Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Samuel 2:11 - 2:26
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Samuel’s Service before the Lord in Contrast with the Abominations of the Degenerate Priesthood in the House of Eli
1Sa_2:11-26
I. The conduct of the sons of Eli In contrast with Samuel, the “servant of the Lord.” Vers.‚ 11–17.
1Sa_2:13. This is not to be rendered: “And the custom of the priests with the people was this”—this would certainly require simply îִùְׁôַּè åְæֶç without äַëֹּäֲðִéí [“this is the custom” without “ the priests”], comp. Gen_11:6 (Böttcher); nor is it: “the right (that is, the assumed right) of the priests in respect to the people was as follows” (Keil), for îִùְׁôַּè [“right”] alone cannot be so understood; but the words are to be connected with the preceding: they troubled themselves not about God, nor about the real, true right of the priests in respect to the people, that is, “about what was the legal due of the priests from the people” (Thenius).
[The construction of this difficult clause adopted by Erdmann (with Vulg., Cahen, Wellhausen, Thenius, and perhaps Sept.) is open to grave objections. The reply to Keil is correct; îִùְׁôָּè cannot well mean “assumed right.” The objection to Böttcher’s translation (where read æֶä îִùְׁôָּèָí instead of Erdmann’s æֶä îִùְׁôַּè ) is forcible in so far as we should expect æְä to introduce the clause (comp. Deu_18:3); but the possibility of the omission of the pronoun, and of an apposition of the two clauses must be admitted. To the translation of î× by “legal right” Wellhausen properly objects that the âַּí (even) in 1Sa_2:15 introduces a graver outrage, and therefore the proceeding described in 1Sa_2:13 must be illegal.—But against Erdmann’s rendering it is to be said that the meaning assigned to éãò (know) “trouble one’s-self about” is rare and difficult; it is found only in poetical passages. The phrase “to know the Lord” occurs, and always in the sense of intimate sympathetic apprehension; but this sense will not suit the î× . Moreover, if î× here means “right” we should expect the prep. îֵàֵú “from” (as Deu_18:3) instead of àֵú “ with ” the latter must be retained here, though the former is read in 9 MSS. and in LXX., Syr., Chald. Further, the narrative is, in this construction, introduced very abruptly (“when any man, etc.”). îִùְׁôָּè means not only “right,” but also “ custom, manner;” see 2Ki_11:14; Jdg_13:12. The “custom” here described was not the legal right, but was in force under, apparently introduced by, the sons of Eli, the priests ( äë× ); 1Sa_2:13 details one imposition of the priests, and a more serious imposition is properly introduced (1Sa_2:15) by “even” ( âַּí ).—We retain, therefore, the rendering of Eng. A. V. (with Philippson, Bib. Comm, and others).—Tr.].
Then follows the statement of the priests’ legal right.—The connection required that the people’s part in the offering should now be distinctly set forth, in order to put the unseemly conduct of Eli’s sons in its true light. Therefore the participle “sacrificing” in connection with the indefinite subject “every man,” stands first in absolute construction, like the Lat. Abl. absolute (comp. Gesen. § 145, 2, Rem.), = “when any man offered, then came, etc.” Ewald, § 341 e.: “ If the subject of the circumstantial sentence is wholly undefined, then the mere combination of the participle with the subject suffices to express a possible case (Gen_4:15).” Here is vividly portrayed the grasping selfish conduct of the priests in the preparation of the sacrificial meal after the offering was presented, which had already become the rule (“so they did to all the Israelites”).—But still further. 1Sa_2:15. Even before the offering, before (in accordance with the law, Lev_3:3-5) the fat was burned that it might be offered to the Lord as the best portion, they committed a robbery on the meat, which they wanted only äַé , that is, raw, fresh, full of juice and strength, in order to roast it. [Bib. Comm. points out that 1Sa_2:13-15 repeat the Language of the Law, and thus give evidence to its existence. See Lev_7:31-35; Lev_7:23-25; Lev_7:31; Lev_17:5; also Exo_29:28; Deu_18:3. Philippson: “Roast was common in heathen sacrifices, and even now the Orientals do not like to eat boiled meat.”—Tr.]. 1Sa_2:16. The remonstrance of the offerer based on the legal regulation, of which they should be the guardians, is set aside. ëַּéּåֹí = “at this time, now,” as in Gen_25:31; 1Ki_22:5. The Qeri “not” is preferable to the Kethib “to him:” “no, but now thou shalt give it;” threats were combined with violent seizure. Rude force was added to lawlessness.
