Bible Commentaries

FIRST PART: SAMUEL

1 Samuel 1-7

Samuel’s Life and Work as Judges, Priest and Prophet, Directed Towards a Through Reformation of the Theocracy and Laying the Foundation of the Theocratic Kingdom

____________

FIRST DIVISION: SAMUEL’S EARLY LIFE

1 Samuel 1-3

____________

FIRST SECTION

Samuel’s Birth in Answer to Prayer to the Lord

1 Samuel 1:1-20

I. Samuel’s parents, the Ephrathite Elkanah and the childless Hannah. 1 Samuel 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 2 Elihu, 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 3 had 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 8 voked 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. Hannah’s Prayer far a Son. 1 Samuel 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 10 of the temple [Sanctuary⁸] of the Lord [Jehovah]. And she was in bitterness of 11 soul, 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 12 head. 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 14 thought she had been [was] drunken. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou 15 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 16 drink, 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 17 of 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] thy18a petition that thou hast asked of him. And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight [thine eyes].

III. Samuel’s Birth. 1 Samuel 1:18-20

18b So [And] the woman went her way and did eat, and her countenance was no 19 more 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 20 knew 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 Song of Solomon, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because [For, said she,] I have [om. have] asked him of the Lord [Jehovah].

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL¹²

I. Samuel’s Parents. 1 Samuel 1:1-8

1 Samuel 1:1-2. And there was a man of Ramathaim-zophim.—Here an account is given of Samuel’s genealogy and birth-place.

There is no sufficient ground for adopting (as Thenius does) the reading of the Sept. MS. R. (Vat.) אִיש הָיָה [there was a man] instead of וַיְהִי אִישׁ [and there was a man], since this latter does not affect the independence of the Books of Samuel; for the ו [and] does not indicate attachment to something preceding, the continuation of the Book of Judges, but וַיְהִי [and there was] stands here, as it often does at the beginning of a narrative, as historical introductory formula, Joshua 1:1; Judges 1:1; Ruth 1:1; 2 Samuel 1:1; 1 Kings 1:1; Esther 1:1; Ezra 1:1; Ezekiel 1:1; Jonah 1:1.

The father of Samuel was a man of Ramathaim-zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim, named Elkanah. The place Ramathaim (הָרָֽמָתַיִם) is doubtless the same that is called in 1 Samuel 1:3 “his city,” and afterwards in 1 Samuel 1:19; 1 Samuel 2:11 by the shorter name Ramah (הָרָמָה), 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 ( 1 Samuel 1:19); the same Ramah in which he had his house ( 1 Samuel 7:17), the central point of his labors ( 1 Samuel 8:4; 1 Samuel 15:34; 1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Samuel 19:18-22) and his abode as long as he lived, and where he was buried ( 1 Samuel 26:1; 1 Samuel 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 ( Joshua 18:25); for the statement of Josephus (Ant8, 12, 3) that Ramathon,¹³ which = רָמָתַיִם [Ramathaim] and is therefore doubtless the Ramah of Samuel, was forty Stadia from Jerusalem, and that of Eusebius (Onomast. s. v. ’Αρμαθὲμ) 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 Judges 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 (צוֹפִים) distinguishes it from the other places of the same name, and indicates the district (the land of Zuph 1 Samuel 9:5) in which it lay, whose name is to be derived from the family of Zuph or Zophim from whom Elkanah descended (comp. 1 Chronicles 6:11; 1 Chronicles 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 1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 9:4 to 1 Samuel 10:2): on the return from Ramah to Gibeah, Saul, it is said, certainly took the directest road; but, according to 1 Samuel 10:2-5, he first crossed the border of Benjamin ( 1 Samuel 10:2), and then came into the neighborhood of Bethel ( 1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 1:20) but near Shiloh ( 1 Samuel 1:24), for if it had been far from Shiloh, the animals for offering would not have been carried from home. So Then. on 1 Samuel 9:5, p34. But the assumption that Saul went the directest way to Gibeah is not certain. In 1 Samuel 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 אֶפְרָתִי “Ephraimite” (which must not be connected with צוּף (Luth.) in which case it would have been הָאֶפְרָתִי) 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. 1 Samuel 2:7 sq.])sup. pose; for in 1 Samuel 17:12 and Ruth 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. p2) 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, p18). As Elkanah came from the Levitical family of Kohath, son of Levi, whose land lay in Ephraim, Dan and Manasseh ( Joshua 21:5; Joshua 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 צוּף “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 צוּפִים “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” ( 1 Samuel 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 אָבֵל “meadow,” Genesis 50:11, etc, and שָׁוֵה “plain,” Genesis 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 ם m comes by error of transcription from the following word, and to read צוּפִי “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 1 Chronicles 6:26-27 ( Hebrews 11, 12) 34, 35 ( Hebrews 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. Then2).

