as a conventional birth narrative which moves from barrenness to birth. Laid over that plot is a second rhetorical strategy which moves from complaint to thanksgiving. With the use of this second strategy, the birth narrative is transposed and becomes an intentional beginning point for the larger Samuel-Saul-David narrative. Hannah’s story begins in utter helplessness (silence); it anticipates Israel’s royal narrative which also begins in helplessness. As Hannah moves to voice (2,1-10), so Israel’s narrative moves to power in the historical process. Both Hannah’s future and Israel’s future begin in weakness and need, and move toward power and well-being. The narrative of 1 Samuel 1 functions to introduce the theological theme of ’cry-thanks’ which appears in the larger narrative in terms of Israelite precariousness and Yahweh’s powerful providence. Our chapter corresponds canonically to 2 Samuel 24 which portrays David in the end (like Hannah) as a needy, trusting suppliant. The two chapters, witnesses to vulnerable faith, together bracket Israel’s larger story of power." [Note: Walter Brueggemann, "1 Samuel 1 : A Sense of a Beginning," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102:1 (1990):48.]

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

A. The Change from Barrenness to Fertility 1:1-2:10

In the first subsection (1Sa 1:1 to 1Sa 2:10), we have the joyful story of Samuel’s miraculous birth and his mother’s gratitude to God for reversing her barrenness and making her fertile. The significance of this story is not only that it gives us the record of how Samuel was born and that his mother was a godly woman. It also shows how God, in faithfulness to His promise to bless those who put Him first (Deuteronomy 28), did so even for a despised woman in Israel (cf. Rahab and Ruth). He brought blessing to all Israel because of her faith.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

The problem 1:1-2

Samuel’s parents lived near Ramathaim-zophim (lit. two heights, elsewhere called Ramah, e.g., 1Sa 1:19, lit. height) in Ephraim in central Canaan. There was also a Ramah in the territory of Benjamin farther to the south (Jdg 19:13; et al.), and one in Naphtali to the north (Jos 19:29; Jos 19:36). Samuel’s father, Elkanah, was an Ephraimite by residence but a Levite by birth (1Ch 6:33-38). Ramah was not one of the Levitical towns in Ephraim. Elkanah’s residence raises initial questions about his commitment to the Mosaic Law. Was he really where he should have been, and does this indicate that the will of God may not have been very important for him (cf. Jdg 17:7-13)? In the story that follows it is Hannah (lit. grace) rather than Elkanah (lit. God created) who emerges as the person of outstanding faith. Hannah’s problem was that she was barren (1Sa 1:2).

In the Hebrew Bible the description of Samuel’s father and Samson’s father are almost identical (cf. Jdg 13:2). The Holy Spirit may have written this to remind us of the unusual Nazirite status of both judges.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

I. ELI AND SAMUEL 1:1-4:1A

First Samuel begins by contrasting Israel’s last two judges (Eli: a failure; and Samuel: a success) and then Israel’s first two kings (Saul: a failure; and David: a success).

The first major section of Samuel sharply contrasts obedience and disobedience to the will of God as God expressed that for Israel in the Mosaic Covenant. This contrast is clear in all seven major sections of 1 and 2 Samuel. The events in this section took place during Eli’s 40-year judgeship (1Sa 4:18; 1 Samuel 1144-1104 B.C.). [Note: Eugene H. Merrill, "Paul’s Use of ’About 450 Years’ in Acts 13:20," Bibliotheca Sacra (July-September 1981):247, dated Samson’s death about 1085 B.C.] First Samuel overlaps Judges chronologically.

Fuente: Expository Notes of Dr. Constable (Old and New Testaments)

CHAPTER I.

HANNAH’S TRIAL AND TRUST.

1Sa 1:1-18.

