Thread by @JamesBejon

THREAD: Continued thoughts on 1 Samuel. Below, chs. 2–3: the end of Eli’s line.

LENGTH: Medium to short.

Ch. 2 opens with Hannah’s hymn.

As we’ve noted, its central theme of ‘reversal’ is reflected in its re-arrangement/re-interpretation of nearby lexemes:

In chs. 2–4, Hannah’s words begins to work themselves out in Israel’s history. In ch. 2, her son Samuel replaces Eli’s sons, and, in ch. 3, he replaces Eli himself.

An aside: Where rivalries are described in Scripture, they are often reflected in the relevant text’s word count; to be more precise, the name of the ‘victor’ often turns out to occur once more than the name of his/her rival:

🔹 In Dan. 5, the name ‘Belshazzar’ occurs 6 times, while the name of the man who will replace him—viz. ‘Daniel’—occurs 7 times.

🔹 In the book of Judges (i.e., in Judg. 6–10), the name ‘Gideon’ occurs 39 times, while the name of the man who will replace him—viz. ‘Abimelech’ (his son)—occurs 40 times.

🔹 In the book of Esther, the name ‘Haman’ occurs 54 times, while the name of the woman who will replace Haman at the king’s right hand—viz. ‘Esther’—occurs 55 times.

🔹 And, here in 1 Sam. 1–3, the name ‘Eli’ occurs 24 times, while the name of the man who replaces him as Israel’s leader/high-priest (viz. ‘Samuel’) occurs 25 times.

——————

The text of 2.11–26 is bookended by two statements about Samuel’s childhood.

Samuel is said to minister in Shiloh, where he ‘grows’ (גדל) in ‘favour’ (טוב) with God (cp. 2.12, 26).

Both statements employ ptc. forms in order to describe continuous processes:

Between these two statements, we are told about a whole array of activities, which, by implication, are similarly continuous processes and take place in parallel with one another.

🔹 Eli’s sons act wickedly. Unlike Samuel, they do not ‘grow’ (גדל) in ‘favour’ (טוב) with God. The only thing ‘great’ (גדל) about them is their sin, and the news Eli hears about them is far from ‘good’ (טוב) (cp. 2.17, 24).

🔹 Hannah and Elkanah continue their visits to Shiloh. Year by year, their family increases, and, year by year, Hannah brings Samuel a robe (מעיל)—i.e., a garment associated with the priesthood (e.g., Exod. 28.4, Lev. 8.7).

🔹 And Eli hears but fails to address his sons’ wickedness, which is symptomatic of his behaviour throughout chs. 1–3. Eli clearly has communication problems:

In the days of ch. 1, he fails to ‘hear’ Hannah’s prayer (1.13);

in the days to come, he will fail to ‘hear’ the voice of YHWH (3.9–10). And, in the present day, his sons fail to ‘hear’ *his* voice (2.25).

His weak rebuke (אל בני = ‘No my sons!’) is reminiscent of Lot’s rebuke of the men of Sodom (אל נא אדני = ‘No my lords!’)...

...and of the Levite’s host’s rebuke of the men of Gibeah (אל אחי = ‘No my brothers!’), and falls on equally deaf ears.

As such, our text paints a sad picture.

Israel’s priesthood is in a mess.

And yet each year, Hannah visits Shiloh and (figuratively) ‘anoints’ Samuel in the midst of his rivals with a priestly robe, just as Samuel will later (literally) anoint David in the midst of *his* rivals.

While Eli is blind both physically and spiritually, at least someone in our text has a measure of insight.

——————

A word or two about some of the above activities.

The sin of Eli’s sons is described in 2.12–17.

It is particularly grievous.

It begins with a description of משפט הכהנים = ‘the custom of the priests’, which is to take more than their fair share (cp. Deut. 18.3).

The phrase משפט הכהנים may also, however, allude to the ‘judgment’ (משפט) due Hophni and Phinehas, which is not far off now.

Similar wordplay is employed elsewhere in the vicinity:

🔹 The priests’ demand for ‘raw meat’ (בשר חי = lit. ‘live meat’: 2.15) looks forward to the events of ch. 4, where news (בשר) of the priests is brought back to Eli, though of their death rather than their life (יהוה מֵמִית וּמְחַיֶּה: cp. 2.6).

(Note: Our author’s employment of the word בשר—a word typically employed to describe *good* news—is instructive. The removal of Hophni and Phinehas from Israel’s priesthood is actually good news for Israel.)

🔹 2.24’s final words (מַעֲבִרִים עַם־יהוה) seem deliberately ambiguous: they can be taken to refer either to the report which ‘the people of God circulate’ or to the way in which the priests ‘make the people transgress’, both of which are appropriate to ch. 2’s events.

🔹 And the priests’ abuse of the women who ministered (צבאות) at Shiloh (2.28) resonates with the title with which YHWH is introduced in 1 Samuel, viz. יהוה צבאות = ‘The LORD of Hosts’.

To abuse women who have dedicated themselves to YHWH is effectively to abuse YHWH himself.

In sum, then, the behaviour of Hophni and Phinehas provides a sorry counterpoint to the behaviour of Hannah’s family.

🔹 While Elkanah treats his wife with respect, Hophni and Phinehas treat the women in Shiloh with contempt.

🔹 While Elkanah gives Hannah the best of YHWH’s sacrifices (1.4–5), Hophni and Phinehas *take* the best of YHWH’s sacrifices (cp. 2.29).

🔹 And, while Samuel grows in favour both with YHWH and with man (2.26), Hophni and Phinehas arouse the displeasure of both YHWH and man:

They take more than their fair share of sacrifices, which deprives the Israelites of food (cp. Deut. 18.3), and they take the ‘fat’ of the sacrifices, which is YHWH’s exclusive share (e.g., Lev. 3.4, 9–10, etc.).

