Deeper Commentary
1Sa 2:1 Hannah prayed, and said: My heart exults in Yahweh!-
Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the
heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. We find the phrase used
about how Abraham’s servant prayed, ‘speaking in his heart’ (Gen. 24:45).
Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have
been the same (1 Sam. 2:1). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by
God as “in your heart” (2 Chron. 1:11). This close link between thought
and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in Mk. 11:23,24: “Truly I
say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast
into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that
what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you,
All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you
shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfillment of
our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like
scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?
My
horn is exalted in Yahweh-
The allusion may be to the way women wore a protruding head dress
which was lifted higher the more children they had. But it is
righteousness which exalts the horn, and not the biological experience of
childbearing; for the wicked also have horns (Ps. 75:10; Lam. 2:17). She
may have had in view the idea that her child was to be the anointed
Messianic seed (the term is used about Him in :10; Ps. 89:24). But her
proud assurance of this was misplaced, for it was Samuel who was chosen
not to be anointed, but to anoint David.
My mouth boasts over my enemies because I rejoice in Your
salvation-
Hannah had remarkable faith, as noted throughout 1 Sam. 1. But like
all of us, she had weaknesses, and those weaknesses were elicited by the
situation she now suddenly found herself in. Instead of rejoicing in her
blessings and new stage of life, she becomes boastful and distinctly
vengeful in her attitude to Peninnah. There is no appeal to the other
woman to repent, no forgiveness, only an eager desire for the direct
judgments upon her, now that Hannah considered herself justified by God
through her having had a child. "Enemies" may be an intensive plural for
her one great enemy, Peninnah. Or it may be that she felt mocked for her
infertility by a whole set of people, over whom she felt she could
legitimately boast in the song she is now composing and singing.
Literally, my mouth is opened wide. 1 Sam. 1:7,8 describe her response to Peninnah's provocations as being weeping and silent depression. Now, with all psychological credibility, she opens her mouth and the pent up anger pours out. Yet within this unspirituality there is also faith and hope, and Mary's song of praise perceives the good and takes that and dwells upon it. Just as we should look at our brethren.
It has been observed that this prayer "begins with the first
person, “I”: “My heart exults ... my horn is raised ... my mouth is wide
... for I rejoice.” Hannah is very full of herself and her own emotion at
being
granted her petition. But quickly the prayer moves to focus on the source
of Hannah’s joy: God. And, indeed, most of the prayer is about God and his
act". This is the path for us all, from "me" to God. And in her case, she
is led onwards to speak of the coming of "the anointed one", "David's
seed", the Lord Jesus Christ.
1Sa 2:2 There is none as holy as Yahweh, for there is none besides You,
nor is there any rock like our God-
David in his Psalms repeatedly alludes to the song of his ancestor
Hannah. He effectively quotes this verse in 2 Sam. 22:32; although I argue
throughout 1 Sam. 2 that Hannah's was apparently lifted up with pride and
the vengeance of the underling who has overcome the oppressor. And there
is reason to think that David had elements of this weakness too. He
thought it was acceptable to be like this because Hannah had been. And
that is the problem with setting bad examples. See on :5.
I explained on 1 Sam. 1:18 the detailed points of contact between
Mary's magnificat, and Hannah's song of praise. But Mary was spiritually
discerning enough to avoid the sense of pride and vengeance which fills
Hannah's song in places. The points of connection between the songs of
Hannah and Mary's Magnificat are really quite detailed:
1 Sam. 1:3 = Lk. 1:7; 1 Sam. 1:18 = Lk. 1:38, 30; 1 Sam. 2:1 = Lk. 1:46; 1
Sam. 1:11 = Lk. 1:48; 1 Sam. 2:2 = Lk. 1:49; 1 Sam. 2:4 = Lk. 1:51; 1 Sam.
2:3 = Lk. 1:51; 1 Sam. 2:4 = Lk. 1:52; 1 Sam. 2:8 = Lk. 1:52; 1 Sam. 2:5 =
Lk. 1:53; 1 Sam. 2:10 = Lk. 1:69; 1 Sam. 2:26 = Lk. 2:52.