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, 1 Chronicles 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. ( Hebrews 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, Daniel, 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, Anm2), Nagelsbach (Herzog, R-E. s. v. Samuel) and others. The latter himself refers to Judges 17:7; Judges 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 (p2), 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. Anm2). So Bunsen (in loco), referring to Joshua 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; for1) looking at “Chronicles” ( 1 Chronicles 25:4; comp. 1 Samuel 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; and2) 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 2 Chronicles 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, p493; 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” ( 1 Samuel 1:11; 1 Samuel 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 ( Numbers 8:23 sq.; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:30; Numbers 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 ( 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 1:21 (which adds πάσας τὰς δεκάτας τῆς γῆς αὐτοῦ “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, Numbers 18:26 sq.; comp. Nehemiah 10:38 (Keil26, Note). Ewald (II:594) says: “The tithe which Elkanah (according to 1 Samuel 1:21, Sept.) brought proves nothing against his Levitical cha racter.” See his Alterthümer (Archæology), p346. Thenius refers the fulfilment of the prophecy in 1 Samuel 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.

חַנָּה, ̓́Αννα, 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 ( Leviticus 18:18; Exodus 21:7-10; Deuteronomy 17:17; Deuteronomy 21:15-17). According to Genesis 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.

1 Samuel 1:3-5. Elkanah’s yearly worship and sacrifice at Shiloh. And this man went up, etc.¹⁶—The expression “from year to year” (מִיָּמִים י׳) is used in Exodus 13:10 of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and so elsewhere ( Judges 11:40; Judges 21:19). On the traces of the Passover in the Period of the Judges see Hengstenberg Beitr. [Contrib.] 379–85. 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. ( 1 Samuel 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, Exodus 34:23; comp. Deuteronomy 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.; 1 Samuel 2:12-17. Some prefer to see here a feast different from any of the three great festivals, referring to the feasting ( 1 Samuel 1:9) and David’s “yearly sacrifice,” 1 Samuel 20:6; comp. Deuteronomy 12:11-14 (Bib. Comm. in loco). This, however, is not conclusive; feasting would be appropriate at the great festivals, (see Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 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 ( Exodus 23:15; Exodus 34:20; comp. Deuteronomy 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 לִזְבֹּחַ (“to sacrifice”) is to be understood of the Shelamim, which consisted of free-will offerings ( Deuteronomy 16:10), partly from the tithes set apart for this purpose ( Deuteronomy 14:22 sq.) and the first-born of cattle ( Deuteronomy 15:20; Numbers 18:17), which were preceded by burnt offerings, ( Numbers 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 זָבַח, because this word denotes slaying with reference to a meal to be afterwards held, and the expressions שְׁלָמִים (peace-offerings) and זְבָחִים (sacrifices) are exactly equivalent, the זָבַח זֶבַח (“to sacrifice a sacrifice”) being used of the Shelamim. This peace-offering, whose performance is called זֶבַח “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 (שָׁלֵם integer fuit); comp. Oehler in Herzog10:637, Hengstenb. Beitr. III, p85 sq.

To the Lord of Hosts, Jehovah Sabaoth. Elkanah draws near with worship and with sacrifice. The signification of the name יָהוֶה [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 (שִׁלֹה, 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,” Judges 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 Joshua 18:1 (the sixth year after the passage of the Jordan according to Joseph. Ant. 5, 119), to the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. For a time only, during the Benjamite war ( Judges 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 ( 1 Samuel 1:7; 1 Samuel 1:9; 1 Samuel 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. ( 1 Kings 11:12; 1 Kings 11:14) and was still in existence at the time of the Exile ( Jeremiah 41:5). Jerome found there some ruins and the foundation of an altar (see on Zephaniah 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 Judges 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 ( Psalm 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.” (וְֹשָם שְׁנֵי בּ׳) the Sept. gives καὶ ἐκεῖ ‘Ηλί καὶ οἱ δύο υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ (“and there Eli and his two sons,” 1 Samuel 1:3), as if the text had read “and there Eli,” etc. (וְשָׁם עֵלִי); 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 Hebrews, are here specially mentioned as persons who were priests to the Lord (כֹּהֲנִים ליהוה), 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. 1 Samuel 2:14; 1 Samuel 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!

