1Samuel 3

Outline of Chapter 3:

vv. 1-9 God Calls Samuel; Samuel Thinks that Eli Has Called Him

vv. 10-14 God's First Message to Samuel

vv. 15-18 Samuel Relays God's Message to Eli

vv. 19-4:1a Epilogue: Samuel and His Spiritual Impact

Charts, Maps and Short Doctrines:

v. 2 In Those Days vs In That Day

v. 2 The Goofy Ideas of Various Commentators

v. 5 Today's English Version and the New Living Translation Translate vv. 3-5

v. 5 The Contemporary English Version Translation of vv. 1-5

v. 7 Various Interpretations of Samuel 3:7

v. 7 Today's English Version Translates vv. 6-7

v. 8 How Does Eli Know that God is Calling Samuel?

v. 11 What Will God do to Cause Men's Ears to Tingle?

v. 12 How Does Samuel Know what the Prophet said to Eli?

v. 14 Why Does God Tell Samuel about Eli?

v. 18 Examples of Submission to God's Will

v. 19 Old Testament Believers Whom God was With

v. 4:1a Verse and Chapter Divisions in the Bible

v. 4:1a Contemporary English Version of I Sam. 3:19-4:1a

Introduction: In 1Sam. 3, we see the beginning of Samuel's ministry, where God calls him officially, in his dreams. This is actually unexpected, and Samuel at first thinks that Eli is calling to him. Eli will tell Samuel that God is speaking to him, and for him to return to his bed and allow God to speak to him. Samuel returns to his bed and God does speak to Samuel--a very rare thing for that period of time. The first thing that God tells Samuel is that He will end the line of Eli in the priesthood (something a prophet has already told Eli in the previous chapter). The next day, Eli asks Samuel to tell him what happened and Samuel reveals what God had told him. Eli accepts God's judgment. The difference between what the prophet said to Eli in 1Sam. 2 and what God says to Samuel in 1Sam. 3 is: God told Eli what would happen to his line in chapter 2; in chapter 3, God tells Samuel that these events are imminent.

For those of you who absolutely despise the close examination of the Hebrew, much of this chapter will be smooth sailing. There are very few times, particularly in the first half, where we have to delve deeply into the Hebrew. I will delve into the Hebrew throughout, but it is fairly straightforward through most of this chapter. First of all, there will be a very simple vocabulary, as we had in the first chapter of this book; and the sentence structure, for the most part, is going to be simple. In any case, since I have begun to separate the Hebrew exegesis from the verse analysis, this allows you to skip over the Hebrew if that does not interest you.

As you read this, bear in mind that we are in a transitional period of time. We no longer have a great military leader (like Joshua or Moses). We have had a period of time where Israel has ostensibly functioned as a theocracy (a nation ruled by God), and this rule was carried out by various judges who had limited and often simultaneous authority. Some of these judges delivered Israel during times of crisis, but most of them are given by name only (and there possibly could have been unnamed others).

At this time, we have a functioning priesthood, but even that priesthood has seen some serious problems. Many Levites, who were to have served the priesthood established by God in the line of Aaron, had been going out on their own, going into territories that God had not given them, and selling their services as priests-for-hire. It appears as though the Law was not followed carefully with regards to the ceremonies; and certain portions were ignored altogether (e.g., the Sabbath Years and the Year of Jubilee). God had given His Word by Moses and He had set up a priesthood to teach the gospel, but in the hands of men, all of this had been corrupted.

We will see the beginning of a prophetical era. Now, this does not mean that prophecy will be introduced for the first time, but that men of God will come and speak the Word of God. We often know little or nothing about them; in some cases, they simply show up and start giving the Word of God to whomever God has sent them to. In the previous chapter, an unnamed man of God came to Eli and warned him about what God would do to his family and his line. In this chapter, as well as in the previous two, we are given the entire back story of the prophet Samuel, including the first time that God speaks to him. Samuel will be one of the few men who will be a prophet of God whose background we will be entirely familiar with. We will even know the mechanics of how God spoke to him (I am assuming these mechanics continued throughout his life). Samuel is offered up by God by way of example. This does not mean that all prophets of God had the same beginning that Samuel had. God simply gives us the rise from birth to death of one prophet, and we will have to realize that each of the other prophets which we study also have their own back story, to which, generally, we are not privy. Why is this the case? As Thieme said over and over again, it is not the man, but the message.

My point in all of this is that, we are moving from the time of the Law and the Priesthood and adding an important factor to the revelation of God to man--the nationally-sanctioned office of the prophet. Samuel will be the first national prophet/judge/priest, and, for the first time in Israel's history since the time of Joshua, a single man will wield the power and authority of Moses or Joshua. In Peter's second recorded sermon at Pentecost, he makes mention of Samuel as being the first in a line of prophets sent by God (Acts 3:24). ⁽¹⁾

McGee makes the same observation: Samuel's call...initiates a drastic change in the form of government. The period of the judges is over, and no longer will God move through the priest. He is now raising up a priest-prophet. Samuel will minister for the Lord, but his office will be that of a prophet. It is he who will pour the anointing oil on both kings, Saul and David. God will never speak directly to a king, but will speak only through a prophet. ⁽²⁾

We begin this chapter by finding out that God's direct revelation to man was rare in the days of Eli (v. 1). In this chapter, both Eli and Samuel are sleeping, and God calls out to Samuel 3 times. Each time, Samuel says, "I'm right here." After the 3^rd time, Samuel gets up and goes to Eli's room (or, over to his cot; we don't know exactly what the sleeping arrangements are). Eli tells Samuel that he has not called him, but Eli realizes that this is God calling Samuel, and he tells Samuel to tell God, "Speak, for your servant is listening." (vv. 2-9). This time, when God calls to Samuel, Samuel asks God to speak, and God tells him what will come to pass concerning Eli (vv. 10-14). The next day, Eli presses Samuel to find out what God said. Samuel is reticent, but Eli is insistent (vv. 15-17). When Samuel tells Eli that God was about to cut off his line, Eli takes it well, as he has already been prepared for this (v. 18). Samuel's stature as a true prophet of God is emphasized at the end of this chapter (1Sam. 3:19-4:1a). ⁽³⁾

Matthew Henry breaks down the chapter almost exactly as I have: I. God's first manifestation of himself in an extraordinary manner to Samuel (1Sam. 3:1-10). II. The message he sent by him to Eli (1Sam. 3:11-14). III. The faithful delivery of that message to Eli, and his submission to the righteousness of God in it (1Sam. 3:15-18). IV. The establishment of Samuel to be a prophet in Israel (1Sam. 3:19-21). ⁽⁴⁾

God Calls Samuel; Samuel Thinks that Eli Has Called Him

First what others have done:

Ancient texts:

Latin Vulgate Now the child Samuel ministered to the Lord before Heli, and the word of the Lord was precious in those days, there was no manifest vision.

