# comment

text:
<p>The Benjamites gathered together out of their cities to Gibeah to go out to fight against the Israelites- </p><p>Again we note that they "gathered together", matching the earlier descriptions of them acting "as one man" in this matter. There was a groupthink mentality, a feeding frenzy which led to an obsession to judge and destroy, with no attention to facts nor to the Divine commands about how decisions should be arrived at in such cases. And this kind of thing goes on often enough within the body of believers today. Only a deeply secure and personal relationship with God will save us from being caught up in this kind of groupthink mentality. </p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites numbered twenty six thousand swordsmen out of the cities, besides the seven hundred chosen men of Gibeah- </p><p>Gibeah must have been relatively small if they had only 700 fighters, a small proportion of the Benjamites. Although we recall that terms like "thousand" and "hundred" are often not literal, but refer to military subdivisions. LXX gives 25,000, which would more or less fit with the numbers in :44-46.</p>


text:
<p>Among all these soldiers there were seven hundred chosen men who were left-handed, each of whom could sling stones at a hair’s breadth and not miss- </p><p>Left handed people were considered strange and often relegated to the periphery of society in primitive societies; we see again how almost all the judges had something which made them despised and rejected. And yet it was exactly that group which God delighted to use to save His people (<a href='B:70 3:15'>Jdg 3:15</a>). We notice how God used left handed people to give David victory (<a href='B:130 12:2'>1Ch 12:2</a>), and to punish their hypocritical brethren (<a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>). He seems to rejoice in using those whom man despises.</p><p>We can assume that Benjamin were noted by the other tribes for having this regiment of left handed men. We are here reading the perception of others; for it is somewhat hard to believe there was in fact a regiment of slingers who were all left handed. But Benjamin means 'son of the right hand', the firstborn- something Judah and the other tribes bitterly resented. It's as if they were known as 'left handers', famed for their left handed slinging regiment- as a dig against their role as being sons of the right hand. And this tension was behind the way the Israelites were eager for an excuse to wipe out the tribe of Benjamin. Left handedness is associated with sexual deviance, homosexuality and femininity in some African cultures, and it quite likely was in the time of Judges 20.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel apart from Benjamin were four hundred thousand swordsmen, all warriors- </p><p>Again we note that terms like "thousand" and "hundred" are often not literal, but refer to military subdivisions.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites went up to Bethel and asked counsel of God. They said, Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin? Yahweh said, Judah first- </p><p>This comes over as very hypocritical and inappropriate. They had not asked counsel of God about how to judge the matter. They had all eagerly condemned Gibeah to destruction, without referring to God, and in studied disobedience to His word (see on <a href='B:70 20:13'>Jdg 20:13</a>). Yet having made their own judgment, they then made a great show of asking His advice as to which tribe should lead the assault, or, should attack Gibeah first (<a href='B:70 20:18'>Jdg 20:18</a>). Yet God responded to their request. He said Judah should go first. He wanted to use this incident to punish Israel, as well as Benjamin. And as so often, His judgments are in terms of brethren destroying each other, rather than Him doing it directly Himself. <a href='B:70 21:15'>Jdg 21:15</a> notes that it was Yahweh who made a breach in Israel over this matter. He worked through it all. It was His way of judging His apostate, hypocritical people. Division and conflict amongst God’s children is therefore somehow of Him- but it is His judgment upon the community.</p><p>We could possibly infer that "the Israelites" meant the entire army. Their army has mustered (:17), and all is ready for the advance against Gibeah. But apparently they all then march off to Beth-el, 10 miles away, to consult Yahweh. And yet they were at Mizpah where there was some presence of Yahweh (Jud. 20:1). Such a change of position at such a moment is almost incredible, until we realize the huge power of mere religion. People are desperate to do their religious thing and feel they have God's blessing, even when they are set on going against His will.  
This verse forms an inclusio with the beginning of Judges in Jud. 1:1,2: "The children of Israel asked Yahweh, Who should go up for us first against the Canaanites, to fight against them? Yahweh said, Judah shall go up. Behold, I have delivered the land into his hand". We observe from this connection how that instead of focusing upon their common enemies and striving together to inherit and possess the Kingdom of God, God's people were now focused upon in-fighting. And God confirms them in that. That is very much the story of His people in our times. And there are other connections between the beginning and end of Judges. Both mention how Jerusalem is still in the hands of the Jebusites (Jud. 1:21; 19:11,12). There has been no progress towards real possession of the Kingdom. Israel collectively weep (Jud. 2:1-5 cp. 20:23,26; 21:2-4). We also reflect how the Israelites' asking 'Who should go up first?' is an attempt to recall their earlier history. But it is just mechanical imitation with no spirit in it. God responds almost sarcastically by saying: 'Judah'. But Judah were thereby going to their destruction and not to victory.
God was clearly confirming Israel in their own self division. He says Judah should go first- into a battle that will decimate Judah. But why did God choose Judah to go first and suffer the most? I suggest there was always tension between Judah and Benjamin. Judah was the demoted firstborn, and "Benjamin" was the beloved son of Jacob, called "the son of my right hand" because firstborn blessings were given with the right hand [as when Jacob blesses the sons of Joseph]. Benjamin was the only son born after Jacob's name was changed to Israel, the only son not involved in the betrayal of Joseph and deception of Jacob. Jacob's life was bound up with the life of Benjamin. He was the favourite son after Joseph left home and disappeared at 17; he was the son of Rachel, the favourite wife, and she died to as it were bring him to birth. God was confirming them in their hatred of each other. For He confirms men in the bad path in which they want to go.
</p>


text:
<p>The next morning the Israelites got up and encamped against Gibeah- </p><p>Perhaps we are to understand that they ignored the command that Judah should go up first (:18); for it seems they all went up. The information we will now be given about the battle is one of the most detailed battle reports in the Bible. Perhaps the idea is to highlight the awful tragedy of brother fighting brother.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel went out to fight against Benjamin and took up battle positions against them at Gibeah- </p><p>As in :19, it is stressed that the Israelites went to fight against Benjamin, apparently ignoring the command that Judah should go up first (:18); for it seems they all went up. And this is twice stressed (:19,20). They were not really interested in following God’s ways and word, as shown by the way they had misjudged the entire situation; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites came out of Gibeah and destroyed twenty-two thousand Israelites on that day- </p><p>God had apparently sent the Israelites to their destruction by saying that Judah should go up first (:18). He was confirming His people in their misjudgments and lack of love toward each other; see on :18.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel encouraged one another and took up their positions again in the place where they had stationed themselves on the first day- </p><p>They make no new strategy. They encourage one another, as if they are doing God’s work, fighting for the right cause. It was all such a case of misplaced ideals. They assumed their cause was just and that they were doing the right thing. The only thing they asked God about was which tribe should go up first. Assumptions that we are right are especially common amongst those who claim to "have the truth".</p>


text:
<p>They went up and wept before Yahweh until evening, and they asked Yahweh, Shall we go up to fight again against the Benjamites, our brothers? Yahweh said, Go up against them- </p><p>The request was really its own answer. Should they fight against "our brothers"? Obviously not. You do not fight and kill your brothers. The way they express the request like this surely suggests they were nagged in their conscience by the inappropriacy of fighting their brethren. See on <a href='B:70 21:3'>Jdg 21:3</a>. Their weeping before Yahweh recalls Joshua's after the defeat at Ai. They ought to have perceived the similarities; and realized that the defeat was because Israel had sinned. They were at fault. But they lacked the humility to realize this, and so Yahweh told them to go up again- to their destruction. As explained on :18, this was all God’s judgment of His own people, but as often, He chose to work through people destroying themselves, rather than His direct destruction of sinners. We recall earlier in Judges how Israel had wept before Yahweh in order that the Gentile tribes might be driven out of the land (Jud. 2:4,5). They are treating their Benjamite brethren like Gentiles. Yet they weep before Yahweh to destroy them. Likewise it seems their total destruction of Benjamin is done in order to fulfil the commands to totally destroy the Gentile inhabitants of the land. This is what happens once we fail to see our brethren as brethren- they then become as the Gentile world to us. The definition of who is within the body of Christ therefore becomes critical for us in our day. Again and again we see how mixed are their motives, and how surface level was their devotion to Yahweh and true spirituality. </p>


text:
<p>The Israelites went against the Benjamites the second day- </p><p>"Went against", AV "came near against", is not quite the phrase we would expect to describe men going up against others in battle. It is the term used about 'coming near' in [often illicit] sexual encounter (<a href='B:10 20:4'>Gen 20:4</a>; <a href='B:30 18:6'>Lev 18:6</a>; <a href='B:30 18:14'>Lev 18:14</a>; <a href='B:30 18:19'>Lev 18:19</a>; <a href='B:30 20:16'>Lev 20:16</a>; <a href='B:50 22:14'>Deu 22:14</a>; <a href='B:240 5:8'>Pro 5:8</a>; <a href='B:290 8:3'>Isa 8:3</a>; <a href='B:330 18:6'>Eze 18:6</a>). The idea is that the Israelites were effectively raping the Benjamites, doing to them what they had accused the Benjamites of doing to the Levite's wife. See on :45. Hosea twice claims that the "sin of Gibeah" was the sin of all Israel: "These men are steeped in corruption as in the days of Gibeah. He will remember their iniquity, He will punish their sins... Since the days of Gibeah you have sinned, Israel. There they stand. Shall not war overtake the guilty in Gibeah?" (Hos. 9:8,9; 10:9). Yet the sin of Gibeah historically was the sin of the men of Gibeah, defended from judgment by the tribe of Benjamin. But Hosea says that all Israel sinned as the men of Gibeah did. And that is what the Judges record brings out in Jud. 19-21. The tribes who judged Gibeah for their sin also suffered judgment- because in essence they were equally guilty.</p>


text:
<p>Benjamin went out against them from Gibeah the second day, and destroyed another eighteen thousand Israelite men, all armed with swords- </p><p>"The second day" doesn't have to mean the day after the battle on the first day; for in the gap between, Israel had been to Bethel to get God’s advice. It is the second day of the battle recorded. The Israelites fought so weakly because surely they had a deep sense that this was not a battle they should be fighting- against their brethren. See on :23.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Israelites, all the people, went up to Bethel and wept and sat there before Yahweh and fasted that day until evening. They offered burnt offerings and peace offerings to Yahweh- </p><p>Peace offerings were offered in times of Israel's sadness and defeat (<a href='B:70 20:26'>Jdg 20:26</a>; <a href='B:70 21:4'>Jdg 21:4</a>) as well as in times of exaltation of spirit and joy. In our traumas of life, we need to remember that the only thing that matters is our peace with God, the joyful fact that we have nothing separating us. As Israel made their peace offerings at those times, so we too should consider the possibility of breaking bread, perhaps alone, as we meet the desperate traumas of our lives.</p><p>However the usual order is sin offering, burnt offering [speaking of subsequent dedication to God] and then the peace offering, celebrating the peace with God now enjoyed. But there is no mention of a sin offering. Israel still refused to accept how much they were in the wrong. For if they did, they would not have gone ahead with another battle against Benjamin. See on <a href='B:70 21:4'>Jdg 21:4</a>.</p><p>"All the people" is AV "and all the people", as if the massive losses meant that not only the soldiers but the common people were alarmed at the huge losses, and wanted to know whether they should continue.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites asked Yahweh (for the ark of the covenant of God was there in those days- </p><p>Again as in :26 it is stressed that they asked Yahweh for guidance- when as a people they were generally very far from Him. Their desire for guidance indicates the problem of bad conscience they had, as well as the fact they had lost forty thousand in the previous two attempts to execute the judgment they had decreed without asking His guidance. Clearly any victory they may now win was going to pyrrhic [a victory at such cost it is hardly a victory].</p><p>"Those days" could refer to the days of this conflict; the ark had been brought from Shiloh to Bethel in order to seek God’s blessing upon their judgment of their brethren. This was proof enough that the mere external symbols of religion did not at all imply God’s blessings upon them.</p>


text:
<p>and Phinehas the son of Eleazar the son of Aaron ministered before it)- </p><p>Phinehas and the ark had come especially from Shiloh to Bethel for this situation, and was then returned to Shiloh (<a href='B:60 18:1'>Jos 18:1</a>; <a href='B:60 22:12'>Jos 22:12</a>; <a href='B:230 78:60'>Psa 78:60</a>). But&nbsp; the mere external symbols of religion did not at all imply God’s blessings upon them.</p><p>In this whole miserable episode of Jud. 19-21, Phinehas is the only person who is named. All other characters are anonymous. And we wonder whether that reflects how despite their surface level religiosity, they have no abiding place in God's purpose. Their religiosity left them as nobodies. Just as Benjamin very nearly lost his name. </p><p>Shall we yet again go out to fight against Benjamin our brother, or not? Yahweh said, Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand-</p><p>See on <a href='B:70 18:30'>Jdg 18:30</a>. The sanctuary was presumably a day's journey away from Gibeah. Israel become the more desperate for Yahweh's guidance as their conscience niggled the more at them- for their request was really the answer. Fighting against their brother was wrong. As discussed on :18, this whole bloodbath was willed by God as a judgment upon all His people, at their own hands.</p><p><a href='B:70 20:29'>Jdg 20:29</a> Israel set ambushes all around Gibeah- </p><p>The strategy for taking Gibeah is very similar to that for taking Ai, and we wonder if the strategy was communicated to them by God in :28. They were to perceive the similarities. They had likewise been over confident of taking Gibeah, and they had so far failed because like Israel in the first battle of Ai, they were being punished because of their sins.</p>


text:
<p>They went up against the Benjamites on the third day and set themselves in position against Gibeah as before- </p><p>"As before" invites us to imagine them clinging on in faith to God’s words of :28 that "tomorrow I will deliver him into your hand". Through their unwisdom and wrong behaviour, they were being brought to faith in God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites went out against them and were drawn away from the city. They began to fight the Israelites as before, on the highways on the way to Bethel and Gibeah, and in the field, killing about thirty men of Israel- </p><p><a href='B:60 8:13-16'>Jos 8:13-16</a> describes the strategy to take Ai in just the same terms. Clearly the same lesson was being taught- that victory was to only be through turning their backs before their enemies, a sign they were under Divine curse. Through realizing that, victory would be given. There are so many deliberate connections with the battle against Ai- which Israel had initially failed to take because one of them had taken forbidden things from Jericho. There was an initial defeat; an ambush set west of the city (:33,36, as "behind the city" of  Ai, Josh. 8:4). The attackers purposefully retreat so that the enemy think that as previously, the attackers are fleeing (Josh. 8:6 "as before" cp. Jud. 20:32,39).  The men of Ai didn't realize an ambush had been set (Josh. 8: 14) as with Gibeah (Jud. 20:35). The men waiting in ambush both times rose up and charged quickly, setting the city on fire (Josh. 8:19 cp. Jud. 20:33,37). The soldiers of Ai and of Gibeah saw smoke rising from their city (Josh. 8:20; Jud. 20:40). A surrounding "desert" is mentioned both times (Josh. 8:24; Jud. 20:45). The men of Ai and Gibeah were killed on the roads and in the desert (Josh. 8:24; Jud. 20:46-48). All in both cities were put to the sword (Josh. 8:26,27; Jud. 20:48). All these similarities are intentional. On a surface level, Israel followed a Biblical precedent. But in fact they were treating their own brethren as if they were Gentiles of Ai.      </p>


text:
<p>The Benjamites said, We are defeating them as before. But the Israelites said, Let’s retreat and draw them away from the city to the highways-</p><p>Israel were punished for their over confidence, thinking it needed only a part of their army to overcome Gibeah. And now the Benjamites are punished for their self confidence. Reliance in the arm of flesh is so displeasing to God.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Israel arose up from their camp and set themselves in position at Baal Tamar, and the ambush charged from Maareh Geba- </p><p>We note the old paganic names were still used- another indication of the overall apostacy of all Israel. The Israelite army was split into three groups; the one at Baal-tamar, the one which formed the ambush behind Gibeah, and then the third which first directly approached Gibeah. This division into three companies echoes the strategy God used with Gideon.</p>


text:
<p>Ten thousand chosen men out of all Israel attacked Gibeah and the battle was severe, but the Benjamites didn’t know that disaster was upon them- </p><p>The severity of the battle at this point implies that even more Israelites died at this time. God was punishing His people, as He often did the Gentiles, by turning their swords against themselves. And conflict within the church is likewise His judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh defeated Benjamin before Israel, and the Israelites destroyed twenty five thousand one hundred armed Benjamites that day- </p><p>This describes the deaths on that day, not counting any previous deaths in the other battles on the other days. We note that Yahweh gave the victory; as discussed on :18 this was all of Him, He gave victories to both sides, He was the one who made the gap in Israel (<a href='B:70 21:15'>Jdg 21:15</a>), because this was His way of punishing His sinful people; see on :34.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Benjamites saw that they were defeated, for the men of Israel had given way to Benjamin, trusting in the ambush which they had set against Gibeah- </p><p>We would rather read that they had trusted in Yahweh, but it seems they trusted more in their battle strategy.</p>


text:
<p>The men in the ambush rushed into Gibeah, spread out and put all the city to the sword- </p><p>The battle strategy of Abimelech, setting an ambush (<a href='B:70 9:32'>Jdg 9:32</a>), rising early and rushing upon the city of his one time brethren (<a href='B:70 9:33'>Jdg 9:33</a>), was replicated by the Israelites in <a href='B:70 20:37'>Jdg 20:37</a>. The same Hebrew words are used. But it was a case of copying an example just because it was recorded in Divine history, following precedents which were in fact not at all good. Hollow imitation of the behaviour of others is an abiding temptation for us today.</p>


text:
<p>Now the appointed signal between the men of Israel and the ambush was that they should send up a great cloud of smoke out of the city- </p><p>This matches the signal of the sun glinting from Joshua's spear in the capture of Ai, and likewise the smoke signal from within the city. The similarities are so exact, because the point was that like Israel in the first battle of Ai, the 11 tribes had sinned and were being punished for it.</p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Israel would turn in the battle. Benjamin began to attack and killed about thirty of the men of Israel, for they said, Surely they are being defeated as before- </p><p>The whole account of the taking of Gibeah is repeated twice over, because we are really being urged to see the similarities with Ai; and take the implication that the Israelites had sinned as Israel had at that time and were being punished for it. It was they and not just the Benjamites who needed to eradicate evil from amongst them.</p>


text:
<p>But when the smoke began to go up out of the city, the Benjamites looked behind them and saw the whole city going up in smoke- </p><p>Exactly as in the capture of Ai (<a href='B:60 8:20'>Jos 8:20</a>); see on :39. "The whole of the city" [also :48] is their allusion to Dt. 13:16 "And you shall burn the [whole] city with fire as a whole offering unto Yahweh". See on :48. They were again doing the wrong thing but liking to cover it with a veneer of spirituality. Anger, fear and partaking in a feeding frenzy of hatred and judgment cannot be done sincerely in the name of some vague Biblical allusion. </p>


text:
<p>Then the men of Israel turned on them and the men of Benjamin were terrified, seeing that disaster had come on them- </p><p>This is the fear of men facing condemnation. Why were they condemned? Not because of the reason that the other Israelites had given for their condemnation. For this was in any case a too heavy judgment for refusing to cooperate with the kangaroo court called by the Israelites. We recall how the Levite perhaps rightly claimed that he was given no hospitality because he was perceived as serving in the sanctuary at Bethel (<a href='B:70 19:18'>Jdg 19:18</a>). Maybe indeed the Benjamites despised the sanctuary of Yahweh, and the Levites; and this was the real reason why Yahweh allowed their destruction at the hands of the brethren.</p><p>"Disaster" is literally "evil"; the word used of the evil done to the concubine at Gibeah (Jud. 19:23; 20:12,13). It seems obvious that they realized evil was upon them in the sense of military defeat; and we wonder why this is mentioned. Therefore it makes more sense to understand this as meaning that they realized that the evil done to the concubine was now coming upon them. This implies they had previously refused to repent nor to recognize that "evil" had been done. They supported the xenophobic rape of foreigners because they had some deep seated hatred of the other tribes and perhaps Levi specifically. </p>


text:
<p>So they fled before the men of Israel towards the wilderness, but they could not escape the battle, and the Israelites who came out of the cities destroyed them there- </p><p>There was a widespread hatred of the Benjamites amongst the general population.</p>


text:
<p>They surrounded the Benjamites, chased them and ran them down as far as Gibeah toward the east- </p><p>This appears to be another Gibeah which was on the way towards the rock of Rimmon where they were aiming for (:45).</p>


text:
<p>Eighteen thousand valiant men of Benjamin fell- </p><p>See on :46. Albert Barnes in his commentary discerns here and in the surrounding verses a poetical form of language, as if this was a victory song later sung. To gloat over such a massacre was wrong, and soon the Israelites were going to be repenting for it. Such gloating at the time reflects again an unspirituality in Israel; for God Himself doesn't rejoice over the death of the wicked.</p>


text:
<p>They turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and the Israelites killed five thousand of them along the way and chased them to Gidom, killing two thousand more-</p><p>AV "they gleaned of them in the highways five thousand men". But "glean" is s:w. abused, mocked, defiled. We are again given the impression that they treated Israel just as the men of Gibeah had treated the Levite's concubine. They were no better. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>So that day twenty-five thousand valiant fighters of Benjamin were killed-</p><p>A "thousand" often refers to a military unit or subdivision, rather than&nbsp; literal 1,000. See on :47. 18,000 fell in :44, and then another 7,000 in :45, and 600 escaped (:47). The LXX gives different figures, but if we take those figures as they are, we conclude that the victories they won on the first and second days were achieved without loss. This meant that the men of Israel were slain very easily- they fought weakly because their conscience told them they were fighting for a wrong cause. The Benjamite victories were therefore clearly of God, as was their defeat in the third battle (:35) - all part of His way of judging His totally sinful people at the point of each others' swords.</p>


text:
<p>But six hundred men turned and fled toward the wilderness to the rock of Rimmon, and stayed there four months- </p><p>A group of "six hundred men" is found so often in the records that we suspect that it may not be literal, but rather refer to a military unit or subdivision (<a href='B:70 3:31'>Jdg 3:31</a>; <a href='B:70 18:11'>Jdg 18:11</a>; <a href='B:70 20:47'>Jdg 20:47</a>; <a href='B:90 13:15'>1Sa 13:15</a>; <a href='B:90 14:2'>1Sa 14:2</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 27:2'>1Sa 27:2</a>; <a href='B:90 30:9'>1Sa 30:9</a>; <a href='B:100 15:18'>2Sa 15:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel went back to Benjamin and put to the sword everything in the towns, including the livestock, and anything they found. All the towns which they found they set on fire- </p><p>This is exactly the language used of the destruction of Canaanite cities by Joshua. We note they didn’t take the animals for themselves. All was as it were sacrificed to Yahweh. They were treating their brethren like Canaanites. And yet we note that the tribes of Israel had at this point not to zealously driven out the Canaanites and possessed their land. Their apparent zeal to obey Yahweh's commands about the Canaanites was misplaced, a twisting of His word to justify their own bloodlust and self justification. Truly we are to take the lesson that in conflict between brethren, there are never victors, only losers. Hosea twice (Hos. 9:9; 10:9) warns that all Israel will be punished "as in the day of Gibeah". His point surely is that all Israel sinned in essence as did Benjamin. They were no better. And continued to be no better. Even at the time, the losses on both sides [Israel and Benjamin] were so great that the lesson was even then taught- they were all as bad as each other. The body of Israel was divided and thereby destroyed or seriously damaged, just as was Benjamin.
"All the towns" and the language of complete destruction is allusion to how they saw them as 'devoted' to Yahweh; see on :40. They have in mind Dt. 2:34; 3:6, of devoting a city or people to destruction. The Israelites were determined to make the tribe of Benjamin a herem or total devotion to Yahweh, the equivalent of a whole burnt offering to Yahweh. The Levite likewise cut his wife up into parts as if she was a whole burnt offering. But they are confusing their own blood lust and hatred of their brethren with zeal for God. As happens so often. 

</p>


text:
<p>Now the men of Israel had sworn in Mizpah: Not one of us will give his daughter to a Benjamite as wife- </p><p>Here we have another repetition of theme, that of unwise oaths. For Jephthah had done the same. And it resulted at very best in his daughter going unmarried. We think too of Joshua's over hasty oath to the Gibeonites. We are to discern the hand of God in all these things and to learn from the repeated mistakes of His people as recorded in the Biblical record. We are surely intended to contrast this with how the Israelites had freely given their daughters to marry Gentiles. Their oath is therefore hypocritical. It is religious extremism, not spirituality. They treat their own brethren as if they are worse than Gentiles. 
</p>


text:
<p>The people came to Bethel where they sat until evening before God, raising their voices and weeping bitterly- </p><p>They had likewise sat before God, i:e. before His manifestation and presence in the ark and priesthood, when they had enquired why they had been defeated twice when fighting the Benjamites. It was tears all around, as they began to realize the extreme folly of what they had done. But it was grief they themselves had brought about. Their weeping before Yahweh recalls Joshua's after the defeat at Ai. The great victory they had just won was in reality a defeat for Israel. Because in conflict between brethren, there can only be losers. Any apparent victory is in fact a further loss.</p>


text:
<p>They said, Yahweh, the God of Israel, why has this happened to Israel, that there should be today one tribe missing from Israel?- </p><p>If Yahweh was indeed Israel's God, then to destroy a part of Israel was clearly to have sinned against Him. This is what we do whenever we separate or effectively cut off a part of the body of Christ. As noted on <a href='B:70 20:23'>Jdg 20:23</a>, the request was really its own answer. Should they fight against "our brothers"? Obviously not. You do not fight and kill your brothers. Why has this happened? Because they had done it. So often our prayers reveal their own answer. We see this in David’s prayers as recorded in the Psalms. Some of them end up providing the answer to the opening question or struggle. This is one advantage of praying out loud, of verbalizing our questions to God. The answer sometimes becomes apparent just through the process of verbalizing our thoughts.</p><p>They ask the God of Israel why one tribe has almost perished from Israel. They imply that Israel's God should preserve Israel. Yet it was they who had dismembered Israel. This is a classic case of blaming God for what is clearly man's fault. 
"Why did God let this happen?" is a common question today. But the answer is simply that man made it happen. The history here is a helpful window onto the question. There is no recorded answer of God to their question, as there isn't today. But the humble, reflective mind will immediately see the answer as soon as the question is framed. It's not a case of God letting things happen, but of man making bad things happen. In this case, Yahweh confirmed them in their course of action, by saying that Judah should go up first and be destroyed by Benjamin. 
</p>


text:
<p>Next day the people rose early and built an altar and offered burnt offerings and peace offerings- </p><p>Peace offerings were offered in times of Israel's sadness and defeat (<a href='B:70 20:26'>Jdg 20:26</a>; <a href='B:70 21:4'>Jdg 21:4</a>), as well as in celebration. In our traumas of life, we need to remember that the only thing that matters is our peace with God, the joyful fact that we have nothing separating us. As Israel made their peace offerings at those times, so we too should consider the possibility of breaking bread, perhaps alone, as we meet the desperate traumas of our lives.</p><p>But as in <a href='B:70 20:26'>Jdg 20:26</a>, we note that the usual order is sin offering, burnt offering [speaking of subsequent dedication to God] and then the peace offering, celebrating the peace with God now enjoyed. But there is no mention of a sin offering. Israel still refused to accept how much they were in the wrong.</p>


text:
<p>They asked, Who is there among all the tribes of Israel who didn’t come up to the assembly before Yahweh? For they had taken a solemn oath that anyone who didn’t come up to Yahweh to Mizpah should surely be put to death- </p><p>The implication of <a href='B:70 20:3'>Jdg 20:3</a> is that the Benjamites weren't represented at the Mizpah conference. And Israel had threatened death to anyone who didn’t come to this gathering. So the Benjamites stood condemned to death just because they didn’t attend a meeting. Just as some have been disfellowshiped for "long continued absence" from a church. This is not at all Biblical, and the attitude of the Israelites here was not at all in accord with the Law of Moses. Nor did they take any advice from God about this; they simply promised death to any who didn’t attend their gathering. Perhaps this was why they thought they were justified in slaying the Benjamites- because they had broken the Israelites' self declared law and commandment to come to Mizpah.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites grieved for Benjamin their brother. There is one tribe cut off from Israel this day- </p><p>Their requests to God for guidance about attacking Benjamin had featured the phrase "our brother". They ought to have followed their conscience toward God, and their sense that any murder of a brother must be wrong. Instead the power of groupthink and transferring the guilt of their own sins onto Benjamin was stronger than that. And now they grieve for what they had done. Their exclusion and cutting off of their brother had in fact diminished all Israel. And this is what we do to the body of Christ by cutting off parts of it; it is as Paul puts it, as bizarre as cutting off our own limbs. The body will not function well without those limbs. I suggested on Jud. 20:2 that initially, the other Israelites wanted to destroy Benjamin in order to take their territory. But now they apparently genuinely repent. We see how even in the depths of unspirituality, there is still an element of conscience. And that is the theme of Judges 13-21, that flesh and Spirit were hopelessly mixed in God's people at this time. So mixed that the mere presence of 'Spirit' element did not at all guarantee their salvation. We think of the rejected in the Lord's parables addressing him as "Lord, Lord"; and the foolish virgins eager to enter His Kingdom when it was all too late. And yet Jabesh Gilead was in Manasseh. By making Benjamites intermarry with another tribe, they were weakening Benjamin's claim to the land.
As noted on :3, God was silent in response to their enquiries. They don't get it- His silence was to elicit within them the awareness that it was their fault, not His, and their questioning of Him was inappropriate. They fail to get this, and so go ahead in yet more folly. Just as man does so often. Their efforts to save their brother will involve murder, kidnap and forced marriage- showing that their apparent 'love' and 'repentance' concerning Benjamin was fake. And Israel will do these things against Jabesh Gilead, probably the only city which had responded rightly to their demand to go and fight Benjamin.
</p>


text:
<p>How shall we provide wives for those who remain, since we have sworn by Yahweh that we will not give them our daughters as wives?- </p><p>It seems the idea was that if the virgins were stolen and forced to marry, then the oath not to freely give daughters as wives was still kept. Even though it involved kidnapping, forced marriage, and the murder of many innocent people, including children. All these gross sins were done in order to keep a foolish and hasty oath. The appearance was that they were careful to avoid the sin of breaking an oath. But they commit far greater sins in order to avoid that sin. The real issue was that they didn't want Benjamites to marry their daughters. Again we see how badly things go when there is no personal devotion to Divine principle, and rather a desire to appear religiously correct in order to justify what man wants to do naturally. Another attraction of stealing the virgins was that there would then no issue about the husbands needing to pay the usual bride price.
Here we have one of several examples of men caught up in unwise oaths. We think of Darius promising to slay anyone who prayed to anyone apart from himself; of Herod vowing to do anything for the daughter of Herodias, including murdering John the Baptist. They could get out of their oaths by humility... but they didn't. In this case, the easiest option would have been to just repent of their oath and let the remaining Benjamites marry women from other tribes. But for all their apostacy, they had a legalistic mindset. And there was a pride factor in their society when it came to not following through on an oath. As many do today, they went to the most bizarre lengths to get around the oath they had made, and to save face. And yet their bizarre method of getting around it was all the same unethical, and involved the massacre of yet more of their brethren at Jabesh Gilead, and the kidnapping of girls from Shiloh. It would have been far better to humble themselves and retract their rash oath. We see this lesson repeated in the rulers who swore too hastily, resulting in Daniel and John the Baptist suffering greatly- just because the rulers were too proud to take back their words.</p>


text:
<p>They asked, Which of the tribes of Israel didn’t come up to Yahweh to Mizpah? They found that none from the camp from Jabesh Gilead came to the assembly- </p><p>We note that they had not attempted to murder these people because they had not come to the meeting at Mizpah. And yet they apparently used Benjamin's absence from that meeting [when it was clearly biased against them from the start] as justification for slaying Benjamin (:5). So clearly the whole miserable, quasi legal process was set up from the start in order to cut off Benjamin. And this is how church politics so often goes, when there is a predetermined desire to cut someone off.</p>


text:
<p>For when the people were counted, none of the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead were there- </p><p>We wonder why Jabesh did not attend. Perhaps they like Benjamin had seen through the manic feeding frenzy of the groupthink, and had objected to the absolutely unBiblical judgment being taken- with so much depending on just one questionable witness, with <a href='B:50 17:6-7'>Deu 17:6-7</a> being so totally ignored. See on <a href='B:70 20:13'>Jdg 20:13</a>. And yet still Israel were impenitent for all that; and they were to go ahead and punish Jabesh with a massacre, killing even innocent children, because of it. The implication is that absolutely every town of Israel outside of Benjamin was represented in this great assembly, including the totally apostate people of Laish of Dan (Judges 17, 18). Only Jabesh didn’t come. This is the extent to which the people were caught up in a shark tank feeding frenzy of judgmentalism, self congratulation and hatred against their brethren. These things happen today; brethren are demonized and hated on a mass scale on flimsy grounds by brethren who are only as weak as themselves. It is a basic psychological reaction, the unchecked movement of the flesh rather than of the Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>The congregation sent twelve thousand valiant fighting men and commanded them: Go and put the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead to the sword, including the women and children- </p><p>The idea was, a thousand from each tribe, following the principle of <a href='B:40 31:4'>Num 31:4</a>. Yet they were following an isolated Biblical precedent in a very misplaced way- for they were going to massacre innocent people, all because they were too proud to accept they had made a foolish oath (see on :7). We see here a common human feature- of apparent obedience to the letter of the law, whilst breaking the obvious spirit of the law. We think of the Jews being scrupulous to be ritually clean for the Passover- at which they crucified God’s Son. It's a case of having a plank in our own eye whilst noticing the splinter in the eye of another.</p>


text:
<p>This is what you are to do: kill every male and every woman who is not a virgin- </p><p>Whilst it is not recorded that this was done, this massacre of their own brethren was necessitated by their refusal to humble themselves and retract their oaths, as discussed on :7. They had not really learned the depth of their sin- for here they were advocating the cutting off of yet more of their brethren in a massacre, for the sake of undoing the damage done by cutting off their brethren from Benjamin. They had not learned the lesson.</p><p>More exactly, “You shall devote to utter destruction” or “cherem” (Lev. 27:28). They were also alluding to the uttermost destruction of the Midianites in Num. 31:7,17. But they failed to perceive that they are again treating their own brethren as Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>They found among the inhabitants of Jabesh Gilead four hundred young virgins who had not known man by lying with him, and they brought them to the camp at Shiloh in the land of Canaan- </p><p>This may imply they did not in fact destroy Jabesh as they had promised to Yahweh to do, and as the elders had told them to do. The town was still inhabited at the time of <a href='B:90 11:1'>1Sa 11:1</a>. It seems they were very selective in their obedience, and yet claimed such utter and careful loyalty to Yahweh. The record continually demonstrates their hypocrisy and ignorance of true spirituality, whilst having a knowledge and apparent devotion to isolated parts of God’s law. The same is seen amongst so many professing to be God’s people today. Yet "saved alive" in :14 implies they did indeed massacre the town. The description of the conflict with Jabesh as a "war" in :22 suggests that there was indeed bloodshed, probably on both sides; and yet despite that, the required number of young female captives weren't taken. So all the bloodshed and "war" just didn’t achieve the desired end anyway. The logical process in thought behind the decisions taken in all this appears very lacking in wisdom. Clearly they did not progress on God’s advice, but only on their own.</p><p>The treatment of these women is not far from rape. The rape of two women by Benjamites leads to the effective rape of 400 women by the rest of Israel, and kidnapping and forcible marriage of another 200. This is how out of proportion was Israel's response.</p>


text:
<p>The whole congregation sent an offer of peace to the Benjamites who were in the rock of Rimmon- </p><p>They 'proclaimed peace', using the same phrase as in <a href='B:50 20:10'>Deu 20:10</a>: "When you draw near to a city to fight against it, proclaim peace to it". But the Israelites did this to the few remaining Benjamites after they had massacred most of them. This was typical of how Israel at this time were taking fragments of God’s law and applying them, but absolutely out of context. Whilst they disregarded the majority of the Law, both in letter and spirit. And we see this in the wider Christian movement. Bits and pieces of Divine principle are used in a misplaced way, when the majority of God’s revelation and will is ignored.</p>