THE prophet Samuel, like the book which bears his name, comes in as a connecting link between the Judges and the Kings of Israel. He belonged to a transition period. It was appointed to him to pilot the nation between two stages of its history: from a republic to a monarchy; from a condition of somewhat casual and indefinite arrangements to one of more systematic and orderly government. The great object of his life was to secure that this change should be made in the way most beneficial for the nation, and especially most beneficial for its spiritual interests. Care must be taken that while becoming like the nations in having a king, Israel shall not become like them in religion, but shall continue to stand out in hearty and unswerving allegiance to the law and covenant of their fathers’ God.

Samuel was the last of the judges, and in a sense the first of the prophets. The last of the judges, but not a military judge; not ruling like Samson by physical strength, but by high spiritual qualities and prayer; not so much wrestling against flesh and blood as against principalities and powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world, and spiritual wickedness in high places. In this respect his function as judge blended with his work as prophet. Before him, the prophetic office was but a casual illumination; under him it becomes a more steady and systematic light. He was the first of a succession of prophets whom God placed side by side with the kings and priests of Israel to supply that fresh moral and spiritual force which the prevailing worldliness of the one and formalism of the other rendered so necessary for the great ends for which Israel was chosen. With some fine exceptions, the kings and priests would have allowed the seed of Abraham to drift away from the noble purpose for which God had called them; conformity to the world in spirit if not in form was the prevailing tendency; the prophets were raised up to hold the nation firmly to the covenant, to vindicate the claims of its heavenly King, to thunder judgments against idolatry and all rebellion, and pour words of comfort into the hearts of all who were faithful to their God, and who looked for redemption in Israel. Of this order of God’s servants Samuel was the first. And called as he was to this office at a transition period, the importance of it was all the greater. It was a work for which no ordinary man was needed, and for which no ordinary man was found.

Very often the finger of God is seen very clearly in connection with the birth and early training of those who are to become His greatest agents. The instances of Moses, Samson, and John the Baptist, to say nothing of our blessed Lord, are familiar to us all. Very often the family from which the great man is raised up is among the obscurest and least distinguished of the country. The ”certain man” who lived in some quiet cottage at Ramathaim-Zophim would never probably have emerged from his native obscurity but for God’s purpose to make a chosen vessel of his son. In the case of this family, and in the circumstances of Samuel’s birth, we see a remarkable overruling of human infirmity to the purposes of the Divine will. If Peninnah had been kind to Hannah, Samuel might never have been born. It was the unbearable harshness of Peninnah that drove Hannah to the throne of grace, and brought to her wrestling faith the blessing she so eagerly pled for. What must have seemed to Hannah at the time a most painful dispensation became the occasion of a glorious rejoicing. The very element that aggravated her trial was that which led to her triumph. Like many another, Hannah found the beginning of her life intensely painful, and as a godly woman she no doubt wondered why God seemed to care for her so little. But at evening time there was light; like Job, she saw “the end of the Lord;” the mystery cleared away, and to her as to the patriarch it appeared very clearly that “the Lord is very pitiful and of tender mercy.”

The home in which Samuel is born has some points of quiet interest about it; but these are marred by serious defects. It is a religious household, at least in the sense that the outward duties of religion are carefully attended to; but the moral tone is defective. First, there is that radical blemish – want of unity. No doubt it was tacitly permitted to a man in those days to have two wives. But where there were two wives there were two centers of interest and feeling, and discord must ensue.

Elkanah does not seem to have felt that in having two wives he could do justice to neither. And he had but little sympathy for the particular disappointment of Hannah. He calculated that a woman’s heart-hunger in one direction ought to be satisfied by copious gifts in another. And as to Peninnah, so little idea had she of the connection of true religion and high moral tone, that the occasion of the most solemn religious service of the nation was her time for pouring out her bitterest passion. Hannah is the only one of the three of whom nothing but what is favourable is recorded.