Masoretic Text And the youth Samuel was ministering to Yehowah to faces of Eli and a word of Yehowah was rare in the days the those; none of vision was broken forth.

Peshitta And the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord, assisting Eli the priest. And the word of the Lord was precious in those days; there was no open vision.

Septuagint And the child Samuel ministered to the Lord before Heli the priest; and the word of the Lord was precious in those days, there was no distinct vision.

Significant differences: Apart from the fine few words, which I believe are a matter of interpretation, these say essentially the same things. The Peshitta and Septuagint both add the priest after Eli.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV Samuel served the LORD by helping Eli the priest, who was by that time almost blind. In those days, the LORD hardly ever spoke directly to people, and he did not appear to them in dreams very often. But one night, Eli was asleep in his room,... [vv. 1-2].

The Message The boy Samuel was serving GOD under Eli's direction. This was at a time when the revelation of GOD was rarely heard or seen.

NLT Meanwhile, the boy Samuel was serving the Lord by assisting Eli. Now in those days messages from the Lord were very rare, and visions were quite uncommon.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

Complete Jewish Bible The child Sh'mu'el continued ministering to Adonai under 'Eli's direction. Now, in those days Adonai rarely spoke, and visions were few.

God's Word™ The boy Samuel was serving the LORD under Eli. In those days a prophecy from the LORD was rare; visions were infrequent.

JPS (Tanakh) Young Samuel was in the service of the Lord under Eli. In those days the word of the Lord was rare; prophecy was not widespread.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

HCSB The boy Samuel served the LORD in Eli's presence. In those days the word of the LORD was rare and prophetic visions were not widespread.

NASB Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the Lord before Eli. And word from the Lord was rare in those days, visions were infrequent [lit., no vision spread abroad].

NKJV Now the boy Samuel ministered to the Lord before Eli. And the word of the Lord was rare in those days; there was no widespread revelation.

Young's Updated LT And the youth Samuel is serving Jehovah before Eli, and the word of Jehovah had been precious in those days--there is no vision broken forth.

What is the gist of this verse? When Samuel was serving Jehovah under the direction of Eli, the word of God was rare in those days; and no one saw any vision from God.

Translation: And the youth Samuel was ministering to Y^ehowah before Eli;... After the wâw conjunction and the definite article, we have the masculine singular noun naar (--) [pronounced NAH-ahr], which means boy, youth, young man, personal attendant. As we have seen, this word has a great variety of applications, even in these first few chapters of Samuel. It is used of Samuel when he is about 2 or 3 years of age (I Sam. 22, 24, 25, 27); it is used of Samuel when he is slightly older and growing (I Sam. 2:11, 18, 21, 26); and it is used of Samuel as probably a teenager or preteen in this chapter (vv. 1, 8). The same word is used of the servant to the priests (I Sam. 2:13, 15) and of Eli's genetic sons, who were probably full-grown and probably in their 40's or older (I Sam. 2:17). The closest word which we have to this is the word boy. In relationship to a father, this could be used up until a man is 40 or older. It was used in the South often for their male slaves, apart from the consideration of age; and it was used in a derogative fashion for Afro-Americans throughout the United States, although predominantly in the South.

This is followed by the proper noun, Samuel, which you will recall is Sh^emûwêl () [pronounced sh^e-moo-ALE], which means heard of God. Then we have the Piel participle of shârath () [pronounced shaw-RAHTH], which means to serve, to minister. This is followed by the untranslated sign of the direct object followed by the proper name for God. This gives us: And the youth Samuel was ministering [to] God...

For all intents and purposes, Samuel was an intern at this time. He was doing the scut work around the Tabernacle of God. We do not know exactly what this entailed, and his young age must be kept in mind. One responsibility appears to be, to open the doors of the Tabernacle in the morning (1Sam. 3:15). Furthermore, it is apparent that Samuel has ministered before God for sometime (1Sam. 2:18).

You might think that opening the doors is a pretty lame excuse for service to God. In the church that you attend, someone opens the doors, turns on the electricity, has the air conditioner going, has the floors swept and the toilet stalls replenished with toilet paper--all things which may seem to you to be pretty menial tasks. These are not unimportant tasks nor are they menial. What people do not grasp is that God gives you a ministry commensurate with your spiritual growth. Now, you might fool yourself into thinking that the large Sunday School class which you teach is meaningful--and it may be--however, there are a lot of dead and dying churches out there and association with such a church is indicative of your spiritual growth (or lack thereof). Now, by a live church, I don't mean one where everyone is jumping up and down and getting the ghost. That is a circus. I am referring to a church where the Word of God is taught carefully day in and day out. Sweeping a floor in a doctrinal church is a 1000 times more important than being a head pastor and teaching inaccurate doctrine from the pulpit; or attempting to teach anything when you do not know a damn thing.

Application: By the way, if becoming a Christian changed your mind about very few things, then you probably should not be teaching anyone anything. I remember going to the Baptist church in Berkeley and the older Sunday School teacher taught nothing but lies and half truths during his hour or so of ministry. He mixed in the popular social views of his day with barely the tiniest fraction of knowledge of a couple of verses in Scripture. It was pathetic, even though he probably thought he had quite a ministry going on. My point in all of this is, Samuel was growing spiritually, and as he grew, God gave him more and more responsibilities, as should be the case. We're just like children before God. You did not hand the car keys to your 6 year old son, and say, "Enjoy; take it whenever you need it." That would be foolish. God likewise does not give us the car keys and carte blanc after being saved for 6 months--especially if we have receive no spiritual growth (which comes only by the filling of the Holy Spirit and the inculcation of Bible doctrine). We may have a position in a church, but that is often meaningless--or, even worse, we pollute the church that we serve with our own human viewpoint. As your child grows in maturity, he gets greater and greater freedom with the car (which begins at the proper time). Along with this increased freedom, he takes on certain responsibilities (paying for his own insurance; shopping for groceries on the way home, picking up or taking his younger sibling to this or that thing). It is a gradual process which he confirms by showing that he is responsible enough to assume the responsibility.

We do not know how old Samuel was at this time, although the term youth implies that Samuel was not yet an adult (this word can be used for a personal attendant, however, which was the function of Samuel). Josephus, the great ancient historian, suggests that he was 12 (actually, had completed his twelfth year). Obviously, that must have been traditional thinking at that time, as there is nothing in this chapter to suggest his age. His reticence to tell Eli what God said (v. 15), would indicate possibly a young age. Our Lord began His ministry to some degree at age 12 as well (Luke 2:42). None of this is given by way of proof, although it suggests that Samuel is younger than we might think.