text:
<p>So then Benjamin returned and they gave them the women whom they had saved alive from Jabesh Gilead, but they weren’t enough for them- </p><p>"Saved alive" implies they did indeed massacre the town. They had clearly had a bad conscience about fighting against Benjamin their "brother". But they fail to really grasp why that was wrong. For in the flush of final victory against Benjamin, they now go and do exactly the same sin of murdering their brothers. And in this case, for no reason other than that Jabesh hadn't come up to some kangaroo court they had set up to judge Benjamin. They were acting absolutely against God’s will and without any seeking of His guidance. And all because, as discussed on :7, they lacked the faith to let God resolve the issue of the remnant of Benjamin having no wives; and because they lacked the humility to take back their oath not to let their daughters marry Benjamites.</p>


text:
<p>The people grieved for Benjamin because Yahweh had made a gap in the tribes of Israel- </p><p>AV "repented them", they had a change of mind. But this is not necessarily the same as perceiving their own moral wrong. There is no reference to their seeking counsel from God as to whether or not to massacre yet more of their brethren in Jabesh, which was apparently of another tribe and east of the Jordan [presumably it was near the wadi Jabesh which is east of Jordan]. The people had not asked counsel of God about how to judge the matter. They had all eagerly condemned Gibeah to destruction, without referring to God, and in studied disobedience to His word (see on <a href='B:70 20:13'>Jdg 20:13</a>). Yet having made their own judgment, they then made a great show of asking His advice as to which tribe should lead the assault, or, should attack Gibeah first (<a href='B:70 20:18'>Jdg 20:18</a>). Yet God responded to their request. He said Judah should go first. He wanted to use this incident to punish Israel, as well as Benjamin. And as so often, His judgments are in terms of brethren destroying each other, rather than Him doing it directly Himself. See on <a href='B:70 20:7'>Jdg 20:7</a>. It was Yahweh who made a breach in Israel over this matter. He worked through it all. It was His way of judging His apostate, hypocritical people. The same word is used of His making a breach upon Uzzah, in judgment (<a href='B:100 6:8'>2Sa 6:8</a>). A breach from Yahweh is a judgment for sin (<a href='B:290 30:13'>Isa 30:13</a>; <a href='B:330 22:30'>Eze 22:30</a> s:w:). Division and conflict amongst God’s children is therefore somehow of Him- but it is His judgment upon the community. Alternatively we can read this as the people still not facing up to the enormity of their sins. It was they who had made a breach in Israel, but they blame it on Yahweh. The ambiguity is intentional. They had made the breach, and blamed God for it [see on :3]. And yet He had confirmed them in what they really wanted to do, which was to dismember Israel. Just as  whether the Levite murdered his concubine is ambiguous.</p>


text:
<p>Then the elders of the congregation said, How shall we provide wives for those who remain, since the women are destroyed out of Benjamin?- </p><p>A wife is "from the Lord", not from purely human device. Massacring a town to steal their virgin daughters, and then kidnapping girls from a Passover dance... is all the way of the flesh. We see how misguided were these people, partly concerned with the Divine concept of raising up seed for their brother, and yet with no basic moral backbone at all. They would have been better to have faith that God would provide, in His own wonderful way- rather than massacring Jabesh and kidnapping girls.</p>


text:
<p>They said, There must be an inheritance for the surviving Benjamites so that a tribe will not be blotted out from Israel- </p><p>They are arguing from the basis of the levirate law, that brothers must somehow ensure that seed is raised up to their brother in the case of death. But, as noted on :16, they are focusing upon just one aspect of Divine truth, and ignoring the wider moral teachings of the Mosaic law and indeed of basic ethics and morality. "There must be an inheritance..." again reflects their legalistic mind, driven by a devotion to quasi logic to do things which were plain wrong on every count. An inheritance is "of the Lord", just as a wife is (:16); their attempt to play God in all this just made things far worse. And we must ponder whether our own spirituality is no more, at times, than out of context obedience to a few Biblical commands, whilst our flesh runs rampant and we refuse to humble ourselves beneath the essence of a truly spiritual life. </p>


text:
<p>We can’t give them wives from our daughters since the Israelites have taken this oath saying, ‘Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin’- </p><p>I discussed on :7 how if they had humbled themselves and retracted their oaths, then they would not have needed to do the bizarre and sinful things which they did- massacre of Jabesh Gilead and kidnapping young girls. Their legalistic mindset is incredible; and yet they themselves were far astray from Yahweh themselves, and this was why they had been punished at the hands of the Benjamites, losing 40,000 men.</p>


text:
<p>They said, Look, there is an annual feast of Yahweh in Shiloh, which is on the north of Bethel, east of the highway from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah- </p><p>If the feast involved dancing (:21) then it was likely the feast of the Passover, with the girls replicating the dancing of Miriam and the women. The exact geographical description is given so that the Benjamites knew precisely where to go. But they ought to have been celebrating Yahweh's deliverance of His people by grace, rather than using it as an opportunity to kidnap wives for themselves. But again this is mixing the flesh and the Spirit. The girls were to be kidnapped during a feast to Yahweh, without consequence. But the Canaanite tribes also allowed bride kidnapping during feasts. They were following a pagan practice. And it has been observed that "The Pokot people of East Africa permit kidnapping unmarried women during the summer solstice ceremonial cycle".     </p>


text:
<p>They instructed the Benjamites: Go and lie in wait in the vineyards- </p><p>This bizarre idea of grabbing young unmarried females was all necessitated by the impenitence of the Israelites and their refusal to humble themselves and retract their oath, as discussed on :7.</p>


text:
<p>and watch. When the daughters of Shiloh come out to join in the dances, then rush out of the vineyards and each of you catch a wife from the girls of Shiloh and go to the land of Benjamin- </p><p>The language of lying in wait in ambush and then rushing forward upon the unsuspecting is the language of how the Benjamites had finally captured Gibeah, and how Israel had captured Ai. Again, we see the misplaced idea of appealing to past precedent in God’s dealings with His people. They wished to follow some aspects of God’s ways in the past, whilst ignoring the vast majority of His teaching, even on a most basic moral level. And we wonder whether the majority of those identifying as 'Christian' at this point in world history are not similar.</p>


text:
<p>When their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we will say to them, ‘Allow them to do this because we didn’t get wives for them in the war- </p><p>The war is presumably the war against Jabesh of :12. The way it is called a "war" suggests the people of Jabesh fought back. There would have been yet more bloodshed, and it seems there were fewer virgin women captured than the Israelites had initially imagined. "Allow them" is literally 'show us grace'. Like many today, they spoke of grace with no idea of what it really means. They use the grace argument when the whole story shows that nobody knows anything about grace. Rather this is stilted legalism and yet further abuse of people. In response to the grabbing of one woman, the concubine, they are going to grab hundreds of women against their will. And to kidnap a person was a capital offence (Ex. 21:16).</p><p>You didn’t give them to them, so you are not guilty’- </p><p>Perhaps they mean 'Not guilty of breaking the oath not to give your daughter in marriage to Benjamites'. But the way of humility would have been to simply ask God to forgive them for a rash oath, or to just leave it all to God to decide, with faith He would somehow work it out. But when there is no human answer visible, then we tend to abandon faith in God and go for these kinds of bizarre human ways of resolving things.</p><p>Or the idea may have been that to give a daughter in marriage to a man of another tribe was a sin. But as the daughters had been taken away forcibly, it wouldn't count as a sin. We note their extreme legalism. And yet as legalists often do, they seriously contradicted themselves. For in this case, it would have been a sin for Benjamites to be marrying women from another tribe. So their solution to the problem was only leading people into sin. There seems no direct statement in the law of Moses that intermarriage amongst the tribes was a sin, although the implication of the principles of inheritance amongst the tribes was that it was far from ideal.</p>


text:
<p>So that is what the Benjamites did. They took wives for each of them from the girls who danced, and carried them off. They returned to their inheritance, rebuilt the cities and lived in them- </p><p>See on :22. Carrying them off implies to captivity. They were treating these Israelite girls as prey, taken in some Divinely sanctioned war. But God had not been consulted, and was not in any of this.</p>


text:
<p>Then the Israelites departed each to his tribe and family- </p><p>This is perhaps stating the obvious but in order that we imagine them returning home, with only tales of woe and not glorious victory. For they had lost 40,000 of their own men, and slain a huge number of their brethren both from Jabesh and all Benjamin. And arranged the kidnap of innocent girls from their families. Not much to boast about to their families. And so the point is made, that in conflict between brethren, there are only shameful losers.</p>


text:
<p>In those days there was no king in Israel; each man did that which was right in his own eyes- </p><p>This implies that the book of Judges as we have it was edited, under Divine inspiration, some time after Israel began to have kings. Perhaps during the exile, when again they had no king; and therefore the book becomes a warning to the exiles about likely apostacy. The lament may be that there was no authority, no teacher, no modelling of Godly living; because every man did what was right in his own eyes, rather than doing what was right in the eyes of Yahweh. For so often we read of Israel being condemned for doing what was wrong in His eyes. This is clear enough evidence that 'just follow your heart' is poor advice. For what is right in our own eyes results in the Godless confusion of what we find now at the time of the Judges. However it could be argued that having no human king was a good thing; for God didn’t want them to have one. And therefore a situation where everyone judges things by their own judgment is in fact good; the problem was that the people didn’t base their view upon God’s word, His "eyes" or perspective, but solely upon their own unenlightened opinions.</p>


text:
<e>Ruth: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>In the days when the judges judged, there was a famine in the land. A man of Bethlehem Judah went with his wife and two sons to live in the country of Moab- </p><p>The famine was because of Israel’s disobedience. The idea of famine was to bring the people back to God, but Elimelech [like many people today] responded poorly to it, and went away from God’s people by moving to Moab. In Moab he would be unable to come to the sanctuary, and his children ran the risk of marrying unbelievers; and seeing marriage required the father’s approval, their marriage out of the faith reflects poorly on Elimelech as well as on his sons. So we see how sin results in Divine intervention [famine, in this case]; that intervention is punishment, but it is aimed at reformation. But it can be taken the wrong way, and people who respond poorly to it are then driven even further from God. This is the way the downward spiral works; but the holy Spirit likewise is the dynamic of the upward spiral. See on :13. Doubtless Elimelech reasoned that God had placed him in a situation so awful that he simply must go to Moab. But God has promised never to put us in situations which force us to sin (Ps. 125:3; 1 Cor. 10:13), although in the heat of difficulty this requires faith to believe and accept. Indeed the road to Moab would have been via Jericho and across the Jordan, as it were inverting the path to the Kingdom which their ancestors had taken.</p>


text:
<p>The name of the man was Elimelech- </p><p>'God is king', reflecting the belief at the time of the judges (:1) that Israel had no human king because Yahweh was their king. But he went to live in the land of Moloch, a form of the Hebrew melech; Moloch who was presented as the real king rather than Yahweh, and this family were happy to go along with that on a surface level.</p><p>His wife’s, Naomi; his two sons’, Mahlon and Chilion- </p><p>The names of the sons mean "sickly" and "wasting away". So we are given the impression of a "pleasant" woman ['Naomi'] with two sickly sons and a materialistic husband, ever seeking a better deal in life, which never worked out. To have just two sons was a very small family for those days; for we get the impression they had no other children. We can imagine the child deaths, miscarriages etc. which led her to feel that God was not completely with her. And yet it was through all this that she came to Him so strongly.</p><p>They were Ephrathites of Bethlehem Judah. They came into the country of Moab, and stayed there- </p><p>As he now shifted to Moab for a better life, perhaps he had already made such a shift before; because he was a man of Ephraim who had moved to Bethlehem in Judah. We are presented with a family who always wanted a better life, but it never quite worked out. We have surely met this type in our lives. We note that many of the histories of apostacy in the book of Judges feature people from Ephraim, and it seems we are intended to read Elimelech's move to Moab as a continuation of that sad theme. The whole point of the story is that out of such weakness, at least one person [Naomi] holds on, and through her, indirectly [through Ruth] a wonderful movement of God’s Spirit is seen. And this too is a story we have all seen time and again.</p>


text:
<p>Elimelech, Naomi’s husband, died; and she was left, and her two sons- </p><p>See on :5. "Left" is usually translated "remained". The implication could be that she ought to have returned to Judah at this point, but she didn’t. She is really the classic case of someone out of weakness being made strong; Esther is another example. She came to realize and experience that indeed Yahweh is a protector of orphans and widows (<a href='B:230 68:5'>Psa 68:5</a>). It may be significant that Naomi is Elimelech's wife in 1:1 but by 1:3 he is now called Naomi's husband; she has had to adopt the prominent role because of his illness and weakness.</p>


text:
<p>The sons took wives of the women of Moab; the name of the one was Orpah, and the name of the other was Ruth. They lived there about ten years- </p><p>The very phrase "the women of Moab" recalls Israel's apostasy with the women of Moab in <a href='B:110 11:1'>1Ki 11:1</a>; indeed the Midianite women who led Israel astray in <a href='B:40 25:18'>Num 25:18</a> were connected with Moab (<a href='B:40 22:4'>Num 22:4</a>). Moabites were not to come into the congregation of Yahweh (<a href='B:50 23:3'>Deu 23:3</a>; <a href='B:160 13:1'>Neh 13:1</a>). The fact the Moabite Ruth was accepted into that congregation in such a major way was therefore an example of God’s great value of the human person as an individual, and He is willing as it were to break His own law to demonstrate the degree of that value He placed upon Ruth. With Elimelech dead, we can assume that Naomi was responsible for allowing these marriages to happen, because she refused to return to the land of Israel at that time (see on :3). In their culture, the mother had quite some role to play in the arrangement of marriages (see <a href='B:260 8:2'>Son 8:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Mahlon and Chilion both died, and the woman was bereaved of her two children and of her husband- </p><p>"Bereaved" is the word translated "left" in :3. We are given the impression of a woman who has the scaffolding around her life removed, bit by bit; for to lose all the men in her life was a major blow. And it brought her to passionate personal relationship with Yahweh. It seems she found Yahweh in Moab and not in Israel. And her commitment was so strong that it exuded from her, to the extent that Ruth was persuaded of Yahweh by her example. And this is the path so many must pass through; isolation and the removal of all human scaffolding leads us to personal relationship with our God.</p>


text:
<p>Then she arose with her daughters-in-law, to return from the country of Moab; for she had heard in the country of Moab how that Yahweh had visited His people- </p><p>"Visited His people" is an idiom for God’s action and intervention. It’s clearly not to be taken literally, and likewise the connected idiom of ‘coming down’ should not be read literally either. When God ‘came down’ in Christ, we are not to understand a literal descent of a pre-existent Christ to earth; but rather, the manifestation of God in His Son who was born on earth.</p><p>In giving them bread- The implication could be that there was a famine in Moab. Naomi's motives were not paramountly spiritual. Again, as noted on :2, she is moving around in search of a better life. We marvel at how God worked to get Ruth into Israel- the death of three men, the famine in Israel initially, the spiritual weakness of Elimelech, the punishment of the family (:21), the enduring faith of Naomi… all in order to bring Ruth into Israel. In the bringing of each person to Himself, there is likewise complex working with far-reaching effects upon unbelievers, for whom events have no personal meaning, and yet the events were for the sake of others. Thus large numbers of people suffered during the seven years famine in Egypt, with no personal meaning for themselves, because that famine was required to reunite the family of God.</p>


text:
<p>She left the place where she was, and her two daughters-in-law went with her. They began the journey to the land of Judah- </p><p>It seems the idea had been to accompany Ruth from where she was living in Moab, at least to the border of Judah. "Left the place where she was" uses the same words about Lot and his daughters leaving the place where they were in Sodom (<a href='B:10 19:12'>Gen 19:12</a>; <a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a>) to go to spiritual safety. And of course Moab was the fruit of Lot sleeping with his daughter when they did so. The allusion is therefore purposeful. The theme is as ever of spiritual weakness, and yet of people becoming strong for God out of that weakness.</p><p>The Hebrew is literally "To return to the land of Judah". I suggest the book of Ruth was written up or edited under inspiration in Babylon, as guidance and encouragement for those in captivity in Babylon to return to Judah. Despite having sinned and having endured judgment for that, and despite having lost many of their men folk, Judah were to follow Naomi’s example and return, taking any faithful Gentiles with them, and would like Naomi find unexpected blessing in the land, and a part in the family of Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said to her two daughters-in-law, Go, return each of you to your mother’s house, Yahweh deal kindly with you, as you have dealt with the dead, and with me- </p><p>God blesses those who bless the seed of Abraham, even if the members of the seed are spiritually weak (see on 1:1). Naomi shows her awareness of the Abrahamic promises by wishing this blessing upon her daughters in law, whom she considered had been ‘kind’ to her sons and husband and to herself too. Presumably this was said at the border of Moab and Israel. The women had accompanied Naomi there and the idea was that they should not return. Women travelling alone was unusual. We get the distinct impression of Naomi as being totally without male support in her life. This all drove her towards Yahweh as her Father, protector, provider and redeemer.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh grant you that you may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband. Then she kissed them, and they lifted up their voice, and wept- </p><p>"Find rest in the house of her husband" is an idiom for having a stable family life with children; note how <a href='B:80 3:1'>Rth 3:1</a> uses the same idiom: “Shall I not seek rest for you?” effectively means ‘I will try to set you up with marriage and a family’. The implication would therefore be that the women had not had children by Naomi’s sons, and the sons had both died suddenly. Naomi interpreted this as God’s judgment upon her (:20,21). Her bitterness with God was because she felt that her daughters in law had unjustly suffered [childlessness was seen as the greatest tragedy] only because of her and her family. Naomi is effectively telling these women that she considers that the God of Israel is responsible for their barrenness, and if they returned to their gods, and married one of their own people, they would likely have children and ‘find rest’ in family life. Ruth’s strong commitment to Naomi personally and to the God of Israel was therefore all the more remarkable; she accepted she may never have children, that Yahweh’s judgments upon His people sometimes affected Gentiles who happened to be involved… but she still so loved Him and wanted to devote herself to Him, despite His harder side. If there is really only one true God, then it is our duty to accept Him, even if we cannot attach meaning to events at the moment we experience them.</p><p>We note how Naomi openly and freely uses the word "Yahweh" (also in :8). Clearly she felt strong covenant relationship with Him.</p>


text:
<p>They said to her, No, but we will return with you to your people- </p><p>It was Naomi and not those Moabite girls who was returning. But they speak of "we will return" because they had come to so identify with Naomi. Or there may be the idea that they wanted to 'turn to' [another legitimate translation of shub, rendered here "return"] Naomi's people. Lot was the father of Moab, and the same words are used of how he was returned to his people by Abraham (<a href='B:10 14:16'>Gen 14:16</a>). The hint may be that they wanted to have this same grace shown to them due to the Abrahamic covenant. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said, Go back, my daughters. Why do you want to go with me? Do I still have sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands?- </p><p>"Go back" is the word for "return" in :10. Naomi is encouraging them to return or turn to their own people, and not hers. And Orpah accepts her encouragement (:15). Naomi apparently had only produced two sickly sons who survived to adulthood, and they had both prematurely died; and she felt herself to be barren. There was no legal requirement for a widow to marry the younger brother of a deceased husband, but it could be argued that any future children of Naomi had a duty to marry their late brother's wife and have children by her in his name. But that would be a very strict reading of the Mosaic legislation in this case, if not simply a wrong interpretation of the Levirate law. For the simple intention of the Levirate law was that if a man died, his brother was to marry his widow and have children by her. And it only applied to "brothers dwelling together". But Naomi has clearly thought it through; for all her apparent weakness and even apostacy as noted so far, she was aware of God’s laws. Despite having nobody to teach her there in Moab and no written scripture with her [she was surely illiterate anyway], she remembered the Mosaic law and thought through its implications:&nbsp;However her very strict interpretation of them in this case may suggest she is seeking every reason to discourage the young women to follow her back to Israel. And this makes Ruth's decision the more commendable.</p>


text:
<p>Go back, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say, ‘I have hope’, if I should even have a husband tonight, and should also bear sons-</p><p>See on :11. She considered herself barren (:11), but even if she should be able to have children, and they were males, and they lived... it would mean the young women would have to wait to many years that they would likely then be infertile. So Naomi considers herself a woman without hope, in human terms. And it is for those who perceive their hopelessness that the hope of Israel means the most. She also considers the laws of levirate marriage as unable to provide a way out of her hopeless situation. This is perhaps why she doesn't even suggest that Ruth approach Boaz when they first arrive in Bethlehem. It was really a case of being surprised by grace when she finds that in the end, the levirate laws will in fact be used as the vehicle to effect for her such a great salvation for both her and Ruth.</p>


text:
<p>would you then wait until they were grown? Would you then refrain from having husbands? No, my daughters, for it grieves me much for your sakes, for the hand of Yahweh has gone out against me-</p><p>See on :11,12. "Grieves" is a form of the Hebrew word Mara. It would seem from :20 that Naomi, for all her awareness of God’s word and faith in Him, was consumed by bitterness; and she publically acknowledged this. She was bitter because she felt God had unfairly punished her daughters in law for her sin and the apostasy of her family. This is so often a reason for bitterness with God- a sense that His judgments are unjust, and that the innocent wrongly suffer. The book of Ruth concludes with a happy Naomi raising her grandson who is presented as being in the direct line of Messiah. But this was a woman consumed with bitterness earlier. One lesson is that God still works with and through bitter people, even those who are angry and cross at Him. Another lesson is that in the final end, God’s utter grace and love is revealed through all His workings, even if at some points during the process, His actions seem totally unjust to us. But in the final, bigger picture, we realize that this was in fact the way of Divine love and grace, so far above any human plan.</p>&nbsp;<p>She was grieved because she felt that the judgments upon her for her sin (see on :1) were of such a nature that they had seriously affected these two Gentile women, in that they had been left young widows without children. The fact the two sons and husband died apparently at the same time would lead to the impression that this was an act from God, which Naomi understood as judgment for sin. The fact she retains her love of God and wants to return to Israel is therefore commendable; she responded the right way to God’s intervention and judgment, rather than going further away from Him as she had done previously when He intervened (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>They lifted up their voices, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law farewell, but Ruth stayed with her- </p><p>AV "Clave unto her", the same Hebrew word used of the ‘cleaving’ in marriage of <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>. And marriage has been the context of the discussion. Ruth is saying that she accepts childlessness and singleness, and in place of those things she wished to ‘cleave’ to Naomi, whom she saw as representative of Israel’s God. She was rewarded for this in an appropriate way- she wanted to dwell under the wings of Israel’s God (2:12), and He came to be manifested in Boaz, under the wings of whose garment she came (3:4,7,9).</p>


text:
<p>She said, Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people- </p><p>The word for "gone back" is that translated "return" in :10. The girls had originally intended to 'return' or 'turn to' Naomi's people, but now Orpah had decided to return to her people and not Naomi's people.</p><p>And to her god. Follow your sister-in-law- </p><p>Cp. AV “her gods”. The contrast is between Orpah returning to her god [Chemosh?] and Ruth stating in the next verse that she wants to accept Naomi’s God [Yahweh]. "Follow" would imply 'follow her back to follow her god'. And putting it like that, Ruth felt she had no choice but to cross the border of Moab / Israel, and totally commit to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Ruth said, Don’t entreat me to leave you, and to return from following after you- </p><p>She has a choice of following her sister in law to follow her gods, or to follow the apparently hopeless case Naomi, and follow her God Yahweh. It seems to me that it was Naomi's faith in her God despite her own personal weaknesses and Yahweh apparently failing to 'come through' for her in a short term sense... which actually attracted Ruth to Yahweh, through Naomi's example. The harder side of God is attractive in this sense. Because He is so evidently real and for real in human life. It is simply untrue that a God who appears to give immediate blessings is going to be the most attractive. The spiritually minded person will believe otherwise. See on <a href='B:80 2:23'>Rth 2:23</a>.</p><p>For where you go, I will go; and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God my God- </p><p>Ruth's rejection of her national gods and her people was a huge thing to do. We note that the name "Ruth" means "to water"; which was exactly what Moab had refused to do for Israel in <a href='B:40 25:1-3'>Num 25:1-3</a>. The hope of the restoration prophets was that a repentant Judah would return from the lands of the Gentiles, bringing with them Gentile converts. And I suggest the book of Ruth was rewritten in exile to support this, by demonstrating that it had happened before, historically. Not all Moabites were like Moab had been historically; a xenophobic Judah were to thereby remember that their own beloved king David was from Moabite stock, and any Gentile could come into the people of Israel. Evidence that the book has been rewritten is found in the impression that it was originally all in poetic form in very ancient Hebrew, but that appears to have been rewritten in a way which removes much of the poetic structure whilst adding later Hebrew words and Aramaisms (notably in <a href='B:80 1:13'>Rth 1:13</a>; <a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a>). Hence the need in <a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a> for the book to explain how things were done in "former times" in Israel.</p><p>The LXX of <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> is almost quoted by the Lord Jesus in an unusual way, at first blush. The Jesus who loved little children and wept over Jerusalem's self-righteous religious leaders, so desirous of their salvation, is the One who today mediates our prayers and tomorrow will confront us at judgment day. He is the same yesterday [as He was in His ministry], today [in His mediation for us] and for ever, as He shall be at His return. Perhaps the Lord called the disciples His “brothers” straight after His resurrection in order to emphasize that He, the resurrected Man and Son of God, was eager to renew His relationships with those He had known in the flesh. It’s as if He didn’t want them to think that somehow, everything had changed. Indeed, He stresses to them that their Father is His Father, and their God is His God (<a href='B:500 20:18'>Joh 20:18</a>). He alludes here to <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> LXX. Here, Ruth is urged to remain behind in Moab [cp. Mary urging Jesus?], but she says she will come with her mother in law, even though she is of a different people, and “Your people shall be my people, and your God my God”. This allusion would therefore be saying: ‘OK I am of a different people to you now, but that doesn’t essentially affect our relationship; I so love you, I will always stick with you wherever, and my God is your God’.</p>


text:
<p>where you die, will I die, and there will I be buried. Yahweh do so to me, and more also- </p><p>Ruth had learnt the Yahweh Name and already accepted Him as her God. Only a person who was in covenant with Yahweh could swear by Him, for in those days you took an oath by your gods (<a href='B:90 17:43'>1Sa 17:43</a>). The location of death and burial was significant to those who believed that their gods were geographically limited; you wanted to be buried in the land of your god so he could look after you. It's quite possible that Ruth and Naomi still had a somewhat limited view of Yahweh, as did Jonah and many others, thinking that He was the God of the land of Israel, and therefore must be served there. Their return to the land was a return to Yahweh. But of course the wonder of their stories, as they looked back at them, was that they had both effectively found Yahweh outside the land of Israel, and in a situation of great moral weakness and disobedience to Him. This was exactly the intention for the exiles in Babylon, for whom this book was likely rewritten and republished.</p><p>If anything but death part you and me- </p><p>The idea is that not even death would not part them, because Naomi says they will be united in their death and burial.</p><p>We note how Ruth's devotion to Naomi in Ruth 1:17 is alluded to by the Gentile Ittai, when he refuses to "return" and swears to be loyal to David in life or death (2 Sam. 15:20,21). Ruth 4 labours the point that David was descended from Ruth, and it seems David publicized this connection and Ittai grasped it in its spirit of serving God for nothing in this life.  </p>


text:
<p>When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she stopped speaking to her-</p><p>It was Israel who were to be "strong" (s:w. "steadfastly minded") in order to leave Moab and enter the land of Israel in faith that Yahweh would go with them, and give them an inheritance in that land (<a href='B:50 31:6-7'>Deu 31:6-7</a>; <a href='B:60 10:25'>Jos 10:25</a>). Again we see the relevance for the exiles in Babylon, who were urged to likewise be "strong" (s:w:) and leave Gentile lands and come back to Judah (<a href='B:290 35:3'>Isa 35:3</a>; <a href='B:290 41:10'>Isa 41:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>So those two travelled to Bethlehem- </p><p>AV "went until they came". This is the phrase repeatedly used of the travels of the patriarchs, who also left a Gentile land and came to inherit the land of Israel and enter relationship with Yahweh (<a href='B:10 11:31'>Gen 11:31</a>; <a href='B:10 13:3'>Gen 13:3</a>; <a href='B:10 26:13'>Gen 26:13</a>; <a href='B:10 28:15'>Gen 28:15</a>). Ruth is clearly presented as one who wished to act in faith as a true member of the seed of Abraham, and thereby to attain the "hope of Israel". We notice the intended contrast with Rachel, who died before she came to Bethlehem; the women likely passed by the spot where she died (<a href='B:10 35:16'>Gen 35:16</a>; <a href='B:10 35:19'>Gen 35:19</a>). The idea is that this wayward Israelitess and Gentile Ruth had more faith than Rachel, one of the founding mothers of Israel.</p><p>When they had come to Bethlehem, it happened that all the city was agitated about them, and they asked, Is this Naomi?- </p><p>They counted Ruth as part of Naomi; so the grammar demands. They were "agitated about them", asking "Is this [not "are these"] Naomi?". Her identity with Naomi was somehow apparent.</p>


text:
<p>She said to them, Don’t call me Naomi. Call me Mara; for the Almighty has dealt very bitterly with me- </p><p>She uses the term "Almighty" rather than Yahweh, although she knows the Name Yahweh (:21), because shaddai means 'fruitful', from shad, the breast. But she had lost the fruit of her womb and apparently didn’t even have any grandsons. She believed in Yahweh passionately, so much so that Ruth came to believe in Him because of her; but she has her deep struggles with His justice, and was bitter ["Mara"] because her character reflected how she felt He had dealt bitterly with her. We see how struggles with God’s "justice" do not completely preclude relationship with and faith in Him. There are many Biblical examples of that (like Job, David and Jeremiah). And our character and personality likewise is a reflection of our perceived experience of God. The convinced atheist will have an "empty" aspect to their personality because God is missing. Those who have experienced His grace will likewise have grace and patience as part of their characters. We note that the Divine record doesn't call her Mara but Naomi; whereas the record does recognize name changes such as Sarah, Abraham and Israel [Jacob]. Quite likely the change from Saul to Paul was of his own desire, and the record accepts it; but not this change from Naomi to Mara. The desire of a depressed woman was graciously overlooked by God.

Ruth's devotion to Naomi and the God of Naomi is really commendable. Because I suggest Naomi wasn't His best advertisment. But Ruth saw beyond that, she separated church from God, Yahweh from His people- and wasn't fazed by the channel of His revelation. She "clung" to Naomi (Ruth 1:14), using the word usually used for clinging to Israel's God. Her clinging to Naomi was because Naomi was representative of Yahweh for her. For Naomi herself was bitter, and I suggest, withdrawn into herself. She makes no comment upon Ruth's devotion to her (Ruth 1:18 "When she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she stopped speaking to her"), and encourages Ruth and Orpah to leave her to make the journey home alone; she tells them four times to "return!" and leave her alone (:8,11,12,16). She doesn't apparently tell Ruth that she has a wealthy relative in Bethlehem who might be able to assist them. Naomi proclaims to Bethlehem that she has returned "empty"; she doesn't mention the one thing she did have, the blessing of a wonderfully devoted daughter in law. It could be argued that Naomi's silence at the end of the story is significant. There is no hymn of praise from her, no gratitude to Ruth, no recorded expression of joy at the wonderful outcome. We may well wonder whether the women's words of Ruth 4:15 are not a gentle chiding of her to join in the joy rather than remain depressed: "He shall be to you a restorer of life, and sustain you in your old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him".</p>


text:
<p>I went out full, and Yahweh has brought me home again empty- </p><p>To be "full" was one of the blessings for obedience to the covenant, and the potential gift of God to Israel when they first entered Canaan (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:25'>Neh 9:25</a> s:w:). But she had left Israel assuming that those blessings were not fulfilled. See on :2. Now she realized that she had seen the cup half empty instead of half full. To be empty was to be without blessing (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:20 3:21'>Exo 3:21</a>; <a href='B:50 15:13'>Deu 15:13</a>). Boaz later tries to indirectly persuade her that this was not the case ultimately (s:w. <a href='B:80 3:17'>Rth 3:17</a>). She returned to Israel and to Yahweh of her own initiative, and yet she says that Yahweh "brought me home", s:w. "returned" (:22 etc:). He worked, and still works, in confirming the desire of every person who seeks to turn or return to Him and the Hope of Israel. She felt that although she had not experienced blessing from Him, indeed she had lost the potential blessings and was without His blessings, yet still she wanted to return to Him. Contrary to Pentecostal reasoning, the experience of "blessing" was not what attracted her to Him. Rather she wanted to simply be in relationship with Him, like the prodigal son returning from Gentile lands not looking for any material blessing.</p><p>Why do you call me Naomi, since Yahweh has testified against me, and the Almighty has afflicted me?- </p><p>Judgment is now, in a sense. She felt that God had judged and as it were legally testified against her for her various weaknesses discussed earlier in this chapter; her seeking for a good life rather than putting God first, not returning to Israel when her husband died, allowing her sons to marry Gentiles etc. But what she was yet to realize was that the apparent affliction was but a prelude to her greater deliverance. Likewise God afflicted Israel in Egypt to the point that even Moses felt it was too much (<a href='B:20 5:22-23'>Exo 5:22-23</a>), but only that He might bring them out to inherit the land of Israel (<a href='B:10 15:13'>Gen 15:13</a>). The God who forbad the affliction of the fatherless and widow like Naomi and her sons (<a href='B:20 22:22'>Exo 22:22</a>) would not ultimately willingly afflict His people, but only with their restoration in view (<a href='B:110 11:39'>1Ki 11:39</a>; <a href='B:220 37:23'>Job 37:23</a>; <a href='B:310 3:33'>Lam 3:33</a>).</p><p>But at this point, Naomi appears to not grasp this. And yet for all that, her faith in Yahweh was such that she persuaded Ruth to forsake all and follow Him; for all this mystery of His ways with men and apparent affliction of people with no game plan toward salvation yet in view. Indeed the word she uses for "afflicted" is that translated "to do evil" or 'be wicked' with a moral dimension (s:w. <a href='B:10 19:7'>Gen 19:7</a>; <a href='B:10 38:10'>Gen 38:10</a>; <a href='B:30 5:4'>Lev 5:4</a>; <a href='B:230 64:2'>Psa 64:2</a>; <a href='B:230 92:11'>Psa 92:11</a>; <a href='B:290 31:2'>Isa 31:2</a> and often). She comes close to accusing God of being wicked in His treatment of her. This is how bitter she was. And yet this didn’t preclude her desire to come to Him, and that desire and commitment to Him, the God whose ways she didn’t understand, was so powerful that it converted Ruth to Him as well. We simply learn from this that solving all the problems of Divine justice is not actually required for a person to have relationship with Him. Indeed the very existence of those problems actually leads humble people to believe in Him. That is the paradox which is totally missed by those who seem to think that endless apologetics will pave the way for folks to therefore and thereby believe in God.</p>