With regard to the origin of the family, it seems to have been of the tribe of Levi. If so, Elkanah would occasionally have to serve the sanctuary; but no mention is made of such service. For anything that appears, Elkanah may have spent his life in the same occupations as the great bulk of the people. The place of his residence was not many miles from Shiloh, which was at that time the national sanctuary. But the moral influence from that quarter was by no means beneficial; a decrepit high priest, unable to restrain the profligacy of his sons, whose vile character brought religion into contempt, and led men to associate gross wickedness with Divine service, – of such a state of things the influence seemed fitted rather to aggravate than to lessen the defects of Elkanah’s household.

Inside Elkanah’s house we see two strange arrangements of Providence, of a kind that often moves our astonishment elsewhere. First, we see a woman eminently fitted to bring up children, but having none to bring up. On the other hand, we see another woman, whose temper and ways are fitted to ruin children, entrusted with the rearing of a family. In the one case a God-fearing woman does not receive the gifts of Providence; in the other case a woman of a selfish and cruel nature seems loaded with His benefits. In looking round us, we often see a similar arrangement of other gifts; we see riches, for example, in the very worst of hands; while those who from their principles and character are fitted to make the best use of them have often difficulty in securing the bare necessaries of life. How is this? Does God really govern, or do time and chance regulate all? If it were God’s purpose to distribute His gifts exactly as men are able to estimate and use them aright, we should doubtless see a very different distribution; but God’s aim in this world is much more to try and to train than to reward and fulfill. All these anomalies of Providence point to a future state. What God does we know not now, but we shall know hereafter. The misuse of God’s gifts brings its punishment both here and in the life to come. To whom much is given, of them much shall be required. For those who have shown the capacity to use God’s gifts aright, there will be splendid opportunities in another life. To those who have received much, but abused much, there comes a fearful reckoning, and a dismal experience of the “the unprofitable servant’s doom.”

The trial which Hannah had to bear was peculiarly heavy, as is well known, to a Hebrew woman. To have no child was not only a disappointment, but seemed to mark one out as dishonoured by God, – as unworthy of any part or lot in the means that were to bring about the fulfillment of the promise, “In thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed.” In the case of Hannah, the trial was aggravated by the very presence of Peninnah and her children in the same household. Had she been alone, her mind might not have brooded over her want, and she and her husband might have so ordered their life as almost to forget the blank. But with Peninnah and her children constantly before her eyes, such a course was impossible. She could never forget the contrast between the two wives. Like an aching tooth or an aching head, it bred a perpetual pain.

In many cases home affords a refuge from our trials, but in this case home was the very scene of the trial. There is another refuge from trial, which is very grateful to devout hearts – the house of God and the exercises of public worship. A member of Hannah’s race, who was afterwards to pass through many a trial, was able even when far away, to find great comfort in the very thought of the house of God, with its songs of joy and praise, and its multitude of happy worshippers, and to rally his desponding feelings into cheerfulness and hope. “Why art thou cast down, O my soul, and why art thou disquieted within me? Hope in God, for I shall yet praise Him for the health of His countenance.” But from Hannah this resource likewise was cut off. The days of high festival were her days of bitter prostration.

It was the custom in religious households for the head of the house to give presents at the public festivals. Elkanah, a kind-hearted but not very discriminating man, kept up the custom, and as we suppose, to compensate Hannah for the want of children, he gave her at these times a worthy or double portion. But his kindness was inconsiderate. It only raised the jealousy of Peninnah. For her and her children to get less than the childless Hannah was intolerable. No sense of courtesy restrained her from uttering her feeling. No sisterly compassion urged her to spare the feelings of her rival. No regard for God or His worship kept back the storm of bitterness. With the reckless impetuosity of a bitter heart she took these opportunities to reproach Hannah with her childless condition. She knew the tender spot of her heart, and, instead of sparing it, she selected it as the very spot on which to plant her blows. Her very object was to give Hannah pain, to give her the greatest pain she could. And so the very place that should have been a rebuke to every bitter feeling, the very time which was sacred to joyous festivity, and the very sorrow that should have been kept furthest from Hannah’s thoughts, were selected by her bitter rival to poison all her happiness, and overwhelm her with lamentation and woe.

