I AND II SAMUEL
INTRODUCTION
Name and Canonical Significance. Traditionally, the three major divisions of the Hebrew Old Testament are: The Law, The Prophets, and The Writings. I and II Samuel, together with Joshua, Judges, and I and II Kings, comprised the section called the Former Prophets, which served as a history of God’s providential dealings with His people. The two books of I and II Samuel were originally one book which was first divided into two by the Septuagint. The name of this historical book does not come from its author but from the first prominent person in the history of the monarchy, Samuel the Prophet. The first seven chapters are essentially about Samuel and his career; and therefore, in the Hebrew way of thinking, it made a good name for the book. Another example of naming a book by whatever comes first is Genesis, which was named “In-the-Beginning,” after the first word in Hebrew. The meaning of Samuel’s name would seem to be “God answered.” Of the two possible meanings (Heb Shemuel), this is the one which makes most sense in the context where the name is given (see 1 Sam 1:19–20).
Purpose. The purpose of these books is more than historical; for they are not merely a collection of stories about religion and politics in Israel during the period. Nor are these books pure biographies of Samuel, Saul, and David. The writer has selected certain facts of history along with various experiences from the lives of these men in order to reveal the acts of God in the providential accomplishment of salvation for His people. This revelation was written down by the inspiration of the Spirit of God, so that when the writer had finished his task the product was neither history nor biography, but the Word of the Living God. All the Bible aims toward the revelation of God in Christ, and this unit is no exception. It also has a deeper, underlying, messianic significance. It portrays God acting in history to prepare a people for Himself, and to bring salvation to them through His ultimate, anointed King, Jesus Christ.
In studying 1 and 2 Samuel, the real message is to be found by recalling that God had called Israel into a special relationship with Himself. God was their real King, and He would always deliver them; the people were never able to solve their own problems or make their own choices. These books, like the others of the Old Testament, were written as temporal illustrations of the ultimate salvation God brings to us in Christ.
Authorship and Date. The book is anonymous; we simply do not know who wrote it. We may know for sure that if 1 and 2 Samuel is a unit written by one person, as it appears, then Samuel the prophet could not have been the author, since many of the events recorded took place after his death. The writer, whoever he may have been, obviously lived some time after the events recorded (see 2 Sam 18:18), and shows the use of many written records and sources in his composition of the book. The use of court records is assumed for 2 Samuel 9:1–20:26. 1 Chronicles 29:29 mentions the chronicles of Samuel (along with other writings of Nathan and Gad); these had specifically to do with David and could have been part of the author’s sources.
Neither is the date of writing known. General inferences are made on the basis of internal evidence; the terminus a quo would seem to be the death of Solomon, since the divided monarchy is alluded to in 1 Samuel 27:6, while the terminus ad quem may be the Fall of Samaria, since the writer would surely have mentioned such a significant event if it had occurred. Some scholars date the book even later, but there appears no compelling evidence for this.
Historical Background. Samuel was born prior to 1100 b.c. during the Philistine oppression. The last of God’s chosen deliverers (called Judges) was Samson; he had been a judge for twenty years (Judges 15:20) and was credited with the marvelous deliverance of the people of God from the Philistines during his lifetime. Samson’s final revenge upon the Philistines was accomplished by the power of the Holy Spirit and resulted in the death of more of the oppressors than he had killed during his lifetime. It was toward the end of this long period of the judges that Samuel was born. It was, as can be seen from the apparent spiritual degradation of 1 Samuel 2:12–26, a time when every man did what was “… right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6; 21:25). Morals were almost completely lacking. It seems that Samuel was born for the task of transitioning God’s rule among His people from judges to kings who would rule in His name.
Samuel was, in fact, a judge himself (1 Sam 7:3–11), and it is interesting to note that part of his judgeship was contemporary with that of Samson. Even Samuel’s sons were judges in a technical sense by appointment (1 Sam 8:1–3), but not in a spiritual sense. Samuel was more than a judge; he was preeminently a prophet. He did not deliver the people physically, as the other judges had, but spiritually. He prepared God’s people for receiving David, the king of God’s choice, and ultimately the Son of David, Jesus Christ. Humanly speaking, Samuel single-handedly delivered the nation from complete extinction. There was little unity left during the period of the judges, and the cycles of sin, oppression, repentance, and deliverance were tightening into a deadly spin to destruction. It was Samuel who stopped the spin and brought them back to unity as a nation. Samuel was God’s man of the hour; he functioned as judge, prophet, priest, and king, and brought the people through this time of transition.
New Testament Use. Luke, John, Mark, Paul, and the writer of the book of Hebrews quote or allude to 1 and 2 Samuel. It is interesting that of the eighteen references to these books in the New Testament, almost all emphasize God’s accomplished salvation through Jesus Christ as the Messiah. Not one reference is used to establish or even rehearse a historical fact or an event from the lives of Samuel, Saul, or David. The inspired New Testament writers undoubtedly viewed the whole Old Testament as salvation history, and their references would remind us to emphasize whatever is christocentric in our interpretation of this material.