text:
<p>So Naomi returned, and Ruth the Moabitess her daughter-in-law with her, who returned out of the country of Moab- </p><p>We notice the double stress upon how they "returned". As noted on :21, it was God who 'returned' them. She says that Yahweh "brought me home", s:w. "returned" (:22 etc:). He worked, and still works, in confirming the desire of every person who seeks to turn or return to Him and the Hope of Israel. There is another similarity here with Abraham, who felt God had made him leave his father’s house and come to Canaan, even though this is what he had been commanded to do on his own initiative (see on <a href='B:10 20:13'>Gen 20:13</a>). Ruth returned or turned to Israel "out of" Moab, suggesting she came out from her own people in order to come to Yahweh; just as Abraham.</p><p>And they came to Bethlehem in the beginning of the barley harvest- </p><p>A reminder that there was indeed now bread in Israel. It would have been March or April, the time of Passover (<a href='B:20 9:31'>Exo 9:31</a>), heightening the connection between these women and Israel. For Israel left Egypt after being "afflicted" there (see on :21), to enter the land of promise.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s, a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech, whose name was Boaz-</p><p>"Kinsman" is literally 'one who knows'. Boaz ["strength", as in <a href='B:110 7:21'>1Ki 7:21</a>] is presented as a manifestation of Yahweh. He knew the situation exactly (:11), he was a gibbor ["mighty man"], with the wealth required to resolve the situation.  'Might' in those days was understood not just as monetary wealth, but in terms of wives and children. It is Sunday School Christianity to imagine him as a single man. And yet Naomi seems to have forgotten about him, or at least assumed her apostacy was such that he would be unable to assist. Again we see a similarity with the prodigal son, who returns to his father’s relative wealth but with the assumption he might just be able to get a job as a day labourer with him, but instead is welcomed into the family. Indeed the parable of the prodigal has so many similarities with the story of Ruth. The connections suggest that Naomi had indeed sinned and wasted her inheritance in Moab. Boaz was a descendant of the prostitute Rahab and Salmon, a prince of Judah (<a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a>; <a href='B:490 3:32'>Luk 3:32</a>); and a case can be made that he was one of the spies who first spent the night at her brothel. So he had Gentile blood within him, and was aware that Gentile women, even questionable ones, could be accepted into the community of God’s people.</p><p>The goel or redeemer role played by Boaz was representative of that played by Yahweh; the word is often used about His desire to be that redeemer figure for His people once they returned to the land. I suggested on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> that the book was rewritten, under Divine inspiration, and applied to the exiles as an encouragement for them to return to the land, bringing Gentile converts with them.</p><p>Clearly Boaz is a type of the Lord Jesus. He was from Elimelech's family, who were original Ephrathites from Bethlehem (Ruth 1:1,2 cp. Gen. 35:19). And this relatively obscure town was to be the birthplace of the Lord: "But you, O Bethlehem Ephrathah, who are too little to be among the clans of Judah, from you shall come forth for me one who is to be ruler in Israel, whose coming forth is from old, from ancient days” (Mic. 5:2). </p>


text:
<p>Ruth the Moabitess- </p><p>This is emphasized six times (<a href='B:80 1:22'>Rth 1:22</a>; <a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a>; <a href='B:80 2:6'>Rth 2:6</a>; <a href='B:80 2:21'>Rth 2:21</a>; <a href='B:80 4:5'>Rth 4:5</a>; <a href='B:80 4:10'>Rth 4:10</a>). The exiles who returned became very xenophobic against Gentiles, and one intention of the book of Ruth being reissued amongst them (see on :1) was to remind them that God deals with individuals, and there were faithful Gentiles as well as unfaithful Israelites. Her tatoos would've been noticeable and fascinating to untatooed Israelites, probably in honour of Moloch and Chemosh, she looked different, spoke Hebrew with a heavy accent and made grammatical mistakes, had a different body language. </p><p>
Moabites were forbidden to enter Yahweh's congregation, i.e. they could never become part of His people, and that is why marriage with Moabites is specifically outlawed (Dt. 23:3-6). The Rabbis argue that this only applied to male Moabites and therefore Ruth was able to enter Israel. I prefer to see it that Ruth was faced with an impossible situation- she desperately wanted to follow Yahweh, but it seemed her nature and simple fact she was a Moabitess alienated her from God, as well as from Israel- because at the time of the judges (Ruth 1:1), Moab were enemies of Israel (Jud. 3:12,15 the conflict with Eglon king of Moab; and Jud. 11:17 implies Moabites were connected with Ammonites during their conflict with Jephthah). But there is no alienation by nature from a truly loving God. Boaz perceived that and therefore didn't allow God's law to become a chain. The whole story of Ruth is full of this theme- that the spirit and not the letter of laws was discerned and obeyed (e.g. about Levirate marriage, gleaning etc]. He married Ruth to redeem the inheritance of Elimelech- who it seems had broken all the principles of separation from Moab by going to live there, and his sons had married Moabite women. Elimelech went there, a distance of only 50 miles from Bethlehem, because he perceived there was rain and therefore food in Moab, but not in Israel. He ought to have perceived that this was a specific judgment of Israel by God. Because they were only 50 miles away.</p><p>Said to Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean among the ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find grace- </p><p>If Naomi had Boaz in mind as a saviour, she surely would have suggested Ruth went and gleaned in his field. But she apparently doesn't suggest this, and is pleasantly surprised when she finds out Ruth happened to encounter Boaz. The encounter with grace is always a surprise to the recipient, for this is the nature of grace, and Naomi responds exactly as we would expect if she had indeed assumed Boaz would not help her. Ruth casts herself completely upon grace. To glean for dropped grain was for the poorest of the poor (<a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a>); and this is what they were.</p><p>We could however take the reference to Boaz in :1 as meaning that Ruth at least was aware of Boaz, and is describing him as the one in whose eyes she should find grace. It was Israel who were to find grace in Yahweh's sight (s:w. <a href='B:20 33:16'>Exo 33:16</a>); so perhaps the spiritually minded Ruth was looking for a person who would reflect Yahweh's grace to her. And indeed Boaz has been set up in :1 as a manifestation of Yahweh's strength and power to save. Ruth was proactive in seeking for grace, however, as we will see when she takes the initiative in proposing to Boaz that he marry her. We could also note that <a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. That's why Ruth says that she will have to find someone who shows her grace in allowing her to glean. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This would account for the hint in :22 that not every landowner allowed gleaning in their fields. Likewise he extrapolates from the law of Levirate marriage to marry Ruth; but as noted on <a href='B:80 3:13'>Rth 3:13</a>, this&nbsp; showing far more grace than the law actually required, seeing that the Levirate law only affected "brothers dwelling together".</p><p>It could be argued [from Dt. 24:1 "When a man takes a wife and marries her, if she finds no favour in his eyes because he has found some unseemly thing in her, he shall write her a bill of divorce"; 1 Kings 11:19; Esther 5:8; Jer. 31:2 "The people who were left of the sword found grace in the wilderness; even Israel, when I went to cause him to rest... Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love" cp. Ruth 1:9 "Yahweh grant you that you may find rest, each of you in the house of her husband"] <a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a>; <a href='B:110 11:19'>1Ki 11:19</a>; <a href='B:190 5:8'>Est 5:8</a>; <a href='B:300 31:2'>Jer 31:2</a> cp. <a href='B:80 1:9'>Rth 1:9</a> that to find grace in the eyes of a man meant that he would marry her. I suggest we are being told that subconsciously, this was Ruth's secret fantasy. Likewise Boaz's question "Whose is this woman?" betrays his subconscious fantasy of marrying her. It is a true romance, and looks ahead to our relationship with our redeemer, the Lord Jesus. Ruth perhaps entertained the hope or fantasy that she would find a wealthy landowner who would marry her. For this, humanly speaking, was the only way out of their desperate situation. It's rather like Joseph suggesting to Pharaoh that a man be appointed over Egypt's future harvests, and having the spiritual ambition to have himself in view for the appointment. Or Abigail asking David to "remember your handmaid" (<a href='B:90 25:31'>1Sa 25:31</a>), another possible idiom for marriage. And as with Ruth, that spiritual ambition paid off. What seemed impossible, that a Moabite Gentile beggar could marry a wealthy Israelite landowner and be welcomed into the community of Israel, actually came about. And I suggest Ruth had this spiritual ambition. Although when it began to come true, she was awed by the grace being shown to her.</p><p>She said to her, Go, my daughter- </p><p>Naomi was effectively a surrogate mother to Ruth. The idea of Ruth marrying Boaz had not initially even occurred to Naomi. She wishes her well in finding someone who would let her glean in their field, and that is all. It is only when Naomi tells her that a man called Boaz was kind to her, that the possibility appears to form in Naomi's mind. For levirate law didn’t really envisage someone of such a distance from Ruth as Boaz marrying her to raise up seed. See on <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She went, and came and gleaned in the field behind the reapers- </p><p>The barley was reaped by women, who tied the reaped grain into bundles, which were then gathered together into shocks for transport by the men to the threshing floor. See on :7.</p><p>And she happened to come to the portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech- </p><p>They practiced strip farming, the strips being defined by landmarks. This situation arose because of the land being constantly split up in inheritances, and was one reason why the anonymous kinsman didn’t want to mar his inheritance which he would leave by buying land which would revert to the son he was to have by Ruth, and would not remain in his name but in the name of that son. There was of course no "chance" to this ["she happened to:."]. One simple message of the book is that there is no chance. All was clearly meant to be, as God worked to respond to Ruth and Naomi's desire to come to Him. "She happened to come" is AV "Her hap was to light on...". The same phrase is used by Solomon in lamenting how such time and chance happens to all (<a href='B:250 2:14-15'>Ecc 2:14-15</a>; <a href='B:250 9:2-3'>Ecc 9:2-3</a>). He failed to learn the lesson from his great ancestor; that in fact there is no such thing as chance happening in the lives of those who love God.</p>


text:
<p>Behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, Yahweh be with you! They answered him, Yahweh bless you!- </p><p>We have here an insight into the spiritual mind of Boaz, openly using the Yahweh Name in the workplace. It is this kind of day by day spirituality which is the essence of the believing life. Yahweh's 'blessing' and 'being with' His people is however directly associated with generosity to those like Naomi and Boaz: "The foreigner living among you and the fatherless and the widow, who are within your gates, shall come and shall eat and be satisfied, that Yahweh your God may bless you in all the work of your hand which you do" (<a href='B:50 14:29'>Deu 14:29</a>). Perhaps the blessing called out upon Boaz by the people in his field was because they recognized that he was indeed blessing the foreigner, fatherless and widow. So his interest in helping Ruth and Naomi was genuinely spiritually motivated; the fact that Ruth was an eligible and perhaps attractive younger woman wasn't the primary motivation for his grace.</p>


text:
<p>Then Boaz said to his servant who was set over the reapers, Whose young woman is this?- </p><p>Boaz asking [in the Hebrew] whose is she, rather than who is she, might suggest it was love at first sight and he was immediately holding in mind the possibility of marrying her. It could be Ruth had the same feelings (see on <a href='B:80 2:13'>Rth 2:13</a>; <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>; <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>). The question 'Who is this?' as asked by Boaz of Ruth is to be understood as a statement of intended action and not read on face value. For he knew exactly who she was (:11). The same kind of question is asked by David about Bathsheba, even though he knew who she was because she lived next door to him and was the wife of his close friend (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>). Likewise when Saul enquires about who David is after his victory over Goliath (<a href='B:90 17:56'>1Sa 17:56</a>), it is not because he doesn't know him. For David had been already at the court of Saul. The question 'Who is this?' means that the questioner wants to do something for the person being enquired after.</p><p>"To whom does she belong?" are Boaz's first words. To which man, husband or slave owner- that was the question. And we can assume that he asks the question not just out of random interest, but because he was interested in changing that ownership and having her for himself. Ruth was unusual; her commitment to Israel's God had driven her to absolute poverty, homeless and hungry. But she was free- she belonged to nobody. Just to Yahweh. She was in that sense very attractive. She was vulnerable, but this is what brought her to the shadow of Yahweh's wings. Her behaviour at the threshingfloor in chapter 3 appears out of character with her, but apart from that, she presents as a woman of intense spirituality and utterly devoted to Yahweh and serving Him for nothing. He says that after observing her at work. This can be read as anything from love at first sight, to the abusive grooming interest of a powerful man in a vulnerable weak woman. There is no reason to think Boaz was single. And at this point, he didn't know anything about Ruth and her background- he noticed a woman whom he found attractive, possibly from observing her bending down to glean sheaves, and began finding out how he could get her for himself. His attraction to her was on a human level. The language is that of David enquiring after Bathsheba, in order to have her for himself sexually. But he becomes her saviour / go'el, and typifies the apparently random interest of God in those whom He wishes to love and save.</p>


text:
<p>The servant who was set over the reapers answered, It is the Moabite woman who came back with Naomi out of the country of Moab- </p><p>This implies that she was already well known in the small town. Her Moabite nature is twice stressed. But :11 suggests that the servant / foreman told Boaz all the back story on Ruth. Because it would've been natural for him and the other workers to ask this foreigner what her story was.</p>


text:
<p>She said, ‘Please let me glean and gather after the reapers among the sheaves’. So she came, and has continued even from the morning until now, although she stayed a little in the house- </p><p>The foreman reports that Ruth had asked to gather among the sheaves. This could be understood as meaning that she had the ambition and initiative to ask to not just glean, but gather some sheaves; or at least to go to where the bundled sheaves had been lying before transportation, and glean what grain had fallen there from the sheaves as they awaited transportation. The law required landowners to leave the edge of fields unharvested and not to return to harvest stalks which had escaped harvest in the center of the field. The barley growing at the edge of the fields was mixed with weeds and of lower quality than that growing in the center of the field. But she asks for more than this. She made a special request, to glean after the reapers in the center of the field, and Boaz confirms his agreement to it in :15. Boaz asks that Ruth not be put to shame for her request. Presumably she was driven to this shameful special request by the desperation of hunger. Likewise her throwing of herself at Boaz in chapter 3 was motivated by desperation. It is depseration that leads us to Boaz, our redeemer, the Lord Jesus. She didn't cynically think that Bethlehem, the house of bread with plentiful harvests, was not in fact coming true for her. She continues her humble devotion to coming somehow into the land shadowed by God's cherubic wings. She is hereby presented as having no extended family and being really desperately hungry and poor. With no legal hope of marrying into Israel. We observe the same forwardness in her coming to Boaz in Ruth 3 and offering herself in marriage to him. The narrative bids us reflect and interpret- was she "forward" and self seeking, or, spiritual and modest, but simply driven by desperate hunger to this uncharacteristic boldness? </p><p>"The house" refers to a temporary booth where workers could take rest in the brutal heath. The law about gleaning didn’t at all require that people should be allowed to glean right behind the reapers, "among the sheaves". It simply stated that if a sheaf was forgotten, the farmer should not return to collect it, but leave it in the field for the poor. That Ruth's utter poverty lead her to beg to be allowed to pick up the grain "among the sheaves" was far beyond this. That Boaz and his servant allowed it indicates how he saw beyond the letter of the law to the spirit, and this is what will be seen again in the very generous and far reaching extension he makes to the law of levirate marriage. The whole story is in fact about moving beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of it, which is grace. Ruth could be interpreted as being forward, but it seems to me that really she was driven to such going beyond the letter of the law because of her desperate need.</p><p>"Although she stayed a little in the house" is understood by LXX as meaning that she worked all the time, and didn't even take a break in the rest booth. The foreman is commending her hard working nature. And this is indeed how she presents- hard working, taking the initiative, yet totally devoted to Israel's God. And God responds to that.</p>


text:
<p>Then Boaz said to Ruth, Listen, my daughter: Don’t go to glean in another field, and don’t go away from here, but stay here close to my maidens- </p><p>The girls in view are the reapers, for the reapers were usually women, and it was the men who gathered the sheaves into shocks and transported them to the threshing floor. We note how the Lord likens His Angels to reapers, when this was a typically female work.</p>


text:
<p>Let your eyes be on the field that they reap, and go after them- </p><p>"Go after" the other women is to be connected with how Boaz later commends Ruth for not 'going after' men in the hope of marriage (<a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>). So we can conclude that he is directing her attention to the field before her; for already there was forming in his mind a plan to get a field for her of her very own. And by directing her eyes to the field he was surely hoping that the same possibilities would form in her mind too.</p><p>Haven’t I commanded the young men not to touch you? When you are thirsty, go to the vessels, and drink from that which the young men have drawn- </p><p>Boaz perhaps feared Ruth would go after the young men who were his harvesters.  Again we have a picture of his subconscious attraction to her, and his fear that she would be snapped up by one of the young men. Although he and they greeted each other in spiritual terms, clearly that may have been a mere formality as they were likely to abuse a vulnerable single woman. He commends her later for not having gone after young men (<a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>). It would seem that Boaz fell in love at first sight, but the basis of his attraction was her spirituality and devotion to Israel’s God (2:12,13).</p><p>Moabites were excluded from entering the congregation of Israel because they didn't give bread and water to Israel in the wilderness (Dt. 23:4-7). Boaz was a Godly man who makes allusion to the Torah in his words. So he was surely aware of this; and he is providing bread [grain] and water to a Moabitess. He understands grace and is reversing what Moab did to Israel, rather than simply legalistically obeying the law. Although he was in love with her, he also shows her the grace which is beyond the law. This going beyond the law in his attitude to her gleaning and to the Levirate marriage laws is a major theme of the book.</p>


text:
<p>Then she fell on her face and bowed herself to the ground, and said to him, Why have I found grace in your sight, that you should take knowledge of me, since I am a foreigner?- </p><p>Falling on the face, bowing and saying these very words is all what Moses did before Yahweh in the context of entering the covenant and entering the land (<a href='B:20 33:12-13'>Exo 33:12-13</a>). Abraham and Joshua did likewise (<a href='B:10 17:3'>Gen 17:3</a>; <a href='B:10 17:17'>Gen 17:17</a>; <a href='B:10 18:3'>Gen 18:3</a>; <a href='B:60 5:14'>Jos 5:14</a>). All the way through, Ruth sees Boaz as representing Yahweh, and his acceptance of her and redemption of her represented that of Yahweh. For she had come to Israel primarily because of her commitment to Yahweh and the covenant.</p><p>Ruth's feelings at this point, probably perceiving that Boaz also was in love with her as well as being gracious to her, all point to our feelings when we grasp the grace and special interest of God in little me. </p><p>But to 'find grace in the sight' of a man also means to be accepted by him as a wife (<a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a>). The words of both Ruth and Boaz always seem to have hints in them towards marriage; their feelings and hopes were clearly mutual, and this is the beauty of the story as romance. See on :13. Ruth is awed that he should give her grace in his eyes although she was a Gentile. She was aware of the prohibition upon Moabites entering Yahweh's congregation. But one of the themes of the book is that the spirit and not the letter of the law is to be followed. God cares for individuals and ultimately has relationship with persons rather than nations en masse. Ruth obviously lived in the hope that she could indeed enter the congregation of Yahweh and the letter of the law need not apply to her. She used the Yahweh Name and had specifically chosen to follow Naomi to Israel because of her commitment to Naomi's God, whom she had declared to be her God- whether or not&nbsp; God’s people accepted her. She was therefore thrilled to see hints that Boaz likewise was thinking outside the box, beyond the constrictions of mere legalism. And in Boaz she sees the representation of Yahweh towards her.</p>


text:
<p>Boaz answered her, I have come to know all that you have done for your mother-in-law since the death of your husband; and how you have left your father and your mother and the land of your birth- </p><p>The reason for Boaz's kindness was not therefore that he simply was showing grace to some random stranger. He was aware of Ruth's story from his servant as discussed above. Or we may ask: From whom would he have known all Ruth had done for Naomi, unless he had spoken with Naomi? For they were relatives. This paves the way for my suggestion on <a href='B:80 4:3'>Rth 4:3</a>; <a href='B:80 4:5'>Rth 4:5</a> that Naomi, the seller of the land, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. It could be that Naomi and Boaz had spoken and therefore he respects how she left her parents- implying they were still alive. But he would only have learned this from Naomi. </p><p>Again there is a double entendre in Boaz's words. For in <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>, marriage is defined as leaving father and mother and being joined to our partner. He says that she has indeed left father and mother- to come to Israel. But his words are pregnant with the implication that now she had left father and mother, she was to marry. And his grace toward her in entering the marital covenant was to reflect Yahweh's covenant being extended to her. These ideas are developed in Ruth 3. planned the whole legal situation we encounter in Ruth 4.</p><p>"Left your father and mother" is an allusion to "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” (Gen 2:24). Boaz is presented as clearly having marriage with Ruth on his mind at least subconsciously. He also is alluding to "“Get thee out of thy country and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house unto the land that I will show thee" (Gen. 12:1); and he applies these words about Abraham to Ruth, as if he sees her as spiritually one of Abraham's seed. Although his reference to Gen. 2:24 suggests he was her as eligible for marrige, his allusion to scripture and his Godly way of greeting his workers suggest that he was a Godly man, but one who fell deeply in love with Ruth at first sight and wanted her for himself. He uses the same Hebrew word for "cleave" in :8 "stay here close to my maidens". Subconsciously at least, he had Gen. 2:24 in mind and was thinking of marrying Ruth. Boaz was so distant as a relative that he was not at all obligated to marry Ruth. Any obligation for her could have come under the legislation of Lev. 25:23 about caring for your relative who has fallen upon hard times. </p><p>And have come to a people that you didn’t know before- </p><p>She had of course "known" Israelites before. So Boaz is using the idea of 'knowing' in the Hebraic sense of having relationship with. She realized that relationship with Yahweh means a relationship also with His people. John's letters likewise point out how the vertical relationship with God must have a horizontal dimension also. Boaz realizes this and wants therefore to manifest Yahweh's acceptance of Naomi. Her coming to Israel was therefore seen as coming to know God.</p>


text:
<p>May Yahweh repay your work, and a full reward be given you- </p><p>We may query Boaz's idea that Ruth's devotion to Yahweh should be rewarded with 'full wages'- which he imagines is his marrying of Ruth and production of a child by her. The language appears very works-centered. Grace is nowhere implied. And Ruth clearly left Moab without expecting any such reward. She came to Israel expecting that in line with Dt. 23:3-6, she would be unable to marry in to Israel. She came expecting nothing material in response to her devotion to Yahweh- and neither should we. But by grace she was given it. Boaz however reasoned that she should get 'full wages' for her devotion to Yahweh, and thus appears as less spiritual than her. Naomi likewise had said that Ruth should receive "hesed" / grace from Yahweh because of the "hesed" / grace Ruth had shown to Naomi. She prays Ruth will be rewarded with marriage and family in Ruth 1:9 and then in Ruth 3:1 she uses the same word in seeking to find Naomi such "rest" by her own device and scheming. The story line bids us enquire whether this 'measure for measure' approach is in fact right; we continually encounter God's gracious hand of providence, such as Ruth 'happening' to glean in Boaz's strips of land. As if to show that God's grace is of a different nature to the 'measure for measure' expectation of Naomi and Boaz [representing the entire Protestant work ethic], that good words should be rewarded by God. </p><p>These are the very words of the new covenant offered to Judah in Gentile lands (<a href='B:300 31:16'>Jer 31:16</a>). Again, as noted on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>, the book of Ruth was clearly rewritten with phrases and wordings designed to encourage the exiles to make the journey of Ruth and Naomi, and to accept Gentile converts and not oppress women, nor anyone, but to perceive the value of persons as Boaz had done. The fact Boaz says these words to her again shows him to be Yahweh manifest to her. He was to recompence her "labour" with practical care and the marriage covenant, and thereby was manifesting to her God’s covenant acceptance of her.</p><p>John writes that it is our ‘labour’, in the sense of hard mental effort, to know Him and believe in Him, which will have a ‘full reward’ (<a href='B:700 1:8'>2Jn 1:8</a>). John here is alluding to the LXX of <a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a>, where a ‘full reward’ is given to Ruth for working hard all day gleaning in the fields. It may be that this allusion was because “the elect lady” addressed by John was in fact a proselyte widow, like Ruth. John's allusion indicates that he understands Boaz as using "labour" to refer to her mental labour of coming to faith in Yahweh. But the point is, we have to labour, as much as one might work hard walking around a lake or gleaning in the field, in order to know the Lord Jesus Christ. For He told those who walked around the lake that they should not do that labour for food, but for relationship with Him.</p><p>From Yahweh, the God of Israel, under whose wings you have come to take refuge-</p><p>Again, he sees himself as manifesting that refuge which Yahweh was extending over Ruth. This was why he was preserving her life and her personal safety as she worked in his fields. See on <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>. After "Yahweh, the God of Israel", the LXX adds “to whom you have come”, implying that Ruth’s motivation for coming to Israel was in order to come to the God of Israel and take her place under His wings. Ruth was smart and spiritually ambitious; she sees Boaz as representative of Yahweh in that she later literally takes refuge under the wings of Boaz's garments in 3:10.</p>


text:
<p>Then she said, Let me find grace in your sight, my lord- </p><p>As noted on :10, to 'find grace in the sight' of a man also means to be accepted by him as a wife (<a href='B:50 24:1'>Deu 24:1</a>). The words of both Ruth and Boaz always seem to have hints in them towards marriage; their feelings and hopes were clearly mutual, and this is the beauty of the story as romance. She was here summoning the courage to indirectly suggest to Boaz that he could accept her as his wife. In the same way as she had the courage to throw herself upon Yahweh and claim covenant relationship with him, despite being a Moabitess.</p><p>Because you have comforted me, and because you have spoken to the heart of your handmaid- </p><p>This is very much the language of the restoration prophets in their message of encouragement to Judah in Gentile lands to return to the land (Isaiah 40; Isaiah 1; <a href='B:290 66:13'>Isa 66:13</a>; <a href='B:330 3:10'>Eze 3:10</a>). As explained on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>, the book of Ruth was rewritten under inspiration as encouragement to the exiles.</p><p>Although I am not as one of your handmaids- </p><p>This is one of a series of connections with the parable of the prodigal. As the son wanted to return to the Father as a servant although somewhat different from them, as he was a relative also, so Ruth felt. There’s an ambiguity in the last part of Ruth’s words here. It could be translated as “I don’t wish to merely be as one of your maidservants” (see NEB), with the implication, however vague, that she was thinking of marriage. This was then extended into the effective proposal she later makes to Boaz (see on <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>; <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>At meal time Boaz said to her, Come here, and eat of the bread, and dip your morsel in the wine- </p><p>Bread and grape juice was indeed appropriate fare for workers in the oppressive heat of harvest. But the invitation from Boaz to Ruth to partake of "bread and wine" is framed as having religious overtones. For nearly all Biblical references to "bread and wine" together have a spiritual, covenantal dimension or context. He was again seeking to encourage her that she had indeed entered covenant with himself and with Yahweh whom he represented to her.</p><p>This is the direct equivalent of the office girl being invited out for lunch with the boss. The invitation to dip her bread in his bowl of wine was an invitation to close friendship; the Lord used the same to Judas as a desperate last minute appeal to him to accept His love. When you've only just started work. But Ruth didn't as it were work for the firm. It was as if some random homeless person who goes around checking the bins at a factory... gets noticed by the CEO and invited to lunch with him. And this is God's grace to us. The fact she even said "Yes" says something about her. She was looking out for providential answers and ways forward, and was not just dumbly acceptive of her station and place. The random homeless person would likely decline such an invitation, at the very least because there is obviously some whiff of possible sexual expectation in it. But Ruth said yes. Here and in :15 we see Boaz not merely looking after the widow and foreigner, but showering her with attention and gifts. This can be read as nothing more than falling in love, or desiring her as his own. We need to perceive the absolute grace and wonder of having been invited to the Lord's table, to eat His bread and drink His wine; and never presume upon it, by getting offended that some human refuses to break bread with us. And never think to exclude others from that table and grace. For Ruth would hardly have turned around and told others to get away from Boaz's table. </p>
<p>She sat beside the reapers, and they reached her parched grain, and she ate, and was satisfied, and left some of it- </p><p>The legal requirement was that a poor person could pick grain and rub it in their hands to give a little food (<a href='B:50 23:25'>Deu 23:25</a>). But this was taking that law way beyond what it said, in a spirit of grace. She was given no passing snack; she ate so much that she left some of what she was given. And we will see that this is what Boaz does with the levirate marriage law too. But the parched grain was extended to her by the reapers. They too had absorbed the spirit of grace shown by their master. And indeed, ways of grace are contagious. The superabundance of grace is shown by her having more than enough to eat, and taking back for Naomi what she had left over from the meal (:18).</p>


text:
<p>When she had risen up to glean, Boaz commanded his young men saying, Let her glean even among the sheaves, and don’t reproach her- </p><p>The women reaped, tying the reaped grain into bundles, which were then gathered together into shocks for transport by the men to the threshing floor. It was unsurprising that there should be some protest at this gleaner picking up as much grain as they themselves were going to take home. "Reproach" is the word used in the restoration prophecies of how a repentant, regathered Judah would not be reproached (<a href='B:290 45:17'>Isa 45:17</a>; <a href='B:290 50:7'>Isa 50:7</a>; <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>). Her boldness in asking to glean even among the sheaves was not forwardness; she was driven to it by hunger and poverty. And it was that same desperate but proactive seeking for grace which led her to as it were propose to Boaz. Ruth was childless and a widow, both of which were a reproach to a woman (<a href='B:10 30:23'>Gen 30:23</a>; <a href='B:290 4:1'>Isa 4:1</a>; <a href='B:490 1:25'>Luk 1:25</a>). Boaz again is hinting that he wished to take away her reproach amongst men- by marrying her. And it was Israel in exile who were a reproach (<a href='B:230 44:13'>Psa 44:13</a>), which could be removed from them by God’s plan of redemption. "Fear not the reproach of men" (<a href='B:290 51:4'>Isa 51:4</a>) was God’s word of restoration to the exiles, but it was based upon Boaz's words to Ruth. They would forget the reproach of their widowhood and never be ashamed again (<a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a>; <a href='B:300 31:19'>Jer 31:19</a>), after the pattern of Ruth.</p>


text:
<p>Also pull out some for her from the bundles, and leave it; let her glean- </p><p>Again, we see Boaz hugely expanding upon the letter of the law about gleaning. And it was this spirit which was to climax in his development of the levirate law of marriage to allow him to marry Ruth. But we note that he began with the law and extrapolated its spirit further; he didn’t simply ignore it and act as he felt would be gracious according to his own native sense of justice and kindness. And there is a major lesson here. For so much that is claimed to be humanitarian aid is doing just that, and is not the same as the grace we see being developed, understood and practiced here. The law was a springboard toward grace, guiding the path and trajectory toward it; as Paul puts it, the law was a schoolmaster to lead men unto Christ.</p><p>And don’t rebuke her- </p><p>I noted on :16 that the restoration prophecy of <a href='B:290 54:4'>Isa 54:4</a> comforted the exiles that they would not be reproached again; and the same word for "rebuke" here is used in <a href='B:290 54:9'>Isa 54:9</a>, assuring them that their restoration would mean that they would not again be rebuked. Those prophecies were clearly allusive to the story of Ruth; she and Naomi are being held up as parade examples to the exiles, to return to their land and to their God. They were not to fear that their situation had put them on the wrong side of the letter of the Mosaic law, but to accept grace and reflect it to others, especially in how they treated women and Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>So she gleaned in the field until evening; and she beat out that which she had gleaned, and it was about an ephah of barley- </p><p>The beating out and winnowing was done in the evening when there was generally a stronger wind. There were ten omers in one ephah, and one ephah of manna could feed a man for a day (<a href='B:20 16:16'>Exo 16:16</a>; <a href='B:20 16:36'>Exo 16:36</a>). So this was a huge amount of barley, enough to feed a man for ten days. The abundance of provision by Boaz is clear, but we note also the abundance of the harvest, when neighbouring Moab was perishing from famine. There is here confirmation that Yahweh was blessing Israel at this time.</p>


text:
<p>She carried it, and went into the city where her mother-in-law saw what she had gleaned. And she brought out and gave to her that which she had left after she herself had enough to eat- </p><p>I calculated on :17 that this was a huge amount of barley, enough to feed a man for ten days. She also took home for Naomi what was left over from the meal of :14. The impression is that Boaz has done what the Lord Jesus also did for the hungry [including Gentiles] who loved the God of Israel, providing them with superabundance of food so that there was much left over for people who were perishing with hunger. This was all consciously orchestrated by Boaz. He had gone way beyond the letter of the law and just wanted to articulate the lavishness of God’s grace. And it is for us in our encounters with people to likewise lavish a reflection of the grace we have received.</p>


text:
<p>Her mother-in-law said to her, Where have you gleaned today? Where have you worked? Blessed be he who took notice of you!- </p><p>"Took notice" is s:w. "acknowledged" (<a href='B:10 38:26'>Gen 38:26</a>; <a href='B:50 21:17'>Deu 21:17</a>; <a href='B:50 33:9'>Deu 33:9</a>). Boaz had acknowledged her as a Gentile who was in covenant with Yahweh, had acknowledged her desire to be in His family. Just as Yahweh had done. The exiles (see on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>) were likewise encouraged that they would be acknowledged and blessed (s:w. <a href='B:290 61:9'>Isa 61:9</a>). We too have been taken notice of, and like Ruth we go our way loaded down with Boaz's grace and special love, shown to us in the bread of the communion meal.</p><p>She showed her mother-in-law with whom she had worked and said, The man’s name with whom I worked today is Boaz- </p><p>We may note that she speaks not of working for a man, nor of just being given gifts; but of working together "with" Boaz ["with" is stressed twice]. She answers the question as to "where" she worked by explaining with whom she had worked. We are increasingly getting the impression that Ruth and Boaz are unconsciously working together towards the same end conclusion, as lovers do. But as those who truly love God also do.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said to her daughter-in-law, Blessed be he of Yahweh, Who has not left off His grace to the living and to the dead- </p><p>Clearly Naomi recognizes that Yahweh's grace was being articulated through that of Boaz. The Bible is clear that death is unconsciousness. But Naomi perceives that through being gracious to her and Ruth, Yahweh was also being gracious to their dead husbands. Both of them had not been spiritually strong, as discussed on Ruth 1. But His grace is very deeply perceived by Naomi; she sees His grace to her and Ruth as also in a way being grace shown to their husbands, despite their bad decisions during their lifetimes. And when analyzed, Divine grace does indeed appear to have ever increasing facets and aspects the more we consider it; His grace is therefore "manifold" or multi-coloured, as a crystal refracting light (see on <a href='B:670 4:10'>1Pe 4:10</a>). She may already have in mind now that if Boaz married Ruth and they had a child, this would be a grace to the dead Mahlon, as a seed would be raised up.</p><p>Naomi said to her, The man is a close relative to us, one of our near kinsmen- </p><p>Yahweh is clearly the go'el of His people; the near kinsman redeemer / go'el of Jacob (Gen. 48:16), of Israel from bondage (Ex. 6:6; 15:13); the term is used of Him so often (Ps. 19:15; 69:19; 74:2; 107:2 and throughout Isaiah). But then Israel were told that they were to redeem / be a go'el to their relatives who had fallen upon hard times  (Lev. 25:25-30). Yahweh is that close to man, our kinsman redeemer. And we are to reflect that saving interest and grace to others. Boaz went a step further by also using the spirit of the Levirate marriage laws to marry Ruth. She and Naomi made it a condition to the other 'redeemer' that re-purchase of Elimelech's property was under the condition that the purchaser married Ruth and had children by her in Elimelech's name. Boaz is the only named human to whom go'el is applied. He clearly is to be seen as a type of the Lord Jesus. His falling in love with Ruth out of all the other women around therefore speaks of how the Lord, for some reason, fell in love with us, outside the legal scope of redemption; and we took the initiative in responding. The NT frequently uses the language of redeemer and redemption about the Lord Jesus, the greater man from Bethlehem (Rom. 3:24; Gal. 4:5; Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:14). Yahweh was the go'el but was manifested through Boaz, just as His redemptive love and purpose was manifested in the Lord Jesus. This is the significance of Naomi saying “May he be blessed by the LORD, whose kindness has not forsaken the living or the dead”. The antecedent of "whose" could be Boaz or "the LORD". Ruth showed hesed / grace / covenant kindness to Naomi (Ruth 3:10), and that grace is returned to her by Boaz on God's behalf (Ruth 4:10,13). We too can be vehicles of the reflection of God's grace to others.  </p><p>The idea of the returned exile being saved by a goel, a redeemer, connects with the frequent descriptions of God as Judah’s redeemer at the time of the restoration; the word occurs multiple times in this context in the latter chapters of Isaiah. The possibility of a goel marrying Ruth had apparently not occurred to Naomi in <a href='B:80 1:11-13'>Rth 1:11-13</a>, where she understands the goel to only possibly marry herself, and then her resulting sons might then marry Ruth and Orpah. That the goel could marry Ruth had not previously occurred to her. Perhaps because this wasn't what the Levirate law legally required, or perhaps because she considered that no true Israelite ought to marry a Moabitess like Ruth. Or because she considered Boaz too old and possibly impotent. But now she sees beyond the letter of the law to the possibilities of grace. And this is indeed what affliction and providence lead us to.</p>