1Sa_2:17. The “young men ” are not the servants of the priests (Keil) but the priests themselves, the sons of Eli. Their arbitrary conduct was “a very great sin before the Lord,” because the fat burned on the altar pertained to the Lord, and their legal portion of the sacrifice-meat fell to them only after the burning of the fat. What made their sin so great was the fact that they brought the offerings into contempt with the people, in so far as the wicked conduct of the priests took away in the eyes of the people their true significance as offerings to the Lord. Minchah ( îִðְçָä ) “means here not the meat-offering as the adjunct to the bloody offerings, but the sacrificial gift in general as an offering to the Lord” (Keil). In the succeeding narrative Samuel’s “service before the Lord” is contrasted with this wicked conduct of Eli’s sons in relation to the offering.
II. 1Sa_2:18-21.
1Sa_2:18. The “Ephod” can mean nothing but a garment resembling in form the High-priest’s ephod, consisting of two pieces which rested on the shoulders in front and behind, were joined at the top and held about the body by a girdle. Therefore it is said also: Samuel was girded with the ephod, comp. Exo_28:7-8. In distinction from the material of the High-priest’s ephod, it was made of the same material as the other priestly garments, white linen ( áַּã ). That the priests then all wore this ephod appears from 1Sa_22:18. It was the sign of the priestly calling, and was worn during the performance of the priestly functions. David was thus clothed, according to 2Sa_6:14, when he brought back the Ark, and in connection with this ceremony performed quasi-priestly functions. As the mention of this priestly dress of Samuel is connected expressly and directly with the reference to his calling as minister in the Sanctuary before the Lord, it is thus intimated that he, called to this life-long service, received therewith an essentially priestly calling. [Bib. Comm.: The word minister is used in three senses in Scripture: 1) Of the service of both Priests and Levites rendered unto the Lord, Exo_28:35, etc.; 2) of the ministrations of the Levites as rendered to the Priests, Num_3:6; Numbers 3) of any service, as that of Joshua to Moses, that of Elisha to Elijah, that of the angels in heaven, 2Sa_13:17; Psa_103:21, etc. The application of it to Samuel accords most exactly with his condition as a Levite.—Tr.]. 1Sa_2:19. While the ephod was the High-priestly dress, which the boy received on the part of the Sanctuary (Thenius), the little meïl( îְòִéì ) was his every-day dress, which his mother renewed for him once a year, when she came with her husband to the Sanctuary to present the annual offering. The unbroken connection which the household thus maintained with the Sanctuary prevented any estrangement between the child Samuel and the house of his parents.—The Impf. “made” ( úּòùä ) indicates a continued customary action, and thus answers to the Latin tense which is so called in a stricter sense.
1Sa_2:20. Eli’s blessing refers to two things: to the act of consecrating the son to the service of the Lord, and to the compensation which Eli wished the Lord to make for the son who was offered to the Lord. Keil explains the ùָׁàַì (asked [Eng. A. V. “lent”]) as 3 pers. singular instead of 2 pers. singular or plural “from the indefinite form of speech (comp. Ewald, § 249 b with § 319 a) which the narrator chose because, though it was Hannah who in Eli’s presence had obtained Samuel from the Lord by prayer, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, had shared the wish of his pious wife.” But the circumstance which alone permits such change of person, or rather of gender, in the subject, namely, the indefiniteness of the subject as indicated by the context, does not exist here, since such indefiniteness is undoubtedly excluded by 1Sa_1:27-28. Böttcher properly takes the verb form with altered points as 3 sing. fem. “she asked.”—The sing. pronoun in “his place” (for which we should expect “their place”) does not require the change of “they went” into “the man went,” as Böttcher and Thenius prefer, following the Sept. êáὶ ἀðῆëèåí ὁ ἄíèñùðïò ; the singular suffix (after the plural verb) is explained “by the fact that the place of residence is determined by the husband or owner of the house.”