OUTLINE I SAMUEL
I. The Saving Acts of God Through 1Samuel 1:1–28, 2:1-36, 3:1-21, 4:1-22, 5:1-17, 6:1-21, 7:1-17
A. The Birth of Samuel and Hannah’s Song of Deliverance. 1:1–2:10
B. Samuel’s Ministry in the Temple. 2:11–3:21
C. The Capture of the Ark of God. 4:1–6:21
D. The Return of the Ark. 7:1–17
II. God’s Providence Toward His People Under Saul. 8:1–15:35
A. The Request for a King. 8:1–22
B. Saul Anointed and Vindicated. 9:1–11:15
C. Samuel’s Call for Faith. 12:1–25
D. Deliverance from the Philistines. 13:1–14:52
E. God’s Rejection of Saul as King for His People. 15:1–35
III. God Anoints David and Leads Him to the Throne. 16:1–31:13
A. David Is Anointed by Samuel. 16:1–23
B. God’s Deliverance through David’s Fight with Goliath. 17:1–58
C. Saul’s Rage and God’s Help for David. 18:1–20:42
D. David’s Wilderness Wanderings. 21:1–30:31
E. Saul’s Death on Mount Gilboa. 31:1–13
COMMENTARY
I. THE SAVING ACTS OF GOD THROUGH SAMUEL. 1:1–7:17
A. The Birth of Samuel and Hannah’s Song of Deliverance. 1:1–2:10
1:1. Now there was a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim. Only an outline of the barest essentials concerning the circumstances of Samuel’s background is given by the writer here since this is a book about what God is doing, rather than a mere biography. Samuel’s father was from Ramathaim (meaning “twin peaks”), probably the modern Beit Rima west of Shiloh, or less likely, the Ramah five miles north of Jerusalem. Samuel also lived here (7:17), and was buried here (25:1). Elkanah was an Ephrathite, which simply derives from the fact that he lived in the tribal territory of Ephraim and traced his ancestry back to Zuph.
2. And he had two wives. This is a statement of fact, and no moral judgment is given here. Polygamy is not justified simply because it was practiced by biblical characters any more than other sins are. If anything, the mention of polygamy darkens an already bleak picture of the background for the birth of Hannah’s special child. Hebrew names such as these have the meanings chosen by the original inventors of the names (note parallels in nicknames given today: Tiny, Smiley, Happy, etc). Elkanah (vs. 1) means “God-chosen,” Hannah means “Grace,” and Peninnah means “Pearl.”
3–8. Went up … yearly. The idiom and the tense of the verb in Hebrew emphasize the continual faithfulness of Elkanah in worship (Heb shachah) and in keeping the requirements of the sacrificial laws of God. He went to the holy place at Shiloh and fulfilled the outward requirements of the law; but the text emphasizes that in spite of the fact that worship was in general completely corrupt (implied by the mention here of the notorious Hophni and Phinehas), Elkanah persistently and faithfully lived righteously and worshiped God from the heart.
But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion. The traditional Hebrew text appears to be incomplete here; worthy (Heb ’apayim) cannot be derived from the Hebrew text. The NIV follows the conjectured meaning given in the KJV; an older text seems to be preserved in the Septuagint, which is followed in the majority of the recent translations. A better translation of verse 5 would be: “Although he loved Hannah, he would give Hannah only one portion because the Lord had closed her womb.” This also fits better into the theme of the context, since the writer is contrasting the misery and destitution of Hannah before the birth of Samuel with the joy that came afterward. God plants the seeds of praise in the soil of adversity (cf. Hannah’s Song, especially 2:5).
Added to the implied social stigma of receiving only one part of the sacrifice is the incessant irritation of the rival wife, Peninnah, who provoked her sore. The Hebrew cognate accusative here emphasizes the severe anxiety and depression caused by the nagging rival. Because he loved her so much, Elkanah tried often to console Hannah when, in her depression, she continually cried and would not eat. He said, am not I better to thee than ten sons? Ten was a number of completion and fulfillment. Ten sons would have been the perfect family, all any woman could ask.
9–11. Hannah’s despair drove her closer to the Lord; in her misery she trusted in God’s true grace. Her prayer was accompanied by the vow that if God would give her a son, she would dedicate him to Yahweh as a Nazarite for the rest of his life. Eli the priest was the aged guardian of the sanctuary at Shiloh. The temple of the Lord. The word temple (Heb hēkal) had the connotation of a large or impressive royal room, palace, or temple. It is used of palaces of pagan kings as well as the Temple in Jerusalem and the tabernacle. She vowed a vow. We would say “made a vow.” The literal translation comes from the cognate accusative in Hebrew. Then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life. If she knew about the levitical retirement age of fifty, then she was extending her vow beyond that; at least the language shows complete surrender of the child for levitical service. See Numbers 3:11–13 on the substitution of the Levites for the first-born. Hannah vowed further that the child for which she was asking would be a Nazarite (see Num 6:1–4), thus making her vow even more intense and promising a more complete degree of separation from sin and special dedication to God for special service. Samson had been a Nazarite.