text:
<p>Ruth the Moabitess said, Yes, he said to me, ‘You shall stay close to my young men, until they have ended all my harvest’- </p><p>The end of all the harvest meant both the barley and wheat harvest which followed it (:23). It is emphasized that Ruth "Stay close" to the young women (s:w. :8,23). Yet she reports this to Naomi here as saying that she had been told to "stay close" to the young men. Exactly why is unclear to me. It is the same word used of how Ruth "clave" to Naomi (<a href='B:80 1:14'>Rth 1:14</a>). It is also the word of cleaving to a partner in marriage (<a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>), and cleaving to Yahweh in covenant relationship (<a href='B:50 30:20'>Deu 30:20</a>; <a href='B:60 22:5'>Jos 22:5</a>; <a href='B:60 23:8'>Jos 23:8</a>). Boaz's servants were effectively him. The language is again to demonstrate that Ruth's cleaving to Boaz was an acted parable of her cleaving to Yahweh; and his usage of the word was surely to suggest that she might cleave to him in marriage. It was God’s wish that His exiled people should cleave to Him (<a href='B:300 13:11'>Jer 13:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Naomi said to Ruth her daughter-in-law, It is good, my daughter, that you go out with his maidens, and that they not meet you in any other field- </p><p>This could mean that not every landowner allowed gleaning in their fields:&nbsp; <a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. See on :2.</p><p>"Meet" is s:w. "entreat" in <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>. Naomi could see that others might be impressed by Ruth and want her association with them, perhaps with a view to marriage. But although Boaz was old, she was sure that he had to be the right candidate for Ruth because he was the relative who could raise up seed for Mahlon. She thereby put spiritual principle first. The levirate law didn’t strictly apply to Ruth and she was free to marry whom she wished.</p>


text:
<p>So she stayed close to the maidens of Boaz, to glean to the end of barley harvest and of wheat harvest- For "stayed close", see on :21.</p><p>And she lived with her mother-in-law- </p><p>This may be a reminder that despite their feelings for each other, Boaz and Ruth didn’t live together before their marriage. It was the fulfilment of Ruth's promise in <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>: "where you lodge, I will lodge". But it may also be an allusion to <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>, as there was in :11. Ruth lived with her mother, but she was to leave her and cleave to a husband. She had emigrated to Israel solely for the sake of relationship with Yahweh; she had begged Naomi not to entreat her to "leave" her (<a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a>). She was resigned to a single life for the sake of her devotion to Him. But she was to be surprised by grace; she was in fact going to do just that [in terms of <a href='B:10 2:24'>Gen 2:24</a>] when she married Boaz.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi her mother-in-law said to her, My daughter, shall I not seek rest for you, that it may be well with you?- </p><p>"Seek rest" is an idiom for finding a marriage partner. See on <a href='B:80 1:9'>Rth 1:9</a>. Ruth had given up any hope of this in order to follow Yahweh, and Naomi had stressed that returning to Israel with her would mean not finding rest in this sense. But now the possibilities of grace beyond the law occur to Naomi. The lights go on, as they have in the minds of all who start to perceive grace. It was a man who sought a wife, yet the record here stresses the initiative taken by Naomi and Ruth. <a href='B:300 31:22'>Jer 31:22</a>, in a restoration context, speaks of how “a woman shall compass a man” (AV), i:e. a woman would take the initiative. And this surely alludes to the story of Ruth and Naomi. God’s people were to take the initiative with their redeemer, believing He would respond.</p><p>Naomi tried to "seek rest" for Ruth, i.e. to get her married, yet in Ruth 1:9 she has prayed that Yahweh would "find rest" for Ruth. So she is seeking to answer the prayer in her own strength. Seeing Boaz had taken an interest in marrying Ruth anyway, I suggest that Naomi goes too far in trying to get Ruth to sexually compromise Boaz and offer herself to him in marriage. And the otherwise highly commendable Ruth perhaps fails in going along with the suggestions. Had they done nothing, Boaz likely would have engaged the other possible redeemer and married Ruth anyway, without all this trying to force and work out answers to prayer in human strength and scheming. If this is the correct reading, then we have an exhortation to not act as if 'God helps those who help themselves'. That is the way of works, rather than trust / faith. The whole narrative in chapter 3 is intentionally left begging our reflection and interpretation- does Naomi suggest the right thing, and was Ruth right to obey her? Is she showing faith by what she suggests, or is she trying to force an answer to prayer in her own strength and by her own device? We note that the incident makes no mention of God; rather is it a night time intrigue, shrouded in secrecy. If this whole incident were omitted, would Boaz still have redeemed and married Ruth? Probably so. The lesson is that we can impatiently try to force things through in our own strength as Naomi did. </p><p>
This incident is at the end of the barley and wheat harvest (Ruth 2:23); and Ruth and Boaz first set eyes on each other at the beginning of the barley harvest (Ruth 1:22). This means an interval of seven weeks. Perhaps Ruth and Naomi perceived that Boaz had a romantic interest, but was not moving forwards on it. And so Ruth takes this initiative. Why did Boaz delay, when he was clearly attracted to Ruth? Seven weeks is not a long period between first meeting and getting engaged. But it seemed that way to Ruth and Naomi. Perhaps one reason is revealed in his commendation of Ruth for not following after young men. He had earlier told her to keep away from the young men wolf whistling her as she gleaned. But he realized she would be better served in a human sense by marrying a young man rather than an old man like himself, who would likely leave her widowed a second time in life. So his delay was to test her. And in these thoughts we see another window onto the Lord's apparent delay with us, despite His undoubted love and desire to redeem us. </p><p>
But the events of chapter 3 aren't Ruth, Naomi nor Boaz at their best. Boaz is drunk. Ruth is like us, aware of the redeemer's love, but wanting things to move faster. Had Ruth not done what she did, Boaz's love for her would've led her to marry and redeem her anyway. But she didn't feel that love and acted inappropriately., somewhat rushing things in her own strength. Just as we do in our relationship with our redeemer. The Sunday School Christianity view of things certainly breaks down in this chapter.</p>


text:
<p>Now isn’t Boaz our kinsman, with whose maidens you were? Behold, he winnows barley tonight in the threshing floor- </p><p>Threshing floor at harvest time was an immoral place, associated with prostitutes and cheap women: "the harlots hire on every threshing floor of corn" (<a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). A case could be made (but see on :3) that the plan was that Ruth would come to Boaz at night whilst he was drunk, dressed up appealingly, and sexually compromise him into marrying her. Ruth is to be commended for not doing as Naomi apparently intended her to; for she doesn't have sex with Boaz, or at least, he refuses this. Although, all dressed up to attract and with him somewhat drunk, she removes his bed sheet and sleeps next to him. This would’ve been so difficult for a woman like Ruth, who appears by all accounts an upright woman- more upright, if this were the case, than her Jewish mother-in-law who hatched the plan. The suggestion in :4 that Ruth lay down with him is indeed vague but could arguably suggest sexual contact; and "feet" there could be a euphemism as in <a href='B:330 16:25'>Eze 16:25</a>, a passage which as we shall show was in Naomi's mind. Uncovering the skirt is also capable of sexual interpretation; see on :9. The whole story, of deceiving a man into marriage, coming to him by night, when he’s likely slightly drunk... all recalls the situation of Jacob being tricked into marrying Leah [for surely Jacob couldn’t have been quite sober if he really didn’t know that the woman he was sleeping with wasn’t in fact his beloved Rachel]. The motif of deception appears common to both histories. The connection is heightened by the villagers wishing Ruth fertility like Rachel and Leah (<a href='B:80 4:11'>Rth 4:11</a>). They also wish her the fertility of Tamar (<a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a>)- who also deceived a man using sexual compromise. See on <a href='B:80 2:13'>Rth 2:13</a>. But Ruth was already known as a woman of integrity (:11), who wasn't chasing men (:10). This strongly weighs against the idea that she was practicing sexual manipulation.</p><p>But perhaps the simple reality was that "winnowing was generally done at night, in order to take advantage of the breeze". This meant that the grain remained there overnight, and Boaz perhaps Boaz slept by his corn because he feared it being stolen at night. Israel after all was emerging from a time of famine and the corn would have been valuable.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore wash yourself, anoint yourself, get dressed up, and go down to the threshing floor, but don’t make yourself known to the man until he has finished eating and drinking- </p><p>There is a lot more to this than Springsteen's "Put your makeup on, fix your hair up pretty / And meet me tonight in Atlantic City". Likewise the advice to wait until he has finished eating and drinking is not simply secular wisdom, waiting until his heart was merry. She does these things and then asks for Boaz to spread his skirt over her (:9), which although not recorded here, was also what Naomi told her to do. What is "more" to all this is that Ezekiel describes Israel's coming into covenant with God in the wilderness as involving bathing, washing, anointing and the spreading of the skirt of the covenant, which the historical record states was accompanied by Israel's representatives eating and drinking before Yahweh (<a href='B:330 16:8-12'>Eze 16:8-12</a>). And see on :5. Whilst Naomi's advice may all have been fair enough on the secular level, her language choice clearly indicates that she has the covenant at Sinai in mind. And Boaz is clearly represented as manifesting Yahweh to Ruth (see on <a href='B:80 2:1'>Rth 2:1</a>). Naomi and Ruth were not simply sexual manipulators, there was without doubt a deeply spiritual element in all this. Whether that was the sole aspect of the carefully planned encounter is open to debate, but that spiritual dimension cannot be denied.</p>


text:
<p>It shall be, when he lies down, that you shall note the place where he shall lie, and you shall go in, uncover his feet, and lay down; then he will tell you what you shall do- </p><p>Laying with a man and uncovering his feet could imply sexual contact; see on :2. "Feet" there could be a euphemism for the sexual organs as in <a href='B:20 4:25'>Exo 4:25</a> and <a href='B:330 16:25'>Eze 16:25</a>, a passage which as noted on :3 was in Naomi's mind. But she was apparently to note the place where he was laying, and only return to it later that night. And it was quite likely that the threshing floor had other men sleeping on it as well, protecting their piles of corn (see on :2).</p><p>Ruth generally presents as a very spiritual woman, and this incident I suggest is her low point. It was a case of out of character behaviour, less than her best, sub optimal spirituality, rather than sin. And we all have such cases in our lives. If the incident were removed from the story, it's clear Boaz would still have redeemed Elimelech's land and would have married Ruth, as he was in love with her. So the cunning plan of Naomi and Ruth was in fact unnecessary. God's love for us obviates the need for any human device and cunning to bring it about. </p>


text:
<p>She said to her, All that you say I will do- </p><p>I noted on :3 that both women have consciously in mind the covenant at Sinai, and this is word for word the agreement made between Israel and Yahweh in <a href='B:20 19:8'>Exo 19:8</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She went down to the threshing floor, and did according to all that her mother-in-law told her- </p><p>Her complete obedience to the idea of entering covenant is emphasized. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p>When Boaz had eaten and drunk and his heart was merry- </p><p>The mention of this is an inconvenient truth for those who wish to portray Boaz and Ruth as parade examples of peerlessly spiritual believers who fell in love with each other. I have discussed on :2,4 whether Naomi and Ruth were being sexually manipulative in their plan. I overall decide against it. But it is simply so that human motivation is rarely pure, and faith is rarely total. The completed harvest was typically a time of sexual immorality and over eating and drinking. That Ruth should come to him precisely at this time, at night, and that he is described as having a merry heart from drinking... is all unfortunate for any argument for the peerless spirituality of Boaz and Ruth. The situation simply reminds us of their humanity. Ruth's, in that she apparently did capitalize upon Boaz's weakness, instead of inviting him to have a sober meeting with her to discuss things. Boaz's, in that every mention of a heart merry from drinking is in a very negative spiritual and moral context (<a href='B:90 25:36'>1Sa 25:36</a>; <a href='B:70 19:6'>Jdg 19:6</a>; <a href='B:70 19:22'>Jdg 19:22</a> cp. 18:20; <a href='B:110 21:7'>1Ki 21:7</a>). And yet it is through their weakness and humanity that their reality and spiritual greatness shines through. They, who were so weak and human, had such faith and spiritual insight.</p><p>He went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain. She came softly, uncovered his feet, and laid herself down- </p><p>Ruth seems to me to be a wonderful example of a spiritually ambitious person. It was unheard of in those times for a woman to propose to a man; yet by coming to him, uncovering his feet and laying under his mantle, she was stating that she wished to see him as a manifestation of God to her (<a href='B:80 3:7'>Rth 3:7</a>; <a href='B:80 3:9'>Rth 3:9</a> = <a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a>). She went&nbsp; after him, following him (<a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>); the poor, landless Gentile aspired to be a part of a wealthy Jewish family, in order to fulfil the spirit of the Law. And she attained this. As noted on :1, this was to be the inspiration for the exiles, when a woman was to compass a man.</p>


text:
<p>It happened at midnight, that the man was startled and turned himself; and noticed a woman lay at his feet- </p><p>"Startled" is too mild a translation. The Hebrew is "trembled", and is used about trembling at the prospect of Divine judgment (<a href='B:290 32:11'>Isa 32:11</a>; <a href='B:330 32:10'>Eze 32:10</a> s:w:). Why would be tremble in this way if he awoke, sensing someone else near him, and find it to be the young woman whom he had his eye upon, and she was effectively proposing to him. Surely a different word would have been used, rather than one which expresses such fear and trembling in anticipation of judgment. He had got drunk (:7), and now he awakes, sober. He sees a woman near him, and he trembles at the thought that whilst drunk, he may have slept with one of the prostitutes who frequented harvest floors (<a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>). He had done wrong in getting drunk. But because he realized this and trembled because of his failure, what might have been the night of his shame became the most wonderful night of his life, humanly speaking. The young woman of his dreams proposes to him. And so again we see Divine grace; that in the very midst of human failure, and recognition of that failure... God acts to pour out His grace. We have likely all experienced this in our lives, and we see it so wonderfully at this point in Boaz's life.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Who are you? She answered, I am Ruth your handmaid. Therefore spread your skirt over your handmaid- </p><p>When Boaz asks Ruth "who are you?" he uses the same Hebrew term as Naomi does when Ruth returns: "Who are you?" (:16). The import is the same: Are you married? Boaz's extreme nervousness of :8 can be read as his extreme angst as to whether she had come to tell him that she had found someone else to marry.  </p><p>But she had taken the initiative and spread his skirt over herself (:4,7).  Boaz had earlier wished that Yahweh would bless her for wanting to be under the shadow of His wings (2:12), but Ruth takes the initiative herself in doing this. Just as Naomi asked Yahweh to give Ruth "rest" in the house of a husband (1:9) but seeks on her own initiative to arrange this (3:1). Spreading the skirt over a woman was understood as an invitation to marriage, alluding to how birds spread their wings ["skirt" is Heb. 'wing'] in mating. But she is alluding to his earlier comment that she had taken refuge under Yahweh's wings; she wants to marry him because she wants to be under Yahweh's wings. She was asking him to confirm the initiative which she had taken, and to manifest the God of Israel to her, under whose wings she had come from Moab to come under (<a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a> LXX). The same Hebrew words for ‘spread… skirt’ are those used to describe how the cherubim “spread their wings” (<a href='B:20 25:20'>Exo 25:20</a>; <a href='B:20 37:9'>Exo 37:9</a> etc:). She saw God manifest in that man, her goel / redeemer. To uncover the skirt of a person can mean to have sex with them (<a href='B:50 22:30'>Deu 22:30</a>; <a href='B:50 27:20'>Deu 27:20</a>). ""Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt... A man must not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt"). So Naomi's plan was clearly of sexual manipulation or compromise. But Ruth and Boaz refuse this, and commendably have a spiritual perspective throughout. But clearly she wants marriage, redemption and family life rather than just sex. But this could play along with the possibility of sexual manipulation discussed on :2. For you didn’t sleep sharing the same blanket unless you were married. But she asks him to do this because he is "a near kinsman", and not for passing pleasure or money. LXX, following the targum: "Let thy name be called upon thine handmaid to take me for a wife". Ruth was already known as a woman of integrity (:11), who wasn't chasing men (:10). This strongly weighs against the idea that she was simply practicing sexual manipulation; although see on :7</p><p>Ruth's actions were clearly inviting Boaz to marry her; and yet she saw in him a representation of Yahweh too. The connection is made clear in Ez. 16:8: “I spread the corner of my garment over you and covered your nakedness; I made a vow to you and entered into a covenant with you, declares the Lord God, and you became mine”. Ruth clearly is taking the initiative in offering herself in marriage to Boaz. But we wonder whether she knew his level of feeling for her. We the readers are aware of this from Ruth 2, but she may not have been. And so we have the classic romance, that she finds herself in love with a man in love with her; and the apparently insuperable barriers between them, religious, ethnic, cultural and of class [social] are overcome. And this is exactly how it is between God and ourselves; "and going out to meet Him, I met Him coming towards me".  </p><p>For you are a near kinsman- </p><p>This was an appeal to the spirit of the law and not the letter. Because legally, in terms of levirate law, Boaz wasn't the goel. And he wasn't even the closest relative. The levirate law operated when "brothers dwell together". And that wasn't the case. Under Mosaic law, a Moabite woman was not to be married. At best it could be argued that a relative of Elimelech's could marry Naomi and raise up seed to him. But she was barren. It was a stretch of levirate law for Boaz to marry Ruth, let alone that she should take the initiative and proposition him to that effect. The idea of Ruth marrying Boaz had not initially even occurred to Naomi, so we can deduce from <a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a>. I suggest that Ruth was not simply being a forward, manipulative woman. She and Naomi had thought through the levirate law, and were seeking to extend its implications according to the spirit of grace rather than law. See on :12.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Blessed are you by Yahweh, my daughter. You have shown more grace in the latter end than at the beginning, inasmuch as you didn’t go after young men, whether poor or rich- </p><p>Heb. "You have made this last kindness greater than the first". His idea may be that she had not gone chasing men in Moab, because she wanted to follow Yahweh and not the gods of those men. That was her first grace. And now she had shown another grace or kindness, in that she wanted to marry Boaz because she perceived him to be a spiritual man and manifestation of Yahweh; and because she chose him specifically because of her respect in the principles, although not the letter, of the levirate laws of the covenant. He rightly perceives that his wealth was not an item of attraction. His usage of the word grace / kindness is slightly out of context, but we can understand it if he saw that out of it all, it was a kindness to him for a young, attractive widow to offer to marry him as an old man. Jewish tradition claims that he died soon after their marriage; perhaps his old age was one reason why the idea of Boaz marrying Ruth didn’t initially occur to her. It can also be understood that her first kindness was to her late husband and his family. She wanted to raise a Godly seed for him, even though he was apparently weak in faith; and so her first kindness was that she had refused her Moabite suitors after his death. And now the second kindness was in being willing to marry an old Israelite man in order to continue her kindness to her first husband, by raising a Godly Israelite seed for him.</p><p>Boaz here recognizes that Ruth is ‘going after’ him. He feels she is showing him grace- reciprocating the grace he had shown her in the harvest fields. Just as he had invited her to see God’s skirt spread over her (<a href='B:80 2:12'>Rth 2:12</a>), so she is asking him to spread his skirt over her. Her ambition in effectively proposing to Boaz, a Gentile nobody proposing herself to a man of the Jewish establishment, is indeed inspirational. See on 2:13. The GNB probably catches the idea: "You are showing even greater family loyalty in what you are doing now than in what you did for your mother-in-law”. This is looking very positively on Ruth- she was desperately poor, childless despite a previous marriage, and to throw herself on a rich distant relative in the hope of marriage and long term support was all absolutely human and natural. But Boaz, with the imputation of goodness which comes from being in love, saw her boldness and desperation in a very positive light. He liked to think of it as her showing grace to him, the old guy.</p><p>We note that grace is mutual. Boaz had shown grace [hesed] to Ruth (Ruth 2:20), and Ruth showed that grace to Boaz. And this is how God's grace works; we respond to it by showing it to others, and they in turn show it to us. Hence Peter talks of the "manifold grace of God", the refracted, multi coloured grace. Once you show Divine grace, or reflect it, then it is in turn reflected. This is why 2:20 is ambiguous- "Blessed be he of Yahweh, Who has not left off His grace [whose grace? Boaz's or Yahweh's?] to the living and to the dead". So do not think that showing grace to people is useless because it is not appreciated. Someone somewhere in some way will reflect it further.</p>


text:
<p>Now, my daughter, don’t be afraid; I will do to you all that you say- </p><p>Again, as noted on :5, this is the language of the covenant at Sinai. Ruth does all Naomi says, and Boaz does all Ruth says. The power of faithful, spiritually minded women is being emphasized, in a male dominated society. We note that both Boaz and Naomi call her "daughter". "I will do all that you say" needs some reflection, because there was an apparent legal obstacle to marrying Ruth on the basis of redeeming her. There was the closer relative. Boaz's promise "I will do..." therefore assumes that he is going to work through even that. Just as the Lord's pledge to us means the same. As the chapter concludes, He is not in rest until He has worked, tirelessly, to overcome absolutely all the seemingly insurmountable obstacles between us and Himself. </p><p>So much was against Ruth. Yet she had boldly stated that Naomi's people would be her people, and Yahweh, Naomi's God, would be "My God" (1:16), in allusion to the promise that Abraham's seed would have Yahweh as their God (Gen. 17:7; Ex. 6:7). Despite the fact that Moabites were not allowed to be Israel. Through Boaz and his love and ability to "make it work", she was empowered and enabled to overcome all the obstacles:</p><p>- She was poor, gleaning out of hunger. Whilst there was no caste system in Israel, marriage between rich and poor was unusual. </p><p>
- She was a Moabite and Moab had recently during the time of the Judges abused Israel; and the record seven times calles her a Moabitess</p><p>
- Moabites were not to be married nor allowed into the congregation of "My people"</p><p>
- The women of Moab had led Israel astray in Num. 25:1 and were known as immoral</p><p>
- She was not a virgin but a widow who had no male supporter as she had left her father and mother [Boaz says]. A woman with no male relative around had no legal status and was effectively not a person, certainly not a legal entity able to get properly married</p><p> 
- She had been married before but had produced no children during a ten year marriage (1:4), which was a significant "minus" in those days. The patriarchal society of the day would have blamed her as the woman for this. The fact her husband and father in law had died made her out to be some kind of "femme fatale" for Israelite men to marry.</p><p>
- She likely was tattooed with the symbols of Moloch and Chemosh</p><p>
- Boaz was not Elimelech's closest living relative; the other relative wanted the land but didn't want to marry Ruth.</p><p>
Hence Ruth falls on her face before Boaz's grace: "Why have I found grace in your sight, that you should take notice of me, seeing I am a foreigner?" (Ruth 2:10). We too appear a hopeless case in seeking relationship with God Almighty. But His love and interest in us can overcome all the apparently insurmountable barriers between us. The book of Ruth is set during the time of the Judges, in Bethlehem. The only mention of Bethlehem in the book of Judges is in Jud. 12:8-10: "Ibzan of Bethlehem judged Israel. He had thirty sons and thirty daughters. He sent his daughters away in marriage, and brought in thirty women for his sons. He judged Israel for seven years. Ibzan died and was buried at Bethlehem". We wonder if Jewish tradition is correct here, and Ibzan was Boaz. He is characterized by a desire to "bring in" women for his sons to marry; possibly implying he had a mission to bring Gentiles to the Hope of Israel. His salvation of Moabite Ruth could therefore be seen in this context. </p><p>For all my people in this city know that you are a worthy woman- </p><p>That Ruth was already known as a woman of integrity rather precludes the possibilities discussed on :2 that there was an element of sexual manipulation going on. Although human behaviour and motivation is rarely pure, and we cannot totally rule it out, as discussed on :7. "Worthy" is the same word translated "wealthy" in <a href='B:80 2:1'>Rth 2:1</a>. Boaz was a worthy / wealthy man, and Ruth was a worthy woman, who was to be also wealthy when she married Boaz. They were perfectly suited for each other in moral and spiritual terms, and "all my people in this city", all the family [including the nearer kinsman], knew this. If this reading is correct, the idea of them getting married would not have come as a shock to the elders of the city in Ruth 4. It also confirms my suggestion later that Boaz and Naomi had agreed that the condition of buying her field was that the purchaser marry Ruth. They had had the two months or so of barley and wheat harvest (<a href='B:80 2:23'>Rth 2:23</a>) to work things out and have some kind of courtship.</p>


text:
<p>Now it is true that I am a near kinsman; however there is a kinsman nearer than I- </p><p>But I explained on :9 that the levirate law didn’t really define Boaz as any kind of goel. He was only that through a seeking to extend its implications according to the spirit of grace rather than law. But he goes along with the idea. She appeals to grace, and he already understands that grace goes beyond the letter of the law. <a href='B:50 24:19'>Deu 24:19</a> doesn't make allowing gleaning a binding law upon landowners. The text simply states that "When you reap your harvest in your field and have forgotten a sheaf in the field, do not go back to get it. It shall be for the foreigner, for the fatherless and for the widow". By allowing gleaners to come and pick up dropped grain, Boaz's grace was going far beyond the letter of the law. This would account for the hint in <a href='B:80 2:22'>Rth 2:22</a> that not every landowner allowed gleaning in their fields. And he was a descendant of the Canaanite prostitute Rahab, who had been allowed to marry into the princely line of Judah (<a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Stay this night- </p><p>This presumably was because it was dangerous for a woman to walk at night, or because he didn’t want Ruth to be thought of as a threshing floor prostitute (<a href='B:350 9:1'>Hos 9:1</a>) by being spotted walking near the threshing floor alone late at night. I suggested on :2 that Boaz slept by his corn to protect it from wandering thieves. But by saying this, he sets himself up already as her protector.</p><p>And it shall be in the morning, that if he will perform for you the part of a kinsman, so be it; let him do the kinsman’s part- </p><p>Although as explained on :12 the whole idea of Boaz being the goel was a long stretch of the law, he was willing to take the spirit of the law and extend it by grace. But this didn’t mean that he therefore disregarded the original principle behind the grace he was willing to show. And he therefore is careful not to simply flout Divine law and principle in the expression of grace. And this is an important principle to grasp for all time. Seeing he was clearly in love with Ruth, this was no painless formality for him.</p><p>But if he will not do the part of a kinsman for you, then will I do the part of a kinsman for you, as Yahweh lives. Lie down until the morning-</p><p>The levirate laws stated only that the brother of the dead was to perform the duty of levirate marriage. And the duty only concerned "brothers dwelling together". Seeing Elimelech had left Israel, this hardly applied in this case. We get the sense throughout that Boaz wants to marry Ruth; and that he was showing far more grace than the law actually required. Just as he allowed gleaners in his fields, extrapolating from the letter of the law towards a far more gracious position; see on <a href='B:80 2:2'>Rth 2:2</a>.</p>


text:
<p>She lay at his feet until the morning. She rose up in the dark; for he said, Let it not be known that a woman came to the threshing floor- </p><p>This could be what he said to himself, explaining his reasoning for sending her away before others had woken up. I suggested on :13 that he asked her to stay the night because&nbsp; it was dangerous or unseemly for a woman to walk alone at night. He was concerned that people didn’t think he had slept with her. Perhaps the thinking of the Mishnah (Yeb. 2:8) was already current, whereby "a man suspected of having sexual relations with a gentile woman is excluded from performing the levirate with her".</p>


text:
<p>He said, Bring the mantle that is on you, and hold it. She held it; and he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her; and he went into the city- </p><p>By removing her "veil" [AV in order to hold the barley, she was effectively removing the sign of her widowed status. Surely there were other means of transporting it, but Boaz is acting in faith that indeed he will marry her.</p><p>Kathleen Abraham has "published an interesting marriage contract. The contract is dated in the month of Adar in the fifth year of king Cyrus. The marriage is concluded between Nabuban-ai [a wealthy Babylonian], and Nanaya-Kanat, a fatherless woman". To make her his wife, "he will bind six minas of silver in the hem of her garment". I suggest that we have something similar here- six measures of barley, in her garment. Not admittedly "minas of silver", but there are strong outline similarities. This was another guarantee that despite the legal barriers, Boaz was going to overcome them and marry Ruth. Rather like we have been given the Holy Spirit as the deposit of guarantee against the day of our final redemption. The marriage contract is very similar in style to the situation in Ruth 4- the man at the gate of the town, making the contract before God and the elders, and receiving the blessing of the elders and a wish for many children. "Six measures" is a huge amount... she left loaded with blessing which promised and guaranteed yet more. It is as if Boaz was saying that although he had not given Ruth his semen, his seed, as Naomi wanted, he all the same was giving abundant seed to the family- and that's why he wanted Ruth to show the seed to Naomi.</p>


text:
<p>When she came to her mother-in-law, she said, How did it go, my daughter? She told her all that the man had done to her- </p><p>"Had done" rather than "had said" is perhaps significant. We could read her as meaning that he had promised to marry her. But again we cannot escape the thought that what he had "done" to her was to sleep with her or at least be sexually intimate with her, as discussed on :2. The huge amount of barley given her in :17 would then be some form of payment or at best concession that he had not acted completely correctly by her. Perhaps this whole question is indeed raised by the text, but left tantalizingly unanswered. It would be part of the story line which intrigues and holds attention, and leaves us with the caveat that for all their faith and spirituality, Ruth and Boaz were not sinless but still human.</p>


text:
<p>She said, He gave me these six measures of barley; for he said, ‘Don’t go empty to your mother-in-law’- </p><p>"Empty" here is s:w. <a href='B:80 1:21'>Rth 1:21</a>, where Naomi laments that she is "empty": "I went out full, and Yahweh has brought me home again empty". To be "full" was one of the blessings for obedience to the covenant, and the potential gift of God to Israel when they first entered Canaan (<a href='B:50 6:11'>Deu 6:11</a>; <a href='B:160 9:25'>Neh 9:25</a> s:w:). But she had left Israel assuming that those blessings were not fulfilled. See on <a href='B:80 1:2'>Rth 1:2</a>. Now she realized that she had seen the cup half empty instead of half full. To be empty was to be without blessing (<a href='B:10 31:42'>Gen 31:42</a>; <a href='B:20 3:21'>Exo 3:21</a>; <a href='B:50 15:13'>Deu 15:13</a>). And so here Boaz tries to indirectly persuade her that this was not the case ultimately; she was going to receive blessing such as she could never have imagined, even in this life. She felt that although she had not experienced blessing from Him, indeed she had lost the potential blessings and was without His blessings, yet still she wanted to return to Him. Contrary to Pentecostal reasoning, the experience of "blessing" was not what attracted her to Him. Rather she wanted to simply be in relationship with Him, like the prodigal son returning from Gentile lands not looking for any material blessing- and yet all the same finding it.</p><p>Naomi had lamented that she had left Judah full but returned empty (Ruth 1:21). Boaz uses the same word here, wanting to persuade Naomi that through his grace, she would not be empty. Naomi's return "empty" was really the consequence of her sin, just as we all experience. But Boaz the redeemer, the clear type of the Lord Jesus, was reversing the consequences of Divine judgment upon sin. </p>


text:
<p>Then she said, Sit still, my daughter, until you know how the matter will end; for the man will not rest- </p><p>"The matter will end" uses the word usually translated "fail". The idea could be "Wait and see whether our plan has failed". "The matter" is the Hebrew translated elsewhere as "word" or "thing". Not one word failed of God’s plan to bring Israel from Moab into the land and give them an inheritance there (s:w. <a href='B:60 21:45'>Jos 21:45</a>; <a href='B:60 23:14'>Jos 23:14</a>). And neither would this word for Ruth's redemption fail either.</p><p>Until he has finished the thing this day- </p><p>Literally, "fulfilled the word". And Boaz did do so, manifesting God to the exile Naomi and the Gentile Ruth. The very same phrase is used of God fulfilling His prophetic word of restoration through the decree of Cyrus to restore Judah from Gentile lands to Israel (<a href='B:150 1:1'>Ezr 1:1</a>). See on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> for the relevance of Ruth to the restoration. Isaiah alludes to this by saying that God has no rest until He has restored and redeemed His people. God likewise is restlessly at work for our redemption. Beyond the steely silence of the skies and the impression of a passive, inactive God who exists but rarely acts... there is in fact a restless activity working towards our redemption, through all the obstacles. </p>


text:
<p>Now Boaz went up to the gate- </p><p>This fits exactly with Bethlehem being built on a ridge. The accuracy of fine details like this throughout the Biblical record confirm that indeed the Bible is not a fictional work of men but the inspired words of God. Chapter 3 had left us with Ruth having taken the intiative in proposing to Boaz, and him promising her that he will indeed marry her, and asking her to remove her veil to receive a huge volume of his seed- a sign she was no longer a single woman. She was as it were assured of salvation and had been given a guarantee of it, just as we have been in the Holy Spirit. 
</p><p>And sat down there. When the near kinsman of whom Boaz spoke came by he said to him, Come over here, friend, and sit down! He turned aside, and sat down- </p><p>The near kinsman sits down, and in :2 the elders sit down. This all leads on from the information in <a href='B:80 3:18'>Rth 3:18</a> that Ruth too is sitting down, but at home, nervously and eagerly awaiting the result of the sitting down of the men. This is all part of the inspired story line and suspense. For we all want to know whether Ruth ends up having to marry a man who doesn't love her when she has already a lover. The narrative of loveless marriages, girls loving men whom they can't marry and marrying men they don't love and who don't love them... this has for ever been the stuff of Middle Eastern stories. And there is that intrigue inserted into this story, a kind of carrot to get human attention- in order to introduce us to some of the profoundest issues of Divine and human grace.</p><p>"Such a one" (AV) is right; NEV "friend". The idea is "So and so". His name is intentionally not mentioned- he who refused to preserve the name of his brother, will not have his name remembered. Our record with God is presented as directly related to our attitude to our brother. Just as Ruth "happened" to go to glean in Boaz's strips in the field, so it "happened" that the closer relative passed by. Again we see that higher hand of Providence working with human initiative, Divine sovereignty and human freedom perfectly meshing together.</p>


text:
<p>He took ten men of the elders of the city, and said, Sit down here. They sat down- </p><p>Note the emphasis upon sitting down; see on :1. It's as if the cameraman of Divine inspiration is zoomed in close on the men in the scene; truly we can play Bible television with these verses.</p><p>The Hebrew Bible places the book of Ruth right after Proverbs 31, because Ruth is seen as the epitome of the virtuous woman of Prov. 31. "Her deeds will praise her in the gates" (Prov. 31:31) is the spirit of Ruth 3:13, where Ruth is well known as a virtuous woman. "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land" (Prov. 31:23) is exactly the position of Boaz in Ruth 4:2. So we could say that the genealogy at the end of Ruth 4 is significant in that it shows Ruth to be the ancestor of David and Solomon [it skips some generations to make this point], and they wish to show that their ancestor Ruth was the worthy virtuous woman. </p>


text:
<p>He said to the near kinsman: Naomi, who has come back out of the country of Moab, is selling the parcel of land, which was our brother Elimelech’s- </p><p>Just as Boaz had no legal necessity to allow gleaning in his fields, nor was he legally obligated to be the goel to Ruth (see previous discussions in Ruth 2, 3), so he here appears to be somewhat stretching legal truths. For this is the first we hear of Naomi owning land. Mosaic law didn’t allow inheritance by a widow (<a href='B:40 27:8-11'>Num 27:8-11</a>); the property was to pass to the husband's family, not to his widow. Elimelech had long since left Israel and forsaken his inheritance, and we would assume that his parcel of land had passed already to someone else. And there appears no legal requirement for the kinsman to consider the land as jointly owned now by Ruth and Naomi, and to make purchase of the land contingent upon marrying Ruth and having children by her. The issue of property seems unrelated to the levirate law which Boaz was seeking to apply to himself. Surely he could have offered Ruth in marriage to the near kinsman, and married her if he refused.</p><p>We naturally enquire why he raises this issue of property. There are various options. It could simply be that there were Jewish laws in place at the time which we don't have access to, and Boaz is alluding to them. For in practice, the Mosaic laws would have required other practical laws added to them in order to enable to functioning of society in practice. Or perhaps the parcel of land in view had been inherited by Naomi from her father, in a situation akin to that of Zelophehad's daughters in Numbers 27; or maybe Naomi was related to her husband Elimelech, which might explain their lack of children and poor health of the two who survived to adulthood. Or perhaps it belonged to Naomi in the sense that it should have passed to Mahlon and Chilion, but as they were dead, she was their legal representative and had the right to dispose of it as they were childless (:9). Or "The property was perhaps promised to Naomi as a marriage-gift or bequeathed to her at marriage to provide for her husband's predeceasing her without leaving a child".</p><p>It was absolutely possible for women to inherit property from their father (as in <a href='B:220 42:13-15'>Job 42:13-15</a>), and for a woman who had been a period in Gentile lands to return to Israel and have her inheritance restored (<a href='B:120 8:1-6'>2Ki 8:1-6</a>). Because of her poverty, Naomi was selling the land which somehow she had legally inherited. But the need to marry Ruth if the land was purchased is not in accordance with any Mosaic legislation or even logic. Therefore it has been suggested that :5 should be translated&nbsp; "On the day you acquire the field from Naomi's hand, I am acquiring Ruth the Moabite, the wife of the deceased, to raise up the name of the deceased over his inheritance". And on reflection, the near kinsman pulls out of the property acquisition because he can see legal problems developing in the next generation if Ruth has children who would also claim it.</p><p>Maybe Boaz raises this whole issue of the property simply because he indeed did want to keep the land in the power of Ruth, and he wanted to make his advertising of his marriage to Ruth somehow incidental. He would then be using the property issue as a kind of blind, a distraction, to take attention away from his declaration of intent to marry Ruth. But we wonder why the night before he had told Ruth that he would like to be her goel, but there was a nearer kinsman who legally could do this.</p><p>My preferred answer is that Naomi, the seller, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. Any children Ruth had would then inherit the land. And therefore Boaz had been unable to agree immediately to marry Ruth because he needed to get the near kinsmen with the first right of purchase to actually not purchase it.</p><p>I conclude, therefore, that between them, Boaz and Naomi are seeking to expand the spirit of the levirate law of Deuteronomy. The spirit of that law was that the widows should be protected and be given children. By various mechanisms and schemes, they were expanding and keeping the spirit of the law but not the letter. Yet they didn’t disregard the letter of the law, but sought to give the near kinsman the opportunity to buy the field and formally turn down the chance of marrying Ruth. This is in harmony with the way that Boaz had expanded the spirit of the law about not fetching home a forgotten sheaf to mean that he allowed women to glean in his field. And this is exactly the spirit of Yahweh's redemption of His people.</p>