1Sa_2:21. ëִּé is neither with Bunsen to be translated: “When now Jehovah visited Hannah she conceived,” nor with Thenius to be complemented by “it came to pass,” nor to be referred to “ and Eli blessed” (1Sa_2:20), according to the view of Keil, who inserts a sentence (“Eli’s word was fulfilled,” or “they went home blessed”) in order to retain the causal meaning, but it is to be considered as strengthening the following assertion, with reference to the blessing in 1Sa_2:20, and = “indeed,” “in fact,” immo [German, ja, in der that]. See Ewald, § 310 c and § 330 b. Comp. Isa_7:9; Isa_32:13; Job_8:6.—Samuel’s growth “before the Lord” indicates not only that he remained in the Sanctuary, but also that (as the condition of his calling) he grew in fellowship of heart and life with God.
III. 1Sa_2:22-26. The chief thing in the content of this section is the description of Eli’s conduct towards his sons. But at the same time their worthlessness in relation to the Sanctuary in yet another direction is brought to view. They desecrated the latter not only by the wickedness described in 1Sa_2:12-17, but also by their unchaste dealing with the women who served at the Sanctuary. Wherein consisted their service at the door of the Tent of Assembly is not said in Exo_38:8, where they are mentioned. They formed a body, which was regularly and formally drawn up ( öֹáְàåֹú ) at the door of the Tent for the performance of its duty, which consisted “probably in the cleansing of the vessels used in offerings.” Since, therefore, they were persons dedicated to the holy God, the wickedness of Eli’s sons, who seduced to the service of fleshly lust these persons destined for the service of the Lord, appears in so much the stronger light.—The wickedness of Eli’s sons in what pertained to the sanctuary attached itself to the whole people, who were to hold themselves a holy people to the Lord through this Sanctuary and through the offering and persons connected with it.—Eli’s conduct in connection with their misdeeds is in the beginning by the words “and Eli was very old” represented as the weakness of old age, not thereby to excuse or justify his slackness, but to explain it.
1Sa_2:23. The question: Why do ye such things? is but a feeble rebuke of their gross misdoings. It cannot be translated: “Why do ye according to the words which I hear” (Keil)? for the Heb. word ( ãִּáְøֵéëֶí ) cannot mean “reports about you,” nor could these reports be termed “evil,” since they would be true reports of evil deeds; but the proper rendering is: “Why do ye as these things?” that is, such things. “For I hear of your evil dealings from all this people,” that is, those who came to the Sanctuary, and there saw the wickedness.
1Sa_2:24. “Do not so ( àַì ) my sons.” Not good is the “report,” or objectively “the thing heard;” this answers to the “evil dealings (or things).” The “I hear” ( ùֹׁîֵòַ ) corresponds to the “report,” “thing heard” ( ùְׁîֻòָä ) and [being a particip.—Tr.] shows that it constantly came to his ears. What follows is the explanation of the words: “it is no good report.”