12–18. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou be drunken? Overindulgence in the use of wine at the worship feasts must have been quite common at this time, since Eli was so quick to jump to the conclusion that Hannah was drunk. The incident also shows that completely silent prayer was not yet common at this time. Hannah’s prayer was intense, completely spiritual, and inward; she was not merely performing an outward ceremony. Daughter of Belial is an idiom meaning “very wicked”; the same idiom is used to sum up all the wickedness of the sons of Eli in 2:12–17. Eli accepts the explanation of Hannah and blesses her (vs. 17) so that she is able to go back and finish the meal. Hannah’s faith in God is obvious from the fact that she was no more sad.
19–20. And they rose up in the morning early, and worshiped before the Lord, and returned. Their worship was completed in the same way it had been done so many times before, and they returned to their home and lived as they had before. But this time it was different, for the Lord remembered her. The birth of this child was not chance, but the deliberate action of God as He responded to Hannah’s faith in order to accomplish His own will for His people. Called his name Samuel. The meaning of the name (Heb Shemū’ēl) has two possible interpretations. It would seem, however, that although there is no direct linguistic connection, Hannah’s remark, Because I have asked him of the Lord, would somehow explain the reason for the name. Obviously, asked (Heb sha’al) does not come from the same linguistic root as Samuel, but because she “asked,” she was “heard by God,” which can be connected to the root “hear” (Heb shama˓) and the name Samuel. It seems logical, then, that she called him “Heard by God,” (meaning thereby, “God has heard my prayer, and has answered my request”) and gave the explanation that the choice was because she had asked him of the Lord. The other possible derivation from “name” (Heb shēm) with the meaning “Name of God,” fits well enough linguistically, but does not seem to fit the context too well, especially since the personal name Yahweh is not part of the name. Compare the same name in the active form “Ishmael,” meaning, “God hears,” if the first of the two possibilities is correct.
21–28. And the man Elkanah, and all his house, went up to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice. Each seasonal visit by Elkanah was his persistent and continuing response to his own vow to the Lord; he went up to offer his vow (Heb neder), meaning the animal he had promised to sacrifice to the Lord. But Hannah went not up until the child was weaned. The age for weaning in Palestine in this era was two or three years, so that a period of at least this long is implied, during which Hannah did not accompany her husband on his yearly family pilgrimages. That he may appear before the Lord, and there abide for ever. Hannah was under no delusions and had no intention of anything but faithfully fulfilling her vow and promise to God. She considered herself a servant of the Lord whom God had chosen to bring this special child into the world; he was destined to live and remain in God’s service. After she had weaned the child, in fulfillment of her vow to God and in accordance to her promise to her husband, she took him up with her, with three bullocks. The more recent translations here follow the Septuagint rather than the traditional Hebrew text and translate, “with a three-year-old bull.” This translation is certainly supported by verse 25 which reads, “Then they killed the bull,” (singular, with the definite article in Hebrew, meaning the one they had brought for this purpose). The Septuagint shows that there were several aspects of the worship ceremonies when Samuel was dedicated. The father is active in leading the family in the regular yearly sacrifices; he takes part with Hannah in the sacrifice of the bull; and Samuel himself participates (he worshiped the Lord there, vs. 28). The whole family participated. He shall be lent (Heb sha’al) gives the misleading idea that the Lord is just borrowing Samuel and Hannah may take him back eventually. The word is a passive participle meaning “asked for,” and an accurate and faithful translation would bring out the meaning that God’s providence had demanded Samuel’s lifetime service and brought him to this complete “dedication.” The NIV has, “For his whole life he will be given over to the Lord.)”