The evident allusions Mary makes back to Hannah’s song could be read as
reflecting what had actually been wrought in Mary’s own person and
experience by some kind of persecution in her childhood. And it drove her
within herself. It seems that she had been deeply humbled in order for her
to be highly exalted. One wonders if she had been sexually abused. If
Joseph was indeed much older than her, then we can understand how it
happened that this girl, mature as she was beyond her years, got attracted
to an older and spiritual man. Her spirituality and intelligence [for her
allusions to Scripture indicate a fine appreciation of so much] would have
been enough to spark plenty of village jealousy.
1Sa 2:3 Talk no more so exceedingly proudly-
Hannah comes over as hypocritical as she has just announced that she
will be speaking proudly and hardly against her "enemies" now that she has
had a child.
Don’t let hardness come out
of your mouth, for Yahweh is a God of knowledge, though actions be not
weighed-
Hannah again presents as hypocritical because she has just
admitted to Eli that she is a woman of a "hard" spirit. But she had reflected upon God’s omniscience; and on this basis she
tells Peninnah not to be proud and not to use hard words against her,
exactly because of this: “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not
hardness [AVmg.] come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by
him actions are weighed” here and now, because He sees and knows all
things (1 Sam. 2:3 AV); even though it appears that they are not being weighed,
because His judgments aren't immediately apparent (so NEV, RVmg.).
1Sa 2:4 The bows of the mighty men are broken-
Seeing children are as arrows (Ps. 127:4,5), the bow may refer to the
womb, in Hannah's mind. And she is now wishing her barrenness upon her
enemies who had once mocked her. This is hardly the right attitude, and
she repeats it in :5. But as noted on :2, this is an idea alluded to by
David in his victory song of 2 Sam. 22:35. She likely also has in
mind the imagery of the mouth as a bow, and words as arrows: "Who whet
their tongues like swords; they aim their arrows –cruel words – to shoot
from hiding at the blameless man" (Ps. 64:3). She has in view how the
words of Peninnah will be shattered. She is uttering curses she wished
upon her enemies, which in Hebrew thought were seen as future prophecies.
Those who stumbled are armed with strength-
"Stumbled" is a word mostly used about spiritual stumbling. And yet
Hannah is revealed as a woman of great faith in 1 Sam. 1. But she seems
now to see that part of her life as stumbling, and her arrogant boasting
as spiritual strength.
1Sa 2:5 Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread-
This is an idiom for prostitution. It's as if Hannah wishes Peninnah
to be divorced by Elkanah and left on the street starving and needing to
sell her body for food. The past tense may simply express Hannah's
intention and desire for how things would be in the future, expressed in
the past tense because of her confidence and strong desire that this would
happen. Yet in line with the second half of the verse, hunger is
understood as the hunger of the womb. So Hannah could be saying that she
wishes Peninnah to now hunger, to become desperately barren, willing to
prostitute herself to get conception. This is as Hannah also wished in :4.
We note that this is the judgment upon Eli and his family- begging for a morsel of bread in return for doing servile work in the tabernacle (1 Sam. 2:36). The 'prophetic perfect' means this is a prophecy. Possibly Hannah is bitter at Eli's indifference and insincerity, and has him in mind as well as Peninah.
The Lord builds this into the experience of the prodigal son. He was more generous than Hannah. He held out hope even for the judged and rightly brought down.
Those who were hungry are satisfied. Yes, the barren has borne seven-
Again we see how past tenses are used in order to express intention
and an assured future. Hannah was confident she would go on to have seven
children. She didn't; including Samuel she had six. She had only asked for
a single child, but now she had Samuel she assumed she was going to be
totally fertile. This was a presumption upon God's grace, and yet He still
kindly gave her further conception. But not up to the "seven" she here
confidently boasts of.
