Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Samuel 1:1 - 1:20
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
1 Samuel 1-7
FIRST DIVISION: SAMUEL’S EARLY LIFE
1 Samuel 1-3
____________
FIRST SECTION
Samuel’s Birth in Answer to Prayer to the Lord
1Sa_1:1-20
I. Samuel’s parents, the Ephrathite Elkanah and the childless Hannah. 1Sa_1:1-8
I. Samuel’s Parents. 1Sa_1:1-8
There is no sufficient ground for adopting (as Thenius does) the reading of the Sept. MS. R. (Vat.) àִéù äָéָä [there was a man] instead of åַéְäִé àִéùׁ [and there was a man], since this latter does not affect the independence of the Books of Samuel; for the å [and] does not indicate attachment to something preceding, the continuation of the Book of Judges, but åַéְäִé [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 ( äָøָֽîָúַéִí ) 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 ( äָøָîָä ), whence it appears that it was not merely the family-residence, but also Elkanah’s 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 Pressel’s 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, which = øָîָúַéִí [Ramathaim] and is therefore doubtless the Ramah of Samuel, was forty Stadia from Jerusalem, and that of Eusebius (Onomast. s. v. ’ Áñìáèὲì ) 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, Saul’s home, and Mizpah. The addition zophim ( öåֹôִéí ) 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 Sôba, which has lately been discovered west of Jerusalem, cannot be the Ramah of Samuel, as Robinson and Ritter suppose (see Then. sächs, 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,” Samuel’s 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 Saul’s 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 need to drive thither the animals which could not easily be purchased on the spot. The other geographical term àֶôְøָúִé “Ephraimite” (which must not be connected with öåּó (Luth.) in which case it would have been äָàֶôְøָúִé ) certainly describes Elkanah as an Ephraimite, who belonged not only to the mountains, but also to the Tribe of Ephraim—and not as a Bethlehemite, as Hoffmann (Weissag. u. Erfüll. 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 Elkanah’s 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 öåּó “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 öåּôִéí “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 àָáֵì “meadow,” Gen_50:11, etc., and ùָׁåֵä “plain,” Gen_14:5, seem to prove the possibility of an appositional construction, so that we must admit (against Wellhausen “Der Text. d. Bücker 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 í m comes by error of transcription from the following word, and to read öåּôִé “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, Samuel’s 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, Elkanah’s 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 Samuel’s Levitical character because, as Ewald (II. 594) remarks, the Levites that were not of Aaron’s family, seem in early times to have been more blended with the people. And the statement in “Chronicles” of Samuel’s 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 Samuel’s 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.” Nägelsbach himself is obliged to admit that the proofs of Samuel’s Levitical descent are convincing; for 1) looking at “Chronicles” (1Ch_25:4; comp. 1Sa_6:18 sq.), he is obliged to concede that Samuel’s 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 David’s day; and 2) he urges further as a not unimportant consideration the name of Samuel’s 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 mother’s vow, which would not have been necessary if Elkanah had been a Levite. To this the answer is not that Hannah’s vow referred to the Nazariteship of her son—for though all Nazarites were specially consecrated to the Lord, they did not thereby come under obligation to serve in the Sanctuary like the Levites—but rather that in Hannah’s 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 ðÜóáò ôὰò äåêÜôáò ôῆò ãῆò áὐôïῦ “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 Elkanah’s 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 Alterthümer (Archæology), p. 346. Thenius refers the fulfilment of the prophecy in 1Sa_2:35 to Samuel, and thereon bases the assertion that Samuel’s 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.
çַðָּä , ̓́ Áííá , Hannah (found in Phœnician also; Dido’s sister was named Anna), a common name for women among the Hebrews, signifying “charm,” “favor,” “beauty,” and in a religious sense “grace.”
Elkanah’s 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 Elkanah’s 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 Hannah’s heart is continually troubled by her “adversary,” while Elkanah seeks to console her by all the more affectionate conduct.
1Sa_1:3-5. Elkanah’s yearly worship and sacrifice at Shiloh. And this man went up, etc.—The expression “from year to year” ( îִéָּîִéí é× ) 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. 79–85. 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 statement—that the feast which Elkanah attended was the Passover—would 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 David’s “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 ìִæְáֹּçַ (“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 æָáַç , because this word denotes slaying with reference to a meal to be afterwards held, and the expressions ùְׁìָîִéí (peace-offerings) and æְáָçִéí (sacrifices) are exactly equivalent, the æָáַç æֶáַç (“to sacrifice a sacrifice”) being used of the Shelamim. This peace-offering, whose performance is called æֶáַç “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 ( ùָׁìֵí 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 éָäåֶä [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 people’s 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 ( ùִׁìֹä , 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 Samuel’s 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. 267–270]) and Wilson (The Lands of the Bible, II. 292 sq.) the ancient Shiloh is the present ruin Seilûn, 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.” ( åְֹùָí ùְׁðֵé áּ× ) the Sept. gives êáὶ ἐêåῖ ‘ Çëß êáὶ ïἱ äýï õἱïὶ áὐôïῦ (“and there Eli and his two sons,” 1Sa_1:3), as if the text had read “and there Eli,” etc. ( åְùָׁí òֵìִé ); 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 ( ëֹּäֲðִéí ìéäåä ), 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” ( äַéּåֹí ), that is, on the day when he came to Shiloh to sacrifice.
That Elkanah’s sacrifice ( æָáַç ) 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 ( æֶáַç òַìÎúּåֹãָä = ùְׁåָîִéí or æֶáַç úּåֹãú ùׁ× 1Sa_1:13; 1Sa_1:15), the sacrifice of the thankful recognition of God’s undeserved benefits. The second sort of peace-offering is the vow-offering ( ðֶãֶã ), which was promised when a request was made for God’s favor, and offered when it was granted; the third sort is the free-will-offering ( ðְãָáָä ) for a special experience of God’s favor, and in a wider sense a voluntary contribution to the Sanctuary and its furniture [Exo_35:29.—Tr.].—Elkanah’s 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 Elkanah’s 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. îָðָä àַçַú àַôָּéִí . Of the various explanations of these words (in which the àַôַּéִí makes the difficulty), only two now deserve consideration; the first (Syr., Targ., Gesen., Winer, De Wette, Bunsen, Keil [Wordsworth, Bib. Com., Cahen]) takes àַôָּéִí in the sense of “persons,” so that it would read “a, portion for two persons,” or “for persons” ([Fürst], Bunsen, that is, “a large piece”); the second (Thenius, Böttcher, “neua exeget. krit. Aehrenlese z. A. T.”, p. 85 sq.) after the Vulgate and Luther renders àַôָּéִí “sad,” or better, “displeased,” “unwilling.” Against the first explanation is the fact that the sing. àó 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 ìְàַôֵּé is equivalent to ìִôְðֵé in 1Sa_25:23, and ôָּðéִí 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 ðְãָáָä , Deu_23:24; Hos_14:5) equivalent to áְּàַôָּéִí in Dan_11:20, “in anger.” In contrast with the joy which ought to have reigned undisturbed at this feast, Elkanah’s 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 àַôַּéí 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 ôָּðִéí 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 one’s presence,” as the bread in the Tabernacle was called ìֶçֶí ôָּðִéí “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 Elkanah’s character, or “a portion set in one’s 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 àַôַּéִí , (following Syr. and Arab.) and render “a double portion.”—TR.].
1Sa_1:6-8. Hannah, provoked by her adversary, consoled by Elkanah. Peninnah is Hannah’s adversary on account of Elkanah’s special love for the latter (1Sa_1:5); out of jealousy she is her rival. Bigamy, which is in opposition to God’s appointment, bears its bitter fruits for Elkanah and his house.— âַּñÎëַּòַí “with anger (or vexation) also.” ëַּòַí 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 ( ëְּòָñִéí , provocations to anger, in reference to God). This last is the sense here also, and the âַּí (“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 ( áַּòֲáåּø etc.). The word ( øָòַí )in Hiph. means “to rouse, excite, put in lively motion;” here, as the context ( ëִּé ñָâַø é× ) 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 God’s favor.—In 1Sa_1:7 Elkanah cannot be taken as subject, as is done in the present pointing ( éַòֲùֶׂä ); for in the preceding independent sentence (1Sa_1:6) Peninnah is the subject; still less, for the same reason, can the suffix in òֲìֹúָäּ (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 éִòָùֶׂä and translate “and so it happened.” [Others read not so well úַּòֲùֶׂä “and so she did.”—Tr.]. The two ëֵּï (so … so) correspond therefore in relation to Peninnah’s conduct, not in relation to Elkanah’s bearing towards Hannah, and Peninnah’s provocation (Keil). “So it happened (in reference to Peninnah) etc., thus she provoked her (Hannah).” The words “and she wept, etc.” ( åַּúִּáְëֶּä ) are referred naturally to Hannah by a sudden change of subject, which is allowable only in this understanding of the subjects from “it happened” ( éֵòָùֶׂä ) on.—In 1Sa_1:8 Elkanah’s consoling address is contrasted with Peninnah’s 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 Elkanah’s 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. ôß ἐóôß óïé ὅôé (“what is to thee that”) does not warrant us in taking (with Thenius) for the original text the corresponding Heb. ( îַäÎìָּêְ áִּé ) instead of “why” ( ìָîֶä ), for, comparing it with ἱíáôß [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.
In distinction from his sons, who are called “priests of the (to the) Lord” ( ëֹּäֲðִéí ìַéäֹåָä ), Eli is called the priest ( äַëֹּäֵï ). 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, Aaron’s 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 author’s 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 Samuel’s 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 ( îְæåּæָä ), 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. äֵéëַì éְäֹåָä 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” ( îָøַú ðֶôֶùׁ ) 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 ( åּáָëֹä úִáְëֶּä ); 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 ( ðֶãֶø ) 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 àִñָּø or àֱñָø =obligatio (Num_30:3). The former is connected with the Shelamim, as here Hannah’s vow with Elkanah’s 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” ( àִí ) 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. ( àֲðָùִׁéí , plural of àִéùׁ comp. Ewald, § 186 f.)—[The Sept. has ἐðéâëÝøῃò ἐðὶ ôὴí ôáðåßíùóéí ôῆò äïýëçò óïõ , 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. The emphasis is on the words “all the days” ( ëָּìÎéְîֵé ç× ): 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 ( ðָæִéøְ ), 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 ( ÷ָãùׁ ìéäåä ). To the negative element answers the positive—the 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 ornament ( ðֵæֶø 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 ( ðֵæֶø ) 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 Herzog’s R.-E. s. v. Nasiräat. [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 ðæéø òåìí , “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 Samson’s case. Another view, that it symbolizes the subjection of man to God, is adopted by Baumgarten and Fairbairn; the latter refers to Paul’s teaching in 1Co_11:10. On the general subject see Smith’s Bib. Dict., Fairbairn’s 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. Eli’s 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 Lord—this marks the energy of thorough devotion and ardent piety towards God; 2) she spake to her heart ( òַì is not “in,” nor is it= àֵì , 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.&mdas