After all, was Hannah or Peninnah the more wretched of the two? To suffer in the tenderest part of one’s nature is no doubt a heavy affliction But to have a heart eager to inflict such suffering on another is far more awful. Young people that sting a comrade when out of temper, that call him names, that reproach him with his infirmities, are far more wretched and pitiable creatures than those whom they try to irritate. It has always been regarded as a natural proof of the holiness of God that He has made man so that there is a pleasure in the exercise of his amiable feelings, while his evil passions, in the very play of them, produce pain and misery. Lady Macbeth is miserable over the murdered king, even while exulting in the triumph of her ambition. Torn by her heartless and reckless passions, her bosom is like a hell. The tumult in her raging soul is like the writhing of an evil spirit. Yes, my friends, if you accept the offices of sin, if you make passion the instrument of your purposes, if you make it your business to sting and to stab those who in some way cross your path, you may succeed for the moment, and you may experience whatever of satisfaction can be found in gloated revenge. But know this, that you have been cherishing a viper in your bosom that will not content itself with fulfilling your desire. It will make itself a habitual resident in your heart, and distil its poison over it. It will make it impossible for you to know anything of the sweetness of love, the serenity of a well-ordered heart, the joy of trust, the peace of heaven. You will be like the troubled sea, whose waters cast up mire and dirt. You will find the truth of that solemn word, “There is no peace, saith my God, to the wicked.”

If the heart of Peninnah was actuated by this infernal desire to make her neighbour fret, it need not surprise us that she chose the most solemn season of religious worship to gratify her desire. What could religion be to such a one but a form? What communion could she have, or care to have, with God? How could she realize what she did in disturbing the communion of another heart? If we could suppose her realizing the presence of God, and holding soul-to-soul communion with Him, she would have received such a withering rebuke to her bitter feelings as would have filled her with shame and contrition. But when religious services are a mere form, there is absolutely nothing in them to prevent, at such times, the outbreak of the heart’s worst passions. There are men and women whose visits to the house of God are often the occasions of rousing their worst, or at least very unworthy, passions. Pride, scorn, malice, vanity – how often are they moved by the very sight of others in the house of God! What strange and unworthy conceptions of Divine service such persons must have! What a dishonouring idea of God, if they imagine that the service of their bodies or of their lips is anything to Him. Surely in the house of God, and in the presence of God, men ought to feel that among the things most offensive in His eyes are a foul heart; a fierce temper, and the spirit that hateth a brother. While, on the other hand, if we would serve Him acceptably, we must lay aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisies, envies and all evil speakings. Instead of trying to make others fret, we should try, young and old alike, to make the crooked places of men’s hearts straight, and the rough places of their lives plain; try to give the soft answer that turneth away wrath; try to extinguish the flame of passion, to lessen the sum-total of sin, and stimulate all that is lovely and of good report in the world around us.

But to return to Hannah and her trial. Year by year it went on, and her sensitive spirit, instead of feeling it less, seemed to feel it more. It would appear that, on one occasion, her distress reached a climax. She was so overcome that even the sacred feast remained by her untasted. Her husband’s attention was now thoroughly roused. “Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons?” There was not much comfort in these questions. He did not understand the poor woman’s feeling. Possibly his attempts to show her how little cause she had to complain only aggravated her distress. Perhaps she thought, “When my very husband does not understand me, it is time for me to cease from man.” With the double feeling – my distress is beyond endurance, and there is no sympathy for me in any fellow-creature – the thought may have come into her mind, “I will arise and go to my Father.” However it came about, her trials had the happy effect of sending her to God. Blessed fruit of affliction! Is not this the reason why afflictions are often so severe? If they were of ordinary intensity, then, in the world’s phrase, we might “grin and bear them.” It is when they become intolerable that men think of God. As Archbishop Leighton has said, God closes up the way to every broken cistern, one after another, that He may induce you, baffled everywhere else, to take the way to the fountain of living waters. “I looked on my right hand and beheld, but there was no man that would know me; refuge failed me, no man cared for my soul. I cried unto thee, O Lord; I said, Thou art my refuge and my portion in the land of the living.”