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

That Elkanah’s sacrifice (זָבַח) was a praise or thank-offering is clear from what follows; for, according to the Law ( Leviticus 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 ( Leviticus 7:11 sq.) the first and principal sort of the peace-offering (זֶבַח עַל־תּוֹדָה = שְׁוָמִים or זֶבַח תּוֹדת שׁ׳ 1 Samuel 1:13; 1 Samuel 1:15), the sacrifice of the thankful recognition of God’s undeserved benefits. The second sort of peace-offering is the vow-offering (נֶדֶד), 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 (נְדָבָה) for a special experience of God’s favor, and in a wider sense a voluntary contribution to the Sanctuary and its furniture [ Exodus 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, Deuteronomy 12:11-12; Deuteronomy 12:17-18. These meals had a joyful character, comp. Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 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

1 Samuel 1:5. מָנָה אַחַת אַפָּיִם. Of the various explanations of these words (in which the אַפַּיִם makes the difficulty), only two now deserve consideration; the first (Syr, Targ, Gesen, Winer, De Wette, Bunsen, Keil [Wordsworth, Bib. Com, Cahen]) takes אַפָּיִם 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.”, p85 sq.) after the Vulgate and Luther renders אַפָּיִם “sad,” or better, “displeased,” “unwilling.” Against the first explanation is the fact that the sing. אף 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 לְאַפֵּי is equivalent to לִפְנֵי in 1 Samuel 25:23, and פָּניִם is used for “person” in 2 Samuel 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 נְדָבָה, Deuteronomy 23:24; Hosea 14:5) equivalent to בְּאַפָּיִם in Daniel 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 ( Genesis 19:31; Genesis 30:1; Genesis 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 אַפַּים has only three meanings in the Old Test. (excluding this passage): 1) nostrils ( Genesis 2:7; Lamentations 4:20); 2) face ( 1 Samuel 20:41); 3) anger ( 1 Samuel 11:6). The rendering, therefore, “sadness,” “displeasure,” defended above by Dr. Erdmann, is hardly allowable. Nor does the word mean “person;” in 2 Samuel 17:11 (adduced by Keil) the similar word פָּנִים 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 לֶחֶם פָּנִים “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 אַפַּיִם, (following Syr. and Arab.) and render “a double portion.”—TR.].

1 Samuel 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 ( 1 Samuel 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.—גַּס־כַּעַם “with anger (or vexation) also.” כַּעַם is not simply “vexation” in a subjective-intransitive sense, but is found also in an objective-transitive sense, as in Deuteronomy 32:27 (the wrath which the enemy produces in me) and 2 Kings 23:26 (כְּעָסִים, provocations to anger, in reference to God). This last is the sense here also, and the גַּם (“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 (בַּעֲבוּר etc.). The word (רָעַם)in Hiph. means “to rouse, excite, put in lively motion;” here, as the context (כִּי סָגַר י׳) 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 1 Samuel 1:7 Elkanah cannot be taken as subject, as is done in the present pointing (יַעֲשֶׂה); for in the preceding independent sentence ( 1 Samuel 1:6) Peninnah is the subject; still less, for the same reason, can the suffix in עֲלֹתָהּ (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 יִעָשֶׂה and translate “and so it happened.” [Others read not so well תַּעֲשֶׂה “and so she did.”—Tr.]. The two כֵּן (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.” (וַּתִּבְכֶּה) are referred naturally to Hannah by a sudden change of subject, which is allowable only in this understanding of the subjects from “it happened” (יֵעָשֶׂה) on.—In 1 Samuel 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. τί ἐστί σοι ὅτι (“what is to thee that”) does not warrant us in taking (with Thenius) for the original text the corresponding Heb. (מַה־לָּךְ בִּי) instead of “why” (לָמֶה), for, comparing it with ἱνατί [why] for the second and third “why” of the Hebrews, 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.