As such, they sin against both man and God, as even Eli seems to recognise (2.25).

An aside: Cultic three-pronged forks such as those mentioned in 2.14 have been found in Israel, though only between the 14th and 10th centuries (cf. Zwickel 1990:160–161), which fits in well with the timeframe of 1 Sam. 1–3.

——————

In 2.27, a ‘man of God’ arrives on the scene.

Since correction has not arisen from within Shilo, it must arise from without.

That the man of God rebukes Eli rather than his sons is significant.

Eli knows exactly what his sons are up to,

yet, not for the last time in the book of Samuel, a father fails to control his sons’ actions.

Also significant is the form of the man of God’s rebuke.

First the man explains the great privileges extended to Eli and his sons, and then he explains how they will be taken away—a formula we will encounter in subsequent chapters (cp. Samuel’s rebuke of Saul in 1 Sam. 13.13ff. and Nathan’s of David in 2 Sam. 12.8ff.).

While Eli and his sons have administered YHWH’s sacrifices, their descendants will not do so.

While Eli has been granted a long life, his sons will not be.

And, while Eli’s sons have been fat and well fed all their lives, their descendants will be forced to beg for food.

——————

The advent of ch. 3 signals the onset of a new dawn in Israel’s history.

It begins with two rather cryptic statements.

The word of YHWH is said to be ‘rare/precious’ (יקר) in the land of Israel,

and the lamp of God (in the Temple) is said ‘not (yet?) to have gone out’ (3.1, 3).

Are these statements to be read positively or negatively?

Is the word of YHWH a scarce/rare commodity (due to the apathy of Eli) or a valued/precious commodity (due to the arrival of Samuel)?

And should we see the lamp in the Temple as on its way out or (mercifully) still aflame and able to be rekindled?

The answer, I suggest, is ‘Both’.

Things are bad in Israel but not beyond repair—desperate but not beyond help.

And, against that backdrop, YHWH (thrice) calls Samuel to arise in Israel,

who responds in the fashion of Moses (a fellow prophet and priest), i.e., with the words, ‘Here I am!’. (Predictably, Eli is asleep on the job at the time: 3.1.)

Just as YHWH has ‘revealed’ (גלה) himself to Eli’s line (2.27), so he will ‘reveal’ himself to Samuel (3.21) and will not allow Samuel’s words to fall to the ground (3.19).

Eli, however, *will* fall to the ground (4.18),

which will signal the end of his line.

The house of God has become no better than its pagan equivalents and must therefore be given a clean sweep.

Indeed, the fall of Eli’s house is described in distinctly pagan terms.

🔹 Just as Pharaoh’s heart is hardened in order to allow the full force of YHWH’s wrath to overtake him, so Eli’s sons are deafened for much the same reason (cp. 2.25).

🔹 Just as Eglon (עגלון = ‘a little lamb’) is fattened up by grain tributes (מנחות) and hence prepared for sacrifice, so too are Hophni and Phinehas (cp. 2.17, 29).

🔹 Just as YHWH must appear three times to (the apparently blind) Balaam before he realises what is afoot, so YHWH must appear three times to the apparently deaf Eli (3.1–10).

🔹 And, just as Dagon will soon be found removed from his place in the temple with his hands (כפות) cut off (כרת), so Eli will be removed and the arm (זְרֹעַ) of his house will be cut off (כרת) from Israel’s priesthood (cp. 2.31, 33).

God does not keep two sets of books.

Those who live like pagans die like pagans.

FINAL REFLECTIONS:

As we’ve noted, the life of Samuel prefigures the life of Jesus in a number of significant ways:

Both men are the firstborn of ‘seven children’ (2.5 cp. Matt. 13.55);

both are descendants of a man from Bethlehem and a godly woman;

and both, at a young age, are left at the Temple (their father’s house), where they confound the wisdom of Israel’s religious authorities (Luke 2.46–47).

But Samuel and Jesus are also alike insofar as they are *rejected* by their people.

Consider, by way of background, Hannah’s explanation of Samuel’s name (1.20).

Confronted with the statement ותקרא את־שמו אאא כי מיהוה שאלתיו, we would expect the name ‘Saul’ (שָׁאוּל) to fill in the blank (1.20);

that is to say, we would expect to read ותקרא את־שמו שאול כי מיהוה שאלתיו.

Hannah’s statement is therefore quite odd. What it is meant to tell us?

My suggestion is as follows:

In a sense, Samuel *should* have been called ‘Saul’ because he is the king the people *should* have asked for (שָׁאוּל) but didn’t (8.1ff.).

The people instead rejected Samuel and asked for a king like Saul instead. And, sadly, they got what they deserved.

As such, the lives of Samuel and Jesus continue to parallel one another.

Like Samuel, Jesus was the king Israel *should* have asked for and accepted, but didn’t.

They rejected Jesus in favour of Roman rule. And, as such, they rejected YHWH their God (cp. 8.7, where YHWH says to Samuel, ‘They have not rejected you, but they have rejected me’).

In a sense, then, just as Samuel should have been named ‘Saul’, so Jesus should have been named ‘Immanuel’ (Matt. 1.23–25), since Jesus should have been acknowledged as the very incarnation of God in Israel’s midst.

Instead, Jesus was rejected as a blasphemer.

But, of course, even ‘the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men’.

Men’s rejection of the man due to be born ‘Immanuel’ enabled him to accomplish the very mission inherent in the name ‘Jesus’—namely to save his people from their sins—, one day to return as ‘Immanuel’ for all to see and finally to be accepted by all Israel.

THE END.

P.S. Pdf here for those who are interested:

academia.edu/40939033/