She who has many children languishes-
The languishing could be in the sense of being unable to have more
children; see on :4,5. But it is also a word used of mourning the dead,
which would then lead on to :6 if this is the context. It is as if Hannah
wishes Peninnah's children to die, for Elkanah to divorce her and for her
to become a prostitute selling her body for bread (:5). The bitterness is
terrible, and sadly recalls Sarah's bitterness with Hagar. Without doubt,
Sarah was wrong. And yet Hannah follows her example here, just as David
will later follow Hannah's wrong example. See on :2. We can infer
from 1 Sam. 1:8 that Peninah had borne 10 sons.
1Sa 2:6 Yahweh kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises
up-
Hannah feels that she has been dead [useless and non existent in
society without children, cp. "the deadness of Sarah's womb", Rom. 4:19],
and now made alive. But she seems to want the converse to happen; she
wants Peninnah to now be made 'dead', perhaps in becoming barren as Hannah
had been. . But she may literally have in view a desire for Peninnah and
her children to die; for Sarah, whose wrong example she was unconsciously
following, wanted Hagar and Ishmael dead and therefore cast them out into
the desert to die.
1Sa 2:7 Yahweh makes poor and makes rich. He brings low and He also lifts
up-
Instead of simply exalting that she had been lifted up (s.w. :1
"exalted"), she wishes to see Peninnah brought down. This is a classic
psychological reaction of the downtrodden who are now exalted; but it is
not the way of the Spirit. Hannah lacked grace. However we see in these
statements that the negative side of life, the bringing down, the making
poor, is attributed solely to Yahweh as in Is. 45:5-7. Clearly Hannah
didn't believe the good comes from God and the evil from some cosmic Satan
figure. See on :32.
1Sa 2:8 He raises up the poor out of the dust. He lifts up the needy from
the dunghill-
Despite being apparently middle class, Hannah felt as a desperate
beggar at the bottom of society. Perhaps she had Job in mind, for the
story of Job would have been well known to her. But he was lifted up
through recognizing his pride, and Hannah doesn't appear to have done
that.
To make them sit with princes and inherit the throne of glory-
This and Hannah's song and experiences are alluded to in Ps. 113:7-9.
She is presented there as representative of Israel, particularly the
exiles in Babylon. Her hope was that Samuel, whose destiny she saw as tied
up with herself, would be not only a priest
[although he was not strictly a Levite] but also a prince / king reigning
upon a throne of glory, a term which clearly has Messianic Kingdom
overtones. This is
all similar to the idea of Ps. 110:4, where the Messiah was to be a
king-priest, not a Levite, but a priest "after the order of Melchizedek".
"He settles the barren woman in her home, as a joyful mother of children"
(Ps. 113:9) continues the allusion to Hannah continues; but she was
representative to the "barren woman" of Israel in exile (Is.
54:1), who was to be blessed with many children (Is. 49:12,18,20; 54:2,3;
60:5; Gal. 4:27). But Samuel didn't do this; instead it was he who set up
another man [David] and his family to do so.
For the pillars of the earth are Yahweh’s; He has set the world
upon them-
1 Sam. 2:8; 2 Sam. 22:8 speak as if Heaven / the sky rests on the
mountains, from where earth seems to touch the heavens (Is. 13:5), with
the stars stretched out in the north (Job 26:7). This reflected the
geo-centric view held by people at the time. The point surely was that
however people understood creation to have happened, God had done it,
and in wisdom.
1Sa 2:9 He will keep the feet of His holy ones, but the wicked shall be
put to silence in darkness; for no man shall prevail by strength-
The experience of Divine grace and answered prayer led her to over
simplistically conclude that she was a "holy one" and Peninnah the wicked.
She thinks that her pregnancy somehow empowered her to condemn Hannah to
condemnation at the last day. What she says is true, but the way she
expresses these Divine truths smacks of pride and inappropriate personal
condemnation of others. And we who likewise hold Divine truth and
experience His grace must take the lesson.