text:
<p>I thought to disclose it to you saying, ‘Buy it in the presence of those who sit here, and of the elders of my people’. If you will redeem it, redeem it; but if you will not redeem it, then let me know. You have first right to redeem it; and I am next in line. He said, I will redeem it- </p><p>See on :3 for the various options of interpretation. John the Baptist's comment that he came "after" Jesus, and that Jesus was the redeemer rather than he himself (<a href='B:500 1:15'>Joh 1:15</a>) contain a strange allusion to the words of the redeemer-who-was-incapable-of-redeeming in <a href='B:80 4:4'>Rth 4:4</a>. Boaz told him that "I am after thee" (AV, NEV "next in line"), but in the end the incapable-redeemer plucked off his shoe as a sign of unworthiness to redeem (<a href='B:80 4:7'>Rth 4:7</a>). And John surely also had this in mind when he commented that he was unworthy to unloose Messiah's shoe (<a href='B:500 1:27'>Joh 1:27</a>). The allusions are surely indicative of the way John felt like the unworthy / incapable redeemer, eclipsed before Boaz / Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Then Boaz said, On the day you buy the field from the hand of Naomi, you must buy it also from Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of the dead, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance- </p><p>I concluded on :3 that Naomi, the seller, had made a condition of buying the land that the purchaser also married Ruth. The record doesn’t state contact between Boaz and Naomi; although see on <a href='B:80 2:11'>Rth 2:11</a> for the suggestion that they worked out this plan together in the months of barley and wheat harvest. Naomi had told Ruth to just sit tight and wait and see what Boaz would arrange over the next 24 hours. We note too that Boaz didn’t give the anonymous kinsman the full picture- he firstly mentioned the land for sale / redemption, and only then mentions that this would involve marrying Ruth and raising children by her in the name of Elimelech. The Levirate law only required brothers to raise up children to their dead brother. Elimelech had not died childless, so there was no legal requirement to raise up children in his name. Ruth’s former husband had no living brothers. Therefore Boaz was operating according to the spirit of the law and not the letter of it; there was no legal requirement for the kinsman to marry Ruth and have children by her. But Boaz seems to be playing legal and psychological games to make the anonymous man turn down the offer of marrying Ruth- so that Boaz could then marry her on the basis that this was his legal necessity. The truth seems to be that he fell in love with her at first sight, and was going through all this appearance of legal necessity in order to somehow legitimize that fact. We likewise noted how he spoke of Ruth and Naomi’s manipulation and desperate appeal to him for help to in fact be a display of Divine grace (see on <a href='B:80 3:10'>Rth 3:10</a>).</p>&nbsp;<p>If in some way the levirate law was being strictly followed, and I discussed possibilities for this line of thought on :3, then we reflect that the principle would have often required men to become polygamous. A man "must redeem" the property of a dead relative in some cases by marrying his wife; but this would have resulted in polygamy. Boaz himself may have been already married. There are times when the standards of God contradict each other, on a surface level.</p><p>It could be argued that the Levirate law was not applicable. This was not a case of "brethren dwelling together". So how could Boaz insist that buying the land meant that the relative "must" marry Ruth? It could be that he had arranged that Naomi and Ruth made this a condition. Or it could be that he is saying that the spirit of the law "must" be followed, which required also marrying Ruth. We have noted before with Boaz's attitude to gleaning rights that he considered the spirit of the law to effectively be the letter of it. The Levirate law, if it was even being applied, meant that the relative must redeem the land for Elimelech; but Boaz is adding the clause that seeing Naomi is too old to have children, then the spirit of the law would be to marry Ruth as the next of kin relative able to produce children. It seems from Dt. 21:15,16 that when a man died, his wife didn't automatically inherit his land [that is a Western, modern assumption], but his sons did: "If a man has two wives, the one beloved and the other hated, and they have borne him children, both the beloved and the hated, and if the firstborn son be hers who was hated, then in the day that he causes his sons to inherit that which he has, he must not make the son of the beloved the firstborn before the son of the hated, who is the firstborn". Boaz may have been arguing that seeing Elimelech's sons were dead, the spirit of the law was that a relative should raise up a son for him so that the land could be passed to him. This is very much the spirit and not the letter of the law, but Boaz considers that this "must" be done. Because the spirit of the law is effectively the law. Although we must beware of creating hedges around laws. But the spirit of the law is the law, and that is a principle for us for all time. Just as we are saved by our Redeemer according to the spirit of the law, whereas by the letter of it we have no chance of redemption. We also have to accept the Lord Jesus as our near relative. In the same way as it seemed hard to understand that Boaz could stretch to be the near relative of Ruth, so it may seem hard to understand how the Lord Jesus can be our near relative / kinsman redeemer. But we are helped in this by understanding His humanity, nearer to us than we dare to believe, and able to become nearest and dearest to us. For Ruth is every one of us. The Lord clearly alludes to her when He speaks in Mt. 19:29 of “everyone who has left houses or brothers or sisters or father or mother or children or farms for My name’s sake, will receive many times as much, and will inherit eternal life". </p><p>
It should be noted that seven times, Ruth is called a Moabitess. Moabites were not to be married. Boaz however married her in line with the spirit of the many laws and implications that Gentiles could enter into Israel. It's rather like the law of sin and death condemning every sinner to the wages of their sin, which is death. And yet the spirit of the law enables salvation. We see Boaz, the redeemer, getting to that spirit in that he could legitimately marry a Moabite and she entered into the community of Israel.</p>


text:
<p>The near kinsman said, I can’t redeem it for myself, otherwise I will spoil my own inheritance. Take my right of redemption for yourself; for I can’t redeem it- </p><p>Land at that time was organized according to strips of land within a field, rather than owning a field. Even wealthy Boaz only owned part of the field (2:3). Strip farming was very inefficient; upon death, land was split up between the children, and then when they died, the land was split up even further. The anonymous man didn’t want to have any more children because it would mean that what he was leaving as an inheritance would be even more reduced and divided. But because of that, he remains anonymous. He was concerned about what would happen over the next generation or so. By contrast, Boaz wasn’t worried about splitting up yet further the inheritance which he was leaving- and because of that, he left an inheritance which was recorded and stretched right down to the Lord Jesus.</p><p>It seems to me that the nameless relative in Ruth 4 was like so many people today. He was interested in getting a bit more land to add to his stack; but he didn’t really care for the redemption of his brother, and pulled out of the whole thing once he learnt he would have to marry another wife and have more children. He said he couldn't do this because he would spoil [AV] or endanger [NIV] his inheritance. We know that at this time, strip farming was being practiced- whereby a field was split up into parts, each of which belonged to a different person (<a href='B:80 2:3'>Rth 2:3</a>). By having more children, the man would have to split up his land into yet more parts so that each son had his strips. And the son he had by Ruth would be counted as Mahlon's son, in the spirit of the levirate marriage laws. And so his bit of land would then be separate from the land strips the man was intending to give to his existing children. Ultimately this could lead to the man's total inheritance becoming almost worthless if it was just split into tiny strips because he had too many children.</p><p>I like how the NIV has the man speaking of 'endangering' his inheritance. He was like so many people- he had say a 20 year horizon, genuinely concerned about what was best for his children in the short term, rather than thinking about his responsibility to his brother. He saw 'danger' in doing that. It could be argued that the 50 year Jubilee law meant that the land boundaries returned to how they originally were after 50 years... so perhaps [although it's hard to work out how the Jubilee law worked in practice] he was worrying about something which only had meaning for the next few decades [if that]. He wasn't a bad man; just one who was fearful and wouldn't look beyond the next 20 years or so. And I suggest the genealogy at the end of Ruth 4 comments upon this- that man is anonymous, his name never went down in history, whereas Boaz who loved his brother and didn’t focus solely on his own immediate family went on to be the ancestor of both David and the Lord Jesus Himself.</p><p>Another possibility is that the man thought that marriage to Ruth was bound to spoil or destroy his inheritance or family, as she had that of Elimelech. He considered her a femme fatale. He may have seen this as just judgment for marrying a Moabitess. And he wasn't going to do the same. In this case we see how utterly wrong he was. He would be representative of the legalistic Jewish xenophobes of the postexilic period- who missed out on so much because of their attitudes.</p>


text:
<p>Now this was the custom in former time in Israel- </p><p>It can be noted that there are Aramaic terms in this verse. This confirms my suggestion on <a href='B:80 1:16'>Rth 1:16</a> that the book of Ruth was rewritten in exile, presenting Naomi and Ruth as examples to the exiles who were likewise intended to return to their land their God. This would explain why at this point, the author or editor sees the need to explain what the customs were "in former time in Israel", because the readership would not know this.</p><p>Concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man took off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the way of affirmation in Israel- </p><p>This custom indicates that the law of <a href='B:50 25:9'>Deu 25:9</a> had been somewhat reduced in severity and altered. For there is no mention of spitting. We could read this as an indication of Israel’s apostasy from God’s law; or we could consider that even in Old Testament times, the essence of the Law was what was important rather than keeping the letter of it. However I have suggested on :3-5 that the levirate law did not at all require anyone to marry Ruth. Perhaps that is why the spitting was not done, only the removal of the shoe as a sign that they had indeed made the agreement.</p><p>The fact that Ruth doesn't spit in the face of the relative could be read as further evidence that this was not a strict case of Levirate marriage; it was the spirit of it but not the letter. Because it was not a case of "brothers dwelling together". And the child Obed who was born is presented as the son of Boaz (:21) rather than the son of the deceased Mahlon, as we would expect if this were Levirate marriage. It was the spirit and not the letter of the law being used to redeem Ruth, just as in the case of the Lord's redemption of us who by the letter of the law should take the wages of sin, death. </p><p>
Or it could be that the allusion is not to Dt. 25:9, but rather that treading on property with a shoe means you own that property. Moses was told to remove his shoes because the land was holy, sanctified to God. To give your shoe could simply mean 'I accept I do not own this'. To have your foot upon something meant you possessed it (Ps. 8:6; 36:11; Josh. 1:3; 10:24; 14:9). In some near Eastern cultures, placing shoes on the throne was part of the ritual of a new king possessing the kingdom. Hence giving up your shoe, the covering of your foot, meant relinquishing posession. Hence the connection between the Hebrew words na'al [sandal] and nahal [inheritance]. Perhaps this is the sense on Am. 2:6, that the needy were sold for a pair of shoes, i.e. their land was taken away from them. </p>


text:
<p>So the near kinsman said to Boaz, Buy it for yourself. He took off his shoe- </p><p>We notice that this was done "in the presence of the elders" (:2), just as was required by the law of <a href='B:50 25:7-9'>Deu 25:7-9</a> if the levirate law was not followed. But there was no spitting in the face, because actually the law did not require the kinsman to marry Ruth. That was an extension of the law being added by Boaz and Naomi. However :7 may imply that this whole things was nothing to do with levirate law in itself, and taking off the shoe was simply a token of confirmation of an agreement.</p>


text:
<p>Boaz said to the elders and to all the people, You are witnesses this day, that I have bought all that was Elimelech’s, and all that was Chilion’s and Mahlon’s, from the hand of Naomi- </p><p>Presumably by this point, Naomi has appeared on the scene. Clearly there has been more collusion between her and Boaz than is recorded. The order Elimelech - Chilion - Mahlon may reflect the order in which they had died.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Mahlon, I have purchased to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance, that the name of the dead not be cut off from among his brothers, and from the gate of his place. You are witnesses this day- </p><p>They were standing in the gate of his place, in the gate of Bethlehem (:1). Although Mahlon had been but a child when he left Bethlehem, he was still counted as being from there and somehow was rooted to the land of his inheritance. "To raise up the name of the dead on his inheritance" seems another attempt to connect the property issue to the marriage of Ruth (see on :3). This was not a connection strictly made by the levirate law. The seed did not have to be raised upon the geographical land inheritance of the deceased person. But that would indeed have been according to the spirit of the law; but it was not the letter. Naomi's selling of the land conditional upon the purchaser marrying Ruth was (see on :5) was therefore a reflection of how she [and Boaz] had worked out the spirit of the law. And indeed there is the nail-biting moment when the nearer kinsman has the opportunity to marry Ruth. When she's in love with Boaz and he with her. This arose because of their genuine desire to be obedient to the law. So in terms of the narrative, this statement of Boaz that he is going to marry Ruth leaves us all with the same sense of relief and triumph which we imagine in his voice.</p>


text:
<p>All the people who were in the gate and the elders said, We are witnesses- </p><p>Passers by had crowded around the seated elders to witness what was happening. Marriage was to be publically testified. There was not necessarily any documentary evidence, but marriage was publically acknowledged by the surrounding society in whatever form was then current. This can help us in defining marriage today.</p><p>May Yahweh make the woman who has come into your house like Rachel and like Leah, who built the house of Israel; and treat you worthily in Ephrathah, and bring you fame in Bethlehem- </p><p>See on <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>; <a href='B:80 4:12'>Rth 4:12</a>. We recall that Elimelech was from Ephrath (<a href='B:80 1:2'>Rth 1:2</a>), and perhaps Boaz was too, as he was a relative of Elimelech. The people perceived that Boaz wanted to build up the family of Elimelech, which had been wiped out by the death of his sons childless and his apparent failure to have any other children. This was grace indeed, to be so concerned about building up your brother's family, when Boaz surely had his own family. But it was as a result of this concern that his name is remembered; because we know nothing of his children, but we do know that his child by Ruth led to the Lord Jesus. "Worthily" is the word for "virtuous", used of Ruth in <a href='B:80 3:11'>Rth 3:11</a>. They were seen as a match for each other, as they were both virtuous people.</p>


text:
<p>Let your house be like the house of Perez, whom Tamar bore to Judah, of the seed which Yahweh shall give you of this young woman- </p><p>Tamar’s fertility was legendary because despite being in middle age, one act of intercourse resulted in her having two children [twins]. The comparison with Rachel and Leah also seems forced, because they both had fertility problems; we have an example here of people using traditional terms of blessing, rather like singing hymns, without putting any meaning into the words. What unites all these three women is the fact that they were sexually manipulative, and this would support the impression we could possibly take from the record of Ruth’s approach to Boaz that night at the threshing floor.</p><p>The references to Tamar and Rachel and Leah may well have been tongue in cheek. Although the idea might be that God's seed and purpose carried through, despite so much against it happening. In both cases, seed was obtained by some level of sexual compromise; and we wonder if they considered that Ruth and Boaz were similar. Otherwise, the reference to Tamar appears strange. In this case, the book ends with Boaz and Ruth being misunderstood and viewed askance, yet being the ancestors of the Davidic line which led to Messiah.</p>


text:
<p>So Boaz took Ruth, and she became his wife; and he went in to her, and Yahweh gave her conception, and she bore a son- </p><p>The rubric for procreation usually found in the Bible is that a man goes in to a woman, she conceives and bares a child. But here there is added that "Yahweh gave her conception". We wonder if she had been barren before. Perhaps that is why she more easily resigned herself to coming to Israel to serve Yahweh and being Naomi's carer, resigning the hope of remarriage. She imagined that if she did remarry, it would be a sad marriage [for those times] as she would be barren. However, her enthusiasm for Boaz, himself an old man, and the whole plan about him marrying her to raise up seed for Mahlon, was therefore all done even more in faith. So she, as so many, found that God does so exceeding abundant above all we ask or think. She had been in a childless marriage for 10 years, and committed herself to serving Yahweh for nothing, just happy to be with Him; now she is 'given conception' by God and her ancestor would be the Lord Jesus. </p>


text:
<p>The women said to Naomi, Blessed be Yahweh, who has not left you this day without a near kinsman; and let his name be famous in Israel- </p><p>The 'being a kinsman' to Naomi was felt to have only been achieved when a son was born. But grammatically, the near kinsman who would be famous and a restorer of life (:14) appears to refer to the baby boy. And this would then look forward to how this child's descendant would ultimately be the Lord Jesus, the ultimate restorer of life.</p>


text:
<p>He shall be to you a restorer of life, and sustain you in your old age, for your daughter-in-law, who loves you, who is better to you than seven sons, has borne him- </p><p><a href='B:290 56:3-8'>Isa 56:3-8</a> seems to allude to Naomi, Ruth and Boaz. The "dry tree" who was a eunuch [Boaz? Naomi?] and the Gentile [Ruth] who had taken hold of the covenant would be given a destiny "better than of sons and daughters", a quotation from <a href='B:80 4:15'>Rth 4:15</a>. Naomi has said she is barren (see on <a href='B:80 1:11'>Rth 1:11</a>), and we can deduce from <a href='B:80 4:13'>Rth 4:13</a> that Ruth was also. And at his age perhaps Boaz was impotent. Perhaps this was why the idea of Ruth marrying him didn’t initially occur to Naomi. Out of every human inadequacy and impossibility, God raised up a seed, through using two women and a man who had faith that "God is able". And that seed was to continue to the conception of the Lord Jesus by the faithful virgin Mary, also from Bethlehem. I suggested on Ruth 1:20 that Naomi was depressive and her silence at the end of the story is significant. There is no hymn of praise from her, no gratitude to Ruth, no recorded expression of joy at the wonderful outcome. We may well wonder whether the women's words of Ruth 4:15 are not a gentle chiding of her to join in the joy rather than remain depressed.</p><p>Hezekiah apparently chose to be a eunuch for the Kingdom's sake. There is the implication in <a href='B:290 56:3-8'>Isa 56:3-8</a> that his example inspired others in Israel to make the same commitment. They are comforted by Isaiah: "Neither let the eunuch say, Behold, I am a dry tree. For thus saith the Lord unto the eunuchs that keep my Sabbaths, and choose the things that please me, and take hold (the same Hebrew word is used five times about Hezekiah, <a href='B:140 29:3'>2Ch 29:3</a>; <a href='B:140 29:34'>2Ch 29:34</a>; <a href='B:140 31:4'>2Ch 31:4</a>; <a href='B:140 32:5'>2Ch 32:5</a>; <a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>) of my covenant; even unto them will I give in mine house, and within my walls a place and a name better than of sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off". Hezekiah had lamented that he would die without a seed (<a href='B:290 38:12'>Isa 38:12</a> Heb:; Isaiah 53), and so did those who had also become (in their minds?) eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom. There was that human desire for a seed, a "house" to perpetuate their name. But they are promised a name in God’s house (family) in the Kingdom, better than of sons and daughters in this life. This alludes to <a href='B:80 4:15'>Rth 4:15</a>, where Ruth is described as being better than sons to Naomi. In other words, Ruth's having a child was a living exemplification of the Kingdom now. How God acted with her is how He will with all His people, who put Him first and take hold of covenant with Him.</p>


text:
<p>Naomi took the child and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse to it- </p><p>The barren Naomi (see on <a href='B:80 1:11'>Rth 1:11</a>) is portrayed as becoming able to nurse the baby. That would have been a miracle, reflective of the new life God was giving to all involved. Or it could be that she symbolically held the child to her breast, rather like Bilhah giving birth upon Rachel's knees so that Rachel could claim the child as hers (<a href='B:10 30:3'>Gen 30:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The neighbouring women gave him a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi! And they named him Obed. He is the father of Jesse, the father of David-</p><p>The naming of a child by women rather than the father is unusual (<a href='B:490 1:62'>Luk 1:62</a>). Perhaps it was because Boaz died soon after the marriage, as Jewish tradition claims. But it fits in with the theme in the book of the meaning and power of women, in a male based society. "Obed" means 'servant' and this was not a great name for a child in those times, especially for the son of a wealthy man like Boaz. But the spirit of the family was such that they perceived the spirit of servant leadership.</p>


text:
<p>Now this is the history of the generations of Perez: Perez became the father of Hezron- </p><p>The genealogy now given jumps many generations and so those who are mentioned must all have purpose. Beginning with Perez, son of Tamar who played the prostitute to Judah, we surely have Tamar [who was likely also a Gentile] being paralleled with Ruth. This could confirm the theme of sexual manipulation discussed on <a href='B:80 3:2'>Rth 3:2</a>. But I think the similarity is more in that they had both worked out the spirit of the law, and then went out and in their own ways tried to practice it with the appropriate men in their lives.</p>


text:
<p>and Hezron became the father of Ram, and Ram became the father of Amminadab- </p><p>Comparing with 1 Chronicles 2, some generations are skipped. But the point is that it included Amminadab, meaning "my kinsman, or paternal uncle (ammi) is generous". The idea is being presented that generosity and being a true kinsman redeemer ran in the family. Not only Boaz had been like this, but his ancestor too. The idea is that this would characterize the line of David, and would come to full term in the Messianic Son of David.</p>


text:
<p>and Amminadab became the father of Nahshon, and Nahshon became the father of Salmon- </p><p>Amminadab, the generous kinsman like Boaz (see on :19), had a descendant called Nahshon, meaning 'snake'. The abrupt juxtaposition is so that we understand that spirituality is not at all inherited genetically. It is a case of consciously choosing to follow good examples.</p>


text:
<p>and Salmon became the father of Boaz, and Boaz became the father of Obed-</p><p><a href='B:470 1:5'>Mat 1:5</a> says that Salmon had Boaz by Rahab. Yet Rahab lived some time earlier. I therefore suggest that Salmon was the ancestor of Boaz [not the literal father], through the child he had from Rahab. This is mentioned to highlight the fact that Boaz was descended from Rahab, and therefore was generous to the strangers and saw nothing wrong with a Moabitess marrying into the congregation of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and Obed became the father of Jesse, and Jesse became the father of David- </p><p>The function of the narrative is to set up David as the intended outcome to a line which had arisen out of barren, Gentile women, domestic tragedy, servant leadership (see on :17), faith and perception of grace. And this is the line which the New Testament genealogies show continued to the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<e>1 Samuel: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now there was a man of Ramathaim Zophim, of the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephraimite- </p><p>We note that this continues on from Judges-Ruth, where people from Ephraim are generally apostate. So here we have an example of a family holding on to the covenant amidst general apostacy from it. Elkanah means "God obtains" and his father "Tohu" means "depression", and he was to be taught the meaning of his name through obtaining Samuel after the years of Hannah's depression. We too are set up by God with challenges and things we need to perceive, and are led by Him to that understanding- including through the experiences of our partners.</p><p>The variations in the genealogies reflect how fluid was the spelling of names, and how there were variations upon the same name: Elkanah, Jeroham, Elihu, Tohu, Zuph (1 Sam. 1:1); Elkanah, Jeroham, Eliab, Nahath, Zophai (1 Chron. 6:26,27); Elkanah, Jeroham, Eliel, Toah, Zuph (1 Chron. 6:34,35).</p>


text:
<p>He had two wives; the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; Peninnah had children but Hannah had no children- </p><p>"The one" could be translated "the first". Perhaps Hannah was his first wife, but being barren he had taken Peninnah. Hannah, the depressed, bitter, hopeless case, the barren first wife in a polygamous marriage, with a co-wife who has produced ten sons, is again the hopeless outsider chosen by God to further His saving purpose. For Peninnah to have produced many children and Hannah none, this situation must have gone on for at least 15 years. Throughout which God appeared apparently silent, years when live must've seemed just not worth living for Hannah.</p><p>Issues related to barrenness are so common in the lives of the Old Testament faithful. To not have children was seen as the ultimate poverty and sign of God’s lack of blessing. The equivalent in modern society may be a sense that God has not come through for us in life as we think He ought or might have done; whether or not the issue is fertility. "Hannah" means Yah's gift or grace; and like Elkanah (see on :1), she had to be brought to understand God’s intention for her, and to realize that children like all blessings don't come automatically but are God’s gift by grace. "Peninnah" means rubies, and perhaps <a href='B:240 31:10'>Pro 31:10</a> has her in view when saying that the virtuous woman (cp. Hannah) is worth more than rubies / Peninnah.</p>


text:
<p>This man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to Yahweh of Armies in Shiloh- </p><p>Elkanah is presented as faithful to the covenant. And yet the Mosaic commandment was that every male should appear before Yahweh three times / year (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>). But he went up only once / year, and yet is presented as a righteous man. Clearly most of God’s people didn’t keep the law of Moses perfectly, and yet legitimate relationship with God was still possible:&nbsp; And yet the fact that was true, was therefore by His grace alone.</p><p>The two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests to Yahweh, were there- </p><p>Phinehas means "mouth of a serpent", Hophni is less clear, possibly "one who punches / slaps with his hands". Strange names for men who were supposed to be priests, and a reflection on Eli. "Eli" could be a variation on El, but it seems more likely to mean high / proud one. And for all his apparent humility, that was indeed his problem in the end.</p>


text:
<p>When the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he gave to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and her daughters portions- </p><p>The idea may be that they ate a peace offering together, presided over by Elkanah, and he shared out the portions of the sacrifice to the whole family to eat, including little children. They ate of the symbol of the covenant relationship which their parents had, and this may or may not be helpful in formulating an understanding of whether children should partake of the bread and wine in our dispensation.</p>


text:
<p>but to Hannah he gave a double portion, for he loved Hannah, but Yahweh had shut up her womb- </p><p>"But Yahweh had shut up..." may hint that Elkanah's high view of Hannah was not at that point shared by God. He gave her, literally, "the nose portion". This could be a metaphor for "double", or it could be read literally, as if the gift of this part of the animal was a symbolic sign of favouritism. We will note on 1 Samuel 2 that she says many things which seem to betray a very unspiritual and bitter heart, even though she was of a woman of faith. We note again the usage of contemporary medical understandings ["phenomenological language"], a point to bear in mind when we come to the language of demon possession used to describe mental illness in the New Testament. For infertility is not due to a literally closed womb. The dynamics of the situation are so true to life- Hannah had no children, but Peninah did; but Hannah was the favourite wife and was given the "double portion" to demonstrate that, and so Peninah responded by hitting at Hannah because of her barrenness.</p>


text:
<p>Her rival provoked her severely, to make her fret because Yahweh had shut up her womb- </p><p>We have the situation of Rachel and Leah repeated again, whereby the barren wife was loved more by the husband and was provoked by the other partner. It is commendable however that she didn’t resort to trying to get her husband to sleep with another woman and bear a child symbolically for her. The way circumstances repeat in life and between persons, both contemporary with each other and historically, is typical of how God works; we are intended to see the similarities with others and take lessons and encouragement. This is what makes the Bible a living word, because the characters selected for us to meet are all designed to speak directly to us in our lives, and to confirm our deep sense that man is not alone, and nothing we pass through is in fact totally unique to us. Peninnah made Hannah "fret" (<a href='B:90 1:6'>1Sa 1:6</a>), and yet when she has Samuel she asks God to "thunder", s:w. "fret", against her enemies, clearly having Peninnah in view (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). 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.</p><p>"Fret" is literally, 'Anger after anger'. The picture is of continual provocation leading to continual anger episodes. But she will later reflect that Yahweh 'counts actions' (1 Sam. 2:3 Heb.). Every provocation and episode was counted. All the countless daily episodes like this in countless human relationships are likewise not unnoticed, and all will finally be judged when they concern the Lord's people.</p>


text:
<p>This went on year after year when she went up- </p><p>It is again emphasized that they made once yearly pilgrimages to the tabernacle. And yet the Mosaic commandment was that every male should appear before Yahweh three times / year (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>). But Elkanah went up only once / year, and yet is presented as a righteous man. See on :3. This is another indication that Hannah was not the peerlessly spiritual woman which she is sometimes made out to be.</p><p>To the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The temple of Yahweh wasn't then built, so this anachronism may reflect how these historical books were rewritten under Divine inspiration, after the exile. Or it could simply be that a more permanent structure had been built for the tabernacle.</p><p>She provoked her, therefore she wept and didn’t eat- </p><p>The idea may be that she didn’t eat of the peace offerings, because she didn’t feel at peace neither with God nor with the rest of the family because of Peninnah being so horrible to her. Again this is all so psychologically credible; tension with another in the believing family leads to distance from God. Until like Hannah we get a grip and take initiative in our relationship with God personally.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah her husband said to her, Hannah, why do you weep? Why don’t you eat? Why is your heart grieved? Am I not better to you than ten sons?- </p><p>Perhaps this implied Peninah had borne him 10 sons; she is described as "she who has many children" (1 Sam. 2:5). We could infer that Hannah refused to eat the double portion Elkanah gave her; even his special love and favouritism couldn't compensate, in her mind, for her lack of children. We note that Elkanah isn't recorded as praying that his wife Hannah conceives, unlike Isaac for Rebekah. Perhaps because his own 'need' for children had been met through Peninah. And so it is Hannah who has to pray for herself directly to God. Only after she has done that does she agree to eat again- not because of Elkanah's pleas. Through ignorance, misintention, lack of sensitivity, dysfunction or whatever of others, we too are driven to personal engagement with God. Perhaps he alludes to the happy Naomi, for whom her daughter in law's love was better than seven sons. And he wonders why Hannah can't be like her. Weeping and not eating could be associated with fasting; but also it could be the psychological outcome of cruel teasing and provocation. Or perhaps there was a little of both. The loss of appetite associated with her depression turned into fasting before Yahweh for a child. Or as suggested on :8, it may mean she declined to partake in the eating of the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p>So Hannah rose up after they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh. Now Eli the priest was sitting on his seat by the doorpost of Yahweh’s temple- </p><p>We have just read that she didn’t eat (:7,8), which I suggested may mean she declined the meat and wine of the peace offering. But now she did, because her mood had changed because she had decided to make a vow (:11) and pray for a child with a prayer believed in so strongly that she believed and felt as if she had received the answer; for that is the true nature of faith in prayer (<a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a>). Or perhaps Elkanah persuaded her to eat, and her participation in the meal of fellowship and peace with God [the portions were from the peace offering] inspired her to believe that this God she sat and ate with would indeed respond to her prayer. The memorial meeting should have the same inspiration for us.</p><p>
We note how Eli sits but Hannah rises up. This is typical of the reversals we will read about in her prayer in 1 Sam. 2. Samuel was to rise and the house of Eli were to fall. So we have set up conflict between her house and that of Eli. Her prayer imprecating her adversaries can be read as referring to both Eli and Peninnah. Samuel was therefore born into conflict, and this enabled him to comfort David who was in the same situation with the house of Saul. Truly all our sufferings are in order to help others (2 Cor. 1:4). </p>


text:
<p>She was in bitterness of soul and prayed to Yahweh and wept bitterly- </p><p>I suggested on :9 that what we now read may be explaining how it came about that she was not eating and drinking the peace offering again, when previously she had not been. When we read in :18 that after her vow she ate, this would be linking back to :9. Who we are as persons is effectively our prayer and plea to God. This conception of prayer explains why often weeping, crying, waiting, meditating etc. are spoken of as "prayer" , although there was no specific verbalizing of requests (<a href='B:230 5:1-2'>Psa 5:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 6:8'>Psa 6:8</a>; <a href='B:230 18:1-3'>Psa 18:1-3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:6'>Psa 18:6</a>; <a href='B:230 40:1'>Psa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:230 42:8'>Psa 42:8</a>; <a href='B:230 64:1'>Psa 64:1</a> Heb:; <a href='B:230 65:1-2'>Psa 65:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 66:17-20'>Psa 66:17-20</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>). The association between prayer and weeping is especially common: <a href='B:90 1:10'>1Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:230 39:12'>Psa 39:12</a>; <a href='B:230 55:1-2'>Psa 55:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:41-42'>Joh 11:41-42</a>; <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>, especially in the Lord's life and the Messianic Psalms. "The Lord has heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer" (<a href='B:230 6:8-9'>Psa 6:8-9</a>) crystallizes the point.</p><p>Hannah's personal spiritual ambition and initiative contrasts positively with the responses of other barren women. Rachel demanded that her husband resolve the situation; Rebekah kept silent about it and it was her husband who prayed to God about it (Gen 25:21); Sarah was willing to live with the situation but got her husband to sleep with her slave girl. Samson's mother was ordered to Nazirite her child, whereas Hannah takes the initiative in offering that to God.</p>


text:
<p>She vowed a vow and said, Yahweh of Armies-</p><p>Poor Hannah was driven through the sorrow of her life to coin the phrase "Yahweh of hosts" for the first time in Scripture, so strong became her sense of the strength and manifestation of Yahweh in His Angels. The close association between Angels [Yahweh's hosts] and answered prayer resulted in many of the early believers conceiving of God in terms of an Angel, as Jacob in particular did. Hannah is another example; she prayed to the Lord of Hosts (Angels) to "look on the affliction of Your handmaid"; and the Angels are God’s eyes through which He looks on us. She came to pray "before the Lord" (:15)- i:e. before the Angel dwelling over the ark. Angels are associated with conception- the cases of Samson, John and Jesus quickly spring to mind. Her affliction drove her to a new paradigm in understanding God- hence she apparently coined the term "Yahweh of armies", used here as an address for the first time in Scripture. Our afflictions likewise drive us to closer and paradigm breaking understandings of the Father.</p><p>If You will indeed look on the affliction-</p><p>She was thinking of Leah, who considered the end of her barrenness to have been Yahweh looking on her affliction (<a href='B:10 29:32'>Gen 29:32</a> s:w:). She formed her faith from considering this Biblical precedent. But the same phrase is also used of Yahweh's deliverance of Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a> etc:). She reasoned that the God who had done that for His people could just as easily give her conception.</p><p>Of Your handmaid and remember me and not forget Your handmaid, but will give to Your handmaid a boy, then I will give him to Yahweh all the days of his life, and no razor shall come on his head- </p><p>She wanted not merely a child to remove her reproach amongst men, but specifically a male so she could present him as a Nazirite to God. Although they were not Levites, by promising him as a Nazirite she was effectively asking for him to be counted as a Levite. Hannah's request in <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> that God look upon her affliction and answer it was heard, and she became an inspiration to her descendant David; who often makes the same request, unashamed to be inspired by the example of a woman (s:w. <a href='B:100 16:12'>2Sa 16:12</a>; <a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a>; <a href='B:230 25:18'>Psa 25:18</a> and so often in the Psalms). See on :15. And yet why would Hannah so desperately want to give God just one more Nazirite? Surely her motives were mixed. She seems to have wanted above all to personally attain the status of motherhood, and for that she was willing to sacrifice retaining the child. Indeed it could be argued that abandonning Samuel after weaning him to be cared for far away from her by Eli and his immoral sons... showed no real care for Samuel. All she wanted, it could be argued, was the status of motherhood, and her offer of Samuel as a Nazirite was as it were a bargaining chip she offered God in return. But from this low point, she grew spiritually. And God worked through it to raise up Samuel and thence David as His servants.</p><p>It seems from :21 that they were in the habit of making a vow every year, hence Hannah decides to vow that if she has a son, she will give him to Yahweh's service.</p>


