Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Textual & Thematic Notes on 1 Sam. 1–3.

Snappy title, huh?

BETTER: God’s Great Reversal Begins.

LENGTH: Medium.

The book of 1 Samuel documents a period of religious and political upheaval/realignment in Israel.

It takes us from Tabernacle to Temple,...

...and from Judge(s) to King(s).

Appropriately, therefore, the book of Samuel’s main events take place either at the sanctuary or on the battlefield.

And, equally appropriately, our text (1.1–4.1) contains the first Scriptural occurrence of the term היכל = ‘temple’...

...as well as of the title יהוה צבאות = ‘The LORD of Hosts/Armies’.

#CanonicalContextMatters

But what could events of national import have to do with the (apparently) insignificant individuals introduced in 1.1–3, namely Elkanah, Hannah, and Peninnah?

We will soon find out.

First, however, a word on Elkanah’s place of origin.

Elkanah is said to be ‘an Ephrathite’ (אֶפְרָתִי)—a term which can designate either a man from Ephraim (cp. Judg. 12.5) or a man from Bethlehem (such as David: 17.12).

Which of the two is Elkanah?

It’s hard to say.

If ‘Ephrath’ is a reference to Bethlehem (by means of its ancient name: cp. Gen. 35.19, 48.7), then it would make sense of the text,

since it is hardly necessary for Scripture to describe a resident of Ephraim as an ‘Ephraimite’. (We could work that out for ourselves.)

And if Elkanah *is* in fact a Bethlehemite, then he would not be the first of his people to have relocated to Ephraim’s highlands (cp. Judg. 17.8, 19.1);

meanwhile, Samuel will not be the last Bethlehemite to arise from humble origins and subvert Israel’s governance (Mic. 5.2).

That Elkanah is a Bethlehemite is, therefore, an attractive idea.

Either way, Elkanah is a man of humble origins, which makes him an unusual character to encounter at the start of an epic narrative.

Equally paradoxical (though in a different respect) is our text’s description of Hannah.

The name ‘Hannah’ (חנה) most likely refers to ‘one who is favoured’.

Yet, while Hannah has won Elkanah’s favour (1.5), she does not appear to be ‘favoured’ (חנה) by God,

since she is barren (hence she seeks חֵן = ‘favour’ in prayer: cp. 1.18).

As such, the scene described at the outset of our text does not seem quite right—and for good reason.

At the close of the book of Judges, we find Israel’s priesthood in a dire state (Judg. 17–21),

and things have evidently not improved much.

Israel’s priesthood is now headed up by a man (Eli) who has (quite literally) turned a blind eye to his sons’ wickedness,

and, as a result, life in the nation of Israel is the inverse of what it should be.

Israel’s ungodly priests are fat and well fed, while the godly Hannah is barren, provoked by an ungodly woman (Peninnah), who is herself highly fruitful.

As we will see, however, a great reversal is about to begin.

——————

Like all of Scripture, the text of 1.1–4.1 is not meant to be read in isolation.

It is an integral part of a broader narrative and flickers with allusions to earlier events.

For a start, our text looks back to the days of Jacob,

where a wife favoured by her husband (Rachel) is barren while her less-favoured rival (Leah) bears fruit.

As such, our text is a replay of Israel’s history. Grievious though they may be, Hannah’s struggles are not new ones.

Our text also resonates with the prologue to the book of Job in various ways.

🔹 Both narratives involve a wealthy man who cares for and provides (sacrifices) for his family.

🔹 Both are set against the backdrop of a (yearly?) cycle of events in which food (אכל) and drink (שתה) are enjoyed.

🔹 Both transition into difficult times due to the provocation of a rival/accuser (in Job’s case, *the* accuser).

🔹 And, in both cases, a godly individual lacks children and is grossly misunderstood. (Job is accused of secret sin, while Hannah is branded a drunkard.)

Equally notable are numerous textual resonances between the narratives of 1 Samuel 1 and Job 1.

🔹 Both begin with a description of a routine, the ‘habitual’ nature of which is conveyed not by means of typically habitual verbal forms (cp. 1.3 and Job 1.4’s qatal forms),

but by contextual indicators (cp. 1.7’s כן יעשה שנה בשנה = ‘Thus it continued year by year’ w. Job 1.5’s ככה יעשה איוב כל־הימים = ‘Thus did Job daily/continually’).

🔹 Both texts single out a particular day
via the phrase ...ויהי היום ו (cp. 1.4 w. Job. 1.6).

🔹 Both routines are interrupted when a set period of days have ‘run their course’ (cp. 1 Sam. 1’s לתקפות הימים w. Job 1.5’s הקיפו ימים).

🔹 Elkanah’s mention of ‘ten sons’ (1.8) is reminiscent of Job’s ten descendants,

while Hannah’s mention of ‘seven children’ is reminiscent of Job’s seven sons (2.5).

🔹 Both Hannah and Job are said to ‘pour out their soul’ (לשפוך את נפש cp. 1.15 w. Job 30.16), apparently to no avail.