2:1–2. Hannah’s poetic song of praise for her deliverance and exaltation is alluded to at least four times by Luke in the Magnificat of Mary and the Benedictus of Zechariah. The redemptive theme of God acting to provide the salvation of His people finds parallel expression in both the dedication of the child Samuel and the events surrounding the birth of Jesus Christ (including the birth of John the Baptist as the one who would prepare for the coming kingdom of Christ). This outlook on history as the history of salvation is in fact common to the whole Bible. The song must be understood not merely as a record of the words of Hannah’s praise, although it is that primarily, but also as the revealed Word of God; for it is also a prophecy that is the inspiration for an evolving prophetic hope finally realized in Jesus Christ. My heart rejoiceth in the Lord. In Luke 1:46, the Magnificat begins: “My soul doth magnify the Lord.” Mine horn is exalted in the Lord. The word horn (Heb qeren) is symbolic of strength; this may be a metaphor of a wild animal with head and horns held high in triumph and pride, or it may parallel the joy in the preceding line as inner strength. The corresponding line in the Magnificat reads: “My spirit hath rejoiced.…”
I rejoice in thy salvation. Again, salvation is paralleled by “God my Savior” in the Magnificat. The salvation is, of course, primarily physical and temporal deliverance from the barrenness and depression Hannah had before Samuel was born; but it has a secondary, spiritual and eternal interpretation as God’s ultimate deliverance of His people from sin through Jesus Christ. There is none holy as the Lord. Holy (Heb qadōsh) refers to the distinctive glory of God; He dwells in unapproachable light (1 Tim 6:16). The next thought is parallel, there is none besides thee, neither is there any rock. The metaphor of God as a rock (Heb tsūr) is a significant biblical concept related to salvation (see Deut 32:4, 15; Ps 18:2; etc.); the significance is that God is a place of refuge and deliverance for His people.
3–7. Talk no more so exceeding proudly, refers to Hannah’s former rival, but beyond that to all the enemies of God and His people. God is aware of all subtle plans and will defeat them. Furthermore, by him actions are weighed. The precise translation of this last clause is uncertain, although the general meaning is the same throughout the passage. The Septuagint reads, “God carefully prepares all his affairs.” They that were full … they that were hungry. Again the tables are turned because God makes all the difference, and those who are on His side will always win. Luke 1:52–53 alludes to this pattern: God has exalted the desolate and filled the hungry with good things. Great emphasis is placed upon the providence of God; He kills or brings to life. He sends poverty or wealth and is, in fact, in control of all things.
8. He raiseth up the poor out of the dust. These same words and thoughts are repeated as classic in Psalm 113:7–9; it is God who is in control, and it is He who does these things whenever they happen. Here the primary reference is to Hannah, and she praises God for her exaltation; but whenever such reverses in life occur it is the work of God.
9–10. He will keep the feet of his saints. The Hebrew word denotes those who love and are faithful to God as His people; God will watch over them and protect them. Those who oppose Him will, on the other hand, be cut off, or broken to pieces. God will judge them. It is important to note that God will exalt the horn of his anointed. The horn, or strength (see vs. 1), of God’s King is exalted. The word anointed (Heb mashīach) became very important during this period as the designation for the Lord’s chosen king. It was used of Saul, then more distinctively of David as the divine choice. Ultimately it pointed to Jesus Christ. This is the first use of the word in the Bible with reference to kings (it had been used of anointed priests). It is probably used in a general or ideal sense in this passage, but it should be kept in mind that the idea of the “anointed” one is a major theological motif of the period. The predictive element in Hannah’s song is most apparent in this word, and it is obvious from Luke’s quotation of this verse (Lk 1:69) that he regards the song as predictive prophecy finding its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ, God’s King in the line of David, God’s Servant who finally accomplishes salvation for His people. It would seem impossible to overstress the predictive and messianic motif introduced here by the use of this word, since Luke plays upon so many of the parallels in the birth narratives of Samuel and Jesus (Lk 1:46–48; 1:53; 1:69; 2:52) and since the very word “Christ” is the Greek or New Testament equivalent to this Hebrew word which is transliterated into English as “Messiah.”
B. Samuel’s Ministry in the Temple. 2:11–3:21
11. The child did minister (Heb sharat) denotes a special or technical ministry; we would call it a full-time ministry. The Septuagint uses the Greek equivalent, and both Hebrew and Greek words are used primarily throughout the Bible for the ministry of priests, Levites, and apostolic men. The Hebrew construction of the word here (paraphrastic participle) stresses the constant and progressive nature of Samuel’s ministry from the very beginning as a real servant of the Lord.
12–17. Now the sons of Eli were sons of Belial. This is an idiom used to characterize the extremely base character of the sons of Eli. To this is added the dictum that they knew not the Lord. Even though they were outwardly acting as servants of the Lord, they did not in reality know and serve Him. The worship ceremony was so empty and degraded that open selfishness and greed altered the rules of the offerings. The sons of Eli took all of the offerings they could get, and instead of taking the allotted pieces after the prescribed offering to the Lord had been made, they selected the best cuts first. The worshipers were forced to comply. The sin of the young men was very great before the Lord.
18–21. But Samuel ministered (cf. vs. 11). There is a deliberate contrast between the pure and dedicated ministry of Samuel, who was a mere child (Heb na˓ar) and the perfunctory, selfish work of Eli’s sons. Girded with a linen ephod (Heb ēpōd). The ephod was a sort of bib, or symbolic vest, patterned after the more elaborate prototype of the ephod of the high priest, but made of plain white cloth. The word girded is also a technical term for the symbolic tying on of the ephod. Even the little coat which Samuel’s mother brought resembled clothing worn by the high priest so that throughout the passage the dedication and pure service in a special, sacred calling are stressed. And the child Samuel grew before the Lord. Luke considers this typical of Christ in His allusion (Lk 2:52) to 1 Samuel 2:21, 26, and 3:1.