The words: “Jehovah’s people are made to transgress” ( îַòֲáִøִéí etc.), express the guilt which the sons of Eli incurred by their misdoing towards “the Lord’s people.” The difficulties in the explanation of the particip. ( î× “are causing to transgress”) have give occasion to attempts at alteration, which, however, are unsatisfactory. “Michaelis’ alteration (into îֵòֹáְøִéí ): ‘the report which I hear incidentally (from people passing by) from God’s people.’ is against grammar;” so says Thenius. “But,” says Böttcher rightly, “Thenius’ own reading (made from Sept. and Arab., and therefore insecure): ‘you plague, oppress the people of Israel’ ( îַòֲáִãִéí àַúֶּí òַí é× ) is wholly without ground. For äֶòֱáִéã means only ‘make to serve,’ ‘enslave,’ or ‘make to work,’ plague with work (Exo_1:13; Exo_6:5). From the last in the later prophetic style (Isa_43:23) has developed the meaning ‘weary,’ ‘burden,’ just as German: schaffen machen [‘to give trouble,’ lit. ‘to make to do’], ðñÜãìáôá ðáñÝ÷åéí [‘to cause trouble’], and so always with the idea of ‘work’ as fundamental. Eli’s sons, it is true, robbed and dishonored the people (1Sa_2:13 sqq., 22); but they did not burden them in such a way that our term ‘give trouble’ would suit. The expression does not come up to the reality, for it is too narrow for the rebuke. And the addition of ‘ye’ ( àַúֶּí ) here is both violent, and cannot be inferred from the Arab. text, where it was a necessity of Shemitic construction.” The view thus opposed by Böttcher is maintained by Thenius (in his 2d ed. also) to suit the connection perfectly, though, on the other hand, he declares that Ewald’s explanation, in which there is no change of text, must be accepted; this latter is held by Böttcher to be the only one permitted by the language and matter, and he gives it thus: “to send forth a cry ( ä× ÷åֹì ), thence to cause to be called out, and to cause to trumpet forth ( ä× ùׁåֹôָø ) are common expressions, appropriate to the simplest style, Exo_36:6; Lev_25:9; Ezr_1:1; Ezr_10:7. Why then should not “send forth a report” ( ä× ùְׁîåּò ) be said as well as ‘send forth a voice’ ( ä× ÷åֹì )? ‘The report which (as) I hear, God’s people are circulating,’ is quite proper; the plu. partcp. is joined to the collective ‘people’ as in 1Sa_13:15.” To this Thenius properly objects that it is a superfluous statement after 1Sa_2:23 (“which I hear from all the people”), and that we should here expect a more significant word. The train of thought requires after the declaration “not good,” etc., a statement of the ground of Eli’s judgment. The usual rendering: “ye make the Lord’s people to transgress,” satisfies the demands of the connection of thought. Only, as the pers. pron. ( àúí “ye”) is wanting, the partcp. must be rendered impersonally: “people make … to transgress” (comp. îְùַׁìְּçִéí , 1Sa_6:3, and àֹîְøִéí Exo_5:16). The objection that the object of the transgression, which is elsewhere always fouud with this verb as exacter determination, is not here expressed (comp. 1Sa_15:24; Isa_24:5; 2Ch_24:20; Num_14:41), cannot set aside the meaning: “cause to sin or transgress,” “because the exact definition is contained in the context” (Keil). The sin of the sons was, according to the context, very great before the Lord (1Sa_2:12-17), but was at the same time committed against the people of the Lord (1Sa_2:13; 1Sa_2:22) in reference to their holy calling, and had the destructive effect of bringing the Lord’s offering into contempt (1Sa_2:17). The “people of the Lord” not only knew and spoke of the wickedness of Eli’s sons, but were made by the latter partakers of their guilt, were seduced into transgression of the Law by those who ought to have watched over its fulfillment.
1Sa_2:25. Pillel ( ôִּìֵּì ) is used, in connection with wicked actions, in the sense “to give a decisive judgment,” and so between two contending parties, “to compose a strife by judgment;” comp. Eze_16:52; Psa_106:30. The elohim, however, cannot here mean the judge, or the authority that judges, but God is described as He who composes by judging. The sense of Eli’s discourse is: “When men sin against men, it is God (of course through the appointed human organs), who restores the disturbed relations by composing the strife; but when we have to do with the relation, not between man and man, but between man and God, when a man sins against God, offends against God’s honor, who will interpose to arrange the matter?” Eli sets two things therefore before his sons: 1) that their sin is a sin immediately against God, from which point of view it has been regarded in the whole preceding narration (1Sa_2:12; 1Sa_2:17); 2) that the consequent guilt is so great, that divine punishment therefor is certain. [Wordsworth: A man may intercede with God for remission of a penalty due for injury to himself; but who shall venture to entreat for one who has outraged the majesty of God?—Tr.]—Eli’s weakly mild words were too indefinite and general to check the bold wickedness of his sons. It was too late. They sinned against the Lord “with a high hand” ( áְּéָã øָîָä ), as it were, with hardened hearts.—And they hearkened not to the voice of their father.—As reason of this ( ëִּé , “because”) is stated, “that it pleased God, was God’s will, to slay them;” that is, they were in a state of inner hardening, which excluded the subjective condition of salvation from destruction, and so they had already incurred God’s unchangeable condemnation. As hardened offenders, they were already appointed by God to death; therefore the word of instruction had no moral effect on them.