Then we have the lâmed preposition and the masculine plural construct of pânîym () [pronounced paw-NEEM], which means faces. Together, they mean in the sight of, in the presence of, before the face of. This is followed by the proper noun Eli. This gives us: And the youth Samuel was ministering [to] God in the sight of Eli. Twice in the previous chapter Samuel, even at a very young age, is said to minister before God (I Sam. 2:11, 18). This means that he took his responsibilities very seriously even from a young age.

Josephus tells us that Samuel's call to the prophetic office happened when he had just completed his twelfth year (compare Luke 2:42-49, which reads: And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem, according to the custom of the feast, and having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the child Jesus remained in Jerusalem. And his parents knew it not. And thinking that he was in the company, they came a day's journey and sought him among their kinfolk and acquaintances. And not finding him, they returned to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that, after three days, they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his wisdom and his answers. And seeing him, they wondered. And his mother said to him: "Son, why have You done so to us? Listen, Your father and I have looked for You sorrowing." And he said to them: "How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father's business?). ⁽⁵⁾ Whether this is true or not is uncertain; however, for Josephus to make this statement indicates that the parallels between Samuel and Jesus were well-known at that time, and that Samuel was clearly recognized as a type of Christ.

Never think that the ties between the Old and New Testaments are confined to verses quoted by Jesus or by the Apostles in this or that epistle. There are a huge number of overlaps, of types, of lessons from the Old Testament which remain for teachers in the Church Age to reveal. Let me give you an example (which I don't believe is original with me). Adam and Eve sinned against God. They realized they were naked and they put on fig leaves in order to hide their nakedness (Gen. 3:1-7). After God pronounces judgment on Adam, on Eve and on the serpent, then God clothes Adam and Eve with an animal's skin--however, there is nothing by way of explanation, either here, or in the New Testament. Adam and Eve already had clothes; what was the deal? God taught them that Jesus Christ must die for their sins first in what He said to the serpent in Gen. 3:15 and then by sacrificing an animal without spot and without blemish before them, and covering them with the skin of the animal, so that God could not longer see their sin. The sacrifice of the innocent animal became institutionalized and that this sacrifice covered (or atoned for) the sins of man. In this narrative, none of this information is revealed to us; all we know is God clothes Adam and Eve in animal skins. In the following chapter, we find that Abel's sacrifice is accepted by God (the sacrifice of an innocent animal) while God had not respect for Cain's sacrifice (which was the offering of the vegetables which he slaved over). Although these events are significant in their spiritual implication, nothing is said about them either in Gen. 3-4 or later on in the New Testament. However, it is clear, from all that we know, that these events are fraught with meaning. God does not have to spell everything out for us. He has designed the pastor-teacher to do such things on our behalf and for our edification.

Allow me another tangent here: this does not mean that everyone who teaches the Bible during the Church Age has even a clue. I heard a panel discussion a week or so ago, and topic was, in part, about hell. The Christian pastor talked about how Jesus spoke of love and forgiveness and that we have, in some way or another, polluted His teachings with the concept of hell. Bullcrap! So there is no confusion, the person to speak of hell as a place of burning and torture is Jesus--no one in Scripture makes as many references to hell as does Jesus; and no one gives a more clear picture of what hell is than Jesus. ⁽⁶⁾ We should expect this for two reasons: (1) all judgment is given by the Father to Jesus and (2) Jesus died for our sins, to provide us deliverance from this judgment. Therefore, no one is more suited to speak of the Lake of Fire than Jesus. Judgment of this earth belongs to Him; and He has provided us a way out of this judgment.

Translation: ...and the word of Y^ehowah was rare in those days;... Then we have the phrase [the] word of Y^ehowah followed by the 3^rd person masculine singular, Qal perfect of to be followed by the masculine singular adjective yâqâr () [pronounced yaw-KAWR], which means precious, rare, splendid, weighty. This is the first occurrence of this word in Scripture, apart from Job 28:16 31:26. This is followed by in those days. In other words, during an era when God revealed Himself supernaturally, he revealed Himself rarely. And the word of Y^ehowah was rare in those days.

By way of prophetic utterances, we have the Psalm of Hannah, which is prophetic in nature--although we have no indication that she did any more than simply write it under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit--and the prophecy of the man of God (I Sam. 2:27-36). Prior to that, we have Jehovah speaking to the wife of Manoah, better known as the mother of Samson (Judges 13), and soon thereafter to Manoah directly. During the early part of the time of the judges, Deborah is called a prophetess (Judges 4:4, who does actually prophesy in Judges 4:6-9). An unnamed prophet is later sent to Israel in Judges 6:8-10. In the book of the Judges, there are only five recorded revelations (Judges 2:1-3 6:11-23 7:2-11 10:11-14 13:3-21). That is a period of 400 years. In the time of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt, a period of about 40 years, God appeared to Moses on several occasions (half of the book of Exodus and the bulk of the books of Leviticus and Numbers are direct quotations from God). God did approximately a dozen great miracles before Israel in the desert after leaving Egypt. So, when this is compared to three communications from God over a period of about 100 years--two of which do not even appear to be direct communications, and fewer than a dozen revelations or prophecies over a period of 400 years--one could accurately say that visions and prophecy from God were rare in those days. Furthermore, there is no indication that God has ever spoken directly to Eli; our only record is God speaking to him through a prophet and through Hannah.

Later in Israel's history, signs became even more rare, as one psalmist notes: We do not see signs; there is no longer any prophet; nor is there any among us who knows how long [their enemy will dominate them] (Psalm 74:9). Prior to the completion of the canon of Scripture, one could take the absence of signs as an inference of God's disappointment with Israel as a whole. The same psalmist begins that psalm with: O God, why have You rejected us forever? Why does Your anger smoke against the sheep of Your pasture [i.e., the Jews] (Psalm 74:1). The same psalmist continues in v. 9: We see no miraculous signs. There is no longer any prophet, Neither is there among us anyone who knows how long.

Prior to the dispersion, when Israel was under great judgment, the prophet Jeremiah wrote: Her gates have sunk into the ground. He has destroyed and broken her bars. Her king and her princes are among the nations. The law is no more and her prophets find no vision from Jehovah (Lam. 2:9). Prior to the fall of the northern kingdom (which was 722 b.c.), the prophet Amos spoke God's words, saying: "Behold, days are coming," declares Jehovah God, "When I will send a famine on the land. Not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, but rather for the hearing of the words of Jehovah." (Amos 8:11). Simply put, when under discipline, Israel heard very little directly from God, apart from promises of judgement.