🔹 And both individuals are hence left ‘bitter in spirit’ (מר נפש cp. 1.10 w. 3.20, 7.11, 10.1, 21.25) and ‘inwardly distressed’ (cp. 1.15’s קשת־רוח w. Job 7.11’s צר רוח).

These textual resonances are significant for at least three reasons.

First, they emphasise the anguish of what Hannah is forced to endure.

Job’s trials are, of course, beyond compare, but Hannah’s should not be underestimated. Not only is Hannah childless; she is provoked on the basis of it for many long years.

Second, they portray Hannah as blameless as far as her lack of children is concerned. Eli has a decidedly low view of Hannah, but YHWH does not.

And, third, they hint at a time of vindication and restoration which is not far off.

——————

So then, the picture painted at the outset of our text is a bleak one, both in nationalistic and individual terms.

But, in 1.10, Hannah goes to her God in prayer, and things soon begin to change.

Hannah’s prayer is not particularly eloquent, but it is undoubtedly heartfelt. It flows forth from her sorry, as is emphasised by the grammatical correspondence between her tears (בָּכֹה תִבְכֶּה) and her request (רָאֹה תִרְאֶה):

Note: That Hannah’s prayer is the first speech attributed to her in our text reflects well on her. She does not ‘complain’ (שיח) to men, but to God, which associates her with Job both thematically and grammatically (cp. the usage of שיח charted below):

Needless to say, Hannah’s prayer is hugely significant.

It does not only signal the onset of a new move of God in Hannah’s days; it also exposes the inadequacy of Eli’s priesthood.

In recent years, Eli’s eyesight has begun to grow dim (3.1),

but the deterioration of his physical awareness is a picture of a more serious problem, viz. his lack of *spiritual* awareness.

Eli is deaf to Hannah’s prayer and blind to his sons’ sins (who do not ‘listen’ to him: 2.25).

Moreover, Eli regards Hannah as בַּת־בְּלִיָּעַל = ‘a worthless woman’ (cp. 1.16) when it is his sons who deserve the title (בְּנֵי בְלִיָּעַל: cp. 2.12).

That Eli cannot tell the difference between spiritual and drunken utterances is a bad sign (1.13ff.),

since, when men are unable to understand Spirit-inspired utterances, their judgment is not far off. (Eli never refers to Hannah by name in our text, and does not recognise her when she returns to Shiloh with Samuel.)

When Isaiah tells Israel YHWH is about to speak to the drunkards by means of ‘a foreign tongue’, it is because he is about to send the Assyrians against them (Isa. 28).

When Belshazzar and his men are unable to read the writing on the wall, God’s instrument of judgment (viz. the Medo-Persian army) is at the door.

When the mockers in Acts 2 confuse the apostle’s declaration of God’s mighty deeds for drunken boasts (Acts 2.11–13), judgment is again on the horizon in the form of the Romans (which is why it is inappropriate to speak in tongues in the presence of unbelievers: 1 Cor. 14.22–23).

And the same is true in Eli’s case.

Judgment is about to fall, and will begin (as normal) at the house of God.

——————

In celebration of what God has done for her, Hannah breaks out in a hymn of praise, which is recorded for us in 2.1–10.

The central theme of Hannah’s hymn is clear: the inversion/reversal of injustice.

For instance, God has silenced the mouth of Hannah’s rivals and filled Hannah’s mouth with praise (2.1, 3), and, insofar as he has revived the ‘deadness’ of Hannah’s womb (cp. Rom. 4.16–20),

God has brought life from the dead (2.6).

An aside: Note 2.6’s lone ‘narrative form’ amidst a sea of participles. God is not simply a God whose (abstract) nature is to kill and bring to life; God has in fact, as a matter of history, brought life to Hannah’s lifeless womb:

And, of course, Hannah’s vindication is not a lone act in history;

it represents the start of a much bigger move of God which will be characterised by the same reversals as Hannah has experienced,

hence Hannah’s hymn includes details which look beyond her own experiences (e.g., those of 2.4, 9–10).

Indeed, Samuel’s life will continue the very subversion of Eli’s house foreshadowed in Hannah’s interaction with Eli.

Just as Eli was unable to hear Hannah’s voice as she speaks to God (in prayer), so Eli will prove unable to hear God’s voice as he speaks to Samuel (3.4ff.).

And, just as YHWH’s word to Hannah silenced Hannah’s rivals, so it will silence Samuel’s ‘rivals’ to the priesthood,

namely Eli’s sons (Hophni and Phinehas).

Samuel’s life also has a distinctly Hannah-esque shape, which is brought out by means of various textual and thematic resonances.

For instance, after Hannah has presented Samuel to Eli in Shiloh, Hannah and Elkanah are said to return to ‘Elkanah’s place’ (מקומו) in Ramah, where YHWH visits Hannah (per Eli’s word: 2.20).

And, similarly, after YHWH has spoken to Samuel, Samuel is said to return to ‘his place’ (מקומו) in the Tabernacle, where YHWH appears to him (per Eli’s word: 3.9).