Behold Hannah, then, overwhelmed with distress, in “the temple of the Lord” (as His house at Shiloh was called), transacting solemnly with God. “She vowed a vow.” She entered into a transaction with God, as really and as directly as one man transacts with another. It is this directness and distinctness of dealing with God that is so striking a feature in the piety of those early times. She asked God for a man child. But she did not ask this gift merely to gratify her personal wish. In the very act of dealing with God she felt that it was His glory and not her personal feelings that she was called chiefly to respect. No doubt she wished the child, and she asked the child in fulfillment of her own vehement desire. But beyond and above that desire there arose in her soul the sense of God’s claim and God’s glory, and to these high considerations she desired to subordinate every feeling of her own. If God should give her the man child, he would not be hers, but God’s. He would be specially dedicated as a Nazarite to God’s service. No razor should come on his head; no drop of strong drink should pass his lips. And this would not be a mere temporary dedication, it would last all: he days of his life. Eagerly though Hannah desired a son, she did not wish him merely for personal gratification. She was not to make herself the end of her child’s existence, but would sacrifice even her reasonable and natural claims upon him in order that he might be more thoroughly the servant of God.

Hannah, as she continued praying, must have felt something of that peace of soul whichever comes from conscious communion with a prayer-hearing God. But probably her faith needed the element of strengthening which a kindly and favourable word from one high in God’s service would have imparted. It must have been terrible for her to find, when the high priest spoke to her, that it was to insult her, and accuse her of an offence against decency itself from which her very soul would have recoiled. Well meaning, but weak and blundering, Eli never made a more outrageous mistake. With firmness and dignity, and yet m perfect courtesy, Hannah repudiated the charge. Others might try to drown their sorrows with strong drink, but she had poured out her soul before God. The high priest must have felt ashamed of his rude and unworthy charge, as well as rebuked by the dignity and self-possession of this much-tried but upright, godly woman. He sent her away with a hearty benediction, which seemed to convey to her an assurance that her prayer would be fulfilled. As yet it is all a matter of faith; but her “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Her burden is completely removed; her soul has returned to its quiet rest. This chapter of the history has a happy ending – “The woman went her way and did eat, and her countenance was no more sad.”

Is not this whole history just like one of the Psalms, expressed not in words but in deeds? First the wail of distress; then the wrestling of the troubled heart with God; then the repose and triumph of faith. What a blessing, amid the multitude of this world’s sorrows, that such a process should be practicable I What a blessed thing is faith, faith in God’s word, and faith in God’s heart, that faith which becomes a bridge to the distressed from the region of desolation and misery to the region of peace and joy? Is there any fact more abundantly verified than this experience is – this passage out of the depths, this way of shaking one’s self from the dust, and patting on the garments of praise? Are any of you tired, worried, wearied in the battle of life, and yet ignorant of this blessed process? Do any receive your fresh troubles with nothing better than a growl of irritation – I will not say an angry curse? Alas for your thorny experience I an experience which knows no way of blunting the point of the thorns. Know, my friends, that in Gilead there is a balm for soothing these bitter irritations. There is a peace of God that passeth all understanding, and that keeps the hearts and minds of His people through Christ Jesus. “Thou wilt keep him in perfect peace whose mind is stayed on Thee, because he trusteth in Thee.”

But let those who profess to be Christ’s see that they are consistent here. A fretful, complaining Christian is a contradiction in terms. How unlike to Christ! How forgetful such a one is of the grand argument, “He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?” “Be patient, brethren, for the coming of the Lord draweth near.” Amid the agitations of life often steal away to the green pastures and the still waters, and they will calm your soul. And while “the trial of your faith is much more precious than of gold that perisheth, although it be tried with fire,” it shall be “found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ”

Fuente: Expositors Bible Commentary