text:
<p>As she continued praying before Yahweh, Eli saw her mouth-</p><p><a href='B:580 4:2'>Col 4:2</a> alludes to the LXX of this verse, bidding us all be like Hannah and continue in prayer; I noted on :11 that her example served as a template for David, as it should for us.</p>


text:
<p>Now Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved but her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli thought she was drunk- </p><p>The tacit implication is that Eli had seen drunk people in the tabernacle before. The low level of spirituality in Israel is a continued theme of the Old Testament. We also have a reflection of how unspiritual and solely "religious" was Eli; the concept of praying silently rather than out loud was totally foreign to him. There is also the implication that Eli didn’t hear her voice, but God did.</p>


text:
<p>Eli said to her, How long will you be drunk? Put away your wine from you- </p><p>It's possible that most of the then existent Old Testament was rewritten under inspiration in the exile. Hannah becomes the template for the exiles; for they too were "afflicted" as she was (:11), and are described as drunk but not with wine who would be justified and their tormentors punished, surely an allusion to Hannah (<a href='B:290 51:21'>Isa 51:21</a>; <a href='B:290 51:23'>Isa 51:23</a>). See on :15. We recall how Peter was likewise falsely accused of being drunk when speaking in the Spirit. Circumstances repeat between Biblical characters, just as they do between the lives of contemporary believers. The same Divine hand is at work.</p>


text:
<p>Hannah answered, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit- </p><p>Israel in affliction in Egypt were of sorrowful spirit (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>). As noted on :11, she clearly had God’s past salvation of His people from Egypt in mind. She felt that her domestic situation was as theirs, and likewise believed that God could miraculously save her from it. We note that this is the extent of depression and desperation that is inflicted by those who goad others over their supposed spiritual inferiority and God’s supposed displeasure with them. We think of those disfellowshipped or tormented by others over their marital status, to the point&nbsp; they feel driven to suicide.</p><p>"Sorrowful" is the word for "hard". Her triumphant victory song of 1 Sam. 2 would indeed suggest her to be a hard woman, rejoicing over and requesting Peninnah's downfall. Verse 10 twice uses the word bitter about her- "in bitterness of soul... wept bitterly".  Her language there is also relevant in parts to Eli and his sons, and came true of them. She commendably refused to be disillusioned with God because of the situation in the "church" of her time, but her bitterness with it is still discernible. The song seems all about her, and her self justification and vindication. Grace and forgiveness is not much on her agenda. </p><p>I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I poured out my soul before Yahweh- </p><p>It was Judah in captivity whose soul was poured out (s:w. <a href='B:310 2:12'>Lam 2:12</a>; <a href='B:310 2:19'>Lam 2:19</a>); see on :14. And David again took inspiration from his ancestor Hannah in speaking of himself likewise in <a href='B:230 42:4'>Psa 42:4</a>; see on :11.</p><p>The peace offerings, of which Hannah was given a double portion, involved eating and also drinking wine. But although she has eaten (:9), she says she hasn't drunk wine. I take that as being because she believed before she prayed that she would conceive and Nazirite the child to Yahweh. She was surely influenced by the command to Samson's mother not to drink wine because even whilst Samson was in utero he was to be a Nazirite and not drink alcohol. So her prayer was preceded by faith that it would indeed be answered and she acted as if it had been answered. This is indeed faith in prayer, and it is why she exits the sanctuary and returns home with joy, believing and feeling as if the prayer has already been answered. </p>


text:
<p>Don’t count your handmaid a wicked woman, for I have been speaking out of the abundance of my complaint and my provocation- </p><p>She meant, she had been speaking to God in her heart. "Wicked woman" is AV "daughter of Belial", the term used of Eli's sons. She may be implying that she was not in fact drunk as Eli's sons often were. In this case, Eli criticized her for doing what his sons did. It's a psychological classic, taking out on someone else what should be directed to ones own family.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eli answered, Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant your petition that you have asked of Him- </p><p>Eli's unspirituality is again revealed, for he thinks that prayer is simply asking God for petitions. But in fact she had been pouring out her soul to God, telling Him all her feelings about the provocation of Peninnah (:16). Let us also not think that prayer is simply requests; read David’s prayers in his Psalms, and see how few of his words are actually requests. Eli told her that her prayer would be granted even though he didn't know what it was for. In fact the answer to that prayer, Samuel, would mean the end of his priestly line and service. Hence she later tells Eli "For this boy did I pray, and the Lord granted me my request that I requested from him". Eli presents as the disinterested priest coming out with a standard form of verbal blessing with no personal interest in the worshipper. Perhaps she grasped that, and therefore didn't tell Eli her prayer- when it is usual in religious circles to want a priest to pray for you, to put your prayer to God. Again, the dysfunction of the situation led her to closer intimacy with God.</p>


text:
<p>She said, Let your handmaid find grace in your sight- </p><p>Corrupt and unspiritual as Eli was, she still saw him as Yahweh's representative. His acceptance of her therefore encouraged her that God likewise had accepted her. "Hannah" means 'grace'. She perhaps hints that to receive grace was 'her', it was how she had been set up by life's path of infertility, polygamous marriage experience etc. </p><p>So the woman went her way and ate, and her face wasn’t sad any more-</p><p>She ate, of the peace offerings. I suggested on :9 that the mention of the fact that she again "ate" is then explained by :10-17. Her newfound joy was because she had the faith that feels and acts as if what we asked for has been granted, even though we don't yet have it (<a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a>).</p><p>The LXX adds that they stayed in an inn. Hannah’s song was clearly a major influence in the mind of Mary. But there are some background similarities as well as the verbal ones. The LXX of <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> [not the Hebrew text] speaks of Elkanah and Hannah staying in a katalyma on their journey to Shiloh- the very word used of the “inn” in whose stable Mary had to stay. If we ask why Mary based her song so heavily on that of Hannah, we find a clue in considering how she was greeted by the Angel as “favoured” (<a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a>). The Greek kecharitomene virtually translates the Hebrew name ‘Hannah’. The record is written in Greek, but Mary was a Jewess and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew; and probably the Angel spoke to her in those languages. So the link would have been all the stronger- ‘Hail, Hannah-like one’. And this set the mind of Mary thinking about Hannah, and in the days between hearing these words and meeting Elisabeth, Mary had perceived the similarities between her position and that of Hannah. She allowed the spirit of Hannah to genuinely become hers, in perceptive obedience to the Angel’s bidding. She came to share God’s perception of her as a woman like Hannah. ‘Hannah’ comes from the Hebrew root hnn – favour. Mary is told that she has been favoured / ‘Hannah-ed’ by God (<a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a>)- as if to lead her to see the similarities between her and Hannah. And she responds magnificently, by alluding to Hannah’s song so closely. Tragically as we shall see, she later came to be more influenced by the world’s perception of both herself and her Son. The theme of joy is very great in her song- again, because she was obedient to the greeting “Hail!”, literally, ‘rejoice!’.</p><p>The points of connection between the songs of Hannah and Mary's Magnificat are really quite detailed: </p><p><a href='B:90 1:3'>1Sa 1:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:7'>Luk 1:7</a>; <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> = <a href='B:490 1:38'>Luk 1:38</a>; <a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a> = <a href='B:490 1:46'>Luk 1:46</a>; <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> = <a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a>; <a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a> = <a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:5'>1Sa 2:5</a> = <a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a>; <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a> = <a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a>; <a href='B:90 2:26'>1Sa 2:26</a> = <a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a>.</p><p>Hannah's faith and initiative is impressive. There are several cases of Divinely induced pregnancies after infertility. But usually a prophet or Angel gives the news of the pregnancy, often there is a sign that it will indeed happen- whereas here Hannah takes it upon herself to pray for it, and with no confirmatory sign, totally believes it will happen and rejoices because of it.</p>


text:
<p>They rose up in the morning early and worshipped before Yahweh and returned home to Ramah, and Elkanah lay with Hannah his wife, and Yahweh remembered her- </p><p>The worship may imply thankfulness. As noted on :18, Hannah really believed the prayer would be heard, even though she had not yet tried to conceive again. "Remembered" doesn't mean God had forgotten. The word is often used of what man does to God, and is translated "burn [incense]" and other terms appropriate to prayer to God. There is a mutuality between God and man, which especially functions through prayer. We 'make mention' of things to God in prayer, and He respects that and in turn, in His own council of Heaven, mentions or makes a mark for us in response. This is why the Hebrew for "ask" is the same for "heard" regarding prayer and the answers to prayer. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>When the time had come, Hannah conceived and bore a son- </p><p>The time coming is applied to both the conception and the birth of the child. With respect to the conception, the idea would be that God indeed had specified a time for this in His plan for Hannah from the beginning of the world. But all the same, without Hannah's intense prayer, this would not have been actualized. And it follows therefore that there are so many potentials which aren't actualized by intense prayer.</p><p>And she named him Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of Yahweh-</p><p>"Samuel" means both 'asked of God' and 'heard of God'. This exemplifies what was discussed on :19; that God and man are in mutual relationship. What we ask, He hears in the sense of answering. Samuel's name memorialized how she had asked and had such faith in the answer coming.</p>


text:
<p>The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to Yahweh the yearly sacrifice and his vow- </p><p>It seems they were in the habit of making a vow every year, hence Hannah decides to vow that if she has a son, she will give him to Yahweh's service. LXX adds "and his tithes". It was surely clear that the tithes were being abused by Eli's family, but Elkanah still brought them. Their abuses led to men sinning against Yahweh by not bringing tithes and offerings (<a href='B:90 2:23-24'>1Sa 2:23-24</a>). But Elkanah is commended for not being amongst those made to stumble in this way. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>But Hannah didn’t go up, for she said to her husband, Not until the child is weaned, then I will bring him that he may appear before Yahweh and stay there forever- </p><p>The idea may be that she didn’t go up because she had no vow to bring, whereas Elkanah did (:21); because her fulfilment of her vow would be when Samuel was old enough to be brought to the temple and left there, as a living sacrifice. We see here Hannah's individual, personal relationship with Yahweh; her vow was different to that of her husband's. This was at a time when religion was largely a male preserve, and the woman just followed along with the husband's religion. Elkanah encouraged her to do what was right to her.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah her husband said to her, Do what seems good to you. Wait until you have weaned him, only may Yahweh establish His word. So the woman waited and nursed her son until she weaned him-</p><p>I noted on :22 that Elkanah encouraged her to do what was right to her. And this reflects how within a good, spiritual marriage, the devotions of the wife and husband may be quite different. Hence the significance of LXX "but may the Lord establish that which comes out of thy mouth". He saw Samuel as her project whilst he had his own projects for Yahweh, his vows he brought yearly; but Samuel was his wife's project. The Dead Sea Scrolls at this point has “Only may the Lord fulfill what your mouth has uttered". </p>


text:
<p>When she had weaned him she took him up with her, with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of meal and a bottle of wine, and brought him to Yahweh’s sanctuary in Shiloh- </p><p>"I am the woman" may suggest Eli had forgotten who Hannah was and she had to introduce herself to him again. She and her husband had been regular visitors over the years as well as her having had the encounter with him which is recorded here. Again he is presented as unthoughtful and mindless concerning his flock, which drove her to personal engagement with God. She clearly separated church from God, and didn't allow inept religious leadership to discourage her from personal relationship with God. Rather did it drive her to this.</p><p>The age of the bull was perhaps to represent Samuel, who would have been weaned by three years old (see on <a href='B:90 2:11'>1Sa 2:11</a>). If Samuel was only three years old when given to Eli, his later spiritual maturity and devotion is the more remarkable; for he grew up surrounded by bad examples, and only the annual visit of his parents to impart true spiritual guidance. The bread ["meal"] and wine were associated with the voluntary peace offerings. This formed the basis for the later institution of bread and wine in the breaking of bread. If we ask "And where is the animal that is devoted and eaten?" the answer would be that it represents the Lord Jesus and also ourselves, as living sacrifices (<a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a>) because we are "in Him".</p><p>The child was young-</p><p>Evidence enough that a child can still serve God.</p>


text:
<p>They killed the bull and brought the child to Eli- </p><p>The "they" is presumably Eli's sons, whom we learn usually abused the offering and took it all for themselves. But just as Elkanah still offered tithes despite the abuse of them by these men (see on :21), so Hannah offered the bull. She knew it was done to Yahweh despite the abuse of His representatives. She separated church from God, in a way which many fail to do today.</p>


text:
<p>She said, Oh my lord, as your soul lives, my lord, I am the woman who stood by you here, praying to Yahweh- </p><p>We note that she doesn't swear as Yahweh lives, as is commonly found in the Bible, but by Eli's own life. Perhaps she felt that Yahweh was no authority to Eli to make an oath by. We note that this way of swearing by the life of the person being spoken to [rather than by Yahweh] is used of men to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:55'>1Sa 17:55</a>), by Uriah to David when he knew David had slept with his wife (<a href='B:100 11:11'>2Sa 11:11</a>) and by Hannah to Eli (<a href='B:90 1:26'>1Sa 1:26</a>). In every case the implication is that the speaker didn’t think that the person being addressed really feared Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>For this child I prayed, and Yahweh has given me my petition which I asked of Him- </p><p>As Yahweh gave her, so she wanted to give to Yahweh (:28). This is the irresistible motivating power of grace, once it is perceived.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have given him to Yahweh- </p><p>AV "lent". It is rendered by many versions as "given" because she seems to have totally and absolutely given Samuel to Yahweh for all his life, with no intention of getting him back. However, we can still read "lent" if she had a Kingdom perspective; she looked forward to receiving back the sacrificed relationships in the Kingdom, just as we can.</p><p>As long as he lives he is given to Yahweh. Eli worshipped Yahweh there-</p><p>This is an attempt to interpret "he worshipped Yahweh there". But I think the "he" refers to Elkanah, unless we apply it to Samuel, who was still so young. And then his worship becomes parallel with Hannah pouring out her heart to Yahweh in the next chapter, making this a repeat of the situation earlier, and continuing the theme of this lovely couple each independently pursuing their devotion to Yahweh in unique ways.</p>


text:
<p>Hannah prayed, and said: My heart exults in Yahweh!- </p><p>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’ (<a href='B:10 24:45'>Gen 24:45</a>). Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart” (<a href='B:140 1:11'>2Ch 1:11</a>). This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a>: “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?</p><p>My horn is exalted in Yahweh- </p><p>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 (<a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a>; <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). 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; <a href='B:230 89:24'>Psa 89:24</a>). But her proud assurance of this was misplaced, for it was Samuel who was chosen not to be anointed, but to anoint David.</p><p>My mouth boasts over my enemies because I rejoice in Your salvation- </p><p>Hannah had remarkable faith, as noted throughout 1 Samuel 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.</p><p>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. </p><p>
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.</p>


text:
<p>There is none as holy as Yahweh, for there is none besides You, nor is there any rock like our God-</p><p>David in his Psalms repeatedly alludes to the song of his ancestor Hannah. He effectively quotes this verse in <a href='B:100 22:32'>2Sa 22:32</a>; although I argue throughout 1 Samuel 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.</p><p>I explained on <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> 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: </p><p><a href='B:90 1:3'>1Sa 1:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:7'>Luk 1:7</a>; <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> = <a href='B:490 1:38'>Luk 1:38</a>; <a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a> = <a href='B:490 1:46'>Luk 1:46</a>; <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> = <a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a>; <a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a> = <a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:5'>1Sa 2:5</a> = <a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a>; <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a> = <a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a>; <a href='B:90 2:26'>1Sa 2:26</a> = <a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a>.</p><p>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. </p><p></p>


text:
<p>Talk no more so exceedingly proudly- </p><p>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.</p><p>Don’t let hardness come out of your mouth, for Yahweh is a God of knowledge, though actions be not weighed-</p><p>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 (<a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a> AV); even though it appears that they are not being weighed, because His judgments aren't immediately apparent (so NEV, RVmg:). The word is used of how God weighs thoughts (<a href='B:240 16:2'>Pro 16:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:2'>Pro 21:2</a>; <a href='B:240 24:12'>Pro 24:12</a>), but here of actions. We could conclude that therefore the thought is the action, as the Lord Jesus taught; or that Hannah was over emphasizing the external rather than seeing that it is the thoughts of the heart which are the essential issue.</p><p>The Hebrew can be rendered "By Him actions are counted". In 1 Sam. 1:6 we read of how she had been made to "fret", literally, 'Anger after anger'. The picture is of continual provocation leading to continual anger episodes. But now she reflects that Yahweh 'counts actions' (1 Sam. 2:3 Heb.). Every provocation and episode was counted. All the countless daily episodes like this in countless human relationships are likewise not unnoticed, and all will finally be judged when they concern the Lord's people.</p>


text:
<p>The bows of the mighty men are broken-</p><p>Seeing children are as arrows (<a href='B:230 127:4-5'>Psa 127:4-5</a>), 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 <a href='B:100 22:35'>2Sa 22:35</a>.</p>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. <p>Those who stumbled are armed with strength- </p><p>"Stumbled" is a word mostly used about spiritual stumbling. And yet Hannah is revealed as a woman of great faith in 1 Samuel 1. But she seems now to see that part of her life as stumbling, and her arrogant boasting as spiritual strength.</p>


text:
<p>Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread- </p><p>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.</p><p>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. </p><p>
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.  
</p><p>Those who were hungry are satisfied. Yes, the barren has borne seven- </p><p>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.</p><p>She who has many children languishes- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up- </p><p>Hannah feels that she has been dead [useless and non existent in society without children, cp. "the deadness of Sarah's womb", <a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a>], 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.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh makes poor and makes rich. He brings low and He also lifts up- </p><p>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 <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>. Clearly Hannah didn’t believe the good comes from God and the evil from some cosmic Satan figure. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p>He raises up the poor out of the dust. He lifts up the needy from the dunghill- </p><p>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.</p><p>To make them sit with princes and inherit the throne of glory- </p><p>This and Hannah's song and experiences are alluded to in <a href='B:230 113:7-9'>Psa 113:7-9</a>. 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 <a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a>, 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" (<a href='B:230 113:9'>Psa 113:9</a>) continues the allusion to Hannah continues; but she was representative to the "barren woman" of Israel in exile (<a href='B:290 54:1'>Isa 54:1</a>), who was to be blessed with many children (<a href='B:290 49:12'>Isa 49:12</a>; <a href='B:290 49:18'>Isa 49:18</a>; <a href='B:290 49:20'>Isa 49:20</a>; <a href='B:290 54:2-3'>Isa 54:2-3</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:550 4:27'>Gal 4:27</a>). But Samuel didn’t do this; instead it was he who set up another man [David] and his family to do so.</p><p>For the pillars of the earth are Yahweh’s; He has set the world upon them- </p><p><a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a>; <a href='B:100 22:8'>2Sa 22:8</a> speak as if Heaven / the sky rests on the mountains, from where earth seems to touch the heavens (<a href='B:290 13:5'>Isa 13:5</a>), with the stars stretched out in the north (<a href='B:220 26:7'>Job 26:7</a>). 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. Likewise the technically incorrect view of demons as causing mental illness is reflected in the language of the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>Those who strive with Yahweh shall be broken to pieces. He will thunder against them in the sky-</p><p>Peninnah made Hannah "fret" (<a href='B:90 1:6'>1Sa 1:6</a>), 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.</p><p>Yahweh will judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to His king and exalt the horn of His anointed- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah went home to Ramah, but the child served Yahweh before Eli the priest-</p><p>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 <a href='B:90 1:24'>1Sa 1:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now the sons of Eli were men of Belial; they didn’t know Yahweh- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>The order given in <a href='B:30 3:3-5'>Lev 3:3-5</a>; <a href='B:30 7:29-34'>Lev 7:29-34</a> 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.</p><p>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. </p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>The sin of the young men was very great before Yahweh, for they despised the offering of Yahweh- </p><p>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 Samuel 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.</p>


text:
<p>But Samuel ministered before Yahweh, being a child, clothed with a linen ephod- </p><p>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 (<a href='B:140 29:11'>2Ch 29:11</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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 (<a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a>; <a href='B:20 28:31'>Exo 28:31</a>; <a href='B:20 29:5'>Exo 29:5</a>; <a href='B:20 39:22'>Exo 39:22</a>). 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 (<a href='B:130 15:27'>1Ch 15:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh visited Hannah and she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. The child Samuel grew before Yahweh-</p><p>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 <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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 <a href='B:20 38:8'>Exo 38:8</a> 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 <a href='B:90 3:11'>1Sa 3:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil deeds from all the people- </p><p>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.</p><p>Samuel was in his 50s or 60s at the time of <a href='B:90 8:1'>1Sa 8:1</a> when he made his corrupt sons judges over Israel. Eli had become judged of Israel at age 58 (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). 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 (<a href='B:90 8:4'>1Sa 8:4</a> = <a href='B:90 2:23'>1Sa 2:23</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>No my sons, it is no good report that I hear; you make Yahweh’s people disobey- </p><p>We can make others sin (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 16:19'>1Ki 16:19</a>). 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. The making of others to stumble is the repeated reason given for God’s wrath with this family.</p><p>Eli did rebuke his sons; but in God’s eyes he didn’t (<a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a> cp. 3:13). He said words for the sake of saying words, but in his heart he didn’t frown upon them. Eli appeared to discipline his sons. But he couldn’t have really done this from his heart, or he wouldn’t have been condemned for not controlling them. He honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”.</p><p><a href='B:90 1:21'>1Sa 1:21</a> LXX adds&nbsp; that Elkanah brought "his tithes". It was surely clear that the tithes were being abused by Eli's family, but Elkanah still brought them. Their abuses led to men sinning against Yahweh by not bringing tithes and offerings. But Elkanah is commended for not being amongst those made to stumble in this way.</p>


text:
<p>If one man sins against another, God will judge him; but if a man sins against Yahweh, who shall entreat for him?-</p><p>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.</p><p>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 (<a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a>). For Eli as the high priest ought to have been the mediator, but he was precluded from doing so by his own unspirituality.</p><p>However, they didn’t listen to their father, because Yahweh intended to kill them- </p><p>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 (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> 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 (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>):&nbsp; God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>The child Samuel grew and increased in favour with Yahweh and with men-</p><p>As noted on :25, Samuel is being set up as a type of the Lord Jesus, the mediator whom Eli should have been (<a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a> quotes this about the Lord).</p>


text:
<p>A man of God came to Eli and said to him- </p><p>The visit of the man of God to condemn Eli was the more remarkable because there "was no frequent vision" at that time (<a href='B:90 3:1'>1Sa 3:1</a>). God was making a special effort to appeal to Eli.</p><p>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?- </p><p>The reference is to the calling of the tribe of Levi "out of all the tribes of Israel" (:28). "Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. 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 (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>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?- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>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?’-</p><p>"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.</p><p>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" (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a> 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 <a href='B:650 10:29-30'>Heb 10:29-30</a> - we can indeed trample upon God’s sacrifice today.</p><p>Eli honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”. The description of Eli as being fat surely reflects his guilt (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). And yet he appeared on the surface to run his family life on a spiritual footing. His merely surface level rebuke of his sons is revealed as having a motivation in the fact he was himself benefitting from their misbehaviour.</p><p>Eli, although apparently righteous himself in many ways, was rejected specifically because "he frowned not" upon his sons' apostasy; he personally was counted as 'kicking' at God and profiteering from His sacrifices, even though he himself seems to have truly loved God (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). Because Eli wouldn't exercise discipline, he was somehow seen as committing those very things which he failed to rebuke. The man who wouldn’t discipline his wayward ox was to be treated like as if he had committed the crime the ox did, and therefore must die if the ox killed a man (<a href='B:20 21:29'>Exo 21:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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 (<a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a>), 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. <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>). And it is the word used by Nathan to David of what he had done (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>), 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 (Jeremiah 18).</p><p>Because of His capacity to imagine, to see possible futures, we can better sense the poignancy behind His words in places like <a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a>: "O that you had hearkened to my commandments!", "Oh that they would have a mind such as this always" (<a href='B:50 5:29'>Deu 5:29</a>), "O Israel, if you would but listen to me" (<a href='B:230 81:8'>Psa 81:8</a>; <a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a>). 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" (<a href='B:90 2:30'>1Sa 2:30</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p><p>"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. </p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>Eli was told of “all the wealth which God would have given Israel”, which his behaviour had now disallowed. Knowing this, women like Hannah clearly hoped and prayed that their sons would be Messiah (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a> = <a href='B:230 89:24'>Psa 89:24</a>); for they perceived that the outworking of God’s purpose was open to change. The wealth of Israel is paralleled with there being an old man in the house / tribe of Levi; the blessing of the people would have been parallel with the blessing of Israel. But their apostasy was the poverty of Israel. And yet Hannah has spoken of the rich becoming poor and the poor rich, with her having in view how Samuel and herself were the poor who would be made rich (:7). Again we see that the priesthood of Eli could have been replaced by that of the non-Levite Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>This will be the sign to you which will come on your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall both die- </p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>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- </p><p>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 (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>); yet he was the anointed one and not the priest. The promise of a "sure house" could have had fulfilment in Solomon (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>), 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. For all others, for whatever reason, had let the baton drop.</p><p>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.<p>


text:
<p>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’-</p><p>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.</p>


text:
<p>The child Samuel ministered to Yahweh before Eli-</p><p>The phrase "minister before Yahweh" is only used of the priests ministering in the holy place, where incense was offered (<a href='B:140 29:11'>2Ch 29:11</a>). We wonder how a child, who was not of the tribe of Levi, 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 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 <a href='B:90 2:18-19'>1Sa 2:18-19</a>.</p><p>The word of Yahweh was precious in those days; there was no frequent vision- </p><p>This would mean that the visit of the man of God to condemn Eli in <a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a> was the more remarkable because there "was no frequent vision" at that time (<a href='B:90 3:1'>1Sa 3:1</a>). God was making a special effort to appeal to Eli. This also sets the scene for God appearing to the young Samuel in a vision. The lamps had gone out in the Holy Place, matched by Eli's declining sight, and yet we see Samuel's growth contrasted with the decline of Eli and his dynasty. A new light is set to dawn in Israel, through Samuel. Who was born and grew spiritually against all odds.</p>


text:
<p>At that time, when Eli was laid down in his place (now his eyes had begun to grow dim, so that he could not see)- </p><p>Blindness is repeatedly used in the Old Testament as a sign of Divine judgment. The impression is that his declining eyesight was connected with the waning of the lamp of God in the tabernacle that night (:3). We get the impression that the message he is about to receive is yet another appeal to him, as was the prophetic word of <a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>.</p><p>Eli is presented always as either laying down or sitting down [by the tabernacle 1 Sam. 1:9, or by the road side at the entrance to Shiloh, 1 Sam. 4:13]. His passivity is highlighted. Samuel's father Elkanah likewise presents as passive, and so Samuel's zeal for God is the more commenable given this background and these role models. </p>


text:
<p>and the lamp of God hadn’t yet gone out, and Samuel had laid down in Yahweh’s sanctuary where the ark of God was- </p><p>The lamp was intended never to go out. We have here the impression of the oil lamps now waning and about to go out, connecting with the impression we have of Eli's declining light as his eyesight slowly failed in :2. God’s presence in the tabernacle was in decline, but this was because Eli had not made the effort to keep that light burning, passing the job to young Samuel, who lit the lamps at evening and then went to sleep. We could reason that it was when the lamp had gone out that then the prophetic word of condemnation came to Samuel. The "lamp of God" going out was representative of the end of God’s relationship with His people (<a href='B:140 29:7'>2Ch 29:7</a>), and is the term used of the faithful line having a lamp of God burning in Jerusalem (<a href='B:110 15:4'>1Ki 15:4</a>). But in Eli's time, the lamp was allowed to burn out, because the priests couldn't be bothered to keep it burning. And this therefore came to represent the extinguishing of the light of Eli's household.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh called Samuel, and he said Here I am- </p><p>Notice the fascinating repetition within <a href='B:90 3:4-6'>1Sa 3:4-6</a>; <a href='B:90 3:10'>1Sa 3:10</a>; <a href='B:90 3:16'>1Sa 3:16</a>: the Angel calls Samuel’s name, and he replies “Here am I”. Then Eli calls his name for the first time  [:16 Eli called Samuel and said, Samuel, my son! He said, Here I am], and Samuel likewise responds “Here am I”- insisting that Eli has already been calling him, when in fact it had been the Angel. Clearly the Angel spoke to Samuel with the voice of Eli! Could this imply that that Angel was Eli’s guardian? At very least it reflects how closely sensitive and understanding the Angels are to their charges on earth- they can imitate the exact intonation of their voices! By all means compare this with how the early believers were sure that what appeared to be Peter standing at the door was his Angel- they imagined that his guardian Angel looked exactly like him.</p><p>"Samuel" means 'the one who hears God', and he runs to Eli, 'my God'. He was being taught by these three episodes that hearing God was not the same as hearing Eli. Eli was not in fact 'Eli', 'my God', to Samuel. A child's perception of God is always taught by their father figure, and Eli was Samuel's father figure. But at this young age he was being taught otherwise, and to his credit he responded, not going the way of Eli and those around him.</p>


text:
<p>He ran to Eli, and said, Here I am, for you called me. He said, I didn’t call; lie down again. He went and lay down- </p><p>We note Samuel's running in response to God’s word, in line with the idiom of 'running' as meaning response to God’s message (<a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>; <a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a>; <a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a>; <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a>; <a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a> RV; <a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a> Gk:).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh called again, Samuel! Samuel arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am; for you called me. He answered, I didn’t call my son; lie down again- </p><p>See on :4. "My son" reflects how in Elkanah's absence from maybe the age of three (<a href='B:90 1:24'>1Sa 1:24</a>), Eli was effectively Samuel's father. He is the more commendable for being spiritually strong for Yahweh when his adoptive family were so far from Him.</p><p>"Here am I" was the logical answer if the Divine voice came from between the cherubim, as it did in Num. 7:89. So Samuel was sleeping next to the ark. Yet when Uzzah touched the ark he was slain. Boundaries of holiness were so flexible. There seems little point in mentioning the ark unless to make the point that Samuel slept next to it: "Samuel had laid down in Yahweh’s sanctuary where the ark of God was" (:3). The lamps that went out therefore refer to those in the candlestick in the Holy place. A child was maintaining the whole tabernacle and moving freely in and out of holy space. Eli's attitude to God's holiness was terrible.  </p>


text:
<p>Now Samuel didn’t yet know Yahweh, neither was the word of Yahweh yet revealed to him- </p><p>Despite this, he was still ministering to Yahweh, even though he had no personal relationship with Him and was aware of this in that he omitted using the term Yahweh (see on :10). For that is the usual sense of "knowing" in a Hebraic sense. This is mentioned to explain why Samuel was so slow in realizing that this was a Divine prophetic call and not Eli calling him. "Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. 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 (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh called Samuel again the third time. He arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am; for you called me. Eli perceived that Yahweh had called the child- </p><p>This perception would have been mixed with a premonition that this child was his replacement, seeing he had earlier been warned that he was as it were not hearing his own calling as high priest (see on <a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>).  "Child" is the same word used in 1 Sam. 2:13 for how the priest's servant or "boy" defrauded worshippers of their sacrifices. Samuel even as a child was doing priestly service.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Eli said to Samuel, Go, lie down, and if He calls you, say, ‘Speak, Yahweh, for Your servant hears’. So Samuel went and lay down in his place- </p><p>Eli is to be commended for being prepared to accept that Yahweh was having a relationship with Samuel because he had failed. Many jealous people, such as Saul, would have ten wanted to destroy Samuel. But Eli wasn't like that. He comes over as completely passive, although happy to get fat on the abuses performed by his sons. But the condemnation of him is severe. He is a parade example of the significance of sins of omission.</p><p>Eli's command to Samuel to "listen" may allude to the way in which his own sons "didn’t listen to their father, because Yahweh intended to kill them" (1 Sam. 2:25). Eli presents as a man who knows what's right (he tells Samuel to say the right thing to God)- but is just too weak willed to do it personally. His condemnation, in such heavy terms, is a true warning and challenge to us all. </p><p>
We naturally wonder why these three attempted callings of Samuel. The impression may simply be created that Eli was not spiritually perceptive; he ought to have perceived Samuel's calling at the first time. But Samuel was also being taught to perceive the difference between the voice of Eli, and that of God. Until this point he had conflated the two. Now he is being led further out of religion into personal spirituality and response to God's word direct to him.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh came and stood and called as at other times, Samuel! Samuel! Then Samuel said, Speak; for Your servant hears- </p><p>This coming and standing of Yahweh was presumably in the form of an Angel. We note Samuel omits to use the term "Yahweh", contrary to how Eli had instructed him (:9 'Speak, Yahweh, for Your servant hears’). It is noted on :7 that Samuel didn’t yet know Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, Behold, I will do something in Israel which will make both the ears of everyone who hears it tingle- </p><p>Samuel as a child had to tell Eli of God’s rejection of him, a message he also heard at night, and His replacement of him with someone else. This prepared Samuel for doing this very same thing years later, with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:16'>1Sa 15:16</a>); and to some extent, he too failed in ways similar to Eli, and was in a sense replaced. Whilst it's impossible to attach meaning to events at the time they happen, they potentially prepare us for later use by God if we are willing to be used.</p><p>Eli and his sons were surely unpopular, because the people complained to Eli about all the abuses going on (<a href='B:90 2:22'>1Sa 2:22</a>). The result was that they gave up offering sacrifices (<a href='B:90 2:17'>1Sa 2:17</a>). And yet Yahweh foresaw that the people would be shocked at the judgment to come upon the family. We see here how people need religion, to the point of accepting awful abuses and being deeply upset when the abusers are judged; even though they notice and complain about the abuses. This kind of thing, especially in the areas of sexual and financial abuse, is too often seen in religion gone wrong today.</p>


text:
<p>In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end- </p><p>And yet I noted in 1 Samuel 2 that there were various potential judgments upon Eli's house. But the essence of God’s judgment was to be performed even if not the letter of it.</p><p>In the gap between beginning and ending, there would be no repentance. Because God can begin judgment and not complete it. But in their case, He would begin and take it through to the end. Possibly the beginning was in the death of Hophni and Phinehas, continuing in the death of Abimelech and the eighty five priests at Nob at the hands of Saul; and then came to "an end" when Solomon cast Abiathar from the priesthood.</p>


text:
<p>For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew- </p><p>The judgment was eternal not in the sense that they would experience eternal conscious punishment; but the consequences of rejection would be eternal in that they were missing out on eternity. And losing a potentially possible eternity is therefore in that sense an eternal judgment.</p><p>Because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he didn’t rebuke them- </p><p>Eli did rebuke his sons; but in God’s eyes he didn’t (<a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a> cp. 3:13). He said words for the sake of saying words, but in his heart he didn’t frown upon them. Eli appeared to discipline his sons. But he couldn’t have really done this from his heart, or he wouldn’t have been condemned for not controlling them. He honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”. We too can go through the motions of spirituality without believing it. Even external acts of apparent righteousness can be sin.</p><p>Eli ought to have noticed his sons' behaviour for himself. He only said something to them because people were gossiping about it (1 Sam. 2:23). Image was clearly all important to him, and he himself colluded with his sons and is condemned for it.
We note again that all condemnation is self inflicted; they brought this curse upon themselves.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the guilt of Eli’s house shall not be removed with sacrifice nor offering forever-</p><p>We compare this with the observation that the blood of bulls and goats could never remove sin or guilt of itself (<a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a>). The guilt could only anyway be removed by faith in the future Messianic sacrifice, better than any animal offering. Again we see that the judgment upon persons was a reflection of what the position which the person themselves had arrived at. They had no desire for forgiveness nor any vision towards the future Messianic sacrifice; and so they were judged with the curse of sacrifice never removing their guilt. David surely looked back to this when he confessed that sacrifice and offering could not remove his sin, only God’s grace (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>).</p><p>We could infer from this statement that there was a hint that Eli even at this stage could find forgiveness- if he threw himself upon God's grace, as David likewise did when in a situation when sacrifice and offering couldn't save him. Indeed David may have been inspired by Eli's refusal of this offer to himself accept it. Possibly the situation with Eli is in mind in Hos. 6:6: "For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God, rather than burnt offerings".  But instead Eli's response is passive, just accepting his judgment because of the clogging nature of religion and his lack of personal spirituality, reflected in how he failed to perceive Hannah was praying in her heart.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of Yahweh. Samuel feared to show Eli the vision- </p><p>This is a common theme, of men fearing to tell others the prophetic vision. We think of Daniel dumb with fear before telling the vision to Nebuchadnezzar. It is our own narrative almost daily, as we fear to tell others God’s word as it really is, fearing their rejection.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eli called Samuel and said, Samuel, my son! He said, Here I am- </p><p>"Here" translates hinneh, a word with the same consonants as the name of his mother Hannah. It was almost as if he were saying "I am Hannah". In that moment he felt unity with his mother, in obedience to God’s word.</p>