22–23. How they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. This is obviously intended to show the incredible degeneration of the worship of Jehovah in Israel. Whether this is cultic prostitution, as was practiced in other Canaanite religions, or simply fornication is academic and relatively unimportant. The point is that the depth of this willful, flagrant, and unforgivable sin was appalling. We know that the women had a legitimate and recognized appointment to serve the Lord here (exactly the same Hebrew words are used in Ex 38:8), and we know that the blame here is upon the sons of Eli who had perverted themselves and made it all but impossible for those who wanted to worship the Lord to do so.
24. Ye make the Lord’s people to transgress. Sin is all the more serious if it hinders others from worshiping or believing. “Whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea” (Mk 9:42).
25–26. Who shall entreat for him? These words show the willful and unforgivable nature of their sin. These men have gone beyond the point of no return; they have hardened their hearts against the Lord, and God’s judgment is certain and inescapable. Eli’s toothless rebuke was too late (3:13 implies that he should have exercised more discipline when they were younger). His sons had already gone too far, and God had determined to judge them and work through Samuel to bring about His will. Samuel … was in favor both with the Lord, and also with men. The opposite was true of the sons of Eli. This line is considered typical of Christ, the ultimate Priest, according to the quotation in Luke 2:52.
27–30. A man of God. That he is a prophet with a message of warning and judgment from the Lord is immediately apparent. Samuel must also serve as a prophet and deliver the same message (3:1–4:1). Thy father shows that Eli is a descendant of Aaron and was therefore chosen to offer … to wear an ephod and to perform the other functions of the priests. The honor and privilege of the office have now been rejected. Wherefore kick ye …? This is an idiom and should not be translated literally; it means, rather, to hold in disrespect. The NIV has correctly translated the idiom “Why do you scorn my sacrifice?” Hebrews 10:29 (RSV) uses the very same idiom with reference to the ultimate divine sacrifice, “How much worse punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God …?” But now the Lord saith, a higher divine law supersedes the conditional promise, them that honor me I will honor.
31–34. Judgment must now come upon the whole priestly line; the death of Hophni and Phinehas is symbolic of that judgment.
35–36. I will raise me up a faithful priest. This prophecy shows that the priesthood did not die with Eli. God is always acting to deliver His people, to bring them back to Himself. A new start is made. Historically, after the death of Eli the priestly functions were taken over by Samuel himself, and only gradually was confidence restored to the office. This must be considered an immediate and partial fulfillment of the promise. However, he shall walk before mine anointed for ever, does not fit the facts for Samuel himself or for his sons. Zadok also, who replaced Abiathar (1 Kgs 2:27), must be considered as a partial fulfillment of this prophecy. He was established and walked before Solomon who was the anointed of the Lord. Zadok’s descendants are named as those who minister to the Lord in Ezekie’s restored Temple (40:46) before the anointed Son of David. However, both Samuel and Zadok, according to most commentators, should be considered only partial fulfillments of the prophecy. Jesus Christ Himself is the final and ultimate fulfillment of the faithful priest; He is the true and eternal High Priest who offers Himself as the only sacrifice which can ever completely atone for sin and bring us eternally back to God. It may seem inconsistent by our standards of literature and logic to see Christ as the final fulfillment of both the faithful priest and the anointed King, but we have no right to impose our standards upon this ancient Book. This kind of predictive prophecy was accepted and proper in its day. Furthermore, the New Testament writers have made clear their interpretations of these prophecies as fulfilled in Christ. The whole warning and announcement should be viewed, not from the side of gloom and doom, but from the side of victory and hope for the people of God as he works to accomplish their salvation.
3:1. The child Samuel ministered, (see 2:11). Again, the Hebrew construction indicates a continued or faithful ministry; one translation has, “… the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord …” (RSV). The word of the Lord was precious. The word precious (Heb yaqar) should rather be understood in its sense of “rare.” This translation is confirmed by the next clause which is parallel, there was no open vision, but which must also be clarified by the translation, “there were not many visions.” This last clause could also mean that visions, even when they did occur, were not being adequately explained to the people. At any rate, the dark circumstances of the period reflected in the immorality of Eli’s sons and their judgment, together with the lack of guidance from God by way of visions, must have made the people of Israel ready to recognize Samuel as God’s prophet and spokesman.