When it comes to miracles and divine communication, people have very mixed up views of Scripture and of past times. People view Bible times (whatever the hell that is) as times of a tremendous number of non-stop miracles, when, in fact, there were relatively few miracles in the Old Testament. The Old Testament was not a carnival of miracles. It is not even clear whether the acts of Moses are miracles. There were certainly incredible events; but we don't know if these things actually defied the laws of physics and the laws of nature. We discussed this in greater detail in the book of Exodus. Furthermore, it requires greater planning than we can even imagine for these things to occur as freaks of nature as opposed to miracles of nature. The tremendous number of frogs and locusts, for instance, may have been natural but freak occurrences in nature which God had designed to occur in eternity past. All that was required was for the volition of Moses and pharaoh to act as they did for the events to come to pass as if they were directed by the hand of Moses. However, these events were set to take place back in eternity past. It is not that a miracle is difficult for God to do; miracles are the easiest things in the world to do for God--what is incredible is that God can line up natural events to take place, and the end result is a huge number of quail to fly low and drop at the feet of the Israelites; or for the sea to open up for the children of Israel to walk across. God can certainly bring these things to pass as miracles without breaking a sweat; however, it is more phenomenal for God to bring these things to pass as a series of incredible events which He has planned from eternity past, to conform to the freewill of man

Translation: ...[in these days] [there was] no divine revelation breaking out. Then we have the negative construct ayin (-) [pronounced AH-yin], which means naught, nothing; or it can be used as a particle of negation; no, not. It can mean in the condition of being not = without. Just as to him is often rendered he has; we often supply a verb for this substantive and render it there is no. This is followed by the masculine singular noun vision, prophetic vision, divine revelation, also a new word for us. Then we have the Niphal participle to break through, to break over the limits, to break out, to scatter, to disperse. This is a pent up quantity of water which has suddenly and forcefully burst forth out of its dam. With the negative, it is just the opposite. There was no divine revelation breaking out. So that this is not misinterpreted, what we have is a pent up quantity of revelation, but it did not break out and burst forth from behind the dam.

Now, the first time that I read this, I got the impression that perhaps God spoke to His people a lot, but not at this time; as if there were a number of times when God spoke and it was not recorded. However, that is not necessarily the case, but a mistaken inference gotten from some translations. We are in the time period of the judges--actually, at the end of that time period. God spoke directly to several judges and saviors (like Gideon, for example, when Gideon was making his breakfast cereal). In our study of the Book of Judges, it was clear that God's Word was rare in that time period. This is said, because God will speak to Samuel, and Samuel will not know that it is God. In fact, this is apparently the first time that God ever speaks to Samuel.

Israel, once known for bearing the truth, will become a vacuum with regards to God's truth: "Behold, days are coming," declares Jehovah Elohim, "When I will send a famine on the land, but not a famine for bread or a thirst for water, but rather for hearing the words of Jehovah. And people will stagger from sea to sea, and from north even to east; they will go to and fro to seek the word of Jehovah, but they will not find it." (Amos 8:11-12; see also Prov. 29:18 Lam. 2:9 Ezek. 7:26). When individuals reject the truth, their souls become vacuums which suck in every kind of false doctrine. I have observed this with a number of personal acquaintances. The more that they reject God's Word, the more they believe in things which are absolutely false and evil. I have one personal acquaintance who, through her own personal experiences, understands the importance of family--she understands the importance of a mother and father raising a child. She has observed, over several decades, how our family structure has disintegrated, how day care has become a predominant way of raising young children, and how children have become more and more degenerate with each generation. Yet, this same person will oppose all legislation which she perceives as a part of the conservative agenda, even if this legislation favors traditional marriage and family over nontraditional marriages and nontraditional families (e.g., homosexual coupling). Her reasoning is, if it is touted by the conservative right, then it must be wrong. Since she has rejected God's Word, all that remains is that which is false. I have a large number of friends and acquaintances who behave exactly the same way--they reject God's Word, and their soul literally sucks in viewpoint which is completely false.

We should never take the teaching of the Word of God for granted. I have been blessed from early on in my Christian life to be able to hear God's Word taught each and every day for over 25 years. At the point at which I chose to study on my own (I still listen to the teaching of God's Word), I had heard over 8000 hours of Bible teaching prior to the time that I chose to exegete a few books, and these hours were a great blessing to me. There is no way that I could have gotten to the point that I am at without this teaching. At the time that I write, availability of good Bible teaching in the US is phenomenal. There are nearly a dozen outstanding teachers who have tapes and CD's available at no charge. Many of them allow you to download their teaching from the internet. The believer today has no excuse whatsoever for a lack of spiritual growth.

Why are there times when Bible teaching is readily available and why are there times when it is rare? The key is our volition; our free will. God can choose to reveal the gospel to every single man, woman and child, or not; that is up to Him. God has chosen not to. If a person has no interest in a relationship with God at God consciousness, then God is not required to present the gospel to that person. There is no issue here at all. Similarly, if a believer has no interest in the Word of God, then God has no reason to provide good Bible teaching for that person. There is no issue here, as the volition of that person has already made the decision. Sometimes for a child's birthday, you might offer him a choice between which restaurant they would like to go to; or you might offer him a choice between which meal he would like you to make for him. It is possible that you might leave off Sushi or Indian food from the list of options, if you already know that your child has no interest in these foods. Similarly, God, who knows us intimately, does not give every person the option of the gospel; and He does not give every believer the option of good, solid Bible teaching. The biggest surprise to me as a believer was to see how many believers really had little or no interest in the teaching of the Word of God. That totally surprised me and it took me a long time to get over it. "These are believers," I would say to myself; "They go to church regularly, their faith seems sincere, and they study the Bible. Why would they have no real interest in good verse by verse teaching of the Word of God?" It took me a long time to accept that some people only hear what they want to hear. Some people believe in Jesus Christ and yet keep the opinions that they had already acquired. These negative believers often want to have a say in it, and give their opinion about what this or that passage means. Christians who are often not even dry behind the ears, want input when it comes to the explanation of this or that passage--which is a sign of tremendous arrogance and total lack of teachability.

One of the greatest sins that you can have is arrogance. Sometimes, the believer wants to carry over from his unbelieving days to his post-salvation experience are the norms and standards which he had as an unbeliever. They want to be able to be able to justify everything that they have previously said and thought as unbelievers. Now, some people are brought up in such a way that, much of what they learned as an unbeliever (e.g., the laws of divine establishment) are a part of accurate Christian doctrine. However, there might be a great deal of what they believe in from their life as an unbeliever (social activism, for instance) which have no place in the Christian life. Pretty much every new believer will have to shed some of his thoughts, ideals and notions which he held as an unbeliever. If you are too arrogant to let go of these past norms and standards, you are unteachable; therefore, God is not required to provide accurate teaching for you. I came out of a relatively large city of 1 million people. I attended a number of churches there where the teaching of God's Word was extremely weak and often nonexistent. In retrospect, I can easily recognize just how negative to good teaching this area is. One small community which I lived in subsequent to that time is a community of a few thousand people; however, there are more individuals interested in good sound Bible teaching from that community than in the city which I came from. For that reason, the smaller community has a number of options when it comes to good Bible teaching; the larger city has very few local options for good Bible teaching.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so he was the day the that and Eli was lying down in his place and his [two] eyes had begun dimming--he was not able to see.