1Sa 2:10 Those who strive with Yahweh shall be broken to pieces. He will
thunder against them in the sky-
Peninnah made Hannah "fret" (1 Sam. 1:6), and yet when she has Samuel
she asks God to "thunder", s.w. "fret", against her enemies, clearly
having Peninnah in view. Hannah imagines He will do this
when His "anointed king" is reigning, and clearly she understood Samuel to
be that. He didn't become that; and the fact he anointed David to be king
rather than himself being anointed is pointed poof of the fact that her
bitter expectations and hopes didn't come true as she intended. There
seems no forgiveness, just a desire for judgment and to make Peninnah feel
the same way as she had been made to feel; and a desire for the
manifestation of the anointed King in order for her to see her enemy made
to feel how she had felt, and worse.
Yahweh will judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to
His king and exalt the horn of His anointed-
She considers Samuel as becoming the anointed [the first occurrence
of the word 'Messiah'] king. But her dogmatic statement here was not to
come true. Samuel didn't want Israel to have a human king and Hannah
appears not to appreciate this as she ought to have done. And it was his
duty to anoint David to become king. Hannah's prayer began
with her, in fact it was all about her- but develops to think about God
Himself and now here we have her focus upon the Lord Jesus, the promised
Messiah. This is almost the only time when a prophecy of the Lord Jesus
comes from the lips of an ordinary Israelite. The classic Messianic
prophecies were all from Angels or prophets speaking God's word. She
came to the spirit of the Lord Jesus through her own reflections on her
suffering; Job is perhaps the only other example, and he came to it
likewise.
1Sa 2:11 Elkanah went home to Ramah, but the child served Yahweh before
Eli the priest-
Again we note how a child can acceptably serve Yahweh. The mention of
Elkanah returning leads us to wonder whether Hannah initially remained
there with the three year old Samuel; see on 1 Sam. 1:24.
1Sa 2:12 Now the sons of Eli were men of Belial; they didn’t know Yahweh-
Even in the Old Testament, sin was personified as ‘Belial’. The
personification of sin was known throughout the Bible. And so it is in the
New Testament, as the great enemy / satan of believers. It really has to be accepted that ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are used to
personify sin, because if we read these words as always meaning a literal
being, then we have serious contradictions. We note that it's quite
possible to do religious duties as did Eli's sons, without knowing /
having relationship with Yahweh.
1Sa 2:13 The custom of the priests with the people was that when any man
offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was boiling,
with a three-pronged fork in his hand-
God was and still is intensely aware of every detail of what they did
apparently in secret. He noticed that the fork had three prongs. The style
of the record is as if there is a video camera trained upon the servant.
And the recording is kept until today; see on :13.
The significance of "any man" is that this therefore included Elkanah. He and his sacrifices were therefore likewise abused. But still he offered them, because he separated church from God.
1Sa 2:14 He thrust it into the pan, kettle, cauldron or pot; all that the
fork brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh to all
the Israelites who came there-
We notice the zoomed in focus of the camera, as it were. The fork was
thrust in, and it brought up meat which the priest's took away for
themselves rather than offered to Yahweh. See on :13.
1Sa 2:15 Moreover, before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came
and said to the man who sacrificed, Give meat to roast for the priest, for
he will not accept boiled meat from you, but raw-
The order given in Lev. 3:3-5; 7:29-34 was that the fat must be burnt
to Yahweh first, before the breast and shoulder were waved or 'heaved'
before Yahweh, symbolically given to Him, and only then could the priests
take it. But Eli's sons were too impatient for this and just grabbed what
they wanted as soon as they saw it, exactly the spirit of our age. There
was no recognition that whatever they had was really God's, and given to
them only as His representatives. The habit of thanking God for our meals
ought to be strongly established amongst all true Christian believers.
The word for "servant" is the same translated "child" in :18, talking of how he ministered / served before Yahweh. So we are led to conclude that Samuel as a child or young person would've been expected to do what the priest's servant here does. So from a young person, he was up against conflict with his religious elders.
1Sa 2:16 If the man said to him, Let the fat be burned first, and then
take as much as you want; he would say, No, give it to me now, and if you
don’t, I will take it by force-
Their sin was in how they saw the meat and wanted it immediately, as
did Esau. They were unwilling to experience delayed gratification through
firstly giving to God, however symbolically. The implication was
that the fat was never burnt; and it was the fat which rose as a sweet
odour to Yahweh. They looked greedily at it and took it for themselves,
fattening themselves with the fat; see on :29.