IΙ. Hannah’s Prayer For A Son. 1 Samuel 1:9-18 a

1. First in 1 Samuel 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 Elkanah’s consoling address (Von Gerlach). The Sept. renders rightly according to the sense μετὰ τὸ φαγεῖν αὐτούς [after they had eaten], though this does not justify us (Then.) in so reading the Heb. (אָכְלָם). The passage from rose up (וַתָּקָם) to drunk (שָׁתֹה on this Inf. Abs. for Inf. Con, see Ewald, § 339 b) is to be connected with prayed, 1 Samuel 1:10 (וַתִּתְפַּלַּל) 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. Eli’s sitting at the entrance of the Sanctuary is specially mentioned because of his after conduct to the praying Hannah; Hannah’s bitterness of soul is mentioned because it was the reason of her praying to the Lord. [The Heb. favors the translation, 1 Samuel 1:9, “after she had eaten … and drunk;” it may be a mere general expression, or she may have yielded to her husband’s request. There is no contradiction in this case between 1 Samuel 1:7 and 1 Samuel 1:9. See Bib. Comm. in loco.—Tr.].

In distinction from his sons, who are called “priests of the (to the) Lord” (כֹּהֲנִים לַיהֹוָה), Eli is called the priest (הַכֹּהֵן). Though called simply “the priest,” he yet filled the office of High-Priest (Aaron and Eleazar, his Song of Solomon, are so called Numbers 26:1; Numbers 27:2). In the beginning of the period of the Judges Phinehas, son of Eleazar, was High-Priest, Judges 20:28. This office was bestowed not only on him, but also on his posterity, Numbers 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 1 Samuel 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, Ant5, 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 (מְזוּזָה), 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 1 Samuel 3:15, where the “doors” are presupposed by the door-post here. הֵיכַל יְהֹוָה is the Tabernacle in relation to God as King of Israel; it is his “palace” where, in His royal majesty as “King of glory” ( Psalm 24), He dwells in the midst of His people, meets with them, and holds with them covenant-communion ( Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45-46).—Hannah was “in bitterness of soul” (מָרַת נֶפֶשׁ) at the continuance of her hopelessness, and the vexations which she suffered from her adversary (comp. 2 Kings 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 (וּבָכֹה תִבְכֶּה); that was the expression of her grief because her petitions had been hitherto unheard.

1 Samuel 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 (נֶדֶר) usually means the positive vow ( Numbers 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 Genesis 28:20-22); the negative vow, the promise to refrain from something, is אִסָּר or אֱסָר=obligatio ( Numbers 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 Numbers 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” (אִם) 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. (אֲנָשִׁים, plural of אִישׁ comp. Ewald, § 186 f.)—[The Sept. has ἐπιβλέψῃς ἐπὶ τὴν ταπείνωσιν τῆς δούλης σου, which are the identical words of the Magnificat. He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden ( Luke 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” (כָּל־יְמֵי ח׳): 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 vow2) “No razor shall come upon his head,” that is, he shall be a Nazir (נָזִירְ), 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 Numbers 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 1 Samuel 1:2; 1 Samuel 1:5; 1 Samuel 1:8 : the separation or abstinence is for the Lord; the Nazir is holy to Jehovah (קָדשׁ ליהוה). To the negative element answers the positive—the special devotion and consecration of person and life to the Lord. This shows itself1) 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, and3) 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 (נֵזֶר of the Lord, 1 Samuel 1:7) of the head. It is in keeping with the great importance which is attached (in 1 Samuel 1:7) to the hair of the Nazarite as “consecration (נֵזֶר) 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 Numbers 6:11. Comp. Oehler in Herzog’s R-E. s. v. Nasiräat. [A similar omission occurs in the case of Samson, Judges 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, Luke 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 נזיר עולם, “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 1 Corinthians 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. 1 Samuel 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 (עַל is not “in,” nor is it=אֵל, Genesis 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, Eli’s conduct is portrayed as really profane; his view of Hannah’s 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 (פִּיהָ), which from the Heb. expression (נָעוֹת) must have been lively; he remains fixed at the surface, while, considering the source of Hannah’s 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. 1 Samuel 1:14-18 a. Hannah’s conversation with Eli concerning her prayer shows again the striking contrast between Eli’s pre-judgment of her condition and her real frame of heart ( 1 Samuel 1:14-15), and Hannah’s deep heart-felt piety as the source of her supplication ( 1 Samuel 1:15-16), but brings out also Eli’s better nature, the expression of which is the wish for a blessing ( 1 Samuel 1:17-18).

1 Samuel 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 Peninnah’s speech. (On the form תִּשְׁתַּכָּרִין 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. 1 Samuel 25:37), is as rude and profane as the question—least of all becoming to, and to be expected from, a priest. Here, looking at Eli’s 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 Acts 2:13 (“they are full of new wine”). The Sept. has here in Eli’s interests inserted “youth, servant” (נַעַר) 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. Böttch. 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.