Septuagint And it came to pass at that time that Heli was sleeping in his place; and his eyes began to fail, and could not see.

Significant differences: No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV Samuel served the LORD by helping Eli the priest, who was by that time almost blind. In those days, the LORD hardly ever spoke directly to people, and he did not appear to them in dreams very often. But one night, Eli was asleep in his room,... [vv. 1-2].

The Message One night Eli was sound asleep (his eyesight was very bad--he could hardly see).

NJB One day, it happened that Eli was lying down in his room. His eyes were beginning to grow dim; he could no longer see.

TEV One night Eli, who was now almost blind, was sleeping in his own room;...

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

HCSB One day Eli, whose eyesight was failing, was lying in his room.

JPS (Tanakh) One day, Eli was asleep in his usual place; his eyes had begun to fail and he could barely see.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Albert Barnes (revised) And it came to pass at that time that Eli was sleeping in his place; and his eyes had begun to grow dim; he could not see.

NASB And it happened at that time as Eli was lying down in his place (now his eyesight had begun to grow dim and he could not see well).

Young's Updated LT And it came to pass, at that time, that Eli is lying down in his place, and his eyes have begun to be dim--he is not able to see.

What is the gist of this verse? Eli was an old man, and losing his vision. At this time, he is laying down.

Translation: And it was in that day... We begin with the wâw consecutive and the Qal imperfect of to be, giving us and it was, or and so it came to pass. Then we have a phrase similar to the previous verse, so I will compare them here, as both are found throughout Scripture:

So what we are dealing with here is a specific point in time.

Translation: ...that Eli was lying down in his place... The circumstances are described beginning with the wâw conjunction and the proper noun Eli followed by Qal active participle shâkab () [pronounced shaw-KAH^BV], which means to lie down. This is followed by the bêyth preposition and the masculine singular noun mâqôwm () [pronounced maw-KOHM], which means place, place of abode. The masculine singular suffix is affixed to mâqôwm. And so it was in that day that Eli was lying in his place... Eli is an old man and he takes a lot of naps. This was, however, apparently at night.

The Tabernacle of God has apparently been in Shiloh for some time; my guess would be maybe a century or three (it appears to have been there early during the period of the judges (Joshua 18:1, 31 19:51). ⁽⁷⁾ What has probably happened is, outbuildings have been added--shelters for the High Priest and for others who are at the Tabernacle daily. This would be in line with the Tabernacle being called a Temple in 1Sam. 1:9 and 3:3 (the word Temple indicates a more permanent structure, as opposed to the tent which moved with Israel in the desert wilderness).

Translation: ...and his eyes had begun to dim [so that] he was unable to see. We have in this portion of v. 2 the feminine plural adjective kêhâh () [pronounced kay-HAWH], which is translated by some lighten and by others become dark. The key to this word is the corresponding verb, kâhâh () [pronounced kaw-HAWH] which is used of the eyes which are growing old and having a difficult time seeing. It means that the eyes are becoming faint, darkened, dimmed. One can see the white of the lens sac from the outside (they become lightened), which makes everything blurring and hard to see from Eli's point of view (they become darkened).

This portion of v. 2 reads: ...and his eyes began becoming dimmed, and he was unable to see. His vision difficulties will be mentioned again in I Sam. 4:15. One very common consequence of old age which was prevalent in the ancient world, for those who lived any amount of time, was that of sight loss, probably due to cataracts. Today, we have cataract surgery.

The reason that Eli's visual impairment is mentioned is that he sometimes required additional care. Even with the light of the lamp of God (v. 3), it was still too dark for him to see. Samuel is laying down within hearing distance of Eli, in case he needs any kind of special assistance. This is why, when God calls Samuel, that Samuel will think that Eli has called him.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And a lamp of God had not yet gone out and Samuel was lying down in a Temple of Yehowah where [was] an Ark of God.

Peshitta And the lamp of the Lord was not yet put out, and Samuel was lying down to sleep in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was.

Septuagint And the lamp of God [was burning] before it was trimmed and Samuel slept in the temple, where the ark of God [was].

Significant differences: The beginning of this verse appears to be more of an explanation than a translation of the Hebrew. The remainder is the same.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV ...and Samuel was sleeping on a mat near the sacred chest in the LORD's house. They had not been asleep very long...

The Message It was well before dawn; the sanctuary lamp was still burning. Samuel was still in bed in the Temple of GOD, where the Chest of God rested.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

HCSB Before the lamp of God had gone out, Samuel was lying down in the tabernacle of the LORD where the ark of God was located.

JPS (Tanakh) The lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the where the Ark of God was.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

Albert Barnes (revised) And the lamp of God was not yet gone out, and Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the Lord where the ark of God was;...

HNV ...and the lamp of God hadn't yet gone out, and Shemu'el had laid down [to sleep], in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was;...

NASB ...and the lamp of God had not yet gone out, and Samuel was lying down in the temple of the where the ark of God was,...

Young's Updated LT And the lamp of God is not yet extinguished, and Samuel is lying down in the temple of Jehovah, where the ark of God is,...

What is the gist of this verse? The lamp of God is still burning faintly, and Samuel is lying down, mostly asleep in the Tabernacle of God, wherein was the Ark of God.

Translation: The lamp of Elohim had not yet gone out... On my first read of this verse, I took it metaphorically to refer back to Eli, and that the lamp of God had not yet gone out in him, meaning that he was old, his eyes were growing dim, but God's spark of life was still within him. Separating this half of this verse from the previous is fairly arbitrary. What we probably have here is a double meaning--this refers both back to Eli, in a metaphorical sense, but also and most definitely to the literal lamp of God. Lamps, in Old Testament times, were nothing more than glorified candles. Most of them had enough oil in them to burn throughout the entire night; however, the wick would have to be trimmed and adjusted several times in the evening, explaining the proverb of the virtuous woman in Prov. 31:18. Anyway, interestingly enough, we have this phrase, the lamp of God, only here in this passage. There is some disagreement as to which lamp this was. In the Tent of God, was a lampstand of pure gold which God gave instructions concerning back in Ex. 25:31-40. The Hebrew word for this golden lampstand is m^enôwrâh () [pronounced m^e-noh-RAW], which means lampstand. The word is transliterated menorah, and it is a lampstand with seven branches, which most of us have seen (and this is not the word found in our passage). The construction of gold speaks of our Lord's Deity; seven is the number of perfection. The lamp aspect of it represents Christ as the Light of the World. Today, the Jews have this candelabra which is their menorah; however, these were oil lamps (Ex. 35:14). Actually, to us, it would look like a mix between the two. Just like a candle, there were wicks for each stem and these wicks burned, and the oil below provided the fuel. Now, there was also a lamp which was to be kept burning continuously from evening to morning (Ex. 27:20-21 Lev. 24:2-4). Our basic question is, whether or not these two lamps were the same. In Ex. 25:31-40, where the pattern for the lampstand is given, we find the word m^enôwrâh used almost exclusively. The term nêr (the word we find in our passage) is found twice, in the plural, in Ex. 25:37, referring to the lamps at the end of each branch of the menorah. Both the table and the menorah were placed outside the Holy of Holies, the menorah toward the south and the table toward the north (Ex. 26:35). Apart from any mention of this elaborate lampstand is the light for the Tent of God, which is first mentioned in Ex. 27:20-21. In this passage, we find the word nêr, but not the word m^enôwrâh. We do find the words together in the same passage in Lev. 24:2-4. In vv. 2-3, the sons of Israel are to bring clear olive oil for the burning of the lamp continually; in v. 4, it speaks of Aaron keeping the golden lampstand in order, and it is unclear whether we are speaking of the same thing or whether, being that we are speaking of keeping a lamp burning in vv. 2-3, that v. 4 simply continues in the same vein about a related object in the Tent of God. Here is how the passage reads from Young in an updated rendering of Young's translation: And Jehovah spoke unto Moses, saying, "Command the sons of Israel and they will bring to you pure olive oil, beaten, for the lamp, to cause a light to go up continually; at the outside of the veil of the testimony in the Tent of Meeting will Aaron arrange is from evening till morning before Jehovah continually--a statute age during to your generations; by the pure candlestick he will arrange the lights before Jehovah continually." (Lev. 24:1-4). My thinking is that, from a symbolic standpoint, we would expect the continually burning lamp and the golden lampstand to be one and the same; which is also the simplest solution. Furthermore, calling the lamp which was to be kept lit throughout the night the Lamp of God further indicates that this was the golden lampstand. ⁽¹¹⁾ There is no description of an additional lamp or light source discussed in the Law. Gill simplifies this considerably, saying that the Lamp of God is just the singular standing in for the plural ⁽¹²⁾ (which is known as a metonymy).

Furthermore, once Shiloh has been destroyed (which will occur during the first third of this book), neither of these words will be used again until 1Kings 7:49 (except that nêr will be used in a symbolic sense in 2Sam. 21:17). However, a reasonable case could be made for the idea that there was a lamp for light separate from the golden lampstand. In our passage, we essentially have the lamp burning all evening while Samuel and Eli were sleeping, and the wording of this passage indicates that it is almost morning and the lamp is almost ready to go out. This would also be the time when Samuel would experience the most dreaming.

Now, although I did make light of the mess that some exegetes made of Eli's sight going, we do have a poetic parallel here within this narrative. Before the sun of Eli set, the dawn of Samuel arose; as Eli's vision grows dim, Samuel begins his ministry as a seer; as Eli's candle is about to go out, Samuel's is being lit. There is no harm in recognizing the literary technique here, the passing of the torch, as it were.

Translation: ...and Samuel was laying down in the Temple of Y^ehowah... In this phrase, we have the masculine singular construct of hêychâl () [pronounced hay-KHAWL], which means palace, temple; which is affixed the to name Jehovah. When we first came across this word back in I Sam. 1:9, I was somewhat nonplused. You see, the Temple has not yet been built. It will be built by Solomon roughly a century hence. Therefore, this is not the Temple that we associate with Israel. As I have mentioned earlier, there are several outbuildings which have been added around the premises of the Tabernacle, making it more of a permanent structure (although the Tabernacle itself could be easily picked up and moved). For this reason, the entire complex may have reasonably been called a Temple. Now, had this book been written a hundred or more years later, an author at that time would never call the Tabernacle a Temple, simply because there was no way to confuse the Tabernacle of God with the Temple. The Temple of Solomon was so much more. Any author from the era of Solomon (or later) would have properly referred back to this temporary tent as a Tabernacle, and little thought would have been given to the outbuildings. What I am telling you is, this is internal evidence that this history was written very near to the time when it took place. Given that this book is called the Book of Samuel, we may reasonably assume that Samuel wrote the early portion of this book.

I do not buy into the JEPD theory, which is that contiguous portions of Scripture in the same books were written at radically different times by up to 3 or 4 primary authors and then later pieced together. This theory teaches that in the Law, whenever we find the name of God, Jehovah, used, that portion was written by the Jehovist; and whenever we find Elohim as the primary name of God, then this portion of the Law was written by the Elohimist. This is also known as the JEDP hypothesis, Documentary hypothesis, or as the Wellhausen theory. Their explanation would be that a person from the time of Solomon or later, only familiar with the Temple of God, would have written these lines. I don't wish to go into any more detail about this bogus theory than that (it was covered in much more detail in the introduction to Exodus), except to say that it is a completely bogus theory designed to cast doubt on the Word of God. ⁽¹³⁾ What we have come across in this portion of Scripture is a whole host of non-standard practices which God seemed to tolerate (the practices of the sons of Eli were not tolerated, however). And we would expect there to be a great many non-standard practices which came out of the time period of the judges, which was one of Israel's most degenerate times. Here, apparently some time during the time of the judges, the Israelites began calling the Tent of God the Temple of Jehovah. It was still just a tent, although it was set up semi-permanently, and apparently it had become a small complex of tents or outbuildings (as we have noted, there were sleeping quarters for Eli and Samuel; and there were doors--v. 15).

One of the assertions of Documentary Hypothesis is, many of these books of Scripture were put together by a priestly class who wanted their jobs justified and delineated. Again, this is hogwash. What we find, particularly in the book of Samuel, are non-standard practices as well as even disuse of some Tabernacle furniture (e.g., the Ark, which will be stored for nearly a century). The author of Samuel does not periodically stop and say, "And this was a bad thing." What I am trying to say is, it would make no sense for a priesthood to approve of the book of Samuel because it does not properly delineate the practices of the priesthood (we have even more problems with this in the book of the Judges). In fact, the priesthood, particularly during the time of Jesus Christ, had become particularly corrupt and no longer resembled what God designed. We should expect this--we should expect attacks on the Word of God by theologians who believe in the JEPD theory and we should expect for the rituals of God to be confused, supplanted or perverted.