1Sa 2:17 The sin of the young men was very great before Yahweh, for they
despised the offering of Yahweh-
The word for "offering" here is minchah, that used
specifically of the bloodless offerings of flour etc. The idea may be that
when people saw the larger sacrifices being abused, they didn't want to
offer anything at all to God, no matter how tokenistic. They failed to
perceive the difference between God and church. Disillusion with the
visible people of God, especially their leadership, led to not serving
God. Elkanah, as noted on 1 Sam. 1, overcame this- and he needs to be the
example to many. "Despised" is the word for "blasphemed". We blaspheme God
by not offering to Him, even if we blame the church. We note too that the
greatest sin is to make others turn away from God.
1Sa 2:18 But Samuel ministered before Yahweh, being a child, clothed with
a linen ephod-
The "but" places the child Samuel in contrast to the sons of Eli. The
phrase "minister before Yahweh" is only used of the priests ministering in
the holy place, where incense was offered (2 Chron. 29:11). We wonder how
a child, who was not 30 years old, could do this, and wear a linen
ephod whilst doing so. The remarkable truth seems to be that because Eli's
family didn't do even the most basic work at the sanctuary, the young
Samuel did it. The connection between the ephod and the robe made for him
each year (:19) would suggest that his mother had the spiritual vision to
realize this and try to make the appropriate priestly clothing for him.
Truly this was a family who saw beyond the letter of the law to the spirit
of it. See on :19.
1Sa 2:19 Moreover his mother made him a little robe and brought it to him
from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly
sacrifice-
I suggested on :18 that the child Samuel, a non Levite, was doing the
priestly work because Eli's family refused to do it, or perhaps just told
him to do it. The Hebrew words for "robe" and "ephod" in :18 only occur
together in the descriptions of the "robe of the ephod" worn by none other
than the High Priest (Ex. 28:4,31; 29:5; 39:22). The young Samuel
apparently did the work of the High Priest. His example and spiritual
ambition inspired David, who he was to anoint, to likewise wear such a
robe and ephod (1 Chron. 15:27).
1Sa 2:20 Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife and said, Yahweh give you
children by this woman for the petition which was asked of Yahweh. They
went to their own home-
Eli is somewhat male centred. He is really addressing Elkanah, and
implying that he would be blessed with more children because "this woman",
his wife, had prayed and dedicated the resulting child to Yahweh. Eli
tacitly recognizes that he had been wrong in assuming Hannah had been
drunk; he realizes now that she had indeed been praying with a paradigm of
intensity unknown to him. Eli comes over so often as genuine enough; but
it was his weakness in allowing his sons to blaspheme and cause others to
stumble which led to his condemnation. The challenge to us is that major
weakness in one area of life is not as it were compensated for, at least
it wasn't in Eli's case, by an otherwise generally reasonable and
spiritual service of God.
1Sa 2:21 Yahweh visited Hannah and she conceived and bore three sons and
two daughters. The child Samuel grew before Yahweh-
This blessing- possibly implying quintuplets conceived at the same
time- is directly connected to the blessing uttered by Eli in :20.
Although Eli was condemned, Yahweh worked through him. The similarities
with Sarah noted earlier in this chapter continued; for again Yahweh
"visits" to grant conception. See on
Gen. 18:10.
1Sa 2:22 Now Eli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all
Israel, how they lay with the women who served at the door of the Tent of
Meeting-
His great age is perhaps mentioned to imply that he had for decades
heard of what his sons were doing, and had only rather lamely rebuked them
rather than insisting that the abuses end. These women are the supporting
women of Ex. 38:8 who looked ahead typically to those women who were to
support the Lord Jesus, the true tabernacle which the Lord God pitched.
Again, as in :17, the greatest dimension to sin is in making others
stumble. "Served" is literally 'assembled in bands', as if their ministry
was quite highly organized. See on 1 Sam. 3:11.