1 Samuel 1:15 sq. Hannah’s answer is an energetic denial of Eli’s charge; in the spirited fulness of her reply, we may see something of the indignation which Eli’s 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” (לֹא אֲדֹנִי) 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” (קְשַׁת רוּחַ). Though in Ezekiel 3:7 the similar phrase “hard of heart” (קְשֵׁה לֵב) means “obstinate,” “stiff-necked,” yet the combination of this Adj. (קשׁה) in the signification “heavy” ( Judges 4:24 [the hand … was heavy against Jabin]; Exodus 18:26) with the subst. (רוּחַ= disposition, mind, Genesis 41:8; Psalm 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 Eli’s 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: γυνὴ̣ ἐν σκλήρᾷ ἡμέρᾳ ἐγώ εἰμι (I am a woman in a hard day). This is based on the reading “hard of day” (קְשַׁת יוֹם), 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 (שֵׁכָר); 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. Psalm 42:5, 4]: I pour out my soul in me; Psalm 42:9, 8]: Pour out your heart before him; and Psalm 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 ( 1 Samuel 1:6). Comp. Calvin on Psalm 142:3 : “He sets the pouring out one’s thoughts and telling one’s 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 Eli’s charge of intemperance and drunkenness.—A third and still stronger denial she makes ( 1 Samuel 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 בְּלִיַּעַל, comp. Gesen. s. v.)=bad woman. The words “count not,” etc. (אַל־תִּתֵּן 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 (לִפְנֵי) 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 (רֹב) of her complaint and grief she had spoken “hitherto” (עַד־הֵנָּה), 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.”

1 Samuel 1:17. Eli’s 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 that1) he replies with the usual parting-formula “Go in peace !” and2) he adds the wish that her request may be granted. (שֵׁלָתֵךְ is for שְׁאֵלָתֵךְ). There is no prophecy in this; it was a wish which God fulfilled.

1 Samuel 1:18. Hannah’s 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. 1 Samuel 1:26).—[There seems to be no advantage in closing this section in the middle of 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 1:19 begins a new narrative, as in Eng. A. V.—TR.]

III. The Answer to the Prayer. 1 Samuel 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 Hannah’s more cheerful mood.—TR.] “And her countenance was no more to her”—that 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” (פָּנִים) is likewise to be taken in the sense “sad countenance” [“heaviness” in Eng. A. V.—Tr.].²¹

1 Samuel 1:19 describes circumstantially and vividly, almost solemnly, the return to Ramah after early worship together before the Lord. Elkanah knew his wife (יָדַע, “know,” as in Genesis 4:7). “The Lord remembered her,” indicates the fulfilment of her request; the divine control, under which ( 1 Samuel 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 1 Samuel 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. ( 1 Samuel 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.].

1 Samuel 1:20. “Up to the circuit or conclusion of the days or of the regular time”—that 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 Song of Solomon, 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 שְׁאִלְתִּיו see Gesen44, 2, Rem2.) According to this explanation the name שְׁמוּאֵל (which belongs to two other persons only, Numbers 34:21; 1 Chronicles 7:2) is formed by contraction from שְׁמוּע אֵל, the ע falling out (Ewald, Gr. § 275, A3). The Rabbinical derivation from שָׁאוּלמֵאֵל, whence שָׁאוּמֵאֵל and שְׁמוּאֵל 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 Jacob’s children ( Genesis 29:32 sq.; 1 Samuel 30:5 sq.).—The omission of “and she said” is original; the Sept. has clearly again here filled out and explained (against Thenius). Hannah’s saying, introduced without this addition, is thereby characterized as an explanation, historically handed down, of this name in reference to what preceded Samuel’s birth. [This whole incident is discussed in the Talmudical Tract “Berakoth,” fol31 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 chap16) 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 1 Kings 6:1, and, putting the fourth year of Solomon B. C1012, fixes the Exodus in B. C1492, the entrance into Canaan B. C1452, while David’s accession falls B. C1056. The second datum is found in Jephthah’s statement, Judges 11:26, according to which the beginning of his judgeship falls300 years after the entrance into Canaan, that is, B. C1152. From this time to the death of Abdon ( Judges 12:7-15) is thirty-one years, and Abdon’s death is to be put B. C1121. 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: