© 2005 by Gary Kukis. All rights reserved.

Outline of Chapter 1:

       vv.    1–5        The religious rituals of Elkanah and his family

       vv.    6–8        Hannah’s Grief

       vv.    9–11      Hannah’s Vow

       vv.   12–18      Eli confirms Hannah’s vow

       vv.   19–20      Samuel is born to Hannah

       vv.   21–28      Hannah dedicates her son, Samuel, to the Tent of God all his life

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines:

       Introduction    An Alternate Outline

       Introduction    Clarke’s Summary of 1Sam. 1

       v.      1           The Line of Samuel the Prophet

       v.      2           A Few Points on Polygamy

       v.      2           There was a man named Elkanah...

       v.      2           Introverted Parallelism of 1Sam. 1:2

       v.      2           Formerly Barren Women

       v.      3           Scofield on the Title the Lord of Hosts (Jehovah Sabaoth)

       v.      3           Which Feast is Being Celebrated in 1Sam. 1?

       v.      5           Ancient Translations of 1Sam. 1:5a

       v.      5           Modern Translations of 1Sam. 1:5a

       v.      5           What Are People Saying about Hannah’s Portion of Meat?

       v.      9           Just How Bad Can a Commentary Be?

       v.     11           Similarities Between the Nazarites and Our Lord

       v.     11           Differences Between the Nazarites and Our Lord

       v.     16           The Less Literal Translations of 1Sam. 1:16a

       v.     19           Barren Women Who Have Prayed to God for a Child

       v.     22           The Arguments for and Against Samuel Being a Nazarite

       v.     24           How the Ancient Texts Disagree about 1Sam. 1:24

       v.     24           Specific Old Testament Offerings and Their Occasion of Use

I ntroduction: 1Sam. 1 covers the genealogy and birth of Samuel. What we have here is his birth and background. His father is Elkahnah, a man with two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Hannah was the wife that he loved, but she was barren. One of the most important background issues, which is never discussed in this chapter, is that these are Levites who are living as Ephraimites. Certainly, they were a mix from those two tribes, but Hannah has always felt a pang on conscience realizing that they have a spiritual destiny as well as a spiritual responsibility, and no one in their family seems to be aware of that. So, when she comes up barren, her first thought is their unfulfilled spiritual responsibilities. So, she asks God for a son, but then promises that she will give this son up to Him. The parallels here between Samuel and our Lord are enormous (we will cover that in 1Sam. 2). Once she has made her vow, she has a child, Samuel, and she will bring this child to the Tent of God, dedicates this child to Jehovah their God, and then leave him with Eli, the High Priest to Israel.

Most of this chapter is very easy to translate. Not only is it narrative, but it is very simple narrative. Unlike the book of Job or any of the psalms, where we examined the meaning and morphology of nearly every word, we will look at about every third word or so. When a sentence is so easy to translate, then there is little need to carefully interpret it and perhaps adjust the translation to fit more perfectly with the interpretation. For the most part, this is pretty straightforward. We generally find short thoughts and sentences interspersed with a large number of wâw conjunction’s or wâw consecutive’s. The verbs are common and often repeated through this chapter. Therefore, it is difficult to understand the glaring differences between the Septuagint (the early Greek translation of the Old Testament) and the Massoretic text. For instance, in v. 11, the Septuagint adds that the future son of Hannah would drink no wine, a phrase not found in the Hebrew at all; the phrase with conceived is in v. 19 in the Septuagint and in v. 20 in the Hebrew (it is actually in a different place in the two texts); at the end of v. 20, we have Y^ehowah in the Hebrew, but Lord of the Sabbath in the Greek. In the latter case, that maybe by way of offering a translation of the unspoken Name of God. (to indicate that the text is Y^ehowah in the original rather than Lord).

in this chapter, we have two words or phrases introduced—this is the first time we have the title, Jehovah of the Armies, which is extensively used throughout Scripture from hereon in. Also, in this chapter of Samuel, when reference is made to the Tent of God, the word used is temple. Obviously, Solomon, who was not born yet, had not built a Temple to God yet. One might suggest that this usage implies a post-Solomon authorship; however, it implies just the opposite. Once Solomon built a Temple of Jehovah, then the use of the word temple referred to that specific structure and no one of his time period or later would have confused the Temple of Jehovah with the Tent of Jehovah. However, prior to the building of the Temple, this was a word used for more permanent structures, which, as we will see in v. 9, was reasonably applied to what the Tent of God had become.

On this topic, Keil and Delitzsch suggest: Originally, when the tabernacle was simply a tent, traveling with the people from place to place, it had only curtains at the entrance to the holy place and court. But when Israel had become possess of fixed houses in the land of Canaan, and the dwelling-place of God was permanently erected at Shiloh, instead of the tents that were pitched for priests and Levites, who encamped round about during the journey through the desert, there were erected fixed houses, which were built against or inside the court, and not only served as dwelling-places for the priests and Levites who were officiating, but were also used for the reception and custody of the gifts that were brought as offerings to the sanctuary. These buildings in all probability supplanted entirely the original tent-like enclosure around the court; so that instead of the curtains at the entrance, there were folding doors, which were shut in the evening an opened again in the morning. It is true that nothing is said about the erection of these buildings in our historical books, but the fact itself is not to be denied on that account. In the case of Solomon’s temple, notwithstanding the elaborate description that has been given of it, there is nothing said about the arrangement or erection of the buildings in the court; and yet here and there, principally in Jeremiah, the existence of such buildings is evidently assumed. There are some things which take place historically that those of that era, and even soon after, do not realize the significance of, and therefore make no mention of it in their writings. If you were to write down what happened to you in the past year or so, you might leave out a great many details of your culture that someone else, a century later, would have been more interested in. God had said nothing to the Israelites about changing any of the laws or the appearance of the Tabernacle or anything else. However, it will become clear in these next few chapters that, over the past several hundred years, such changes were made. Since these changes were not a part of God’s expressed will, there was really no reason to include specific references to these changes in Scripture.

One of the interesting things in this chapter is the sacrifice of Hannah, which she brings along with Samuel to the Tent of God. On the surface, it appears as those she grabbed a few things from around the house and offered them up. However, during the time that she was nursing, Hannah thought long and hard about what she should offer on this great occasion of the lifelong dedication of her only son Samuel.

On a personal note: when I began this chapter and saw how easy the Hebrew was by comparison to what I had been working on (Job and various psalms), I pretty much expected there to be a lot less by way of exegesis. First of all, I did not have to examine each and every Hebrew word, nor did I have to spend a great deal of time explaining what was actually going on or what the author was saying. However, despite this chapter’s lack of density, it still requires a great deal of time and explanation for what occurs. The author may be a relatively simple man (like Earnest Hemingway, for instance) and what he says seems to be both simple and simply put; however, this is misleading. In order for us to understand fully what is occurring here (and I mean more than a simple narrative explanation), we are going to have to fill in a lot of gaps. One of the things which has been all but ignored in other expositions of this passage is Hannah’s motivation, for what she offers in this chapter will seem, at least to most mothers, a bit extreme. Her genealogy will explain a great deal of her reasoning. Let me add that if you are reading through the Bible in a year, or you have this little Bible study group on the side and everyone shares how they feel about this passage, then you won’t get even a tenth of what is here. So, given the simplicity of the Hebrew and the straightforwardness of the text, we would expect the exegetical portion of this study to be minimal. However, just the opposite has been the case. I have spent as much time and effort in explaining each verse of this chapter as I have through the most difficult portions of the book of Job.

Now and again, in the beginning of a chapter, I make reference to a particular source with I use. Unlike Bob Thieme, who was my right pastor for many years, I depend heavily upon some commentaries as a resource (however, most of them are just so much tripe, as Bob will tell you). One of the great helps to me has been Keil and Delitzsch’s Commentary of the Old Testament. It is a ten volume set filled with excellent and mostly accurate commentary. On the weak side is it is particularly dense. If I was to read five or six pages of it in a row, I would certainly lose my concentration and lose track of what I was reading. Furthermore, I would lose a lot of the meat which is in this commentary. The second weakness of this commentary is that it assumes the reader knows Greek, Hebrew, Latin, German and English (at least for the English translation). However, Keil and Delitzsch make certain arguments and take certain stands which open up many passages to me. I type 2-3 hours per day when I study God’s Word. When perusing their commentary, it may take me a full typing period to get through 2 or 3 pages of their commentary. I might not get, in that 2 or 3 hours, more than a page worth of information. However, I find that information often invaluable to my understanding of the passages at hand. In fact, often I come upon a view point or an argument which I would have not considered had it not been for Keil and Delitzsch. Therefore, I recommend this commentary for serious exegetes of God’s Word. For those of you who find my exegesis too ponderous, you will find theirs even more so. Do not, under any circumstance, gloss over their footnotes. Their footnotes are filled with important information.