1Sa_2:26. In contrast with them, Samuel is now again presented, as he developed in his childhood as well physically as morally; while the sons of Eli were a horror to God and men, he was well-pleasing to God and men. On äָìַêְ comp. Ges., § 131, 3, Rem. 3. It is used frequently to express continuance in the sense “advance,” “continue,” and then also expresses advancing increase, the participial construction being not seldom employed in such cases, as here: “The child Samuel grew constantly in stature and goodness.” [See Luk_2:52.—Tr.]
2. The sins of Eli’s sons were a symptom of their spiritual heart-hardening and ruin in alienation from God and in immorality. They sinned with “a high hand,” boldly, presumptuously (comp. Num_15:22-31). To this internal judgment of hardening answered as necessary consequence the judgment of their rejection by God, which was a thing determined on in God’s will, because they knew nothing of God and His law (1Sa_2:12). Their crime against the divinely established holy ordinances and the sanctuary, the visible sign of God’s abode with His people, was at the same time a crime against the people of the Lord, and culminated in the crime against God Himself, in which indeed was its root.
3. Samuel, though not a priest, but only a Levite, is (by his repeated designation as “servant of the Lord” (1Sa_2:11; 1Sa_2:18), and by the reference to his priestly clothing) contrasted with the representation of the official priesthood as God’s chosen instrument for truly fulfilling, in and by the prophetic calling which was to take the place of the priesthood that mediated between God and His people, the priestly mission to fulfil which the existing priestly race had shown itself both powerless and unworthy. The condition of this theocratic calling of Samuel, the earnest, personal fellowship of life with the Lord, is pointed out in 1Sa_2:21; 1Sa_2:26. The life of the youth, who was chosen and called by the Lord to restore the theocracy, develops itself in the service of the sanctuary before the Lord in conformity to his divine mission, in order that some day he may become in place of the desecrated sanctuary the living personal centre of the theocratic national life, and in place of the corrupted priesthood the consecrated organ of God’s new revelations for His people.
1Sa_2:16. Starke: When hearers see something bad in him who has the care of their souls, they should duly remind him of it, and should not approve and commend his bad deeds, much less imitate him therein.
1Sa_2:17. Starke: Nobody makes more Atheists than godless teachers, and even if the people still remember so much as to do according to their words and not their works, yet they retain a powerful influence upon the furtherance of godlessness. That wicked teachers with their godless life make great their damnation, is beyond dispute; but it is irrational to infer from this that there is no such thing as religion. [“The sin of the young men was very great” is the text of a sermon by Wesley (Sermon CIX., Vol. II. p. 368) on the question “whether God ever did bless the ministry of ungodly men.”—TR.]
1Sa_2:18. Starke: And so he (Samuel) was a right pious lad; for such piety is more acceptable to God than when one leads a good life among only pious people, since there is a greater victory and greater fidelity in living piously among the wicked. Comp. Enoch’s example, Gen_5:24; Gen_6:9.
1Sa_2:19. Daechsel: Petty little histories, cries unbelief. What matters it whether one knows that Samuel had a little coat or not! Holy Scripture is not written for the wise, but for child-souls, and a child-like soul does not doubt that even the little coat which Hannah prepared for her Samuel has its history. If I think of Hannah as every year sewing this coat at her home in Ramah, I know that at every stitch a prayer for her Samuel rose up to the throne of the Lord.—The coat which she was sewing would remind her that she had given her Samuel to the Lord; and when the coat was ready, and she brought it to Shiloh, then every time with the coat she anew gave Samuel to her God, and said: I give him to the Lord again for his whole life, because he was obtained from the Lord by prayer.