text:
<p>He said, What was it that He said to you? Please don’t hide it from me- </p><p>Surely Eli knew that this was another message of condemnation for him. But he wanted to know it, just as Zedekiah urged Jeremiah not to hide from him the message of his own damnation (s:w. <a href='B:300 38:14'>Jer 38:14</a>).</p><p>May God deal with you severely if you hide anything from me of all the things that He said to you- </p><p>This was no mere threat from Eli. We are not to hide God’s word from those for whom it was intended at our hands. One theme of the history here is the critical significance of sins of omission. Omitting to discipline sons, omitting to declare God’s word... all merited severe judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel told him everything- </p><p>Literally, "every word". Samuel is presented as a new Moses, for this phrase is used repeatedly about him and his mediation for Israel.</p><p>And hid nothing from him. He said, It is Yahweh- </p><p>By Eli commenting “It is the Lord”, he meant ‘It is the word of the Lord’; but he saw God as effectively His word. “The word”, the “word of the Kingdom”, “the Gospel”, “the word of God” are all parallel expressions throughout the Gospels. Our attitude to God’s word is our attitude to Him. "The word was God". David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord... you despised me" (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>). David learnt that his attitude to God’s word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words.</p><p>Let Him do what seems good to Him- </p><p>This kind of fatalism isn't right. It seems a similarly faithfulness Hezekiah alludes to it in <a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>: "Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, Yahweh’s word which you have spoken is good. He said moreover, For there will be peace and truth in my days".</p>


text:
<p>Samuel grew, and Yahweh was with him, and he let none of His words fall to the ground- </p><p>The words in view are presumably the intention to raise up the non-Levite Samuel as a replacement priest and mediator for Israel. But as noted on 1 Samuel 2, God’s purposes and intentions for Samuel went as far as establishing him as a Messianic king, prophet and priest who would rebuke Yahweh's enemies (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). But Samuel let the ball drop to some extent and this was not finally achieved in him. But from God’s side, His words did not fail. Prophecy therefore doesn't fail or "fall to the ground" but the potential fulfillments may not come about.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of Yahweh- </p><p>Samuel was apparently required to speak forth his words of judgment upon Eli to all Israel, otherwise the ears of Israel could not have tingled at hearing the message (:11). This would have resulted in a difficult life for Samuel at Shiloh, with Eli and his sons aware of what he was saying about them. Perhaps the subsequent account of the death of the family in 1 Samuel 4 is now included to show how this verse came to be true. When the prophecy of Samuel about them was suddenly fulfilled, all Israel would have known that Samuel was indeed a prophet. For short term fulfillments were required in order to legitimize a prophet (<a href='B:50 18:22'>Deu 18:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh appeared again in Shiloh, for Yahweh revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of Yahweh- </p><p>"Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. 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 (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). 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.</p>


text:
<p>Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle and encamped beside Ebenezer, and the Philistines encamped in Aphek-</p><p>"Ebenezer" is "rock of help", but Yahweh was no longer the rock for Israel. Eli epitomized Israel; Jeshurun like Eli (:18) had "become fat" and despised Yahweh as their rock (<a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>), and so He was not a rock of defence for them (<a href='B:50 32:30'>Deu 32:30</a>; <a href='B:50 32:37'>Deu 32:37</a>). Israel found no help from God there. The theme of religious hollowness continues, for mere tokenism cannot save.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines put themselves in position against Israel; when they joined battle Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand Israelite soldiers- </p><p>The description of the drawing up of battle lines and camps recalls the description of the conflict with the Philistines when David saved Israel by slaying Goliath. The contrast seems intentional. God’s plan through Samuel and David was to salvation, whereas Eli and his sins led Israel to defeat and their own destruction.</p>


text:
<p>When the people had returned to the camp the elders of Israel said, Why has Yahweh struck us today before the Philistines?- </p><p>They realized that this was no mere bad luck, but that God was working through the Philistines. To be smitten by enemies was part of the curse for disobedience to the covenant. That was the answer, but rather look at themselves self critically and perceive their sins, the people blamed a lack of external religion- in that they blamed what had happened instead upon not having the ark with them. The ark was never presented as a talisman nor was there a command to take it with them into battle. This was purely their assumption.</p><p>Let us bring the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of Shiloh that it may go with us and save us out of the hand of our enemies- </p><p>This is the language of Yahweh personally going with Israel and saving them out of the hand of their enemies. But as so many do today, Israel had replaced content with form, personal relationship with God with a hollow trust in wooden formalism and mere religion. For no gold box could save Israel. Instead of speaking of Yahweh going with and saving them, they speak of "that it [the ark] may go with us and save us". They were making God equal to a religious item. Just as so many do. They were misapplying Biblical precedent; “Rise up, Lord, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee” (Num. 10:35) was being taken to mean that enemies would flee before the physical ark, whereas this passage is nuanced by the blessings and cursings for faithfulness to the covenant; only a covenant compliant Israel would experience their enemies fleeing before them. They likely also recalled how the Ark had preceded them in the victory against Jericho (Josh. 6:6). The Biblical precedent for Israel was in Josh. 7:6-9 and Jud. 20:26-28 – where both times the people were humbled by their defeat before the ark and sought a word from their God. Both times their sins were revealed, the people repented and were then given victory. But here they just assume that the ark's physical presence would guarantee victory. There was no sense of personal sin nor relationship with their God. Instead they were treating the ark just as the Gentiles treated their gods, taking them into battle with them. Israel's victory against the Philistines in their next recorded battle, in 1 Sam. 7, was not because they had the ark with them- but because Samuel called them to repent and destroy their idols. </p><p>
In 2 Sam. 5:21 we read of David destroying the images of the Philistines after defeating them in battle, so it's quite possible the Philistines had brought their idols with them to battle. And Israel wanted to do likewise by bringing the ark with them. But they were making the classic religious error of confusing symbol with actual Divine presence. This error is widespread; religious people think that God's presence is only in a building, or only mediated through relics or symbols. Presence and physical symbol are different, although mere religion conflates them. It is the same essential error of Holy Spirit-less Christianity, wherein the physical external forms and appearances of worship are relied upon rather than the actual presence of God through the Spirit. This is surely why the ark fades from view in Israel's history and nobody knows where it ended up. No ark features in the restored temple of Ezekiel. Likewise the temple was destroyed, as a judgment intended to actually help God's people relate to Him on a spiritual level rather than in terms of mere religion and externality. And this is surely why when the ark does literally return to Judah in 1 Sam. 6:19, the men of Beth Shemesh are judged rather than blessed by its presence. They likewise wrongly assumed that having the ark with them would guarantee them blessing; they repeated the same error of the people when they thought that having the ark with them would bring them victory. </p><p>
David later brings the ark to Zion in 2 Sam. 6, but this was without any Divine command to do so and without consultation with Him;  and there was the disaster with Uzzah the first time he attempted it. He clearly also veered towards seeing the ark as a talisman. It was almost as if he wanted to underwrite his own enthronement in Jerusalem by having Yahweh enthroned there also over the ark. Likewise David's desire to permanently locate the ark in a physical temple in Jerusalem can be seen as a desire to legitimate the enthronement of his dynasty in that city. As Adele Berlin noted, "temple-building is crucial to the dynastic promise. The link between the two is common in ancient Near Eastern temple-building literature, where the builder of the temple receives a divine blessing for dynastic stability". God's response was that He needed no temple, but He would build David's "house" or dynasty. But on the other hand, David often 'gets it' about the lack of need for the ark's physical presence. His psalms speak of how he lived permanently beneath the shadow of the cherubic wings, as if he lived on the mercy seat, on the sprinkled blood. In 2 Sam. 15:24-29 he flees from Absalom, and refuses the suggestion he take the ark with him. In fact he initially wants to take it but re-thinks. But, so true to real spiritual life, he also had tendencies towards needing the physical and religious when it came to the ark. Just as we pine for the religious at times, whilst also rejoicing in God's presence in our hearts quite regardless of religious context. David wrote at least two Psalms about bringing the ark to Zion, Ps. 68 and Ps. 132. Ps. 68 clearly expects God to bring victory to Israel because of the ark's presence in Zion, and Ps. 132 seems to reason that once the ark is in Zion it will be there forever. This wasn't to be the case. But we see in David's reasoning that he still considered the ark as some kind of physical guarantee of God's presence, and the legitimization of his own enthronement in Jerusalem- and that of his dynasty after him, as he imagined. He was proven wrong- the ark disappeared, his dynasty was cut off from being the kings of Judah, Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. But God's spiritual presence in human hearts continued and became the stronger after these things. We marvel at how God works through human weakness to achieve His wider purposes. </p>


text:
<p>So the people sent to Shiloh and they brought from there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of Armies, who sits above the cherubim; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God- </p><p>There is a juxtaposition between the presence of Yahweh at the ark, and the corrupt sons of Eli being present "with" the ark. The opposition may be between their being "with" the ark, but Yahweh being "above" it. Being in the presence of the ark had done those men no spiritual good, and so it was vain to suppose that being "with" it would provide salvation. His presence "above" the ark may also suggest that Yahweh and the ark were not the same thing at all.</p><p>"The ark of the covenant of Yahweh of Armies, who sits above the cherubim" is a lengthy title for the ark; again we have the impression of them trusting in the religious rather than the spiritual.</p>


text:
<p>When the ark of the covenant of Yahweh came into the camp all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth resounded- </p><p>Such was the depth of their belief in mere religion. This is the language of deep religious joy (<a href='B:110 1:45'>1Ki 1:45</a>; <a href='B:150 3:12-13'>Ezr 3:12-13</a>; <a href='B:400 2:12'>Mic 2:12</a>). One lesson we learn is that religious passion, deep faith in the external symbols of the religion (the ark, in this case) is absolutely nothing to do with really knowing God in relationship. I have suggested that the historical records of the Bible were rewritten under inspiration in Babylon, with special reference to the events of the restoration. In this case the connection would be with the great shout and echoing land of <a href='B:150 3:12-13'>Ezr 3:12-13</a> when the rebuilt temple was dedicated. But some wept at that time; for it had not been built according to the commandments of Ezekiel 40-48, and therefore the more spiritually minded wept as they realized that the temple and kingdom had not been restored as potentially possible. The connection of the language is in that here again the people had shouted with passion and the earth had echoed- but Yahweh was not among them, and they were slain. The ark was for them just a box and not the real presence of God. They wrongly equated God with the symbolism of Him, assuming that God was with them if the ark was with them (:7).</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard the noise of the shout they said, What does the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews mean? When they understood that the ark of Yahweh had come into the camp- </p><p>Note the parallel in :7 between the ark coming into the camp, and God coming into the camp [as they understood it]. Like Israel, they wrongly equated God with the symbolism of Him, assuming that God was with them if the ark was with them. Form replaced content. The externalities overshadowed and then eclipsed the essence.</p>


text:
<p>they were afraid, for they said, God has come into the camp. They said, Woe to us! Nothing like this has happened before- </p><p>God’s experience with Israel led to His humiliation before the nations. Seeing the ark represented the very presence of God, the capture of the ark was in a sense the capture of God (<a href='B:90 5:7'>1Sa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a> cp. 4:7). <a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a> comments: "He delivered his power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe". And likewise at the cross, crucifixion meant humiliation in some sense for God.</p><p>"God has come into the camp" reflects how they viewed the ark as the 'god' of Israel. And that was clearly how Israel themselves viewed the ark. They came to view their God as if He were just the same kind of god as the surrounding nations had, whose presence was in a symbol, which gave victory if carried into battle. In fact the shekinah presence of Yahweh was over the ark, on the blood sprinkled mercy seat or lid of the ark, between the cherubim. The presence was not the ark itself.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to us! Who can deliver us out of the hand of these mighty gods? These are the gods that struck the Egyptians with all kinds of plagues in the wilderness- </p><p>They refer to Yahweh in the plural, and we wonder if this too was how Israel conceived of their God. For Aaron had made the gold calf and told them that "these be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (<a href='B:20 32:4'>Exo 32:4</a>). The desire to believe in a plurality of gods somehow beneath the banner of "one God" is a basic human tendency in all religious systems, and came to term in the false doctrine of the Trinity. And yet we see how jumbled was the message which had come down to the Philistines- that the Egyptians had been plagued "in the wilderness" by the multiple gods of Israel. It is a sign of Divine inspiration and purpose that the basic message about Yahweh has been accurately preserved in His word.</p><p>We have here the fulfilment of the Song of Moses at the Red Sea: "Fear shall take hold of the inhabitants of Palestina [Philistia]" (Ex. 15:14). </p>


text:
<p>Be strong, and behave like men, you Philistines, so that you will not be servants to the Hebrews as they have been to you. Strengthen yourselves like men and fight!-</p><p>These words are quoted about our call to likewise bravely fight against apparently impossible odds- and win (<a href='B:530 16:13'>1Co 16:13</a>). This indicates how context [contrary to what is often claimed] is not always the critical issue in interpretation. For typical of Hebrew midrash, the New Testament quotations of Old Testament phrases are often without any attention to context, just taking phrases of Old Testament scripture and applying them to some other context. When you go back and look at the surrounding context of the Old Testament quotation, there is often no relevance nor appropriacy at all (although sometimes there is).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines fought and Israel was defeated and they fled every man to his tent and there was a very great slaughter, for thirty thousand Israelite foot soldiers were killed- </p><p>The Hebrew word translated "thousand" doesn't literally mean 1,000 in every occurrence; it can refer to a grouping or family, and in a military context, to a regiment or military subdivision. But the slaughter was far greater than at the first battle. This was clearly punishment for misusing the ark of God as mere religious tokenism and as a totem for good luck and success. With what hurt must God view the similar usage of the symbol of the cross, and the taking of His Name in vain today.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of God was taken, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were killed-</p><p>As discussed on :7, the taking of the ark of God into captivity was in a sense God going into captivity. It seems the ark was taken before the men were killed. But the order is reversed in :17 to reflect how much the ark meant to Eli. And yet his love of external religion didn’t mean he was thereby spiritual nor saved from his condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>A man of Benjamin ran out of the army that day and came to Shiloh with his clothes torn and earth on his head- </p><p>There may be some significance to this in that it was Benjamin who were chosen by God through Samuel as the first kingly tribe. Why mention he was from Benjamin? The "man of Benjamin" who features throughout the books of Samuel is Saul. So we wonder whether this was Saul, and yet he failed to discern the warning from the death of Eli and his sons at the hand of the Philistines. For the circumstances of the end of Saul and Eli were so similar. We note how the birth of Ichabod is very similar to that of Benjamin, with the death of their mothers in depression and despair.</p>


text:
<p>When he came, Eli was sitting on his seat by the road watching, for his heart trembled for the ark of God- </p><p>The paramount importance given to the ark is continually stressed. He was worried far more about the ark than about his sons. And yet his lack of discipline of his sons led to his condemnation. His love of the religious externalities didn’t save him. "By the road" is LXX "by the gate"; he was watching, but he was a blind watchman (:15), 'watching' for the external religious symbol of the ark, when he was blind to real spirituality. Recall how he had no conception that a woman could pray to God in her heart.</p><p>When the man came into the city and reported what had happened, all the city cried out- </p><p>The record emphasizes Eli’s love for the ark; even after the shock of hearing that his sons had been killed, it was only when he heard that the ark had been taken that he had a stroke and died (:18). Likewise his daughter in law died with mourning for the ark on her lips (:22). But this love of the external things of one’s religion (see on :10) wasn’t the same as true spirituality. For all Eli’s love of the things associated with the true God, he was severely condemned for not having the glory of God and care for His people at heart (see on <a href='B:90 3:13'>1Sa 3:13</a>). It’s not difficult to love the external trappings of our religion- the church hall, the social events, the regular activities, the general ambience. But this isn’t the same as true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>When Eli heard the noise of the crying he said, What does this noise mean? The man hurried and told Eli- </p><p>The historical records were rewritten under inspiration in exile, with the Babylonian captivity presented as having been experienced in essence in Israel's earlier history. This is a parade example, for the phrase "the noise of the crying" is used in <a href='B:300 25:36'>Jer 25:36</a> of how the shepherds of Israel (cp. Eli and his sons) would make a noise of crying at the Babylonian invasion (also in <a href='B:430 1:10'>Zep 1:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now Eli was ninety-eight years old, and his eyes were bad so that he could not see- </p><p>We noted on <a href='B:90 3:2-3'>1Sa 3:2-3</a> that at that point Eli's eyes had begun to grow dim, and this is associated with the waning and extinction of the oil lamp which was intended to burn always before Yahweh. Now, Eli is completely blind. The light has gone out within him and within the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>The man said to Eli, I am the one who came out of the army, and I fled today from the battle. He said, What happened, my son?- </p><p>Fleeing before enemies was a sign Israel had broken covenant. This is the point of the history here. Mere possession of the ark and ritual obedience was just mere religion, and was not at all associated with the real, saving presence of God amongst men. This was all so relevant to the exiles, for whom these histories were later rewritten and presented.</p><p>"What happened, my son?" is literally 'What is the word?'. Eli used the same term in 1 Sam. 3:17 where he again asks "my son" Samuel 'What is the word?'. And it had been a word of condemnation. And now in response to the same question, he hears the fulfilment of it, in the news of the death of his sons. But even personal condemnation, the fulfilment of the threat of judgment upon him, meant less to him than the loss of the ark. We see reflected here how personal relationship with God, even the issues of personal salvation or condemnation, can be subsumed in human psychology beneath the obsessive burden of religion and religious symbolism. </p>


text:
<p>The man who brought the news answered, Israel has fled before the Philistines and there has been a great slaughter among the people. Your two sons Hophni and Phinehas are dead, and the ark of God has been captured- </p><p><a href='B:90 2:34'>1Sa 2:34</a> had given Eli this very sign: "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 prophetic sign to Eli was surely that he was to take note of it and then repent. But it seems the die 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.</p>


text:
<p>When he made mention of the ark of God- </p><p>Eli, although apparently righteous himself in many ways and loving the ark of God above all, was rejected specifically because "he frowned not" upon his sons' apostasy; he personally was counted as 'kicking' at God and profiteering from His sacrifices, even though he himself seems to have truly loved God (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). Because Eli wouldn't exercise discipline, he was somehow seen as committing those very things which he failed to rebuke. The man who wouldn’t discipline his wayward ox was to be treated like as if he had committed the crime the ox did, and therefore must die if the ox killed a man (<a href='B:20 21:29'>Exo 21:29</a>).</p><p>Eli fell off his seat backward by the side of the gate and his neck broke and he died, for he was an old man and heavy. He had judged Israel for forty years- </p><p>He honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”. The description of Eli as being fat surely reflects his guilt (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). And yet he appeared on the surface to run his family life on a spiritual footing.</p>


text:
<p>His daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was pregnant, near the time of delivery. When she heard the news that the ark of God was taken and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she went into labour and gave birth, but was overcome by her pains- </p><p>If Eli was 98 (:15) and his daughter in law was young enough to have a child, we can conclude that she was much younger than Phinehas, who was likely in his 70s. He was known for sleeping with other women, so we can assume he had had a number of relationships.</p>


text:
<p>As she was dying the women attending her said, Don’t be afraid, for you have given birth to a son. But she didn’t answer, neither did she pay any attention- </p><p>The possibility of future things continuing through her son was unimportant to her. For her, the present glory of being in the High Priestly family, even though that family had been condemned to destruction, was everything. And the ark likewise was everything for her, the quintessence of her religion, without which all was meaningless. She is similar to Eli in that the ark meant more to her than anything else (:18).</p>


text:
<p>She named the child Ichabod saying, The glory has departed from Israel, because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband- </p><p>Phinehas' wife honestly thought that her apostate husband and father-in-law were "the glory of Israel". But she was not without some spirituality, or at least religiosity, because she considered the ark to be the even greater glory of Israel (:22). As noted on :18, like Eli, she considered the ark more important than anything else, even her family. And yet this is the point- that mere love of religious symbolism is nothing at all in spiritual terms.</p><p>Eli's daughter in law had died muttering "Ichabod", 'the glory is departed', because of the loss of the physical ark. But she saw things only in terms of physical visible religion. Glory was in fact given to God even in the loss of the ark, because the Philistines decide they must give glory to God by returning the ark to Him with offerings (their wise men advised "you must make images of your tumours and your mice that are destroying the land, and give glory to the God of Israel", 1 Sam. 6:5); He was to be given glory, kabod, heaviness, so that He would lighten His hand. It was a magnificent defeat; Israel on earth lost, but Yahweh won, hence Dagon falling mutilated and defeated before Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>She said, The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken- </p><p>The relevance to the exiles is that the shekinah glory had literally departed from Jerusalem when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and Judah went into captivity; "departed" is the word used for the exile. The visions Ezekiel showed progressive departure of "the glory of the God of Israel" (<a href='B:330 8:4'>Eze 8:4</a>) from the temple to the East of Jerusalem and then further away to Babylon. And the painful thing for Judah was the ark was apparently lost. But the spiritually minded would have seen from the connection with the ark's previous captivity that actually the presence of God and the ark were two different things. The ark was not to be seen as a mere piece of religious and nationalistic symbolism. The loss of it was not to be mourned unduly because personal relationship with God was still possible, and that is of paramount value. The physical glory of Yahweh which dwelt between the cherubim had departed. We marvel that it was still there through all the years of abuse by Eli and his sons. Her grief should have been for the reasons why that glory departed. But like many religious people, she was focused merely upon the external. However the record will describe the return of the ark, and this would've given hope to the exiles. The Philistines knew the story of the Exodus, and in 1 Sam. 5 will perceive that the ark represents Israel; they reason that they should let it go, and give it gold and silver, lest they suffer the fate of the Egyptians who refused to let Israel go. </p><p>
"The glory is departed from Israel" is literally, "Where is the glory?". Sharing the spiritual blindness of Eli, she could not conceive of God's glory as being anywhere but over a wooden box. This gives depth and perspective to David's frequent observations that he saw God's glory in all the earth. This woman saw it solely over a box.  </p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines had taken the ark of God, and they brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod- </p><p>This continues the theme developed in 1 Samuel 4 of how having the ark as mere religious symbolism was not the same as having relationship with God. It was taken away from Ebenezer, the rock of help, for God was no longer their rock; see on <a href='B:90 6:15'>1Sa 6:15</a>; <a href='B:90 7:12'>1Sa 7:12</a>. And yet misusing it was going to bring judgment. This was relevant encouragement to the exiles as they mourned how the temple vessels had been taken to Babylon and were being misused, as in the drinking feast of Daniel 5. "Ashdod" is a form of the word translated "spoiler" or "robber" frequently used of Babylon (<a href='B:290 33:1'>Isa 33:1</a>; <a href='B:300 4:13'>Jer 4:13</a>; <a href='B:300 4:20'>Jer 4:20</a>; <a href='B:300 6:26'>Jer 6:26</a>; <a href='B:300 9:19'>Jer 9:19</a> and often). These historical records were intended to be discerned by the exiles as speaking to them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>This journey of 60 km. was surely done without the ark being carried by Levites. Uzzah was later slain for just steadying the ark; whereas Samuel appears to have slept next to it, and here the Philistines manhandle it on a long journey. Uzzah was slain but they weren't. Again we see how boundaries of holiness are relative, and God looks at the heart; something clearly was very wrong in Uzzah's heart, in a way it was not wrong in the hearts of the child Samuel or these Philistines. Attitude and heart are paramount in God's judgment of men.   </p>


text:
<p>They took the ark of God into the house of Dagon and set it beside Dagon- </p><p>This connects with how the Babylonians took the temple vessels into the houses of their gods in Babylon.</p>


text:
<p>When the people of Ashdod arose early the next day, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>The phrase 'fell on his face to the ground before' is usually used of worship. Although the ark was indeed just a wooden box, God would not be mocked, and expressed His wish that the Philistines would quit their fish god Dagon and worship Him. See on :12. But laying flat on his face before the ark could suggest Dagon has been slain by Yahweh. There are virtually no undamaged statues of gods or idols discovered by archaeologists- because it was normal for the victors to damage or mutilate the idols of their enemies. This is what Yahweh is doing here to Dagon, as if He has won and is now mutilating the opposing god. And yet Yahweh's people had been slain before the Philistines and Dagon their god. We see here the paradox- it was a "magnificent defeat" just as was the cross. Apparent defeat is actually Yahweh's longer term victory. His people may be defeated on earth, but He wins in Heaven; and that is a theme of the book of Revelation. </p><p>
In the context of the exiles, the gods of Babylon were likewise judged- "Bel bows down, Nebo stoops" (Is. 46:1). Again we see how the ark narrative in 1 Sam. 4-6 was probably rewritten for encouragement to the exiles. And to teach them that the ark's presence amongst them was not of essential importance. Rather were they to see God's personal presence in their heart, according to the promises of the new covenant they were offered.
</p><p>They took Dagon and set him back in his place- </p><p>This need to "set him back in his place" connects with the mockery of idol worship found in the restoration prophets. The same phrase is used in :11. The worshippers of Dagon had to return their god to his place by themselves; but the ark was returned to its place by God working through the oxen and cart, which represented the cherubim.</p>


text:
<p>When they arose early the next morning, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were broken off, lying on the threshold. Only Dagon’s torso was intact- </p><p>A fish has no head, palms nor hands. The idol image was reduced to all it was- a mere fish. We saw on :3 that the phrase 'fell on his face to the ground before' is usually used of worship. It was God’s intention that the Philistines come to acknowledge His supremacy, and perceive their idols for what they were, stripped of all they had added to them. "Torso" is not in the original; literally, "only Dagon was left to him".</p>


text:
<p>Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor anyone who comes into Dagon’s house will tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod, to this day- </p><p>The Philistines are therefore those who jump over the threshold, but that term is used to describe the priests of Yahweh's temple who were no better (<a href='B:430 1:9'>Zep 1:9</a> "In that day, I will punish all those who leap over the threshold, who fill their master’s house with violence and deceit"). The priests may particularly be in view, whose master was Yahweh and whose house, the temple, they had defiled by their idolatry. The idea is that the temple of Yahweh had been effectively turned into that of pagan gods- despite Josiah's apparent reforms. This whole message is a stern warning against mere tokenism in repentance and reform, and challenges to the core all our self-examination and the results thereof. These priests were filling Yahweh's house with the rewards of their violence and deceit. Typical of the prophets, Zephaniah focuses upon the apparently negligible (the personal gains arising from deceit) rather than what we might consider the more obvious issues of offering children to Moloch.</p>


text:
<p>But the hand of Yahweh was heavy on the people of Ashdod and those nearby, and He destroyed them, afflicting them with tumours- </p><p>This is the reference of <a href='B:230 78:66'>Psa 78:66</a>, which refers to how the ark was taken from Shiloh in Ephraim into the land of the Philistines, who were smitten in their private parts with tumours; but then the ark was returned, not to Shiloh in Ephraim, but to Kirjath Jearim in Judah, and thence to Jerusalem in Judah. But the question for us is the degree to which God ordered this transfer of the ark from Shiloh to Jerusalem (as the pro-Davidic author of Psalms 78 claims); or whether David manipulated it that way, and God went along with it.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Ashdod saw what was happening they said, The ark of the God of Israel must not stay with us, for His hand is severe on us and on Dagon our god- </p><p>This was a tacit recognition that the God of Israel was real, and was greater than their god Dagon. Yet like many, they preferred to trundle along undisturbed in their religious ways, even when they had been demonstrated as false and the true way offered to them. They didn’t want His abiding presence to continue with them; for "stay" is the usual word used for God’s dwelling or abiding amongst His people.</p>


text:
<p>They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines together and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? They answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried over to Gath. They carried the ark of the God of Israel there- </p><p>As noted on :7, they could have had the presence of Israel's God amongst them, but they chose not to. The language recalls how the Gentile inhabitants of the land asked the Lord Jesus, the true ark, to leave them- even when He had done great miracles amongst them (<a href='B:470 8:34'>Mat 8:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But after they had carried it there, the hand of Yahweh was against the city, causing panic, and He struck the men of the city, small and great, and tumours broke out upon them- </p><p>I suggest that this was not because God didn’t want the ark nor His presence to be amongst them. He did. The punishment was because they were misusing the ark. "Tumours" were the punishment for&nbsp; disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:50 28:27'>Deu 28:27</a>). The Philistines were being punished in this way because they had been called to accept Yahweh's covenant but had refused, as noted several times throughout this chapter.</p>


text:
<p>So they sent the ark of God to Ekron. As the ark of God came to Ekron, the Ekronites cried out, They have brought the ark of the God of Israel to us, to kill us and our people!- </p><p>Perhaps the thought was that Ekron worshipped Baal Zebub and not Dagon, and therefore the ark of Israel's God would be vanquished by that god (<a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a>). But the entire Philistine confederacy knew that they were spiritually beaten before Yahweh. Literally, as in :11, “to me, to slay me and my people” (as AVmg:). The implication is that this was a message from the god of Ekron, tacitly recognizing that he was no match for Yahweh. See on <a href='B:90 6:9'>1Sa 6:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They sent therefore and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and they said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go back to its own place so that it does not kill us and our people. For there was a deadly panic throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there- </p><p>The Philistines knew the story of the Exodus (1 Sam. 4), and now they perceive that the ark represents Israel; they reason that they should let it go, and give it gold and silver, lest they suffer worse plagues and the fate of the Egyptians who refused to let Israel go. The story of the ark's journey into exile from Shiloh and return to Jerusalem therefore speaks of Judah's exile and return; see on 1 Sam. 4:22. The ark narrative material in 1 Sam. 4-6 is clearly a literary unit, perhaps edited under inspiration in the exile. The exile and return of the ark becomes the exile and return of God's people, although they returned without an ark and without the visible shekinah glory. That physical religious symbolism was replaced by them, people, the people of God, with His presence in their hearts. </p><p>See on :10; <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a>. The same phrase for "go back to its own place" is used in :3, where the worshippers of Dagon had to return their god to his place by themselves; but the ark was returned to its place by God working through the oxen and cart, which represented the cherubim.</p><p>God’s experience with Israel led to His humiliation before the nations. Seeing the ark represented the very presence of God, the capture of the ark was in a sense the capture of God (<a href='B:90 5:7'>1Sa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a> cp. 4:7). <a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a> comments: "He delivered his power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe". And likewise at the cross, crucifixion meant humiliation in some sense. But the point for the exiles to understand from this record was that even in captivity, Yahweh was still alive and active, and would not be mocked. We too are to personalize the history of Israel and see it speaking to our situations.</p>


text:
<p>The men who didn’t die were struck with the tumours, and the cry of the city went up to Heaven- </p><p>A cry going up to heaven is the language of God’s sensitivity to situations upon earth. The subtext is clearly that God was sensitive even to the sufferings of His Gentile enemies. And as noted on :3, it was God’s desire that the Philistines repented. He was not at all heartless towards them.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of Yahweh was in the country of the Philistines for seven months- </p><p>LXX adds "And their land swarmed with mice" (as in :4). The question of course which dominated their thinking was whether their sufferings were all just coincidence, or whether this was due to Israel's God. And yet at the end of 1 Samuel 5 it is clear they recognized the supremacy of Yahweh; and yet by all means men seek to wriggle and squirm against the most evident proof, even if they are brought to admit His existence and activity, they will still seek to dismiss it later (see on :9). This is why "evidences for the existence of God" are not ultimately powerful of themselves; there has to be a movement within the heart of those experiencing them, and a conscious desire not to deny them further.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, asking, What shall we do with the ark of Yahweh? Show us how we should send it back to its place- </p><p>Circumstances repeat within the lives of God’s people, both over time and space. The calling of diviners for help when they were clearly beaten and revealed as having no wisdom... all recalls the situation when seeking to interpret the visions of Pharaoh and the kings in the book of Daniel. There is the same hallmark left from the same Divine hand that was operating. And the continuities in God’s operations can be perceived within our own lives, and between our lives and those of others contemporary with us. This is one advantage of meeting together in fellowship with other believers; if we talk about His hand in our lives [rather than social chit chat] we perceive that man is not alone, the same God is working and has worked in others' lives as He does in our life. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>They said, If you send away the ark of the God of Israel, don’t send it empty; by all means return Him a trespass offering, then you will be healed and you will know why His hand has not been removed from you- </p><p>The Philistines were aware of Israel's exodus from Egypt and the judgment upon the Egyptians (<a href='B:90 4:8'>1Sa 4:8</a>). The Egyptians had given presents to Israel when they left, so that Israel were "sent out" from Egypt "empty" (s:w. <a href='B:20 3:21'>Exo 3:21</a>). It seems the Philistine elders had this in mind. They recognized they were as Egypt before Yahweh; and yet they didn’t take the Divine hint to go further, and be those Egyptians who went with Israel to inherit the land. They also had some moral sense that they had sinned against Yahweh. All the time, as noted throughout 1 Samuel 5, Yahweh was seeking to bring them unto Himself; but they refused, thinking that a tokenistic offering to Him would allow them to just continue with their existing religious practices.</p>


text:
<p>Then they said, What should the trespass offering be, which we should send to Him?</p><p>The real existence of Yahweh and His claim upon them is recognized.</p><p>They said, Five golden tumours and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines, for the same plague struck you all and your lords-</p><p>The trespass offering was to be in the form of the judgments experienced for the trespass, mice (see on :1) and tumours. This was some kind of recognition that the judgments experienced were just.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore you must make images of your tumours and your mice that are destroying the land, and give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will lift His hand from you, your gods and your land- </p><p>Eli's daughter in law had died muttering "Ichabod", the glory is departed, because of the loss of the physical ark. But she saw things only in terms of physical visible religion. Glory was in fact given to God even in the loss of the ark; He was to be given glory, kabod, heaviness, so that He would lighten His hand. It was a magnificent defeat; Israel on earth lost, but Yahweh won, hence Dagon falling mutilated and defeated before Yahweh. </p><p>Giving glory to God meant repentance and acceptance He was right and they were wrong, and that they had stolen what was His (exactly the same context in <a href='B:60 7:19'>Jos 7:19</a>). They were not far from the Kingdom of God. They very well perceived what had happened, and the path required to reconciliation with Yahweh. And yet in :9 we see their return to the idea that maybe this was all coincidence. As noted on <a href='B:90 5:12'>1Sa 5:12</a>, God was seeking their repentance and coming to Him. The exiles were likewise asked to repent and give glory to God (s:w. <a href='B:300 13:16'>Jer 13:16</a>); they too were guilty of mere religious tokenism toward Yahweh and His ark and presence; they were no better than these Philistines, but just as there was a path to repentance for the Philistines, so there was for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>Why do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? When He had done wonders among them, didn’t they send the people away and they departed?- </p><p>The Philistine logic equates the ark with God’s people. They argued that the ark must be sent away just as the people were sent away. The argument also clearly recognizes Yahweh as supreme over them, as He was over Egypt. But then we come in :9 to the slipping back into secular thinking, wondering if after all this was all chance and coincidence. It's like the atheist confronted with empirical evidence for God, being forced to accept it, and yet slipping back into the hope this just all coincidence.</p><p>Hebrew thought and language tends not to use abstract terms but rather uses language which alludes to physical body parts- e.g.&nbsp; to be stubborn is to be 'hard hearted' (<a href='B:90 6:6'>1Sa 6:6</a>), 'look' becomes 'to lift up the eyes' (<a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a>), anger is 'to burn in the nostrils' (<a href='B:20 4:14'>Exo 4:14</a>), to reveal something is to 'unstop someone's ears' (<a href='B:80 4:4'>Rth 4:4</a>), stubbornness is to be 'stiff necked' (<a href='B:140 30:8'>2Ch 30:8</a>), to prepare oneself is to 'gird up the loins' (<a href='B:300 1:17'>Jer 1:17</a>), to determine to go somewhere is 'to set one's face' (<a href='B:300 42:15'>Jer 42:15</a>; <a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore prepare a new cart, and get two milk cows which have never been yoked; tie the cows to the cart and bring their calves home from them- </p><p>The language of chariot ["cart"], calves and the ark of Yahweh's glory upon it recalls the cherubim of Ezekiel's visions. The exiles were being bidden believe that the prophecies of restoration could easily be fulfilled, just as they had been in these historical precedents.</p>