The Religious Rituals of Elkanah and His Family

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts (quite obviously, this will be the English translation of the ancient texts):

At this point, I am going to begin to engage in a more systematic approach to textual criticism and examine the differences between the ancient texts. For this reason, it might be a good idea to examine Ancient Texts of the Old Testament. In that doctrine, there is a chart which gives us an idea as to the families of manuscripts. We might be quick to assume that the MT is correct because it is often in agreement with the Peshitta (Syriac) and the Vulgate (Latin). However, if you examine the chart, you can see that the Peshitta, the Latin Vulgate and the Masoretic text all stem from the same family of manuscripts and that the Septuagint comes from another group. Therefore, we should expect that much of the time, the LXX will be at odds with the other 3.

Masoretic Text                       And so he was a man, one, from the Ramathaim-zophim from hill country of Ephraim and his name, Elkanah ben Jeroham ben Elihu ben Tohu ben Zuph, an Ephraimite.

Septuagint                             There was a man of Armathaim Sipha, of mount Ephraim, and his name was Helkana, a son of Jeremeel the son of Elias the son of Thoke, in Namib Ephraim.

Significant differences:          Zuph is mentioned in the MT; somehow that was morphed in Namib in the LXX. As is often the case, whatever differences exist between the MT and the LXX are generally minor and affect no important doctrines (in fact, usually, there is no affect upon any doctrine, major or minor).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Elkanah lived in Ramah, a town in the hill country of Ephraim. His great-great-grandfather was Zuph, so Elkanah was a member of the Zuph clan of the Ephraim tribe. Elkanah’s father was Jeroham, his grandfather was Elihu, and his great-grandfather was Tohu.

TEV                                       There was a man named Elkanah, from the tribe of Ephraim, who lived in the town of Ramah in the hill country of Ephraim. He was the son of Jeroham and grandson of Elihu, and belonged to the family of Tohu, a part of the clan of Zuph. I want you to understand how long I have come since beginning this exegesis of Scripture. When I began, I would have never thought of quoting the Good News Bible, because it is simplistic and a paraphrase. However, there are times when it more clearly states what is here, even though we do not find this in the original (I should add that the NLT is almost identical).

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        There was a man from Ramathaim of the Zuphites, in the hill country of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son of Zuph, an Ephraimite.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now there was a certain man from Ramathaim-zophim from the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph, an Ephraimite.

Young's Updated LT              And there is a certain man of Ramathaim-Zophim, of the hill-country of Ephraim, and his name is Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephrathite,...

What is the gist of this verse? We introduce Elkanah with the verse, and his genealogy and home are all noted.

This is the first book where I attempt to use this Hebrew exegesis chart (of my own design). I pretty much follow Owen’s Analytical Key to the Old Testament, making corrections where necessary and noting these corrections. I wish I could vouch for each and every entry; however, in rereading some of this, I have found a few places where I will indicate that there is a suffix, but there was none; or something along those lines. My literal translation should reflect word-for-word accuracy with the Hebrew text. If you note a discrepancy, I would really like to know about it, so that I can make the proper changes.

Translation: There was a certain man, from the Ramathaim of the Zuphites... We begin this verse with the wâw consecutive, as though we are picking up this book from elsewhere. The book of Ruth took place during the time of the judges, although we are hard-pressed to place it exactly (see the Introduction to the Book of Ruth for a full discussion of this). However, this book of 1Samuel picks up more or less where the book of the Judges left off—at least from a topical standpoint. The book of the Judges is not in chronological order, as the last couple incidents occurred early on in the history of the judges. However, it would be logical to go from the book of the Judges to here, stopping for a brief look back into the period of the judges at the book of Ruth. And so we begin with the book of Samuel (which is called I and 2Samuel in the English Bibles and I and 2Kings in the Greek Septuagint).

Then we have from the followed by the proper noun and gentilic adjective Ramathaim-Zophim, a designation found here and only here. I think that the rendering of the JPS gives us the better idea of what we have here: Ramathaim of the Zuphites. Ramathaim appears to be equivalent to Ramah of Benjamin, referred hereto for as the Ramah (which means the height). Although there are some very imaginative scholars who teach that Ramathaim of the Zuphites and the Ramah are different places, this makes little sense. Elkanah is said to be from Ramathaim of the Zuphites in this verse, and is said to have a home in Ramah in v. 19 and 1Sam. 2:11. Now, it is true that Ramathaim is a duel noun, which could mean that the city is built in two sections, or that it is build upon two hills (the Rabbis tell us that there were two watchtowers which looked toward one another). Whatever the reason (the two hills, two sections to the city, an old and new section perhaps), Ramathaim is two of something.

The only possible reason that one might try to distinguish Ramah from Ramathaim of Zophim is that Ramathaim is said to be in Ephraim and Ramah is said to be in Benjamin, so let’s discuss that: you may recall the absolutely vile thing which occurred in the book of the Judges when a Levite brought his concubine back through the territory of Benjamin and stopped for the night in Gibeah (they were going to stop in Gibeah or in Ramah). They were taken in by an old man who only worked in that city occasionally; suddenly, that night, the degenerate men of the city of Gibeah came to the home of this old man and demanded that the male Levite be sent out so that they could have forced homosexual relations with him. Although the old man refused, as a compromise, the old man and the Levite sent out the Levite’s concubine (or mistress), who was then raped continually by these men until she died. The rest of Israel was contacted concerning this deed and demanded the extradition of these degenerates for trial and certain execution. The tribe of Benjamin refused, which began a civil war. The civil war resulted in the tribe of Benjamin being almost wiped out (all this can be found in Judges 19–21). The problem with the Benjamites was not just the degeneracy of the men of one city, but the fact that the other Benjamites would shelter them from legitimate prosecution. One of the results of any war is the change of ownership of certain territories. Since Ephraim is the nearest territory to Benjamin, we would expect Ephraim to absorb at least the northern portion of Benjamin. That would include the city Ramah and the hill country that we are speaking about—and this explains why the same city is sometimes said to be a part of Ephraim and other times to be a part of Benjamin.

Translation: ...from the hill country of Ephraim... There are a set of hills which begin in Ephraim, go through Benjamin and terminate in Judah. These are called the hill country of Judah and the hill country of Ephraim, depending upon whether we are looking at the northern or southern portion of this mountain range. In Joshua 17:17, the northern portion of this mountain range was given to Ephraim and Manasseh, the two sons of Joseph. They were told to clear it of forest and of Canaanites and to occupy it. Part of that was also given over to the tribe of Benjamin, who likely lost it by their aforementioned degenerate behavior. My point in all of this is that Ephraim, during the time of the judges, took possession of most of Benjamin, which included the city of Ramah (Joshua 18:25). They possibly renamed it Ramathaim, which could be reasonably interpreted as Ramah of Ephraim. Same city; new owners.

ZPEB treats these as different cities, although it is most likely that they are identical. Ramathaim of the Zuphites is simply called Ramah in 1Sam. 1:19 and 2:11. Keil and Delitzsch assume that Benjamin still occupies this area and that Ramathaim-zophim is in the hill country of Ephraim, which extends into the territory of Benjamin. I believe the territories to be less static, but, in any case, there is no contradiction here; we simply do not know if the tribe of Benjamin controlled this area at this time or not. I don’t think that they did; Keil and Delitzsch seem to think that they did. For me, the fact that Elkanah is called an Ephraimite settles the matter. The long name for the city is given here, along with its location. Once it has been has been established, the shorter name, Ramah, will be used throughout the first book of Samuel.

Let me give you one more reason why the Ramah that we are speaking of was in Benjamin, but is spoken of as being in the hill country of Ephraim. Early, in the time of the judges, the last few chapters of the book of Judges occurred. I covered this in great detail in the introduction and in the exegesis of this book. The judge Deborah used to set up her headquarters to judge between Bethel and Ramah in the hill country of Ephraim. Bethel and Ramah were both countries belonging to Benjamin (Joshua 18:21–25), yet they are spoken of as being in the hill country of Ephraim Judges 4:5. The easiest explanation is the one which I have given you: Benjamin was nearly completely wiped out as a nation because of their behavior in Judges 19–20; Ephraim, being directly north of Benjamin, would have absorbed, at the minimum, the northernmost cities, which would have included Bethel and Ramah. Now, if you look in the back of your Bible or in a small atlas to find Ramah, you will note that Ramah is probably not even placed on the map. That is because its location is strongly disputed. Being called a part of two different territories is why—but, as you see, the explanation is simple: sometimes Ephraim controlled it and sometimes Benjamin controlled it. An alternate explanation would be, even though Ramah (Ramathaim) is in Benjamin, it is in the hills of Ephraim (which run through the middle of Benjamin and become the hills of Judah on the other side of Benjamin). Because it looked as though the tribe of Benjamin might be wiped out completely, these hills were always known as the hills of Ephraim in the north and the hills of Judah in the south, even though between them, the hills are in Benjamin.

Now, perhaps, you might understand why we have spent so much time in passages which you had deemed worthless. We went through the cities of Israel near the end of the book of Joshua—a second area of Scripture which you might have thought to be as dull as any genealogy around—and those chapters helped us to put it altogether. This travelogue combined with the history of Judges 19–21 tells us (1) why two cities of Benjamin are said to be in the hill country of Ephraim and, (2) why someone who lives in these cities is called an Ephraimite. What is God telling us? God is telling us that in His Word, all the pieces of the puzzle are there. He did not leave out any vital details or information which we need to know.

Translation: ...and his name [was] Elkanah... Elkanah means God has created or God has taken possession of.

Translation: ...ben Jeroham—son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephraimite. You will recall from the verse above, that the line of Ephraim to Samuel goes through Zuph. We really know little or nothing about Zuph, apart from his name, which means honeycomb. His family primarily settled Ramah, so it is therefore called Ramathaim of the Zuphites. Elkanah (the father of Samuel) is represented here as being a Ephraimite. In 1Sam. 6:22–26 and 33–35, Zuph is called a Levite from the family of Kohath (he is called Zophar in I Chron. 6:26 and Zuph or Ziph in I Chron. 6:35. And the land around there will later be called the Land of Zuph (1Sam. 9:5). So, what’s the deal? Why is any of this important? This is important because Samuel and his family are descended from Levites, according to I Chron. 6, and from Ephraimites according to this verse. Huh? you comment. The Levites had a tendency to wander about, particularly when they were without a job or function, and they hooked up with other tribes providing a variety of functions (we find this in Judges 17, 19, where we have two different Levites living in the country of Ephraim, essentially to find work). So did some Levites intermarry with the Ephraimites? There is no reason to assume that they did not (the Levite’s concubine in Judges 19 was from Judah). The most reasonable explanation is that Zuph is the product of a mixed marriage between Ephraimites and Levites. At the beginning of this chapter, Elkanah and family are living like Ephraimites and not participating in any way in their Levitical heritage and responsibilities, which bothers at least Hannah. Samuel will assume the Levitical responsibilities of the family, and therefore, when a genealogy looks at Samuel, they see a Levite, because (1) he is descended from the Levites; and, (2) he acted like a Levite, accepting his Levitical responsibilities. Elkanah, his father, is called an Ephraimite because (1) he is descended from the Ephraim, and, (2) he behaved like an Ephraimite, doing nothing which directly related to his spiritual heritage as a Levite. (3) Furthermore, there is already a precedent for calling a Levite by the name of another tribe, depending upon where he lived or who he was related to (Judges 17:7). In other words, what we have here is not complex nor is it some sort of contradiction.

Did you know that practically no one studies the first nine chapters of Chronicles? Why? Because it is all genealogies. People wonder if the Bible is the Word of God, why include all these friggin’ genealogies. It’s simple. This provides us a great deal of background for the tribal mixtures which took place and allows us some parallel passages which we can use to hang our hats, so to speak. It is the background found in this passage compared to the information found in I Chron. 6 which helps to explain the behavior of Hannah, the wife of Elkanah. I must admit that when I began to think about working on the first few chapters of Chronicles, I dreaded it, because it was name after name after name. Then there was the problem of, how do we make the lines in Chronicles jive with the lines mentioned elsewhere? Although there were certain difficulties, most of them having to do with spelling, Chronicles 1–9 gives us a marvelous background for the Bible, taking us all the way from the creation of Adam to the dispersion of Israel. I believe only the book of John has a wider scope.

If you will notice, Ramah is called Aramathaim in the Greek. By the time we get to New Testament times, this is shortened to Arimathea, and we find it in connection with a certain Joseph who provided the tomb in which our Lord’s body would lay (Matt. 27:57–60). Given the close proximity of Ramah (later Arimathea) and Jebus (later Jerusalem), it would not be unusual for a business man to make his way from the smaller Arimathea into Jerusalem to conduct a great deal of his business. That he would purchase a tomb in the city of Jerusalem is also reasonable.

Ramah is further identified with the hill country of Ephraim. The first word is the masculine singular of har (ר ַה) [pronounced har], which means hill, mountain, hill-country. It can be used to mean mountain when used in connection with a specific proper noun; here, it simply refers to the hill country. Strong’s #2042 (and #2022) BDB #249. As mentioned, there is a mountain range which runs along the west side of the Jordan, which extends all the way from Northern Dan past the Sea of Galilee (in fact it continues north from there) all the way along the west side of the Salt Sea, diverging slightly to the west about half way down the Salt Sea (there is another shorter and lower mountain range which picks up along the coast of the Salt Sea and continues down past the Gulf of Aqaba. These mountain ranges are not organized, not very prominent, and often meander off into high plains. Given this lack of structure and prominence, I don’t even know that this mountain range has a name. Depending upon where we are, it is simply known as the hill country of Judah or of Ephraim or of Galilee.

The line of ascent looks like this: Ephraim –› Zuph –› Tohu –› Elihu –› Jeroham –› Elkanah. In between each pair of names, we have a son of (which is ben in the Hebrew). In I Chron. 6, we have the line of the Levi, the brother of Ephraim. More specifically, we are dealing with the line of Kohath, one of Levi’s three sons. However, we are told clearly that Samuel comes from a family of Ephraimites. Again, some of the tribe of Kohath wandered into Ephraim looking for work and intermarried, confusing their spiritual purpose, a fact which was apparent to some of the descendants of Zuph.

You no doubt noticed the differences between the names in the line of Samuel. This line is mentioned also in I Chron. 6:26–28, which provides even greater differences. We have compared these differences already in 1Chronicles 6:25–27 in a chart and we have already given a short biography of them all in I Chron. 6. The lines given in I Chron. 6 are also more detailed; but, since that has already been covered, we don’t need to go into any more detail here.

I should mention that there is no reason to ever assume that any particular line given is complete. Barnes here erroneously assumes that we are found complete generations of Israelites in the land, which is about 130 years by his calculation. We should expect during the time of slavery to Egypt and during the time of the judges to find gaps in the generational lines given. In any given line, the typical Israelite should know the name of his tribe, what branch of the tribe he is in, and his parents, grandparents and perhaps some of his great grandparents. Since they obviously kept better records of such things than we do, they might know one or two more in their line. This does not mean that they trace their line through each and every generation, however.

Now, for those of you who know a little about the background of the Levites, realize that certain cities throughout Israel were given over to them, not to own, exactly, but to occupy. However, even though Ramah is given as a city of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25), it is not one of the cities given over to the Levites (Joshua 21:17–19). In the book of the Judges, we have two instances of Levites who did not seem to be involved in the service to the Aaronic priesthood and one of them was actually free-lancing his services. Furthermore, they did not necessarily live in the areas designated for them.

Now I realize that you are probably bored to tears with the concept of genealogy, particularly as it pertains to a bunch of old dead guys who are not related to you; and then mentioning passages which seem to just give endless lists of cities—I mean, what’s that all about? You’re thinking, who the hell cares? Let’s just get on with the story. However, it is Samuel’s genealogy and the background of his family which helps to explain his mother’s prayer and his mother’s willingness to give up her son according to her vow. What appears to be the case, as previously discussed, is that Hannah and Elkanah were both probably Levites living as Ephraimites. They weren’t in the cities given to them by God; they weren’t serving the Aaronic priesthood. They had forsaken their unique ancestry as Levites and lived just like anyone in the tribe of Ephraim. They apparently had enough Levi blood in them to qualify them as Levites (and they could have been pure almost pure Levites, with reference to their ancestors) and this apparently weighed on the mind of Hannah, which will explain some of her behavior in this chapter. She wants badly to have a child by her husband, Elkanah. Elkanah, being a man, is fine with whatever is going on. If they have a kid, fine; if they don’t, fine. Not a big deal to him. He likes Hannah; he has another wife who bears him children, so everything is a-okay with him (although, he certainly is not pleased with the bickering between the two women, which no doubt helps to account for his strong religious ties). Not so with Hannah. She knows that she is a Levite and that her family has not taken on the duties of the Levi tribe for several generations. It could be inferred that she believes that is the reason for her barrenness. Therefore, she wants so badly to bear a child that she is willing to place this child at the Tabernacle (the Holy Tent of God) to be raised. Given her heritage as a Levite who does not serve God, the vow that she makes, to give her child over to God if God gives her a child, makes a great deal of sense.

In your program to read the Bible in one year, you read this verse in about 3 seconds. It took us over four pages of commentary to cover the same verse. On to v. 2:

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And to him two women: a name of one, Hannah and a name of the other, Peninnah. And so he was to Peninnah children and to Hannah not of children.

Septuagint                             And he [had] two wives; the name of the one [was] Anna and the name of the second, Phennana. And Phennana had children, but Anna had no child.

Significant differences:          None. When this is the case, we can be about 99.5% assured that this text is accurate.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Elkanah had two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. Although Peninnah had children, Hannah did not have any.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Elkanah had two wives, one named Hannah, the other Peninnah. Peninnah had children, but Hannah had none.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And he had two wives: the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

Young’s Updated LT             ...and he has two wives, the name of the one is Hannah, and the name of the second Peninnah, and Peninnah has children, and Hannah has no children.

What is the gist of this verse? Elkanah has two wives; Hannah is his first, who has borne him no children; and Peninnah is his second who has borne him children.

Translation: And to him, two wives:... This gives us: And to him, two of women. Or, slightly less literally: And to him, two wives.

There are some who read this first phrase and conclude that God approves of polygamy. Not true. The people found in Scripture are presented with all of their flaws and sins. Just because God tells us that Elkanah had two wives, this does not mean that God therefore approved. This fact is pertinent to understanding the motivation of Hannah, the mother of Samuel. As many an exegete has pointed out: the Bible quotes Satan when he tempts our Lord in the desert wilderness—does that mean that Satan’s misapplication of Scripture is accurate? Satan is quoted in Gen. 3 as lying to the woman—does that make his lies truth? Certainly not. The Bible simply gives us the necessary background to understand the narrative and the issues pertaining thereto. If someone other than our Lord was portrayed as sinless in Scripture, then we would be much more suspicious of the veracity of the record (even the two greatest men of Scripture, Moses and Paul, are presented with flaws and chinks in their armor). However, it was clear that the Law allowed for more than one wife. Given that, we ought to investigate this matter more carefully:

What is clear in the narrative to follow is that there was trouble in the Elkanah household because he had two wives. The friction between the two wives is the driving force behind this first chapter of Samuel. The end result is that Hannah’s son, Samuel, would be given over to the Lord. Now, does that make polygamy okay? Again, certainly not. The ends do not justify the means. God took a bad situation, two jealous women under the same roof, and brought good from it. For we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God and to those who are called according to His pre-determined plan (Rom. 8:28).

Translation: ...the name of one [was] Hannah, and the name of the other [was] Peninnah. We have the proper name Hannah, which is transliterated. Hannah means grace. In the Hebrew, her name is actually channâh (הָ-ח) [pronounced khah-NAW], which is grace with a feminine (ah) ending (there are at least two different words for grace in the Hebrew).

This is followed by and a name of the, which is followed by the feminine numeral ordinal shenîy (י.נ∵ש) [pronounced sheh-NEE], which means second, the second. When only two items are named, it can be rendered [the] other. Then we have the proper noun Peninnah, also a close transliteration. This gives us: ...a name of one, Hannah; and a name of the second, Peninnah. Peninnah means coral.

Translation: And so there were to Peninnah children... The second line begins with the wâw consecutive and the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal imperfect of to be (which most translators render as a plural). You note that Young renders it hath, which is not necessarily wrong, except that Peninnah cannot be the subject, as she is preceded by the lâmed preposition, giving us to Peninnah. Then we have the masculine plural of yeled (ד∵ל∵י) [pronounced YEH-led], which means child, son, boy, youth. In the plural, it means children, descendants. Strong’s #3206 BDB #409. This is followed by and to Hannah, after which is the construct of the negative ayin (ן ̣י-א) [pronounced AH-yin], which means naught, nothing, no, not. The construct is êyin (ן ̣י̤א) [pronounced AYH-yin], which can mean in the condition of being not = without. Strong’s #369 BDB #34. This is affixed to children again, giving us: And it is to Peninnah children and to Hannah not of children.

This narrative simply sets up the principal characters and their states of being. Until most recently, children were seen as a great blessing and a fulfillment of a marriage. Actually, one of the great topics of Scripture has been the temporary barrenness of certain women (e.g., Sarai, Rebekah, Rachel, Hannah).

Translation: ...and to Hannah, without children.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And went up the man the this from his city from days to days to bow [himself] down and to a slaughter of to Yehowah armies in Shiloh. And there two of sons of Eli: Hophni and Phinehas—priests to Yehowah.

Septuagint                             And the man went up from year to year from his city, from Armathaim, to worship and sacrifice to the Lord God of Sabaoth at Selom. And [there were] Heli and his two sons, Ophni and Phinees, the priests of the Lord.

Significant differences:          None.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

NJB                                        Every year this man used to go up from his town to worship, and to sacrifice to Yahweh Sabaoth at Shiloh. (The two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there as priests of Yahweh.)

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Every year this man would go from his own city to worship and sacrifice to the LORD of Armies at Shiloh. Eli's two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, served there as priests of the LORD.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Now this man would go up from his city yearly to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas were priests to the Lord there.

Young’s Updated LT             And that man has gone up out of his city from time to time, to bow himself, and to sacrifice, before Jehovah of Hosts, in Shiloh, and there are two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests to Jehovah.

What is the gist of this verse? Elkanah traveled regularly to Shiloh to offer up a sacrifice. Eli and his two sons Hophni and Phinehas are all priests to God there.

Translation: Now this man went up from his city... There were three feasts which beckoned Israelite men to come up and celebrate (those feasts are, the Feast of Unleavened Bread, Pentecost, and the Feast of Tabernacles). For more information, see the Feast Days Chart (which we covered back in Lev. 23). I suspect that, Elkanah being a Levite, probably went to Shiloh for all 3 of these feasts.

Translation: ...from year to year... We have a slight problem here as to which festival is being spoken of and how often this festival occurred. There were three festivals wherein the men of Israel were supposed to gather themselves in whatever city the Tent of God was, and these festivals were held yearly. For this reason, when we come upon the phrase, from days to days, we assume that it means yearly. We have the exact same phrase in both Ex. 13:10, which refers to the Passover, and in Judges 21:19 for apparently the same festival as is in view here.

Again, I am going to assume that he went to all three feasts and that this phrase simply meant that each feast occurred once a year.

Translation: ...to bow down [in worship] and to sacrifice to Y^ehowah of the armies... His reason for going to these festivals each year is to bow down in worship and to slaughter animals to Jehovah of hosts (or Y^ehowah of the armies).

We have Y^ehowah followed by the masculine plural of tsâbâ (א ָב ָצ) [pronounced tsaw^b-VAW], which means armies, wars, or warfare. It is usually translated hosts in the KJV, which is okay, as long as you then picture a huge army of angels ready to do battle. We expect Y^ehowah to be in the construct, which it won’t be (there are no vowels in the Hebrew, which would actually indicate the construct state; furthermore, Y^ehowah is a proper noun, and proper nouns can be taken as genitives, but they do not have a genitive form). My guess is that the construct was placed on slaughter, which transfers to Y^ehowah (or, at least, that is how everyone else rendered this). This is followed by in Shiloh, giving us: And this man went up from his city from year to year to bow [himself] down and to slaughter to [the] Y^ehowah of armies in Shiloh.

Now, you may wonder why I go off into such detail about this particular title. This is because this is the first place chronologically that we find the title, Y^ehowah of the Armies, in Scripture and this title for our God, or close variations of it, occurs 260 times in Scripture. Now, God is not so named for no reason. Israel’s armies are called armies of Y^ehowah in Ex. 7:4 12:41 and the Angel of Y^ehowah (Christ Jesus) presented Himself to Joshua as the commander of the armies of Y^ehowah in Joshua 5:14, which means that He is Commander-in-Chief over the angelic army of God. There has also been a mention of the armies of heaven (Deut. 4:19 17:3). However, this is the first time we have the title Y^ehowah of the Armies. This will be a title found throughout Samuel, Kings, Chronicles and the Psalms. However, those who use this title most frequently are the prophets, particularly Isaiah and Jeremiah. Therefore, it seemed best to get this correctly explained from the beginning.

Obviously, we should understand what Y^ehowah of the Armies means. Like many things found in Scripture, we have a natural progression which leads us to this point so that, in order to understand the meaning of the title, we can primarily look backward in time. One aspect of this is that God rules over all the heavens and the stars of the heavens (Psalm 148:2). He created the heavens and the earth and all of the stars in the heavens (Gen. 1:1, 16–18 2:1), and all of the heavenly bodies along with all of those things found in the heavens and the earth are called hosts (that is, armies) in Gen. 2:1 (Thus the heavens and the earth were completed, and all their hosts—see Also Deut. 4:19). God’s creation of such heavenly bodies along with His control over the elements of nature (e.g., Gen. 7:4) places Him as the Divine Ruler over the stars. Furthermore, the visible splendor of His sun, the moon and the myriad of stars in the heavens is a constant reminder to us of the omnipotence and glory of God, who governs over all powers, both visible and invisible. He knows each and every star and they all have their proper circuit that God leads them on (Isa. 40:26).

As mentioned, our Lord is Divine Sovereign over the armies of Israel, who are called the armies of Y^ehowah in Ex. 7:4 12:41. So, not only is He sovereign over the hosts of the heavenlies, but He is sovereign over the Israelite fighting force. During a time of degeneracy, a psalmist complains that God does not go out with Israel’s armies (Psalm 44:9). In times of obedience, our Lord is Commander-in-Chief of Israel’s fighting forces.

God is also the God of the Armies of the Heavens (i.e., the angels). This is certainly implied in Gen. 28:12 2Kings 6:15–17. We do not find the plural angels used in the Old Testament very often, as its use in the plural primarily means messengers where no heavenly connotation is inferred (e.g., 1Sam. 11:3 2Kings 1:3). We do find that this word in the singular often refers to Christ Jesus in His pre-incarnate form (e.g., Ex. 23:20 Num. 22:22 Judges 2:4). Moses, in his blessing of Israel, wrote: “Jehovah came from Sinai, and He rose upon them from Seir. He showed forth from Mount Paran and He came from the midst of ten thousand holy ones.” (Deut. 33:2b—see also Psalm 68:17). However, it is used occasionally in the plural to refer to the angels of heaven (Psalm 91:11 148:2). Israel also had an army at various times, and God would ultimately be the head of that army, just as He was ruler over Israel (which is why Israel went so long without a king). In Joshua 5:14–15, prior to Israel’s invasion of the land, the Angel of the Lord appeared to Joshua as the Captain of the Host of Jehovah. The implication is that He was the Commander-in-Chief of God’s angelic army. One of the strongest passages which indicates this is 1Kings 22:19, where Micaiah speaks to King Jehoshaphat, saying, “Therefore, hear the word of Jehovah: I saw Jehovah sitting on His throne and all the army o heaven standing by Him on His right and on His left.” Obviously, this army would not be stars or the army of Israel. Therefore, Jehovah God is ruler over the angels of heaven, over the stars of heaven and over the army of Israel. Context would determine which of these is emphasized. Our context here, apart from any implication of warfare, would reasonably be Y^ehowah of the hosts [of the heavens] or over the armies [of angels]. God rules over all powers, visible or invisible. All of the gravitation forces and all of the velocities of the planets are things over which God rules—God placed these things in motion. He created all of the angels, who have a form and power that is far beyond our own. God created the earth and all that is in it and He rules over all of these things.

Allowing myself just one more tangent—apparently Gesenius suggested that angels inhabited the various stars. Although this is not an impossibility, there just does not seem to be any support for this in Scripture. Furthermore, given the fact that we have many instances of angels functioning on this earth (apart from our Lord, Who is known as the Angel of Y^ehowah), this would make their dwelling place on a particular star less meaningful and much less likely. An interesting thought would be that God created the same number of stars as He did angels, as we have an interplay between the two (for instance, when Lucifer fell, he took a third of the stars from the heavens—Rev. 12:4; see also Isa. 14:13). Not that there is any theological significance to this, but a thought nonetheless. The number of believers in Israel (that is, the seed of Abraham) is also compared in number to the number of stars in the heavens and sands in the seas. The only inference is that the number of stars, the number of angels, and the number of Abraham’s descendants is quite nearly uncountable (I use this word from a human perspective and not its technical mathematical definition).

Returning to the topic of this new title of God, it is ironic that we find it first in 1Sam. 1, as the first act of war mentioned in this book will be 1Sam. 4 where the armies of Israel will be soundly defeated by the Philistines. God is still sovereign over the armies of His people, but recall that Israel, for the better portion of 300 years, has lived in degeneracy, not completing the taking of the Land of Promise and not eradicating the land fully of her own enemies. On the other hand, what we have in the books of Samuel and Kings is the foundation of the nation Israel, and it is within these books where the nation Israel will reach its greatest pinnacle of success (at least, up until this point in time). Therefore, from the standpoint of God the Holy Spirit, Who breathed this Word, this is the proper place to introduce this title for God. Israel will take on a king and become great; however, it is God Who rules over all.

I should also explain why man introduces this title for God at this time. Scripture has both a human and a divine author. My thinking is that Hannah herself was the first to coin this phrase (see v. 11), in a silent prayer to God (obviously, the content was made known by her later on). The author of this book, whether Samuel or Eli, found this designation for God to be apropos, and applies it here and throughout the book of Samuel.

Translation: ...in Shiloh. The Tent of God, which was the prescribed place of worship, moved about in Old Testament times, from city to city. Although it is not really clear as to why it was moved, it is clear that it moved. We find it here in Shiloh, which is in Ephraim. There was only to be one tent (you usually hear it called a tabernacle) where worship by sacrifices occurred (see Deut. 12:14 Joshua 22). Although God told Israel that they would build this tent, He never specified a particular city, but always spoke of placing it at the place where I will tell you. The Tent of God was set up in Shiloh in Joshua 18:1 and it appears as though it remained there throughout most of the book of Judges (the only exception noted is Judges 20:26–27 where it was in Bethel, about ten miles south of Shiloh). By the way, various authors have Shiloh as being anywhere from 7 to 12 miles from Ramah. Obviously, because there is so much disagreement as to the exactly location of Ramah (and whether it is equivalent to Ramathaim), opinions as to distance will certainly be different. However, for Elkanah and for his family, this is not a very long trip to make.

The Philistines will defeat Israel and capture the Ark in 1Sam. 4, obviously something we will study in the very near future.

The religious significance of the Tent of God was much different than is our concept of a church. For us, there is a church every few blocks or so, and they are all of these various denominations. We can change our denomination and just drive another block to a new church, or we can even get mad at our present church, retain our denominational affiliation, and wander down the road to another church of the same affiliation. This was not the case for Israel. There was the Tent (or, Tabernacle) of God and it was in one place. Now, it moved, occasionally, but it stayed in one place for a long time and there was only one Tent of God. Three times a year, the males of Israel would go there to worship God (Ex. 34:23 34:23 Deut. 12:5–7 16:16–17 Luke 2:41 ). Females and families are not mentioned in most of these passages; however, when offering a tithe to Jehovah, that tithe was not to be consumed within the gates of one’s city, but they as a family were to bring them before Jehovah God (this would have to be at the Tent of God) and they could eat of those things there. A case history of family attendance of a feast with which most of us are familiar, is Joseph, Mary and a very young Jesus going to Passover Feast in Jerusalem (they actually attended the festival with a very large number of friends and family members). In this passage of 1Sam. 1, all of the family obviously attends the Feast of God as well.

Why the difference between the Tent of God and the modern day church? The Tent of God represented the Lord Jesus Christ. Each sacrifice, each item of furniture, the Holy of Holies, the High Priest—all of these things spoke of Jesus Christ in shadow form. And—here is the important part—there is only one Jesus Christ. There are not two saviors (or three); we don’t have our choice of Confucius, Buddha, Mohammed or Jesus—there is one Savior, Christ Jesus. As Jesus told Thomas: “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father, but through Me.” (John 14:6b). Peter said, “And there is no salvation in anyone else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12). And Paul wrote to Timothy: For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men—the man Christ Jesus (I Tim. 2:5). Therefore, there is one Tent of God. There was not a Tent of God on every corner or in every town of Israel. The Tent represented our Lord; there is only One Lord, one faith and one baptism (Eph. 4:4), so, therefore, there would be only one Tent of God. Christianity is exclusive in its Savior and in its means of salvation (simply exercising faith in Christ)—however, there are thousands of church buildings because the church building does not represent Jesus Christ any more.

The NIV Study Bible suggests that this is the Feast of Tabernacles (also called the Feast of Booths), as the celebration is of the harvest of Israel, which would be in stark contrast to the barrenness of Hannah. Barnes suggests that the spiritual life of Israel fell into such a mire during the time of the judges that the celebration of the three attendance festivals was combined into just one yearly festival. The latter viewpoint was made as we have a yearly festival in Shiloh mentioned also in Judges 21:19 (recall, this is the festival where the few men of Benjamin who were still alive were hooked up with some women in order to preserve the family name). 1Sam. 1 takes place during the time of the judges. Judges 21:19 occurred early on during the time of the judges, and our passage occurs late during the time of the judges. However, we do not have enough information to determine which Feast it was nor can we assume that an amalgamation took place (although the latter presumption is reasonable). The Israelites were supposed to attend three yearly feasts—the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks (or Pentecost) and the Feast of Booths (or, the Feast of the Tabernacles). The phrasing of this passage does not necessarily refer to attending a feast each year, although most have interpreted it to mean that. The phrase near the beginning of v. 3 (from days to days) seems to indicate yearly in Ex. 13:10 Judges 11:40 where it is first found; furthermore, the degeneracy of Israel during the time period of the judges would possibly suggest that in a time of spiritual renewal that they did not immediately begin following the Law perfectly, but began slowly with a single festival wherein all males (and this did not exclude females) were to show up to the Tent of God.

Furthermore, to add to the confusion, the incidents described in 1Samuel did not have to occur only at one particular festival. In vv. 4–8, we simply hear what has transpired in the past at various Feasts of God. Vv. 9–18 occur during a particular feast, when Hannah’s sorrow comes to a head. Vv. 21–23 name a feast which Hannah does not attend; however, this was probably several feasts in a row while she was nursing. In vv. 24–28, Hannah takes Samuel on what appears to be one of the Feasts of God, although it is never specified (and she could have simply gone up to the Tent of God apart from a feast day—there is nothing in the final four verses which require a feast day to be simultaneously occurring). Therefore, to say that such-and-such a feast is being celebrated in this chapter makes little sense, as all of the named three feasts might be in view throughout this chapter.

Next, some mention should be made of the city of Shiloh. We covered this city in detail back at the end of Exodus when we exegeted Psalm 78:61. It appears to have been the spiritual center of Israel for several hundred years, beginning during the book of the Judges and continuing until this point. When it is clear that the Ark of God and the Tent of God move to another city, then we will examine the movement of these holy things.

Translation: And there [were] two sons of Eli: Hophni and Phinehas—[both] priests of Y^ehowah. The second line in this verse then assumes information which the reader several thousand years later would not necessarily know—that Eli was a the High Priest to God in Shiloh. He is casually mentioned, although his sons are then named specifically, indicating that they would be not as well known to the reader. We begin with the wâw conjunction and the adverb shâm (ם ָש) [pronounced shawm], which means there, thither, whither. There emphasis is upon place; so the two sons of Eli were there at Shiloh. Then we have two of sons of Eli.

Let’s just touch on Eli for a moment. I’ve pointed this out once already, but let me point it out again: prior to discussing Eli, the first thing that I did was take a look at the priestly chart from I Chron. 6. While putting together the first few chapters of 1Chronicles, I wondered just what the heck all this mattered, but now that it is finished, I go back to my exegesis of those first few chapters in connection with most historical figures found in Scripture. As a young believer, I could make little sense of the first nine chapters of Chronicles and pretty much ignored them. Now, as I plod through the Old Testament, these chapters become extremely important to me. The first High Priest was Aaron, who had four sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar. The first two died at the altar, having brought strange fire before Jehovah (Lev. 10). The son of Eleazar, Phinehas, was probably more well-known than Eleazar, and he carried out the priestly tradition with pride and dedication. His leadership participation in Joshua 22 indicates that he was not some namby pamby, let’s all just sit in a meadow and hold hands kind of guy. We have a fairly clean line of descent from him on down to the dispersion of Judah. The son of Aaron who is given very little air time is Ithamar, Aaron’s fourth son. We jump from him (circa 1400 b.c.) right down to Eli (circa 1100 b.c.).

As a father, we have mixed reviews on Eli. He raises two sons in the priesthood who appear to be worthless. He then raises Samuel, who is one of the great Old Testament figures, so go figure. There is often this great discussion of nature vs. nurture in development, as though one must exclude the other. There are people who are inherently negative, and regardless of the upbringing that they have, they simply seem to turn out wrong. There are others who, even given very little direction and guidance, seem to turn out honorable. Here we will have Eli raising three children, the third child when he will have the least amount of patience. Still, the child who is raised well is that third child, Samuel.

Eli’s responsibility before God was a dual responsibility: he was one of the last judges over Israel, and he was a priest before God. Therefore, he operated as somewhat of a ruler over Israel (whose authority would be politically limited); and as the High Priest over Israel, whose authority was absolute on earth. His adopted son, Samuel, would also bear this dual responsibility.

The second line is, literally: And there [were] two of sons of Eli: Hophni and Phinehas, priests to Y^ehowah. What we have here in Scripture is quite normal. We have introduced in some reasonable detail Elkanah. We know where he lives; we know his yearly spiritual activity, we know the names of his wives, and that one of fertile and the other appears to be barren. However, Eli is introduced here without any fanfare. The writer of Samuel mentions Eli as if the reader is familiar with him (or, at least, the writer and his contemporaries were familiar with Eli). Therefore, there is no need for an introduction or explanation. We are not even told that Eli is High Priest. We are not told his lineage. It is as though that information is expected to be known by those who read this. I mention this because that is the way a near contemporary would write. An historian, looking back several hundred years, would give us the 4-1-1 on Eli as well. A writer more contemporary to this time period would not feel there is some need to give a great deal of background on the High Priest. After all, he was High Priest for 40 years. If one of our presidents was president for 40 years, when mentioning him, contemporary writers would not feel it necessary to remind their readers that he is the president of the United States.

The mention of Hophni and Phinehas here indicates that the writer of this portion of Scripture sat down to write this years after the events of the next two chapters transpired. Although the fact that Eli had sons and that they were priests has nothing to do with the narrative at hand (i.e., this first chapter), it is pertinent to the entire narrative (i.e., the first two chapters). It is suggested that Eli is along in years and, although he is High Priest, his sons do much of the work. My thinking is that a lot of it has to do with his weight and subsequent inertia.

Now, I want you to notice something. We are only three verses into this narrative and we have been all over the Bible. We have been in the Law of Moses, dealing with the worship of God in Old Testament times. We have spent some time in the genealogies, which seem to be nothing but name after name after name to most people. We even traveled to the least traveled portion of Joshua, the distribution of the cities. And then we brought in the relationship between the worship of the New and Old Testament’s, spending some time in the gospels, the book of Acts and a couple of the epistles. That is because it is all interrelated. Scripture is God-breathed and inspired by the Holy Spirit. No prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but by men from God who had been moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:21). Therefore, it should all fit together, as though written by one man—I should say, One God, God the Holy Spirit. However, as an aside concerning inspiration, even in the original languages, to one who does not speak Hebrew, the style and vocabulary from book to book varies dramatically. One Divine author and many human authors.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text                       And so was the day and so slaughtered Elkanah and he had given to Peninnah his woman and to all of her sons and her daughters portions.

Septuagint                             And the day came, and Helkana sacrificed, and he gave portions to his wife Phennana and her children.

Significant differences:          None which are significant. In the Hebrew, this is fairly straightforward, and it appears as though the Septuagint took some minor liberties with the Hebrew, combining the sons and daughters together. The Septuagint is very literal in the Law, but it takes greater liberties in translating other portions of Scripture.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Whenever Elkanah offered a sacrifice, he gave some of the meat to Peninnah and some to each of her sons and daughters.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Whenever Elkanah offered a sacrifice, he would give portions of it to his wife Peninnah and all her sons and daughters.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And when the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and her daughters;...

Young’s Updated LT             And the day comes, and Elkanah sacrifices, and he has given to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions,...

What is the gist of this verse? On the day that they went to the Tabernacle to offer up sacrifices, Elkanah gave out measured portions to Peninnah and to her children.

Translation: And so the day came... We could get away with: And so the day came... (see the Hebrew exegesis). This is a specific day, referring to the day of the gathering and sacrifices. As mentioned before, we do not know for certain which feast is in view here. Although some pick out a particular feast, I think what we find here is a pattern. That is, vv. 1–6 was what happened each time this family attended a religious feast at Shiloh.

Translation: ...when Elkanah sacrificed;... We could fudge a bit and allow the second wâw consecutive to be rendered when, as there is no indication that the day mentioned here and the sacrifice of Elkanah were at different times. The purpose seems to place these events together. Therefore, in the more lax translation, we could render this: And so the day came when Elkanah sacrificed...

When reading a book, I truly enjoy an author with a rich and varied vocabulary. However, after dealing with several difficult psalms and several chapters of the book of Job, I can’t tell you how nice it is to deal with an author who has a limited vocabulary. The verb for slaughter is in the imperfect tense, meaning that what took place was seen as a process. He probably had several sacrifices to offer and his wife and children had several sacrifices as well. So the author views all of these sacrifices as an ongoing event.

Translation: ...also, he had given portions [of the sacrifice] to Peninnah, his wife, and to all her sons and daughters. The one day a year when they were to come to the Tent of God and to sacrifice was a great event, and the entire family participated. This does not mean that this is the only spiritual event in their lives; however, this was the once a year, travel to Shiloh and offer a sacrifice—for a family of that time period, this was much more involved than our dropping by the church once a year at Christmas and daydreaming our way through a sermon.

The fact that Elkanah gives each member of the family a portion of the sacrifice indicates that this could be the Feast of the Booths where the harvest is celebrated. “You are not allowed to eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or new wine or oil or the first-born of your herd or flock, or any of your votive offerings which you vow, or your freewill offerings, or the contribution of your hand. But you will eat them before me your God in the place where Jehovah your God will choose, you and your son and daughter, and your male and female servants, and the Levite who is within your gates; and you will rejoice before Jehovah your God in all your undertakings.” (Deut. 12:17–18). Quite obviously, the slaughtering of the animals as a sacrifice to God was combined with the eating of the animals as well in the festive family meals. This at once spoke of the sacrifice of our Lord and our communion with Him.

The comments of Clarke: The sacrifices which were made were probably peace-offerings, of which the blood was poured out at the foot of the altar; the fat was burnt on the fire; the breast and right shoulder were the portion of the priest, and the rest belonged to him who made the offering; on it he and his family feasted, each receiving his portion.

This is the first verse which will require a little work, and that is because we have a minor textual and interpretation problem. However, once we get past that, we will find that we actually have a fairly clever play on words which I don’t believe has ever been properly explained before. First, what the others have done:

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         But to Anna he gave one portion with sorrow, because he loved Anna. And the Lord had shut up her womb..

Masoretic Text                       And to Hannah, he gave a portion one nostrils [or, an extremity], because Hannah he loved and Yehowah had closed her womb.

Peshitta                                 But to Hannah, he gave a double portion, because he loved Hannah, even though the Lord had shut up her womb.

Septuagint                             And to Anna he gave a prime portion, because she had no child, only Helkana loved Anna more than the other; but the Lord closed her womb.

Significant differences:          There appears to be some problems with the Hebrew text at this point. In any case, I think the idea is that Elkanah clearly showed Hannah favoritism at these feasts.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Whenever Elkanah offered a sacrifice, he gave some of the meat to Peninnah and some to each of her sons and daughters.

The Message                         When Elkanah sacrificed, he passed helpings from the sacrificial meal around to his wife Peninnah and all her children,...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh)                        ...but to Hannah he would give one portion only—though [only though: Hebrew uncertain] Hannah was his favorite—for the Lord had closed her womb.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     ...but to Hannah he would give a double portion, for he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed her womb.

Owen's Translation                But to Hannah he would give one portion faces [or, only?] because [although?] Hannah he loved because Yahweh had closed her womb.

Young’s Updated LT             ...and to Hannah he gives a certain portion—double, for he has loved Hannah, and Jehovah has shut her womb;...

What is the gist of this verse? Elkanah either gave a double portion to his wife Hannah or a prime cut, as he loved her, despite the fact that God did not give him children by her.

Translation: And to Hannah, he gave an end piece,... This verse begins easily enough: And to Hannah, he gave a portion one... This translation, from the Hebrew, is undisputed. Therefore, you wonder why others have given us such a myriad of interpretations: a double portion (NAB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV), a certain portion (Young), only one share (REB), only one portion (NJB), one portion (Rotherham, God’s Word™), and a special portion (NLT). What is the problem? It is the next word, which is the masculine plural of aph (ף ַא) [pronounced ahf], which means nose, nostril, face, brow, anger. Strong’s #639 BDB #60. The plural of this word is aphâyîm (מ̣יָפ-א) [pronounced ah-phaw-YEEM]. Now, If we leave out the yodh of the plural form (which is pretty much the smallest consonant in the Hebrew), and combine this with the word for one, that would possibly yield epheç (ס ∵פ ∵א) [pronounced EH-fes] (recall that the vowels were added hundreds and hundreds of years after the original and the Hebrew letter ס Samekh looks just like the ending form of the letter mêm, ם). epheç means ceasing, end, extremity and expresses non-existence. Strong’s #657 BDB #67. Now, either a slip of the pen in transmission of this text, or an incomplete understanding of the text could have led to the current Hebrew text, which is one nostrils. However, if we combine the words and remove the yodh, we have a translation which might make a little more sense: And to Hannah, he gave one portion, an end [piece]. Although this does not exactly mean a prime portion (as we find in the NASB), that is still possibly a relatively good understanding of what we have here (I will discuss this at length further on down).

No matter what the interpretation, something was different with the portion which Elkanah gave to Hannah; and the difference was related to what we find below.

Translation: ...because [or, although] he loved Hannah,... Although there are problems with the text, the fact that Elkanah loves Hannah helps to clear up what we will find in the next portion of this verse. By the way, it will makes sense of Elkanah to love Hannah the most—she is not a snitty little bitch like Peninnah is (which we will see in the next verse).

Translation: ...Y^ehowah had closed her womb. The remainder of the verse is: ...for he loved Hannah and Jehovah had closed her womb. Therefore, it is difficult to determine from this if he gave her a prime portion because he loved her, or if the emphasis is that he gave her one portion, as she had no children. Was Elkanah angry about something? Just why would he give her an end piece and why is that significant? Believe it or not, this is actually a fairly simple verse to understand. There is a textual error, and that is the yodh. Elkanah gives Hannah one piece because she is one person; and he gives her an end piece, or an extremity (and the word implies nonexistence) because her line ends with her. She has no children and will apparently have no children in the future. She is the end of her lineage. The because (or, for) is not so much attached in thought to the fact that he loved Hannah, but more to the fact that God had shut up her womb. Therefore, an ending piece, using a word which simultaneously means nonexistence, is pretty much an inspired use of the word. We are at the end of Hannah’s line, and her children do not exist. Now, how do I explain this so that everyone understands? Elkanah was a man—a guy, if you will—he preferred his wife Hannah, he more or less knew that she was unhappy not to have any children, and he made up for it by being extraordinarily clever when they went to sacrifice to God. You may want to know how being clever—how his almost making light of the situation—spoke to the fact that Hannah was barren and distressed over that fact. Again, I explained this—Elkanah was a guy. Our concept of comforting a woman is not always as evolved as the woman would like it to be. Elkanah figured he was being humorous and clever, that he was injecting a bit of levity into the situation, and in his humor, he expected that this to help to mollify the sadness of Hannah’s heart. Not a great plan, I realize, but he did it year after year, and he did it because he was a guy. I’m not giving an excuse for him here; just an explanation. Centuries hence, theologian’s will refer back to this as the guy theory.

Now, why is it important to mention that Elkanah loved Hannah? This is simple: (1) Elkanah Loves Hannah would have been an excellent name for a pre-television Jewish sitcom; and, (2) the lack of children is not from a lack of trying. Elkanah and Hannah engaged in marital relations, but no children resulted from this union.

Hannah’s Grief

In reading through these various translations, you can see that they differ a great deal. And the translators of the Septuagint do not appear to be reading even from the same hymnal (I didn’t exegete the Greek, but simply took Brenton’s English translation).

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         Her rival also afflicted her, and troubled her exceedingly, insomuch that she upbraided her, that the Lord had shut up her womb.

Masoretic Text                       And provoked her, her adversity—even a provoke anger— for to cause her to tremble because had closed Yehowah round about her womb.

Peshitta                                 And her rival also taunted her sorely to make her fret because the Lord had shut up her womb.

Septuagint                             For the Lord gave her no child in her affliction, and according to the despondency of her affliction; and she was dispirited on this account, that the Lord shut up her womb so as not to give her a child.

Significant differences:          The general idea between the LXX and the MT is the same; however, the LXX does not really mention her adversary, Peninnah. An argument could be made that the MT does not really make mention of her adversary either (see the exegesis below).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       Peninnah liked to make Hannah feel miserable about not having any children,...

The Message                         But her rival wife taunted her cruelly, rubbing it in and never letting her forget that GOD had not given her children.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         Because the Lord had made her unable to have children, her rival [Peninnah] tormented her endlessly in order to make her miserable.

JPS (Tanakh)                        Moreover, her rival, to make her miserable, would taunt her that the Lord had closed her womb.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     Her rival, however, would provoke her bitterly to irritate her, because the Lord had closed her womb.

Young’s Literal Translation   ...and her adversity has also provoked her greatly, so as to make her tremble, for Jehovah has shut up her womb.

What is the gist of this verse? Peninnah picks away at Hannah and makes fun of her for having no children.

Translation: And her adversity provoked her—even a provoked anger—... The subject of the verb follows, which is the feminine singular noun tsârâh (ה ָר ָצ) [pronounced tzaw-RAW], and it means anguish, adversity, affliction, travail, trouble and distress. This noun occurs about 70 times in Scripture and only here do we find it rendered rival or adversary. In case you don’t realize what that means, it means that it should not be rendered rival or adversary. Peninnah transcended the state of being Hannah’s rival; she was Hannah’s anguish and adversity. Strong’s #6869 BDB #865. There is no reason to assume that this is anything other than the subject of the verb. This gives us: And her adversity [i.e., Peninnah] provoked her...

That was not the difficult part. We then have the adverb gam (ם ַ) [pronounced gahm], which means also, furthermore, in addition to, even, moreover; followed by the masculine singular noun ka׳aç (ס ַע ַכ) [pronounced KAH-ģahs], which means provoked anger, highly emotional state which has been provoked, taunting provocation; giving us ...even a provoked anger... As you can see, Hannah is in a highly charged state, and Peninnah seems to be the one who has instigated it all. Two women who are having trouble living under the same roof—who would have thought? Their relationship is ripe for problems; Elkanah clearly prefers one woman over the other, and that has to be apparent. Secondly, one has children by him and the other one does not, which is a very big deal in the ancient world. Thirdly, there are two women under the same roof apparently sleeping with the same man. For all of these reasons, there is going to be trouble in River City.

Translation: ...to cause her to be angered,... Râgam (ם-עָר) [pronounced raw-ĢAHM], means to thunder, to roar from heaven. In this case, it would be reasonable to look at this as what the end result of the thunder would be—the causing of a person to tremble and shake. Strong’s #7481 BDB #947. This gives us: And her adversity provoked her, even a provoked anger, for to cause her to tremble with anger...

Gill: Some render this, "because she thundered" against her; that is, Peninnah was exceeding loud and clamorous with her reproaches and scoffs, which were grievously provoking to Hannah. So said Socrates, when Xantippe first scolded at him, and then poured foul water on him: “Did not I say,” says he, “that Xantippe first thunders, and then rains?” 

Gill tells us that Elkanah was chastised for having two wives. I don’t know that we can draw that conclusion; however, I think it is safe to say that strife and household drama are normal results when there are two wives living under the same roof. For men who are married, you know that being married to a woman introduces no little drama into the household. Increasing the number of women in a household increases the amount of drama exponentially.

Translation: ...because Yehowah had closed round about her womb. This is almost a repeat from the previous verse, but with the insertion of a preposition: ...for Yehowah had closed round about her womb. However, right before her womb, we have the preposition ba׳ad (ד ַע ַ) [pronounced BAH-ģad], which means for, for the sake of, on account of, on behalf of, behind, upon, round about. Ba׳ad, with a verb indicating closing or shutting, means behind, upon, round about.

This is the kind of behavior that you would expect from two women under the same roof. They both are dependent, emotionally and financially, upon the same man. What Elkanah gives to one, he cannot simultaneously give to the other. Peninnah is raising his children, and he is obviously going to have some interest in his own children. However, he prefers his wife Hannah, and Elkanah isn’t smart enough to hide this fact (even if he did, there would be problems; but there are even more problems because they both know he prefers Hannah). So, Hannah is jealous of Peninnah because she is bearing her love’s children; Peninnah is jealous of Hannah because the love of her life loves Hannah more. What we then have is the emotional response of the two women. Hannah is like the weak chicken on a farm, and Peninnah is one of the chickens who pecks away at her until she is dead. This is their psychological makeup. Hannah is the vulnerable and introverted one; Peninnah is more aggressive and she will lash out in anger concerning her own insecurities. One of my friends is a very attractive young lady who, whenever she begins a new job, there are almost always jealous women who peck away at her. One place where I worked, there were two ladies who almost daily pecked away at me. Women have the capacity for a vicious tenacity when expressing their inner anger and jealousy. There was little happiness under the Elkanah roof when these two stirred it up. Peninnah would make her comments and she would peck away at Hannah, and Hannah would eventually break down crying. The realities of being married to two women far exceed a man’s imagination. Whatever you think polygamy might be, by way of fun and titillation, the reality of the situation is quite a bit different. Obviously, the biggest problem is their old sin natures. Remove the old sin natures, and they might all get along. ☺

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate                         And thus she did every year, when the time returned, that they went up to the temple of the Lord: and thus she provoked her: but Anna wept, and did not eat.

Masoretic Text                       And so he did year by year from an abundance of her going up into a House of Y^ehowah; so she provoked her [or, she caused her to be provoked] and so she wept and she would not eat.

Peshitta                                 And Pannah did this year by year when she went up to the house of the Lord, and thus she provoked her; therefore, Hannah wept and did not eat.

Septuagint                             So she did year by year, in going up to the house of the Lord; and she was dispirited, and wept, and did not eat.

Significant differences:          In the MT, it is Elkanah who does this year by year (taking them both to the sacrifice, but given Hannah a greater portion). The verb is a 3^rd person feminine singular in the Greek and Latin. We find Pannah’s (Peninnah’s) name in the Peshitta.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV                                       ...especially when the family went to the house of the LORD each year. One day, Elkanah was there offering a sacrifice, when Hannah began crying and refused to eat.

The Message                         This went on year after year. Every time she went to the sanctuary of GOD she could expect to be taunted. Hannah was reduced to tears and had no appetite.

REB                                       This happened year after year when they went up to the house of the Lord; her rival used to torment her, until she was in tears and would not eat.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

God’s Word™                         This happened year after year. Whenever Hannah went to the LORD'S house, Peninnah would make her miserable, and Hannah would cry and not eat.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB                                     And it happened year after year, as often as she went up to the house of the Lord, she would provoke her, so she wept and would not eat.

Young’s Updated LT             And so he does year by year, from the time of her going up into the house of Jehovah, so it provokes her, and she weeps, and does not eat.

What is the gist of this verse? This scene played out year after year; they would all go to the House of Jehovah; Peninnah would provoke Hannah, and Hannah would cry and not eat.