I recently read about the author-theologian Robert Funk, who died. He was a scholar who doubted the miracles of Jesus, and went in search of the real Jesus. What Funk really wanted to do was to pervert Who and What Jesus is. He began with the presuppositions that Jesus is not God and Jesus could not perform miracles and that Jesus is this great religious philosopher Whose mission was to get us to behave like nice people. In order to do this, Funk and his followers had to conclude that 80% of the historical narratives about Jesus were inaccurate. ⁽¹⁴⁾ Do you grasp what he and his followers asserted? Their opinion of Who Jesus is and what He did is more correct than the opinions of those who actually saw Jesus daily. The opinions of Funk and company, from two millenniums later, were arrogantly seen by themselves as more accurate than the opinions of those who witnessed the miracles of Jesus and saw what He actually did and said. Furthermore, in order to get the Jesus they want, they had to throw out 80% of that which is recorded about Jesus. Funk is quoted as saying, I do not want my faith to be in Jesus, but faith in the really real...in some version of whatever it was that Jesus believed (emphasis mine). ⁽¹⁵⁾ This is Satan's attack--Satan is going to discredit truth in any way that he can. Salvation is through faith in Jesus Christ; therefore, Satan will do everything possible to keep us from believing in Jesus Christ.

Let's see if I can draw an analogy: you are on a jury, and you have heard 2 credible eyewitnesses and 2 others who are credible who provide testimony of events based upon historical records and other eyewitness testimony under the principle of excited utterance. However, you have your own theory of what happened, so, you simply throw out 80% of credible eyewitness testimony in order for your theory to seem true. Do I want such a jury to judge me? Absolutely not! However, this is the approach of Funk and his followers--discard what you disagree with (which is the vast majority of eyewitness accounts), and insert your own beliefs. The primary difference between Funk and most people is, Funk is much more knowledgeable on this topic; however, negative volition is negative volition--it can withstand an overwhelming amount of evidence to the contrary.

Negative volition exists in men of all IQ's. Some very simplistic types might continue saying, "I never seen God, so God don't exist." However, when you are of a more intellectual bend, but you do not want to believe in Jesus Christ, then you have to sound intelligent about it. I am sure that Robert Funk's ideas sound extremely well-thought out and intellectual--however, at the heart, you have 80% of eyewitness testimony being arbitrarily tossed out in favor of one's personal philosophy. Let me add, not only was there eyewitness testimony as to the person and miracles of our Lord Jesus Christ, but these men were willing to die for what they saw. This is more than a martyr, who dies for what he believes; they were willing to give their lives for something they knew was true or false. Logically, if someone knows something is false, they are a lot less likely to die for it. Furthermore, we already have recorded evidence that the Apostles of Jesus Christ were cowards (except for John and sometimes Peter). This is what makes their testimony so strong. Furthermore, it is testimony which was not contested in the first century. We do not have any books or pamphlets from the first century entitled, "These Apostle of Jesus--They are Full of Crap!" The miracles of Jesus and the miracles of the Apostles in the first century are never contested by contemporary writings (i.e., first century writings), This is despite the fact that Christians were held in very low esteem for the most part during the first century. Therefore, if these miracles could be contested, we should expect to find evidence of that. Therefore we have two strong reasons to believe what the Apostles wrote, as opposed to the philosophy of Robert Funk, who asks us to ignore 80% of Apostolic testimony.

I have discussed these issues with others and one of the arguments which I have come across is, the Apostles took these theological positions because it gave them approbation, power and authority. Again, the Apostles were not brave men. 9 of them deserted Jesus as soon as Jesus had been arrested; Peter later deserted Jesus when his life was in danger. These Apostles did have some authority over a small group of people; however, they faced great persecution, a totally disrupted personal life, and eventual death (or, in the case of John, banishment). It was not like they would come into town and a great parade would meet them. It was far more likely that men with stones would be standing there to meet them. Often, they had to slip in and out of cities surreptitiously so that they would not be imprisoned. Any Apostle could have become much more popular with Jews and with Romans had they rejected Jesus, their Savior.

Translation: ...where the Ark of Elohim [was]. The ark was an acacia wood chest measuring 45"x24"x24" which was overlaid with gold. The wood represented the humanity of Jesus Christ. The wood was overlaid with gold both inside and out, and there was a gold molding made for it; the gold representing the deity of Jesus Christ. There were rings attached to the sides so that poles might be fitted through so that the ark could be carried without touching it. Man was not allowed to approach and touch the holiness of God. On top of this chest was a mercy seat, 45"x24", made out of pure gold, representing the mercy and love of God as manifested on the cross. Then were hammered out two cherubim who were attached to the mercy seat (or, possibly just standing upon the mercy seat), facing one another, covering the mercy seat with their wings. This represents the angelic conflict. I hesitate to say whether we are speaking of a fallen angel and an elect angel, or whether we are speaking of two elect angels, but I would lean toward the former, simply because both groups of angels observe us (the argument that these are both elect angels would be based upon the fact that they are both upon the mercy seat).

The mercy seat is hidden from public view, inside the Holy of Holies, as the exact nature of the cross was not known until the crucifixion. Similarly, the pattern of the furniture of the Tent (or Tabernacle of God) was also in the form of a cross, although, that could not be seen either, unless the Tabernacle was removed and the furniture left in place (see the Placement of the Tabernacle Furniture, which was covered in Ex. 30:18). You see, some of the furniture was inside the Tabernacle (e.g., the lampstand); the Ark was inside the Holy of Holies which was inside the Tabernacle; and some furniture was outside the Tabernacle (e.g., the brazen altar). So, even though this was all set up as God required it to be set up, no one could really perceive the shape of the furniture, as some was inside the Tabernacle and the Ark even further obscured from view.

God was known at that time to be merciful and forgiving, but at the same time just. His means to forgive us and yet remain just was never fully revealed in the Old Testament (I'll elaborate in a moment). After the crucifixion and the resurrection, the meaning of the cross has become clear to us who are saved by God--and that, primarily because Paul explained it in great detail. Don't misunderstand me: Paul did not add his own twist or explanation to the cross--Paul fully explained it, and his explanation makes all of the pieces of the puzzle fit together. However, in any case, those in the Old Testament did not have as perspicuous a view of the gospel as we have in this dispensation.