text:
<p>Put the ark of Yahweh on the cart and put the jewels of gold, which you are sending Him for a trespass offering, in a chest beside it- and send it away- </p><p>They had opened the ark because they wanted to get the jewels they imagined were hidden within it, and perhaps they really were there. Maybe when Hophni and Phinehas were slain, they were bearing the breastplate, which was then put within the ark or associated with it. But now they learned their lesson, not to open the ark. Rather, the jewels of gold which were the images of the tumors and mice were not to be placed within the ark, it was not to be opened again, but rather placed beside it in a separate chest. It was as if the "jewels" they made were appropriate penitence for seeking to steal Yahweh's jewels. "And send it away" alludes to the Egyptians sending the Israelites away with jewels.</p>


text:
<p>If it goes up to its own territory, to Beth Shemesh, then He has done us this great evil; but if not, then we shall know that it is not His hand that struck us; it was a chance that happened to us- </p><p>And yet the preceding verses speak of making a trespass offering to Yahweh and finely appreciating the nature of their sin and the appropriate repentance for it. We noted on <a href='B:90 5:10'>1Sa 5:10</a> their acceptance of Yahweh's supremacy over their gods. But as discussed on :1, in the face of every rational, empirical evidence for the one true God and His ways, men must still of themselves choose to come out of denial and believe. By all means men seek to wriggle and squirm against the most evident proof, even if they are brought to admit His existence and activity, they will still seek to dismiss it later.</p>


text:
<p>The men did so, and took two milk cows, tied them to the cart and shut up their calves at home- </p><p>The natural desire of the cows would be to return to their calves and not run away from them.</p>


text:
<p>They put the ark of Yahweh on the cart, and the chest with the mice of gold and the images of their tumours-</p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is as it were zoomed in close up, so that we see the Philistines carefully doing these things.</p>


text:
<p>The cows went straight towards Beth Shemesh; they went along the highway, lowing as they went, and didn’t turn aside to the right hand or to the left, and the lords of the Philistines went after them to the border of Beth Shemesh-</p><p>The drivers of an ox cart would go before it, not follow behind it. In this they were being further humbled, that they were not in fact in control, and were potentially being led by God’s Spirit in this makeshift imitation of the cherubim... to the people of Israel. But they failed to follow. And again, the lesson was for the exiles, that they too should follow God’s cherubic leading back to their God and their land. Just as Ezekiel's visions of the cherubim tried to teach them. The cows going "straight" is to be connected with the straight feet of the cherubim, and how they too travelled in a straight path (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>; <a href='B:330 1:9'>Eze 1:9</a>; <a href='B:330 1:12'>Eze 1:12</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>The people of Beth Shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley, and when they looked up and saw the ark, they rejoiced to see it- </p><p>This was a priestly city, which internally corroborates with the statement in :15 that the Levites were immediately present to offer sacrifice. It is this kind of internal consistency which to me is the greatest argument for a Divinely inspired Bible. This verse is the clear fulfillment of <a href='B:230 126:5'>Psa 126:5</a>: "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy". But that is specifically a song of degrees or ascents, a prophecy of the restoration of the exiles. The restoration was to be modelled upon historical precedents such as these. And this is why these historical records were rewritten under inspiration for the encouragement of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh and stood there beside a great stone. The people split the wood of the cart and offered up the cows for a burnt offering to Yahweh- </p><p>The cart came to Joshua / Jesus. Perhaps this too had intentional meaning for the exiles, who were to return at a time when there was a priest called Joshua (<a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a>; <a href='B:440 2:4'>Hag 2:4</a>; <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a> etc:). "The field of..." may suggest he was a Levite or priest who had a "field" as permitted by the law.</p><p>I will suggest on <a href='B:250 10:9'>Ecc 10:9</a> that Solomon in his apostacy later cynically refers to this incident: "Whoever splits wood may be endangered thereby". The same phrase is used. They split wood and sacrificed with joy that the ark had returned to them; but then they looked inside the ark and were slain. And so, Solomon reasons, wisdom and Yahweh worship are pointless. But of course the point was that they were disobedient. The ark was indeed a blessing, but they abused it through harnessing its return to their own self interest and love of wealth, just as Solomon did.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites took down the ark of Yahweh and the chest with the jewels of gold and put them on the great stone, and the men of Beth Shemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh that day-</p><p>See on :13. We noted on <a href='B:90 5:1'>1Sa 5:1</a> how the ark had been taken away from Ebenezer, the rock of help. For Yahweh was no longer their rock. Its return to a great rock / stone (:14) was therefore showing that God was eager to restore relationship with His people and undo what had gone so wrong between them; just as was the case at the restoration. But as the exiles refused to make use of it, so now also.</p>


text:
<p>When the five lords of the Philistines had seen this. they returned to Ekron the same day- </p><p>I discussed on :9 how they had previously been forced to accept the empirical evidence before them for the existence of Yahweh and His supremacy and claims upon them. But then they slipped back to the suspicion that it was all chance and coincidence. But now, they return to Ekron with this further demonstration that Yahweh is for real, and there was no question of chance coincidence. But they still refused to believe, just as so many today. Again we have to observe how men must still of themselves choose to come out of denial and believe. By all means men seek to wriggle and squirm against the most evident proof, even if they are brought to admit Yahweh's existence and activity; but they will still seek to dismiss it later. Being trounced by the power of argument and observed reality is still not enough to make men believe, because belief must ultimately be a human choice and not forced upon a man by the weight of empirical evidence alone.</p>


text:
<p>These are the golden tumours which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering to Yahweh: one for Ashdod, one for Gaza, one for Ashkelon, one for Gath and one for Ekron-</p><p>We wonder if this alludes to the fact that the Philistines had labelled them.</p>


text:
<p>The number of golden mice was according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, fortified cities and country villages. The great stone on which they put the ark of Yahweh remains to this day in the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh- </p><p>Again we get the impression that they perceived very well the complete nature of their guilt, and their desire to demonstrate that their every village had to be covered by this admission of trespass against Yahweh, and seeking to do something about it. But see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh because they had looked into the ark of Yahweh. He killed seventy of the men, and the people mourned, because Yahweh had struck the people with a great slaughter- </p><p>I suspect this was because they wanted to find any more jewels which the Philistines might have placed there. In the face and presence of the things of the supreme glory of Jehovah of Israel, they scavenged around in a spirit of petty materialism- just as men gambled for the clothes of Jesus at the foot of His cross. "Seventy" follows some manuscripts, whilst others give a figure of 50,070. Remember that "thousands" in Hebrew can refer not to the literal number but to groups, regiments, families etc. The idea may be the men of 70 families.</p><p><a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth. The early corruption of Christianity was due to false teachers who like Balaam "loved the wages of unrighteousness" (<a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a>); they taught false doctrine "for filthy lucre's sake" (<a href='B:630 1:11'>Tit 1:11</a> AV). Time and again the NT warns against elders who would be motivated by the love of "filthy lucre" rather than the Lord Jesus and His people (<a href='B:610 3:3'>1Ti 3:3</a>; <a href='B:610 3:8'>1Ti 3:8</a>; <a href='B:630 1:7'>Tit 1:7</a>; <a href='B:670 5:2'>1Pe 5:2</a>). The Greek translated " filthy lucre" is hard to understand; it doesn't just mean 'money'. It suggests profit that is somehow filthy, morally disgusting. This is what money turns into, in God’s eyes, when men so love it.</p><p>The judgment upon the Israelites at this point was intended to teach them that their religious usage of the ark was wrong. They assumed that having the ark literally with them meant they were right with God. Just as they had wrongly assumed that having the ark with them would guarantee them victory against the Philistines. </p>


text:
<p>The men of Beth Shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?- </p><p>This was to be David’s later feelings when Uzzah was slain for not being respectful to the ark (<a href='B:100 6:9'>2Sa 6:9</a>). Circumstances repeated, and David failed to learn the lesson. We wonder if indeed David consciously repeated the words of the men of Beth Shemesh. I suspect he didn’t, but rather his words are recorded in a similar way, to show to us readers the similarity. We are intended to learn from history, even though so few do. This is why so much of the Bible is history. We note from <a href='B:90 7:3'>1Sa 7:3</a> that at this time, the Israelites were generally following other gods. They considered Yahweh one of many gods, and at this point, they wanted no more to do with Him because He seemed to them an unreasonable God.</p><p>The Israelites at this point are feeling and speaking just like the Philistines- they too want the ark, and Yahweh, to "go from us". They see God as His ark, the external visible religious symbol became God for them- just as so many fail to separate church from God. The loss of church, of religion, means they have no relationship with God. Israel now had the same religious view of the ark as the Philistines, and were punished for this. Form triumphed over content, religion over spirituality, and God was and is displeased by this. God's people too often view their God and their faith as mere religion, just as do the people in the world around us. </p><p>To whom shall He go from us?-</p><p>By reasoning like this they were repeating the very attitudes and words of the Philistines. As David failed to perceive the similarities between his position in <a href='B:100 6:9'>2Sa 6:9</a> and that of the men of Bethshemesh, so they had failed to learn from the lesson of the Philistines. And ended up saying the same words as they did (<a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kiriath Jearim saying, The Philistines have brought back the ark of Yahweh; come down and take it up to your place- </p><p>This repeats the attitude of the Philistines, seeking other towns to take custody of the ark. As noted on :20, all concerned failed to perceive that history was repeating, and they were not learning the lessons. This is perhaps the greatest tragedy of history, of the entire Divine-human encounter.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Kiriath Jearim came and fetched up the ark of Yahweh and brought it into the house of Abinadab on the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>We assume they were Levites, and Abinadab and Eleazar are common Levitical names. "On the hill" is rendered "Gibeah" in <a href='B:100 6:3-4'>2Sa 6:3-4</a>. <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a> mention Gibeah as a village not far from Kirjath-jearim.</p><p></p>


text:
<p>The ark stayed for a long time in Kiriath Jearim, twenty years, and all the house of Israel lamented after Yahweh-</p><p>This lamenting after Yahweh may have been the result of 20 years of work by Samuel, at a time when they were oppressed by the Philistines (<a href='B:90 13:19-22'>1Sa 13:19-22</a>). The "twenty years" period doesn't bring us to any significant event; it doesn't bring us to the time of David or his bringing of the ark to Zion in 2 Samuel 6. It may therefore mean that it took 20 years for Israel to come to the repentance of :3,4, and that is the significant end of this 20 year period.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If you do return to Yahweh with all your heart- </p><p>Returning to Yahweh with all the heart was the appeal also made to the exiles. The same word for "return" is used about both repentance and also their literal return to the land. This is the phrase used of how an Israel who had broken covenant were to return to Yahweh with all their heart (<a href='B:50 30:1-2'>Deu 30:1-2</a>; <a href='B:50 30:10'>Deu 30:10</a>).</p><p>Then put away the foreign gods and Ashtaroth from among you and direct your hearts to Yahweh, and serve Him only, and He will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>This worship of other gods would explain their attitude in <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a> "Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?":&nbsp; They considered Yahweh one of many gods, and at that point, they wanted no more to do with Him because He seemed to them an unreasonable God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the people of Israel removed the Baals and Ashtaroth and served Yahweh only- </p><p>Yahweh is "one", and this simple reality requires that He is served "only". This is an outcome of believing in one God. At baptism, we changed masters, from 'sin' to 'obedience'. It may seem that we flick back and forth between them. In a sense, we do, but from God’s perspective (and <a href='B:520 6:16-20'>Rom 6:16-20</a> describes how God sees our baptism), we don't. The recurring weakness of natural Israel was to serve Yahweh and the idols (<a href='B:90 7:4'>1Sa 7:4</a>; <a href='B:120 17:41'>2Ki 17:41</a>; <a href='B:430 1:5'>Zep 1:5</a>). For the new Israel in the first century, the temptation was to break bread with both the Lord Jesus and the idols (<a href='B:530 10:21-22'>1Co 10:21-22</a>). But there is no lack of evidence that this was actually counted as total idol worship in God’s eyes; thus the prophets consistently taught the need for wholehearted devotion to Yahweh, and nothing else. In essence, we have the same temptation; to serve God and mammon, to have a little of both, to be passive Christians; to flunk the challenge of the logic of devotion.</p><p>Baal and Ashtaroth referred to here are not simply two separate gods. "Baals" is masculine plural, and "Ashtaroth" is feminine plural. The idea is, all the gods of whatever gender.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpah and I will pray for you to Yahweh- </p><p>"Mizpah", 'watchtower', was an appropriate place for Samuel the prophet to have a base. The gathering was intended for repentance, but also as a strategic beginning of a campaign against the Philistines. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>They gathered together to Mizpah and drew water, poured it out before Yahweh and fasted on that day. They said there, We have sinned against Yahweh- </p><p>Samuel's language and teaching was absorbed by David, who spoke of pouring himself out like water in repentance (<a href='B:230 22:14'>Psa 22:14</a>; <a href='B:230 62:8'>Psa 62:8</a>); and the same figure is used by the exiles in <a href='B:310 2:19'>Lam 2:19</a>, perceiving the relevance of this history for themselves, as intended. But Samuel had in turn picked up this image from his mother Hannah (<a href='B:90 1:15'>1Sa 1:15</a>). We see here the passage of thought and imagery through the generations of spiritual people. And that passage can continue to us in our hearts. For who has not repented to the point of feeling poured out like water.</p><p>Samuel judged the people of Israel in Mizpah-</p><p>This could be a general statement, for Mizpah means "watchtower" and would have been an appropriate place for a prophet to issue his judgments from. But this information may specifically refer just to Samuel at that time, judging the people in the sense of warning them of their condemnation, which elicited their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard that the Israelites had gathered together at Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. When the Israelites heard it, they were afraid because of the Philistines- </p><p>Repentance meant that God was with them. But they feared whether He really was with them enough to defeat the Philistines, because there was that nagging doubt as to whether they had really been forgiven. This is so typical of God’s people of all times.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites said to Samuel, Don’t cease to cry to Yahweh our God for us, that He will save us out of the hand of the Philistines!- </p><p>Their desperate plea to Samuel reflects their recognition that prayer was the critical factor. This desperate request for Samuel's continued prayer in fact reflects a level of genuine faith and spirituality, even though as noted on :7, their faith was not total.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel took a suckling lamb and offered it for a whole burnt offering to Yahweh, and Samuel cried to Yahweh for Israel, and Yahweh answered him- </p><p>The desperate crying of the suckling lamb was to reflect the crying of Samuel to Yahweh. They were to be living sacrifices (<a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a>), offered "whole", every part of the offering was to be given to Yahweh, none went to the priests, the entire animal was consumed.</p>


text:
<p>As Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to fight against Israel, but on that day Yahweh thundered with a great thunder upon the Philistines, and confused them; and they were struck down before Israel- </p><p>The pathetic bleating of the lamb elicited the mighty thunder of God’s voice in response, so awful that the Philistines were paralyzed with fear because of it. This was an abiding illustration of the power of prayer, just as incense [prayer] in the book of Revelation elicits the pouring forth of bowls from Heaven upon the earth. But the Divine response had to be followed up on the ground- Israel had to go forth and strike down the paralyzed Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines and killed them, all the way to Beth Kar- </p><p>David’s victory over Goliath led to the same kind of victory over the Philistines. Israel chasing their enemies was a blessing for obedience to the covenant. But until recently they had been disobedient. Their sincere prayer and repentance was counted as obedience to the covenant, and these blessings flowed from it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel took a stone and set it between Mizpah and Shen, and called it Ebenezer, saying, Yahweh helped us until now- </p><p>The ark had been taken into captivity from Ebenezer (<a href='B:90 5:1'>1Sa 5:1</a>), the rock of help, for God was no longer their rock. But the revival of the name Ebenezer was therefore showing that God was eager to restore relationship with His people and undo what had gone so wrong between them; just as was the case at the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>So the Philistines were subdued and they came no more within the border of Israel- </p><p>This may not be literally the case, but the sense may be that they didn’t come and permanently settle within the borders as they had before.</p><p>The hand of Yahweh was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel- </p><p>This doesn't mean that they didn’t invade Israel, but rather that Yahweh's hand was against them. That potential wasn't always made use of during Samuel's life.</p>


text:
<p>The cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel, from Ekron to Gath, and Israel recovered its border out of the hand of the Philistines. There was peace between Israel and the Amorites- </p><p>And yet Gath seems to have remained in Philistine control. For Goliath was from there, and David took refuge in Philistine controlled Gath. So the idea may be that the border was restored up until Gath and Ekron.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life- </p><p>Seeing Samuel lived into the reign of Saul, we can assume that his judging in the sense of teaching and saving the people [the idea of 'judging' in Hebrew] continued into Saul's reign.</p>


text:
<p>He went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all those places-</p><p>There were later schools of the prophets in Bethel and Gilgal and we wonder whether Samuel founded them. This work covered at least 28 years of his life, a great example of "keeping on keeping on". This circuit was fairly localized, forming a circle with a circumference of about 35 miles.</p>


text:
<p>He always returned to Ramah where his home was, and there he judged Israel. He built there an altar to Yahweh- </p><p>Although from Ephraim, Samuel clearly acted as a priest, making offerings at various points in his life, as well as doing the priestly duties "before Yahweh" from a child. He was potentially set up to be prophet, priest and anointed, Messianic king (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>), but it seems he failed to live up to the potential. Instead, he anointed David to be prophet, priest and anointed king. And he too failed, as did Solomon, and so the potential came to ultimate term in the Lord Jesus. We note that Samuel also judged or taught Israel at Ramah, his home. This was about four miles from "Gibeah of Saul". For Saul to have not recognized nor known Samuel speaks much of how Saul was totally not a religious, spiritual person.</p><p>According to Dt. 12:11-14, the people were to worship at the sanctuary and not build such high places for sacrifice. But Samuel had built an altar at Ramah (1 Sam. 7:17) and I suggest on 1 Sam. 9:6 that Saul met Samuel in Ramah on a day when Samuel was sacrificing at this "high place". This may possibly be another point [in addition to making his corrupt sons judges] where Samuel fails. Or it could be that he figured that seeing the people weren't switched on enough to go the sanctuary to worship, it was better to build an altar locally for them to at least make some dedication to Yahweh rather than none at all. One often faces such pastoral decisions.</p>


text:
<p>When Samuel was old he made his sons judges over Israel-</p><p>Samuel was not that old; he died well into the 40 year reign of Saul and judged Israel all the days of his life, overlapping the kingship of Saul. So this was an exaggerated statement, made because they were making excuses to have a king. God's comment was that they had rejected Him as their king. But we have here possibly the only negative incident in the record of Samuel's life. He was indeed a fine man, but in his attitude to his sons he failed. His actions provoked Israel to demand a human king; but God doesn't blame Samuel for that, instead He sees that the people were using Samuel's misjudgment as an excuse. We also again observe that two men can commit the same sin or make the same misjudgment [think of Uzzah compared to others who touched the ark], but be judged differently. Because the heart position is all important.</p><p>Samuel was in his 50s or 60s at the time of <a href='B:90 8:1'>1Sa 8:1</a> when he made his corrupt sons judges over Israel. Eli had become judged of Israel at age 58 (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). 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 (<a href='B:90 8:4'>1Sa 8:4</a> = <a href='B:90 2:23'>1Sa 2:23</a>). 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:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba- </p><p><a href='B:130 6:28'>1Ch 6:28</a> gives the name of the firstborn as Vashni, meaning "weak", rather than Joel as in <a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>, meaning "Jehovah is God". But this could be a scribal error. If we stick with "Vashni", we have an example of how character and personal history became reflected in the names by which men were remembered by. We note they were judges in Beersheba, a long way from Ramah and the small circuit of towns judged by Samuel.</p><p>"Abijah", 'Yah is my father', probably reflects how Samuel found Yahweh to be his father, seeing his own two father figures somewhat failed him. Elkanah was passive and left the whole 'Samuel' project to Hannah, and agreed to Samuel being abandonned at the temple as a toddler, only visiting him once / year. And his de facto father, Eli, was corrupt. But spiritual experience of a father can't be passed on to his sons. Yah was indeed as a Father to Samuel, but he got to that through his own hard life experience. Abijah presumably had a good father in Samuel- so he was a son of God in name only. This is all so psychologically credible- for a father who had hard times but came to God through them, to want to unload his experience onto his son. </p>


text:
<p>His sons didn’t walk in his ways, but turned aside after money, taking bribes and perverting justice- </p><p>This is described in terms of breaking the law of Moses (<a href='B:20 23:6'>Exo 23:6</a>; <a href='B:20 23:8'>Exo 23:8</a>; <a href='B:50 16:19'>Deu 16:19</a>). To "pervert justice" was to break the covenant (Dt. 27:19 s.w.). So for Samuel to make them judges was a big sin on his part [although it could be argued they only did this after he appointed them as judges]. But the fact they took bribes and perverted justice says much about the general state of spirituality within Israel. Unlike Eli, Samuel could declare his personal innocence (<a href='B:90 12:4'>1Sa 12:4</a>); and his own personal "ways" are declared here to be of integrity. Nor was there any abuse of the sanctuary, for the sons were operating in Beersheba (:2), quite far from Samuel in Ramah and the surrounding towns where his ministry was focused. We note from 1 Chron. 6:33 that Heman, an active servant of the Lord as a temple singer, was in fact Samuel's grandson. So faith skipped a generation. </p>


text:
<p>Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel to Ramah- </p><p>"Israel" was far larger than the small circuit of towns around Ramah where Samuel judged, and Beersheba where his sons judged. So it could be argued that the "elders of Israel" were using the local situation in Beersheba as a pretext for demanding Samuel's blessing upon their idea of having a human king.</p>


text:
<p>and they said to him, Look, you are old and your sons don’t walk in your ways; now appoint a king to judge us like all the nations- </p><p>They were hinting that the situation was Samuel's fault because his sons didn’t walk in his ways. It may also have been somewhat of an exaggeration to cite Samuel's age as a reason, for he lived many years after this; and Eli had become judge of Israel at 58 and judged until his death at 98 (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). The previous judges of Israel were rarely hereditary and had instead been specifically raised up by God. So their case was weak. The truth was that they wanted to be "like all the nations". This is the term used about the attitude of the Jews who were therefore taken into exile (<a href='B:330 20:32'>Eze 20:32</a>). Again we see how the history here has been rewritten to show similarities with the exiles. "The nations" in Canaan believed that their king was the representative of their god Baal, and Israel wanted a king "like" that, on that basis. The request for a king was not therefore a total rejection of Yahweh, at least technically, although it seems connected with idolatry in :8. But they rejected the judges, 'saviours', whose role was intended to be teachers as we see from Samuel, because they wanted a warrior to be their military figurehead. They wanted a military leader and not a spiritual leader to be their judge.</p><p>They were not simply asking for "judges" to now be called "kings". They wanted a different kind of structure as a nation, they wanted a leader to whom they could pledge their allegiance. Man needs a person to worship, to give allegiance to. That need is met in God, but they didn't want that. The problem, i.e. corruption of Samuel's sons, was actually unrelated to the answer they propose, i.e. a king. Injustice of judges didn't mean that a king would judge rightly. But this obvious flaw in their reasoning isn't exposed back to them. Their request is taken by God at face value and responded to. His Son likewise refrained from pointing out obvious contradictions [e.g. the rich young man claiming he had served God from his youth, the Saducees who denied resurrection asking who will be married to whom at the resurrection]. Rather did He, like His Father, reason from the statements of men, accepting them for a moment as true.</p>


text:
<p>But this displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. Samuel prayed to Yahweh-</p><p>God did "give" them a king (s:w. <a href='B:90 12:13'>1Sa 12:13</a>). In essence, we often get what we ask for. But the critical thing, therefore, is to desire the right things. In the end, we get the essence of what we desire, and God’s response to prayer is part of that. Our desires are therefore critical. Instead of arguing back with them, Samuel takes their request to Yahweh in prayer. And this is often all we can do in the face of bad behaviour and unreasonable demands from others.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, Listen to the people in all that they tell you; they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them- </p>Three times we read that Samuel was to "listen to the people" (:7,9,20). They were given what they asked for. Despite being warned of the consequences. We see the huge and even tragic extent to which God, like the father of the prodigal son, gives man what he really wants. This means that our heart desires are so critically important- because we will get them. The Psalms and Proverbs often make the simple point that the righteous will receive the desires of their heart: </p><p>
"Delight yourself in Yahweh, and He will give you the desires of your heart" (Ps. 37:4); "He will fulfil the desire of those who fear Him" (Ps. 145:19); "What the wicked fear will overtake them, but the desire of the righteous will be granted" (Prov. 10:24); "The soul of the sluggard desires, and has nothing, but the desire of the diligent shall be fully satisfied" (Prov. 13:4).  </p><p>
All those who "love His appearing" will be saved; those who merely do good works and approve the Lord's teaching will not be, because "I never knew you". Our self examination should be well capable of answering the question "Do I want to be in the Kingdom more than anything else?". We should be able to say whether or not this is our dominant desire. If it is, we are assured that in the end we will have it. </p><p>
"The voice of the people" is the same phrase translated "the noise of the people" in Ex. 32:17, when Moses and Joshua heard the voice of the people worshipping the golden calf. Clearly there is an association with apostacy. "Rejected" is the word for 'despise'. The other reference to Israel despising / rejecting Yahweh is in Num. 11:20, where the people despise the manna and demand meat to eat, and in saying this despise / reject Moses as their leader, blaming him for not providing a more varied diet. And again, God is angry. Their complaint now that Samuel is "old" wasn't quite legitimate; they were led by Moses until he was 120 years old. They despised him, they wanted a handsome, tall warrior to lead them, not Samuel on Yahweh's behalf. And thus they despised Yahweh, whose style it is to work through the weak and humanly weak. </p><p>
Their rejection of God meant His rejection of them; if one side rejects another then the relationship is broken. The same word is used in Hos. 4:6: "Because you rejected knowledge [i.e. relationship], I will also reject you".  God's ultimate response to this was to use this term of His rejection of Israel and Judah when they went into captivity: "Yahweh has rejected them" (Jer. 6:30; 7:29 s.w.), "my God will cast them away [s.w. "reject"]" (Hos. 9:17). He uses the same word of rejecting "Jerusalem the city which I had chosen" (2 Kings 23:37). And yet there is good reason to think that this 'rejection' actually happened at Samuel's time: "Yahweh was angry, and greatly abhorred [s.w. rejected] Israel; so that He forsook the tent of Shiloh, the tent which He placed among men; and delivered His strength into captivity, His glory into the adversary’s hand" (Ps. 78:59-61). The destruction of the tabernacle at Shiloh, where Samuel grew up, appears to have been broadly around the time the ark ["His glory"] was taken into captivity by the Philistines at the end of Eli's life. It was around this time that Yahweh "rejected" Israel- in response to their rejection of Him. And yet He gave them a king and tried to work through the monarchy, until when that failed, He articulated that "rejection" by sending His people away, out of His house and His land. Which is the language of divorce. Israel were "the wife of youth" who was "rejected" and sent away (Is. 54:6 s.w.). Again we see a gap period between the pronouncement of judgment, and the realization of that judgment. His huge patience spanned the centuries during which the monarchy existed. "Yahweh rejected all the seed of Israel... until He had cast them out of His sight" (2 Kings 17:20). And yet in allusion to this, Jer. 31:37; 33:26 protest that God will not "cast off [s.w. reject] all the seed of Israel [note the repetition of that phrase] for all that they have done". His final grace is to force the marriage through to eternal success.
</p><p>The idea of :7,8 is that ‘They didn’t reject you, they rejected me, but they rejected you, in that you are with Me’. A parade example of God manifestation or representation by a man. God comes over as sensitive to Samuel's feeling that he himself had been rejected, and we feel Him as it were putting His arm around Samuel and comforting him in his rejection; by saying that it was essentially all about a rejection of Him rather than Samuel personally. We learn if nothing else that God is sensitive to a person's feelings of rejection.</p>


text:
<p>As they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, in forsaking Me and serving other gods, so they also do to you- </p><p>This connects their desire for a king with idolatry. As noted on :5, "the nations" in Canaan believed that their king was the representative of their god Baal, and Israel wanted a king "like" that, on that basis.</p><p>Israel sinned not only by worshipping idols but by thereby omitting to worship God as He required ("forsaking Me and serving other gods"). Sins of omission are our greatest temptation. So let us really realize: none of us sins or is righteous unto ourselves. There are colossal ramifications of our every sin and our every act of righteousness on others.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore listen to their voice, but protest solemnly to them and show them what the king who shall reign over them will do-</p><p>See on :19. God's hurt at this point opens another window into His comment in Dt. 17 that Israel would desire a king to reign over them, and therefore a king should be regulated by His laws. God foreknows human failure, and yet is hurt by it. It is indeed hard to be God, foreseeing so much failure. Dt. 17 said that Israel must have a king whom God chose, and God did choose Saul- but He chose a man exactly whom they would have chosen, the tallest man in Israel, strong, handsome and a warrior. God wanted to set Saul up for success not failure, and indeed the path of monarchy was not at all doomed to failure. Yet the choice of it was a stepping back from direct relationship with God as their King. They wanted a mediator, a go between, just as they didn't want the intimacy of hearing God speaking directly to them at Sinai. And God didn't turn away from them because of this, He settled for a lower level relationship.</p><p>Yahweh gave them a king in His wrath (<a href='B:350 13:11'>Hos 13:11</a>). He was angry with them as was Samuel, and expressed that anger by answering their prayer for a human king: "I gave you a king in My anger, and have taken him away in My wrath". As explained on <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>, Israel's rejection of God for a human king made God "hate" them. It was effectively a divorce from Him; this is how seriously God sees our turning to visible human help rather than to Him. God so respected human freewill decisions that even when His wife wanted to go off with another man, He "gave" her this; and even worked through the system of human kingship in order to continue some level of relationship with Israel, such was His love for them. God sees a connection between His giving of a king, and His taking away of a king. Before they had a king, they were exclusively His. So the taking away of their king was in fact not simply a punishment, but in wrath He remembered mercy, and hoped that this would in fact be the path back towards their accepting Him as their king. So often we see God’s hope for restoration expressed within and next to His angry statements of judgment. His anger is therefore unlike human anger; there is always the love which seeks longer term restoration.</p><p>He allows us our freewill; and yet seeks to persuade us against our requests. But God never forces. And here we see in this 'protestation' a parade example of this. He was willing to work through a human kingship, as He was through a physical temple, which He also didn’t want. And yet by making use of such Divine concessions to human weakness, we make the path of true spirituality so much harder.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel told all the words of Yahweh to the people who asked for a king- </p><p>The name "Saul" means "asked for". It is very similar to "Samuel", "asked of God" (<a href='B:90 1:20'>1Sa 1:20</a>). Samuel was called to be a prophet, priest and anointed king (see on <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>), but he apparently failed to live up to this potential and was potentially replaced by Saul. He too failed, as did David and Solomon later, with all the potentials only coming finally true in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>He said, This is what the king who shall reign over you will do: he will take your sons and appoint them to serve with his chariots and to be his horsemen, and they will run before his chariots- </p><p>Israel were told three times that Saul would have many chariots (<a href='B:90 8:11-12'>1Sa 8:11-12</a>). If they were spiritually aware, they would have realized that by multiplying horses and chariots, he was going to be a King who ruled in studied disobedience to the Mosaic Law (<a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a>). They were given the spiritual potential to grasp this. But they were already hard bitten in their rebellion, and this potential spiritual help went unheeded (although God still gave it to them potentially, even at a time when it seemed pointless. He is so ever willing to coax His people back!).</p>


text:
<p>he will appoint them to be captains of thousands and captains of fifties; he will assign some to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and to make his weapons of war and the equipment for his chariots- </p><p>The captains of thousands and fifties were originally appointed by God; and yet now they were hearing that Saul was going to appoint them. If they were truly spiritually minded, they would have perceived that such a king and situation was not for them. And yet it seems the more the point was made, the deeper was their insistence upon the path they had chosen. This is sadly typically human.</p>


text:
<p>He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks and bakers- </p><p>To take a daughter is a phrase elsewhere translated 'marry... daughters' (<a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a>), and whenever the word "take" is used in connection with "daughters" the reference is usually to marriage. The idea could be that like many monarchs of the time, Saul would 'marry' his female slaves. They were then unable to marry anyone else, might never have children by him, and would be condemned to a dumb life of servitude as cooks, bakers etc. "Perfumers" seems a strange example to give, until we realize that this is the word for "apothecary", the word used of how apothecaries were to work in the tabernacle making the oils and incense for tabernacle service (<a href='B:20 30:25'>Exo 30:25</a>; <a href='B:20 30:33'>Exo 30:33</a>; <a href='B:20 30:35'>Exo 30:35</a>; <a href='B:20 37:29'>Exo 37:29</a>; <a href='B:130 9:30'>1Ch 9:30</a>). What was clearly a service to God was going to be reappropriated to Saul. For he effectively was going to replace God as the master of their devotions and service.</p>


text:
<p>He will take your fields, your vineyards and your olive groves, even their best, and give them to his servants- </p><p>As we learn from the later incident with Naboth's vineyard, a man's fields were his inheritance from Yahweh. To sell them or be willing to give them to another was therefore a rejection of their inheritance. They were being told that God would give them an unspiritual and disobedient king. And they eagerly said yes to that. Perhaps because in their hearts they simply didn't register nor believe that Samuel was speaking God's word to them. Or this may be simply a case of how all spiritual logic is thrown to the winds in the face of a carnal course of action that the flesh has decided upon. The critical issue is whether or not we accept God's word as His word, and respond to it. Or whether our belief in Divine inspiration of His word, the Bible, is mere lip service, that crumbles to nothing in the face of group think and obsession with a carnal narrative. </p>


text:
<p>He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage to give to his officers and his servants- </p><p>As noted on :13, the king was to replace Yahweh to them. Instead of tithing to Yahweh, they would be tithing to their king.</p>


text:
<p>He will take your male and female servants and your best young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work- </p><p>The repeated stress upon "the best" recalled how "the best" was to be given to Yahweh, both specifically as the firstfruits, and also to fulfil the spirit of the entire law (<a href='B:40 18:12'>Num 18:12</a>; <a href='B:40 18:29'>Num 18:29</a>). Indeed "the best" was to go to the Levites (<a href='B:40 18:30'>Num 18:30</a>). But to give "the best" to a human king, who was not a Levite, was going to preclude serving Yahweh with "the best", and the Levites also would suffer. They were therefore being told that effectively, this king was going to 'play God', and not merely be His representative on earth. Knowing this, their persistence in their choice was indeed a rejection of Yahweh.</p><p>The king was to take away their donkeys (1 Sam. 8:16), and the narrative of the call of Saul in 1 Sam. 9 begins with his almost obsessive desire for donkeys. Saul is presented as the exact fit to the prophecies of the awful king the people would be given if they wished to go the path of kingship. Yet Saul's failure was far from inevitable. The predictions about him could have been voided by his own freewill. Like Nineveh, he lived in the gap between the statement of judgment and its fulfilment. In the context of donkeys, he is told not to "set his heart on the donkeys", 1 Sam. 9:20 Heb. He is being invited not to be like the awful king he potentially could be. But like so many, he wasted that potential. Samuel never stole a donkey (1 Sam. 12:3), whereas Saul was to steal the donkeys of Israel (1 Sam. 8:9,11). Israel consciously chose a king who would take their donkeys, and rejected God's judge, Samuel, who never took their donkeys. The way Samuel protests this fact in 1 Sam. 12:3 suggests he felt some bitterness and resentment about his rejection by Israel. And God comforts him that He feels the same.</p>


text:
<p>He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you will be his servants- </p><p>Again, the king was to replace Yahweh to them. Instead of tithing to Yahweh, they would be tithing to their king. These warnings were only perceptible by those who were aware of the law of Moses and were already tithing as required. And so it is that people are confirmed in the path they wish to go; if they are ignorant of God’s word or not already practicing it, then in situations like these they are confirmed further down the path to spiritual disaster.</p>