Also noteworthy is the text of 2.32, which appears to warns Eli of a ‘rival’ who will rise up (against him) from within God’s residence (צַר מעון).

Just as Hannah is challenged by a ‘rival’ (צרה) from within her own house, so Eli’s claim to the priesthood will be challanged by Samuel, who will ultimately subvert and succeed Eli.

As such, our text shows great sophistication of construction,

as does Hannah’s hymn of praise.

Of particular interest is how Hannah’s hymn reflects its theme of ‘reversal’ by means of the re-arrangement/re-invention of nearby roots.

🔹 The embittered woman (מרה) from Ramah (רמה) is exalted (רמה) by God (1.10, 2.1).

🔹 The one dismissed as without ‘value’ (יעל) by Eli (עלי) boasts about how ‘YHWH has exalted (her)’ (ויעל).

🔹 While men may have misunderstood Hannah, the ‘God of knowledge’ has weighed her actions (2.3), and those who were previously ‘full’ (שבע) have been overtaken by the seven (שבעה) sons of she who was previously barren (2.5).

🔹 The sons of the man who slandered Hannah as a ‘drunkard’ (שכר) are forced to ‘hire themselves out’ (שכר) for food (cp. 2.5 w. 2.36).

🔹 The ‘wicked’ (רשעים) are silenced by ‘the one who makes (others) rich’ (מעשיר) (cp. 2.7, 9).

🔹 The ‘seed’ (זרע) of the woman shatters the ‘strength’ (זְרֹעַ) of Eli’s house (2.31).

🔹 And the descendants of Hophni (חפני) and Phinehas (פינחס) are forced to beg for employment with the words ‘Associate me (סְפָחֵנִי) with the priesthood’ (cp. 2.36).

Such interconnectedness is suggestive of the hand/mind of a single author behind our text.

——————

FINAL REFLECTIONS:

As we’ve mentioned above, 1 Sam. 1–3 is not an isolated narrative.

It looks back (at least) to the experiences of Rachel and Job.

But it also looks forward.

An example of its future orientation can be found in Hannah’s hymn (in 2.5), where a previously barren woman is said to bear ‘seven children’.

The experience described in 2.5 clearly resonates with its author’s (i.e., Hannah’s),

yet Hannah is only said to have born six children (2.21).

Why the mismatch? Why does Hannah’s story seem inherently incomplete?

The answer, I suggest, is as follows:

because Hannah’s story is ‘fulfilled’ (in Matthew’s terms, πληρουμαι) in the stories of two women who arise after her in Israel’s history.

The first is the wife of a Bethlehemite named Jesse.

Jesse’s wife bears him seven sons, the seventh of whom (David) enjoys a distinctly Samuel-shaped career.

Just as Samuel is an outsider to the high-priestly line, so David is an (apparent) outsider to the throne.

And yet, just as Samuel is ‘adopted’ by Eli (who refers to him as his ‘son’), so David is ‘adopted’ by Saul.

Like Samuel, then, David is enabled to rise to a position of prominence within Israel’s ranks (3.19–21).

And, just as Samuel ultimately succeeds Eli (and removes Eli’s line from the priesthood), so David ultimately displaces his ‘father’ Saul.

Israel is hence ruled by a godly man, who sets many things right in the land.

But, as we know, David’s renewal does not last. It too looks forward to future events.

Many centuries later, a distinctly Hannah-esque woman emerges in Israel’s history.

Her name is Mary.

Like David’s mother, she bears (at least) seven children (cp. Matt. 13.55),

and, like Hannah, she ends up married to a Bethlehemite.

Her story shares other parallels with Hannah’s.

Like Hannah, she travels up to the house of God with her husband each year.

And, like Hannah, prior to the birth of his firstborn son, she seems unable to bear children.

Yet God ‘visits’ Mary and ‘remembers’ his covenant with his people (Luke 1.54, 68), and, shortly afterwards, a child is born, announced by a hymn of praise.

Like Samuel, the child increases in favour with God as well as men (2.26 cp. Luke 2.52),

and, at a young age, he is (briefly) left at the Temple (his Father’s house), where he confounds the wisdom of Israel’s religious authorities (Luke 2.46–47).

These events signal the onset of a movement which results in ‘the fall and rise’ of many in Israel.

In and through Jesus’ ministry, the humble are exalted (while the exalted are humbled),

and, in and through Jesus’ death and resurrection, man’s ultimate enemy is defeated.

In fulfilment of Hannah’s hymn, YHWH (quite literally) brings the dead to life.

He ‘raises up the One who has been brought down to Sheol’; he ‘gives strength to his king’; and he ‘exalts the horn of (Jesus), his Messiah’.

And, unlike the careers of Samuel and David, Jesus’ reign will know no end.

He is even now seated on his Father’s throne as his Gospel goes forth ‘to the ends of the earth’.

THE END.

Please Re-Tweet if you’ve found this helpful.

P.S. A pdf is available here: academia.edu/40892092/