2–3. And ere the lamp of God went out. The lamp was filled with just enough oil to burn through the night; the implication is that the time of this divine revelation was deep in the night, perhaps near dawn. The lamp was, of course, the seven-branched candelabrum called the “menorah.”In the temple of the Lord. The temple (Heb hēkal) refers to a building and no longer the original tent or “tabernacle”of the congregation. The temple here had doors which Samuel had to open (vs. 15). The (NIV) text reads, “Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was.” Where the ark of God was. The point that Samuel was near the ark is probably made to emphasize the significance and genuineness of this revelation; in Exodus 25:22 God had promised to meet and commune with Moses from above the mercy seat, which was the lid or cover of the ark.
4–9. The Lord called Samuel. Some Old Testament revelation came in dreams, but this is not a dream; Samuel was awake and active. Neither is it a vision, since Yahweh is heard, not seen. Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord. This means to explain why God had to speak three times, i.e., Samuel was not used to participating in visions. This does not mean that, as we might say today, “Samuel was not a Christian yet.” It is obvious that he was more devout than all others; he was simply unfamiliar with the procedure of revelation, as the next clause also states. Speak, Lord; for thy servant heareth. The progressive action of the verb is better translated, “Your servant is listening.” The advice of Eli was essential; without this receptive attitude there could be no revelation from God, and this had been the heart of the problem in the days of the judges. Samuel was to be that chosen servant of the lord who would receive and proclaim messages of God.
10–18. The dreadful content of this specific message is so shocking that it would cause the ears to tingle. The idiom would be equivalent to ours of hair standing up on the neck, or making one’s flesh to crawl; it is used also in 2 Kings 21:12, and Jeremiah 19:3 of the fall of Jerusalem. Here it refers to the events which comprise the fall of Shiloh. He restrained them not. Whatever discipline Eli had exercised upon his sons, it must have been too little, too late. This message to Samuel is not really different from the one delivered by the unnamed prophet in chapter 2.
19–21. Samuel was by this revelation established and made known as a prophet. The Lord was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground. The meaning is that none of his prophecies went unfulfilled. All Israel from Dan even to Beersheba. This is an expression which emphasizes the recognition of the people from the extreme north to the extreme south, all knew and accepted Samuel as a prophet of the Lord.
C. The Capture of the Ark of God. 4:1–6:21
4:1–4. Now Israel went out against the Philistines. There may be a line of introduction missing from the Hebrew text; the Septuagint has, “It happens that during this time, the Philistine federation was at war with Israel.” The Philistines came from Caphtor (Deut 2:23; Jer 47:4–5; Amos 9:7;), which is believed to be Crete; they are mentioned in the stele of Rameses III. Although the date of arrival in Palestine is uncertain, they seem to have been present at the time of the Exodus (13:17, etc.). At any rate, they were well established in the land at this time and were organized into a federation with five centers: Ashdod, Ekron, Ashkelon, Gaza, and Gath. (see Edward E. Hindson, Philistines and the Old Testament). In this particular battle, Israel was pitched beside Ebenezer, referring to the army camp. Ebenezer was near Mizpah if it is the same place named in 7:12. The Philistines, on the other hand, were camped in Aphek, the site of which is unknown. Israel was smitten. In the encounter Israel was defeated and lost four thousand men. The elders understood this as a sign from the Lord, but unfortunately believed that if they took the ark closer to the fighting, God’s presence would save them. Evidently they did not understand that the ark was merely a symbol of God’s presence.
5–7. All Israel shouted. This shout appears to have all but frightened the Philistines into retreat. Humanly speaking, this gave the Israelites a tactical advantage at this point. They were, however, trusting in the outward form of their religion rather than in God’s real supernatural power.
8–11. Who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty Gods? The Philistines are the real believers in this situation; they know what God can do and tremble before Him. Nevertheless, the Philistines encourage themselves to hope against hope and fight valiantly to defeat Israel. Neither side is aware that God is working behind the scenes to accomplish His will. Thirty thousand. This number seems very large; but such large losses have been recorded by other historians, and it must be remembered that this was an international war as the instrument of God’s judgment upon Israel for idolatry and sin (see Ps 78:56–64). The ark of God was taken; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain. This is the fulfillment of the two prophetic messages of the man of God in chapter 2, and of Samuel in chapter 3 and is the real reason for Israel’s defeat in the battle.
12–18. A man of Benjamin out of the army. His presence supports the idea of a very large army from the whole nation, rather than a small tribal force. Thus, the loss of thirty thousand is not incredible. With his clothes rent. The tearing of one’s clothes and throwing dirt upon one’s head were customary ways of showing sorrow and grief. This was a great national tragedy. Eli sat upon a seat by the wayside watching. The word order here follows the Hebrew literally (using the Qere for “beside”); the apparent difficulty of the man getting by Eli may be partially explained by the Septuagint reading, “Eli sat on his bench beside the gate watching the road.” Also, Eli was nearly blind and probably did not see the messenger pass. Eli surely would have expected bad news, and this was no doubt the reason for his position beside the gate. He now heard the moaning and called for an explanation, What meaneth the noise of this tumult? The man had to explain who he was and where he had just come from because Eli’s eyes were dim, that he could not see. It is interesting that it was at the mention of the ark of God that Eli collapsed and died. This was the key in God’s judgment against the nation; the ark symbolized God’s presence with His people. The writer stresses that not even the death of Eli’s sons was as great a disaster to him as the loss of the ark.