1Sa_2:21. Starke: Whoever gives to God what is God’s, to him God also gives what his heart desires.—Osiander: Nothing is better invested than what is given to God the Lord and to His service; for He richly repays it all.—Daechsel: When our faithful God accepts from us poor creatures an offering of love, He takes it only to give it back five-fold, a hundred fold, and a thousandfold; from His fulness we receive grace for grace. Look at our Hannah! It was grace, that the Lord taught her to pray for Samuel; grace, that He gave her the promise; grace, that He made her willing to dedicate Samuel to him; but what shall we say of the fact that in place of the one child whom He had caused to be given to Himself, the Lord gave her five children, three sons and two daughters? When we in His service do for Him the least thing out of love, it is not enough that He gives to the act itself such blessedness, but, consciously or unconsciously to us, He crowns such an act with a rich blessing of grace, and this grace is completed when He blesses us with the greatest of all blessings, eternal life.—[1Sa_2:22-25.] Starke: O, how often do pious parents, by indulging their wicked children, plait a scourge for their old backs! [Hall: I heard Eli sharp enough to Hannah, upon but a suspicion of sin, and now how mild I find him to the notorious crimes of his own. The case is altered with the persons. With all the authority of an Oriental father, a high-priest, and a judge, he was solemnly bound to do more than mildly censure his sons, 1Sa_3:13.—TR.]
1Sa_2:25. Cramer: The sins of the first table are much weightier and more perilous than the sins of the second table.—Osiander: Let no one sin purposely or wilfully and heap sins upon sins; for if he does, the door of grace is at last closed to him, and he finds no more place for repentance.—Starke: The purpose of God was not the cause of their disobedience, but their disobedience was a sign that they were now ripe for destruction, and that the righteous purpose of God in their case should now soon be executed.
1Sa_2:26. Starke: The best way to make ourselves agreeable and beloved among men is to seek to please God in Christ, act according to our conscience, and lead an exemplary life.—S. Schmid: Whoever uses the grace of God aright, to him God gives more and more grace.—Daechsel: Our history is throughout a strong, firm consolation for parental hearts—for those who have to give back to the Lord in death a dear child which He has given to them in birth, for He can otherwise rejoice and bless them (1Sa_2:20 sq.); and also for those who have to let their sons and daughters go out into the wicked world, full of evil examples and corrupting influences, for He can even then shield and preserve their children, and carry them on in faith and godliness (1Sa_2:21-26).
1Sa_2:18-26. Young Samuel the pattern of a pious life in youth in the service of the Lord: 1) Planted and rooted in the soil of the early habit during childhood of consecrating himself to the Lord, 1Sa_2:18-19; 1 Samuel 2) Growing and increasing in the fear of the Lord under the care of godly parents and teachers, 1Sa_2:19-21; 1 Samuel 3) Preserved and proved amid the temptations and influences of an evil world, 1Sa_2:22-25; 1 Samuel 4) Blessed with favor in the sight of God and man.
1Sa_2:23-25. The judgment against obduracy in sin against the Lord: 1) Wherein is it founded? (a) In persistent, conscious sinning on against the Lord in spite of divine and human warning. (b) In the holy, unchangeable will of God, who does not suffer Himself to be mocked. 2) How is it executed? (a) In that God gives up the sinner to the service of sin from one degree to another. (b) In that the punitive divine justice gives over the sinner to the destruction to which he has condemned himself.
[1Sa_2:12-25. On wicked children of pious parents. 1) The number of such cases is often greatly exaggerated, because men are surprised at them, and notice, and remember; but it is in fact sadly great—in the Scripture histories—in our own observation. 2) The probable causes of this. (a) Piety is not properly hereditary—in what sense it is, and in what sense it is not. (b) Pious parents may, out of mistaken kindness, improperly indulge, and but feebly restrain—as Eli. (c) In other cases, they are too strict and severe. Application—to parents—to the children of the pious.—TR.]
1Sa_2:26. The fruit of a godly life: 1) The gracious approval of the Lord; 2) Recognition by God-fearing men.
Footnotes:
[1Sa_2:13. Erdmann attaches this clause to the preceding, putting a full stop after “people.” See Exegetical Notes in loco.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:13. The Heb. has the Def. Art.; but, as the word is more naturally in st. const., the Art. is better omitted with Sept.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:14. The Eng. A. V. here follows the Sept.; Heb. reads áּåֹ “in it;” Erdmann, damit, “therewith.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:16. The Heb. Inf. Abs.: “let them (or, they will) verily burn.”—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:16. Kethib is “ to him,” Qeri “no” (and so 18 MSS., some printed Eds.,LXX., Syr., Vulg., Arab., and one MS. of Targ. cited by De Rossi); the latter better suits the following ëִּé , which, however, yields a good sense as it stands in the text. It may be translated “but,” supposing a preceding “nay,” as in Eng. A. V.; or regarded as introducing the substantive clause, and rendered “that.”—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:20. Lit.: “in place of the petition which one asked for Jehovah.” Erdmann changes the form of the verb to the fem., and renders “ instead of the begged one (des Erbetenen) whom she begged from the Lord.” Others point as part. pas. ùָׁàֻì . The 3 sing. fem. is found in one MSS.; 2 sing. “ thou askedest” in one MS., LXX., Syr., Vulg.; and Arab. has “thou gavest.” It is better to retain the Heb. text and render it as impersonal.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:20. The plu. suffix “their” is found in 12 MSS., Syr., Chald., Ar.; Vulg. “in locum suum”; some MSS. of Targ. have the sing. Wellhausen, combining LXX. and Heb., gives as the true reading “he went to his place;” but the more difficult reading seems preferable. See Exeg. Notes in loco. Erdmann’s translation omits, by typographical error, the last sentence of 1Sa_2:20.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:22. The verb means “to perform service, military or other.” So in Exo_38:8.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:25. See Exeg. Notes in loco.—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:25. Erdmann: “will adjust” and “who can use his interest (or interpose) to adjust.”—Tr.]
[1Sa_2:26. See Exeget. Notes in loco.—Tr.]
[For meaning of Heb. belial, “ worthlessness,” see on 1Sa_1:16.—Tr.].
[ îִùְׁôָèָí .—Tr.].
[The meïl was the outer garment worn by kings, nobles and others, probably a loose robe. The High-priest’s meïl was peculiar in shape and color (Exo_28:31 ff.). Bib.Comm.: “The pointed mention of the ephod and robe, taken in connection with his after acts, seems to point to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation.”—Tr.]
åְàָîַø , not åָéֹּàîֶø because the saying as well as the blessing itself (hence also åּáֵøַê ) was repeated every year; and this is expressed by the Perf. consec. (Böttcher). [The two Perfects indicate a distinction between the blessing and the saying, but do not necessarily express repeated action; rather they sum up as complete Eli’s action in pronouncing the blessing and uttering the wish.”—Tr.]
Böttcher: “Historically for ùׁàì must have stood ùàìä (Song of Solomon 1 Cod. of Kennicott), this alone being correct and connecting itself immediately with the context. But, because ùְׁàֵìָä stood immediately before with the same ä , or because the feminine signification was obvious from the connection, the exceptional form shaala (which appears elsewhere also), without the final ä , was written.” [The 3 sing. masc. ùàì may be retained here without great difficulty. See “Textual and Grammatical Notes” in loco. 1Sa_1:27-28 (cited by Erdmann above) excludes indefiniteness as to the fact, but not in the expression.—Tr.]
[Eng. A. V. here follows Sept., reading åַéִּôְ÷ãֹ instead of ëִּé ôָ÷ַø , and this seems the simplest way of taking it: “and Jehovah visited Hannah.”—Tr.]
ëְּ has a comparative force, Ges. § 154, 3 sq.—The following àֲùֶׁø is a conjunction, and=not so much ὅôé [“because”] as ὡò [“as”], but, like the latter, goes over into the causative sense; it refers to “such things,” and points out the occasion and cause of the rebuke (comp. Ew. § 333, 2 a with § 331 e 3; Ges. § 155, 2 d).
[This statement is liable to misconception. This prophet could never take the place of the priest. The priest represented the idea fo atonement by blood, a universal, fundamental religious fact; the prophet expounded the spirituality of God’s law and service. These complementary offices were equally necessary, and existed till they both culminated in Jesus Christ.—Tr.]