1Sa 2:23 He said to them, Why do you do such things? For I hear of your
evil deeds from all the people-
Being blind, he only "heard" of these things rather than saw them.
Consistently, the Biblical record has the ring of internal consistency and
credibility to it. People complained to him, but he is condemned for not
disciplining his sons. So we can conclude that his words here were said as
a formality and half heartedly. He would only have been condemned so
strongly if it had indeed been within his power to change things.
But we can also conclude that Eli ought to have noticed his sons'
behaviour for himself. He only said something to them because people were
gossiping about it. Image was clearly all important to him, and he himself
colluded with his sons and is condemned for it.
Samuel was in his 50s or 60s at the time of 1 Sam. 8:1 when he made his corrupt sons judges over Israel. Eli had become judged of Israel at age 58 (1 Sam. 4:15,18). It seems that Samuel's later life had unfortunate parallels with that of Eli. Eli may well have had his sons Hophni and Phinehas in his 50s, because his daughter in law was pregnant at the time of his death at 98. It would seem that when Samuel was about the same age as Eli, he also had sons, who turned away from God just as had Eli's sons. And the people likewise complained (1 Sam. 8:4 = 1 Sam. 2:23). The fact Samuel made them judges despite their immorality would suggest he had gone the way of Eli in turning a blind eye to them. So although Eli's bad example to Samuel was apparently ignored by him and Samuel's spirituality was commendable, finally in later life it seems that example did rub off upon him.
1Sa 2:24 No my sons, it is no good report that I hear; you make Yahweh’s
people disobey-
We can make others sin (Ex. 23:33; 1 Sam. 2:24; 1 Kings 16:19). There
is an urgent imperative here, to really watch our behaviour; e.g. to not
drink alcohol in the presence of a brother whose conscience is weak.
1Sa 2:25 If one man sins against another, God will judge him; but if a man
sins against Yahweh, who shall entreat for him?-
To sin against God's people is to sin against Yahweh, just as Saul's
persecution of Christians was effectively done to the Lord Jesus. The
Father and Son are so closely identified with their people, they feel all
that is done to us as done to them. Man is not alone, even in the most
painful sufferings at the hands of others.
We see here in this verse a hint towards the lack of the Lord's mediation available at that time. But sinners against Yahweh, such as Israel, had had a mediator- Moses. But these men had no such mediator. And yet the question is perhaps rhetorical; although Eli didn't quite understand that. The answer was: the child Samuel, who points ahead to the future mediator, the Lord Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). For Eli as the high priest ought to have been the mediator, but he was precluded from doing so by his own unspirituality.
However, they didn’t listen to their father, because Yahweh
intended
to kill them-
And yet Eli was condemned for this. The situation was therefore of
his making, but Yahweh confirmed that situation. He works in the same way
today.
There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the
Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the
sequence of events which He desired (Dt. 2:39; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 2:25; 1
Kings 12:15; 2 Chron. 10:15; 22:7; 25:20). It is tempting to read Jud.
14:4 in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that
woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from
Philistine domination. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't
mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of
Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were
punished for what they did (Dt. 2:30; 1 Sam. 2:25; 2 Chron. 22:7; 25:20).
1Sa 2:26 The child Samuel grew and increased in favour with Yahweh and
with men-
As noted on :25, Samuel is being set up as a type of the Lord Jesus,
the mediator whom Eli should have been (Lk. 2:52 quotes this about the
Lord).
1Sa 2:27 A man of God came to Eli and said to him-
The visit of the man of God to condemn Eli was the more remarkable
because there "was no frequent vision" at that time (1 Sam. 3:1). God was
making a special effort to appeal to Eli.
Thus says Yahweh, ‘Did
I not reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt,
in bondage to Pharaoh’s house?-
The reference is to the calling of the tribe of Levi "out of all the
tribes of Israel" (:28). "Revealed" in 1 Sam. 3:7,21; 9:15 is the word
used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called
them to be His priests (1 Sam. 2:27), and Eli as it were was in the loins
of his father Levi, according to the principle of Heb. 7:10. But the line
of Levi and Eli had potentially been rejected because of Eli's apostasy.