19–22. The great national tragedy is also highlighted in the account of the death of Phinehas’ wife, who also survived the news of her husband’s death only long enough to name the child she delivered in death with an epitaph for the nation, Ichabod. The name means, “No Glory.” It is explained in both verses 21 and 22 that the proposition, The glory is departed from Israel, has reference primarily to the loss of the ark and the sad reality symbolized in the loss, namely that God was no longer with His people, but had been separated from them by their sins.
5:1–5. The Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto Ashdod. The Septuagint uses the name “Azotus,” which is mentioned in Acts 8:40. It was located about thirty miles west of Jerusalem near the sea, and was one of the five cities of the Philistines. Brought it into the house of Dagon. The repetition in both the Hebrew and Greek texts of verse 2, as well as the accusative of direction towards in verse l, may hint that the temple of the Philistine god was outside the city of Ashdod. Dagon is now known to be the god of agriculture; the name derives from the word for “corn” or “grain” (Heb dagan). The ark was placed in front of the Philistine god, and in the morning it was discovered that Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord. In Hebrew a vivid progressive action participle is used, as if the god was caught in the process of bowing down before the ark. The Septuagint has, “They found Dagon flat on his face before the ark.” The pagan god is helpless and must be set back up in place; and the next morning he is again flat on his face before the ark, this time smashed by the fall into several pieces.
6–7. The hand of the Lord was heavy upon them. The ark was not a mere trophy of victory, it was the symbol of the presence of the true God who is sovereign over all. The hand of the Lord shows that it is God Himself who is responsible for this punitive action. He destroyed them (Heb shamēm) which, with the following clause, means simply, “He afflicted them with a plague.” With emerods (Heb ˓opēl). The word is used for boils, abscesses, swellings, and even a hill; here the plague seems to be the bubonic plague rather than hemorrhoids. Part of the Hebrew text seems to be missing, and the Septuagint contains further information here about boils or swellings in the belly and about an outbreak of mice or rats associated with the plague (cf. 5:9; 6:1). The incidents with the ark in the temple of Dagon, and now the plague, made it very obvious that the hand of the Lord was punishing them.
The Wanderings of the Ark of the Covenant
8–9. The lords (Heb seren) of the Philistines were the five princes or rulers of the five Philistine cities; the word is a technical term not used in other connections. The decision of the council was that the ark should be carried about unto Gath, another of the Philistine cities. When the ark came to Gath, however, so did the punishing presence of God, and the hand of the Lord was against the city with a very great destruction. The last clause of the verse, they had emerods in their secret parts, is an apparent conflation of the texts from both Hebrew and Greek; a literal translation of the Hebrew MT is found in the RSV, “tumors broke out upon them.”
10–12. Next the ark was sent to Ekron, the third Philistine city, but the Ekronites requested it be sent back to his own place even before it arrived. Nevertheless, many died in Ekron as well; for the plague followed the ark.
6:1–16. The Philistines called for the priests and the diviners (Heb qasam), fortunetellers, who had a great deal of influence in all ancient cultures. The advice was to send the ark out with a trespass offering (Heb ’asham). This is the word used for sin offering in the Old Testament, but it is closely related to the whole idea of ransom money or the process of redemption. There was the belief in most ancient religions that money could be paid to avoid divine punishment. This very word is used in Isaiah 53:10 for the offering of the life of the Servant of Jehovah which God would give to redeem His people, and Jesus quoted the passage (Mk 10:45) using the corresponding Greek word for ransom to refer to the giving of His own life for us as a sin offering. The offering was to be Five golden emerods, and five golden mice. The images were symbolic of the plague; the idea was that God would know exactly what the ransom money was for and would then heal them of the plague. Wherefore then do ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians …? This is another indication that they knew the facts of history and respected the Hebrews and their God. God was in all His actions revealing Himself to the Philistines and others outside of Israel.
Two milch kine. Natural instinct would cause the cows to follow their calves which were to be led back to the farm just as the cows were turned loose. If the cows went on toward Bethshemesh, the nearest Israelite town, contrary to their natural instincts to follow their calves, then the Philistines reasoned that they could be sure that God had brought the plague upon them. Otherwise it was a chance, a mere coincidence of events. The cows, of course, went straight to Beth-shemesh. The Israelites offered the kine a burnt offering unto the Lord. The whole point of this early part of Samuel is to show God judging His people and leading them back to Himself; these sacrifices, and the coming of the Levites to perform this sacred task, are the beginning of the restoration of order after the calamity of defeat and the destruction of Shiloh as a worship center.
17–21. Some of the men of Beth-shemesh were also killed by the plague. The text of verse 19 has been corrected in most of the newer translations and should read “But God struck down some of the men of Beth-shemesh, putting seventy of them to death because they had looked into the ark of the Lord.” The ark was to impress the people with the holiness of God. Looking at it, or into it, for mere curiosity was not permitted. Who is able to stand before this holy Lord God? The lesson of Numbers 4:20 is thus crystal clear to the people of the city as they begin to make the decision as to where the ark is to be taken. Kirjath-jearim. The ancient name of the town was Baale of Judah (2 Sam 6:2); it was located ten miles west of Jerusalem on the road to Lydda, according to Eusebius. The site is near the modern village of Abu Ghosh.
D. The Return of the Ark. 7:1–17
7:1–2. The ark was at Kirjath-jearim for twenty years during this period of slow national revival. Eleazar was consecrated to keep the ark of the Lord. Abinadab, the father of Eleazar, was quite probably a Levite, which would be the reason for bringing the ark to his house. Eleazar is now, for all practical purposes, the priest. It must be remembered that time and a gradual restoration were required because of the deep moral depression prior to the death of Eli and the destruction of Shiloh. Samuel is, of course, the real leader during this time of revival.
3–4. If ye do return unto the Lord. Samuel is the one who is recognized as a prophet of the Lord during this time. He no doubt performed the functions of a priest, military leader, judge, and king as well; but his main task in life is expressed here. He is to bring the people back to the Lord. His work is revival and the unification of the people under God’s chosen ruler. He speaks as a prophet when he tells them to put away the strange gods and Ashtaroth. The people had backslidden into idolatry. The Ashtaroth (a Hebrew plural form) were statues of an almost universal goddess of sex and fertility. Prepare your hearts unto the Lord, and serve him only. The true God was not like any of the other deities; He was spiritual and supernatural. He wanted His people to worship Him from the heart, but they had been influenced by the outward and visible form of Canaanite religion. Also, since God was the one true God, He could not allow syncretism into Israel. They must serve Him alone. Then the children of Israel did put away Baalim. Baal was the chief Canaanite god, the son of Dagon, and the god of agriculture. The word is in the plural because of the many statues of Baal which had been set up in various places.
5–7. Mizpeh. This is an important site which is still called Nebi Samwil; it is located just north of Jerusalem. Samuel later announced Saul as king at Mizpeh, in accordance with the people’s demands (10:17–24). Drew water, and poured it out before the Lord. The pouring out of water as a libation to the Lord is not prescribed in the Bible as accepted symbol of worship, but neither is it forbidden. Here it seems to be pleasing to the Lord as an outward sign of the repentance that was in their heart. “… the Lord looketh on the heart” (1 Sam 16:7). And Samuel judged the children of Israel. Perhaps, since this refers to this specific act of revival, a better translation would be, “And so Samuel functioned as a judge on this occasion in Mizpeh.” The Philistines heard about the convocation and determined to squelch a budding revolution by attacking the Israelites.
8–11. Cease not to cry unto the Lord our God for us, that he will save us. This is exactly the response that the Lord wants. His people must look to Him as the only source of deliverance. The salvation here is purely physical deliverance from the Philistines, but it is typical of spiritual salvation; and both the word save (Heb yasha˓), and the concept of salvation are very prominent in this book. The name “Joshua” in the Old Testament and the name “Jesus” in the New Testament come from this word and mean “Jehovah is salvation.” When we cry out to the Lord to save us from our sins, He will also deliver us.
Samuel did what the people asked and offered a lamb … for a burnt offering; and the Lord accepted the sacrifice, answered the prayer for deliverance, and again saved His people.
12–14. Ebenezer means “stone of help” and the significance of the memorial was to acknowledge that it was only by the help of the Lord that the victory had been accomplished. The thunder of the Lord had thrown the Philistines into confusion and started them into disorganized retreat, so all Israel had to do was pursue. The Philistines were decisively defeated and came no more into the coast of Israel.
15–17. Samuel … went from year to year in circuit. Samuel seems to have effected a national revival and reeducated the people in the laws of the Lord almost single-handedly. He played the part of judge, priest, Levite, and ruler, as well as prophet. He traveled the circuit from Ramah, his home, to Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpeh. The altar at Ramah, although it was in violation of the technical points of the law (Deut 12:5, 13), was permitted because of the need for revival and unification of the nation. It was better than having no sacrifices at all.
I think you will like Logos! Get $100 off a Logos 10 base package (first-time base package purchasers only) from my link: https://logos.refr.cc/ricklivermore?t=em |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please only leave comment If you are interested in the topic discussed above. No spam will be tolerated so don't even try to spam my readers.