The Divine intention was to replace them with Samuel as a prophet-priest
and perhaps king (1 Sam. 2:10). But this potential was only partially
fulfilled by Samuel, and despite possibilities in David and Solomon, it
only came to full term in the person and work of the Lord Jesus. It seems
that some unrecorded appearance of God to call the tribe of Levi is being
referred to.
1Sa 2:28 Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My
priest, to go up to My altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before Me?
Did I not give to the house of your father all the offerings of the
children of Israel made by fire?-
I have suggested that already, the non Levite child Samuel was doing
these things. And he was wearing an ephod, which I suggested on :18 was
one with religious significance. Eli and his sons had passed off the work
of the high priesthood to the child Samuel. And their attitude was now
being confirmed, in that this meant that the calling of them and their
tribe was going to be abrogated. And this is indeed the nature of
condemnation; it is a giving of a person what they themselves have wanted
and according to their own desires.
1Sa 2:29 Why then do you despise My sacrifice and My offering which I have
commanded for My dwelling, and honour your sons above Me, to make
yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?’-
"Despise" is as LXX 'to look greedily'. They saw the fat of
the sacrifices which was intended for God and wanted it for themselves,
fattening themselves with the fat.
The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate
owners of what we 'have'. When Eli and his sons kept part of God's
sacrifices for themselves, he was condemned: "You trample upon My
sacrifice and My offering" (1 Sam. 2:29 RVmg.). This is what we are doing
by considering that anything that is God's is in fact ours- we are
trampling upon that which is His. And this verse is alluded to in Heb.
10:29,30- we can indeed trample upon God's sacrifice today.
1Sa 2:30 Therefore Yahweh the God of Israel says, ‘I said indeed that your
house, and the house of your father, should walk before Me forever’. But
now Yahweh says, ‘Far be it from Me. Those who honour Me I will honour,
and those who despise Me shall be despised-
The idea is, despised by God. To be despised by the God of all
grace... is indeed a fearsome thing. "Despised" is the word used for the
sin of presumption (Num. 15:31), and this is what Eli had committed. But
having been told this, he could still repent; for Judah despised God's
word until there was no remedy, the implication being that each time they
were told what they were doing, they could have repented (s.w. 2 Chron.
36:16). And it is the word used by Nathan to David of what he had done (2
Sam. 12:9,10), and he repented in response to the prophetic word of
rebuke. But Eli didn't. We see here how God can make an "eternal"
statement, but it is in fact conditional upon preconditions which He may
not at the time specifically express. He speaks His purpose, but He can
change it according to human action (Jer. 18).
Because of His capacity to imagine, to see possible futures, we can
better sense the poignancy behind His words in places like Is. 48:18:
"O that you had hearkened to my commandments!", "Oh that they would have a
mind such as this always" (Dt. 5:29), "O Israel, if you would but listen
to me" (Ps. 81:8,13). It's as if He could see the potentially happy future
which they could've had stretching out before Him. And so we can better
understand the sadness with which God had to tell Hophni and Phinehas: "I
thought this, that your house, and the house of your father, would
eternally serve Me: But now, the Lord, says, Be it far from Me; for them
that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be despised"
(1 Sam. 2:30). He as it were limited His omniscience in order to enter
into real time relationship with Eli and his family. Note how God opened His heart to those who had so hurt Him,
at the very time they had hurt Him- just as Paul did to Corinth. Such
sharing of dashed hopes with those who have dashed them seems to be part
of what condemnation is all about; and, given Paul's doing this to the
Corinthians, it is perhaps even a useful tool for we who cannot condemn
others, but may need to walk separately from them in this life.
1Sa 2:31 The days are coming when I will cut off your arm and the arm of
your father’s house so that there shall not be an old man in your house-
The father's house in view was that of Levi, who is the "father"
referred to in :27,28. To cut off the arm was an idiom for removing from
power. Eli was an old man and had therefore been High Priest a long time
(see on :22). But this would not happen again. The implication seems to be
that the cutting off of Eli and his sons (which happened at the same time)
would be the point at which the house of Levi would be cut off from the
priesthood. But this potential plan didn't happen, although it seems at
the time that Samuel was intended to take over effectively as High Priest.
But the Levitical High Priesthood did continue; it seems that Samuel
didn't live up to his potential, although he does act as a priest as does
David. The power of tradition trumped his potential calling, as happens so
often with those called to new paradigms of service.
"Arm" is "strength", and the Hebrew word is very similar in sound to that for "descendants". Eli's descendants would be cut off, but Hannah had been promised a son and a dynasty of faithful priests.
1Sa 2:32 In distress you would look with envy upon the wealth which I
would have given Israel, but there shall not be an old man in your house
forever-
1Sa 2:33 Any man of yours whom I shall not cut off from My altar, will
only blind your eyes with tears and grieve your heart; all the increase of
your house shall die in the prime of life-
The original is unclear as to whether Eli's eyes would be blinded
with tears, or whether any who were not cut off in violent death would be
blinded. But there is also the possibility as in GNB: "Yet I will keep one
of your descendants alive, and he will serve me as priest. But he will
become blind and lose all hope, and all your other descendants will die a
violent death". Whichever option we take, it speaks of a future which was
only a potential possibility. For Eli and his sons died at the same time.
I suggest that all these potential pathways of cursing upon Eli didn't
quite come about as was potentially possible, just as Samuel didn't become
the anointed Messianic king-priest which he might have been (:10). The
unclarity of the text is purposeful because it reflects the various
possible paths of judgment; the very existence of them all reflects God's
extreme sensitivity to human behaviour and the various outcomes He finds
appropriate to them all.
1Sa 2:34 This will be the sign to you which will come on your two sons,
Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall both die-
The idea of a sign to Eli was surely that he was to take note of it
and then repent. But it seems the day the sons died, he also died. It was
as if he refused to respond to it, and therefore was slain the same day.
And so the idea of the "sign" was that it was to be immediately responded
to. Eli died at a great age; God had been so patient with him, giving him
so many opportunities to repent, and then at the very end of his life , on
the very last day of it, he was given the fulfilment of this sign to urge
him personally towards repentance. And still he refused, being concerned
merely about the loss of the ark as a religious symbol.
1Sa 2:35 I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who will do
according to what is in My heart and My mind. I will build him a sure
house, and he shall minister before My anointed one forever-
Again we see various potential fulfillments here. A faithful priest
was to be raised up to minister before the anointed one, the Messianic
king, who apparently was potentially Samuel (see on :10). But no such
faithful priest was raised up in Samuel's time, nor did he become a king.
These words were reapplied therefore to Saul and David whom Samuel would
anoint, although neither of them had a specific priest ministering before
them. And it is David who is presented as the man after God's own heart
and mind (1 Sam. 13:14); yet he was the anointed one and not the priest.
The promise of a "sure house" could have had fulfilment in Solomon (1
Kings 11:38), in contrast to God's destruction of Eli's household; and yet
that also failed. So we see that none of the potential fulfillments fully
came about, because of various human failures in living up to the
potentials. And so these words are reapplied and reinterpreted towards
fulfilment in the Lord Jesus.
Samuel had been prophesied to be the next priest whilst the existing priest would be removed for apostasy. This was exactly the essential situation of David with Saul as regarded the kingship. Samuel's experience therefore ideally qualified him to relate to David. All our trials are likewise so that we can empathise with others.
1Sa 2:36 Each one who is left in your house shall come and bow down to him
for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say, ‘Please put me
into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread’-
The Lord's parable of the prodigal seems to gave this in mind. The son
asks to return to the family home not with the rights of a blood
descendant, but just as a labourer and servant in order to eat bread. If
indeed the Lord had this verse in mind, He would be hinting that even in
this case, repentance was possible. This bowing down to the faithful
priest of :35 never apparently happened, and so again [as noted throughout
this section] we are left with the impression that there were various
potential pathways for fulfilment, different possible scenarios, which
didn't all come strictly true to the letter.
Previous Chapter