Allow me this digression, as I know some may have perked up in disagreement. I know that it is popular for some to say that the gospel is as perspicuous in the Old Testament as it is in the New, but that really isn't true (don't worry, I will qualify this). That Jesus would come and die for our sins on the cross was certainly presented in shadow form again and again in Scripture, but there is no indication that any man at any time completely understood the whole realm of soteriology prior to the cross, despite the fact that Isaiah described the suffering of the cross and its meaning in more detail in Isa. 53 than we find even in the New Testament. However, any man could still place his faith in Jehovah Elohim of Israel and be saved. An Old Testament believer may not have grasped all of the theological fine points (very few do today, even though it is fully revealed), but they were still saved. We are saved based upon what Jesus did for us on the cross; our participation is faith in Him, which is something that any person can exercise--faith is non-meritorious. Men and women of all dispensations are saved in exactly the same way--through faith in Jehovah Elohim, the God of Israel, Jesus Christ. The amount of information that we have varies--however, given God's perfect justice and righteousness, we can be assured that anyone who desires to know God at God consciousness will be given the gospel--and this can occur during any dispensation, under any set of circumstances. What I understand about salvation right at this time is vastly different than what I understood when I first believed in Jesus Christ. What Jews and non-Jews understood during the dispensation of Israel is going to be different than what I understand, based upon the Doctrine of Progression of Reveal Truth (which simply means, as time goes on, God revealed more and more of Himself, culminating in the epistles of the New Testament). However, the means is exactly the same: non-meritorious faith in Jesus Christ.

Furthermore, Old Testament writers rarely even used the verbiage which we do (saved; having eternal life); and most often when they did, it referred to being delivered rather than to being saved. That Jesus would come in the flesh and, in the right time, die on our behalf, paying for our sins is not something that a theologian would have understood in the Age of Israel. And though this was clearly taught in shadow form in the Old Testament, no one from Old Testament could have elucidated that as I just have. Our salvation is not based upon have a complete, firm and clear theological grasp of salvation (such a requirement would exclude 90% of all believers from heaven). Our salvation is based upon our faith in Jesus, Who did all of the work and accomplished our salvation for us. Our understanding of His work in New Testament times might be limited; and those who were saved prior to the incarnation had a very limited grasp of salvation. There is a reason for this--there is a reason that man could be saved in the Old Testament by faith, yet not fully grasp that God would come in the flesh personally and pay for our sins. The reason for this, surprisingly enough, is not found in print anywhere, to the best of my knowledge.

In order to explain why, let's approach this Socratically: if Satan could undo or reverse just one event of history, what would it be? The cross, of course. It is the cross which broke Satan's back. If Jesus did not die for our sins, then we are, of all men, the most miserable (1Cor. 15:19). But Satan not only did not realize that the cross would involve the payment of sins by our Lord on our behalf, so Satan himself participated in the entire event, from inspiring such evil in both the Romans and the Jews, to entering Judas in order to distinguish Jesus from His disciples (Satan did not want to leave anything to chance). No man knows the Scriptures better than Satan and no one is as adept at distorting salvation as is Satan. So, God had to reveal salvation in the Old Testament, both as a sign and as redemption information. So, how does God reveal the cross in the Old Testament without completely revealing the cross? He does so by analogy; He does so by shadow teaching. Man had enough information to place his faith in Jehovah Elohim of Israel, but no one had enough information to clearly determine the exact events which were to take place at the end of our Lord's earthly existence. After the fact, the sacrifices and the shadow teaching are quite perspicuous; but, up until the land was darkened with the thick darkness while God the Father judged God the Son for our sins--up until that time--no one clearly understood the entire gospel message (it was left to Paul and Peter and the author of the book of Hebrews to explain the events of the cross much later). In other words, God revealed His plan of salvation to the extent that man could believe and be saved in the Old Testament, but God did not make enough information available to Satan, the greatest theological genius and Biblical scholar of all created beings, so that Satan, rather than impeding the plan of God, helped to advance God's plan, much to his own personal dismay. Not only is their great irony in the events which led up to the cross, but it is one of many illustrations where God takes events and circumstances which seem horrible, and He mixes these events so that they result in that which is good (Rom. 8:28).

The Ark of God was kept in the Holy of Holies, a portion of the Tent of God which was hidden to the outside world. Only the High Priest, one day a year, on the Day of Atonement, ever set foot in this room to sprinkle blood on the mercy seat of God. Inside this ark (ark means chest), was the Book of the Law, Aaron's rod that budded (representing resurrection) and a pot of manna, which represented God's provision. All of this was contained within the chest or Ark of God and that was kept from public view 99% of the time (the Ark was moved from time to time and twice went with Israel into battle). Anyway, I hope that you can see that the Ark of God was fraught with meaning. And note very carefully how closely related is the Ark of God (which represents our Lord) to the Word of God; to the provision of God (realize that our day-to-day provision is insignificant compared to His provision for us on the cross); and to the resurrection. The Ark of God is hidden, and yet, simultaneously, fraught with great meaning.

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so calls Y^ehowah unto Samuel and so he said, "Behold me!'

Septuagint And the Lord called, "Samuel, Samuel;" and he said, "Behold me."

Significant differences: We find Samuel's name twice in the LXX without a preposition. The Latin and Syriac are in agreement with the MT (which is usually the case, as they are from the same family of manuscripts).

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV ...when the LORD called out Samuel's name. "Here I am!" Samuel answered.

The Message Then GOD called out, "Samuel, Samuel!" Samuel answered, "Yes? I'm here."

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh) The Lord called out to Samuel, and he answered, "I'm coming."

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB ...that the Lord called Samuel; and he said, "Here I am."

Young's Updated LT ...and Jehovah called to Samuel, and he said, 'Here I am.'

What is the gist of this verse? God calls out to Samuel and Samuel answers, "Here I am."

Translation: Then Y^ehowah called out to Samuel,... We know from the beginning what Samuel does not know--we know that God is calling out to Samuel.

Translation: ...and he answered, "Observe [it is] I!" In the Hebrew, there is a preposition and the proper noun Samuel; in the Greek and in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there is no preposition, and the content of what God said is given: And the Lord called, "Samuel, Samuel." And he said... In the Greek (and this cannot be a determining factor, as the Greek is a translation from the Hebrew), the content of what is said is . In the Greek, is transliterated idou and pronounced ih-DOO, and it means behold, lo. It is the correct Greek rendering of the Hebrew word hinnêh () [pronounced hin-NAY], which also means lo, behold. To give a modern translation to either word is difficult--we might settle for something like listen, listen up, observe, focus on this, get this, look, look here. Now, I had hoped, with the Greek, I could focus in better on this verse, but, although it is somewhat different (and the Dead Sea Scrolls are in agreement with this change), it is still not clear who says the next line.

Most believe that it is Samuel who answers in a word, without using a verb. He begins with the interjection hên () [pronounced hayn], which means lo!, behold, observe, look, look here, get this, listen, listen up. Affixed to this interjection is the 3^rd person masculine singular suffix. "Behold me!" Or "Observe Me." Today, Samuel might say, "I'm right here" or "Here I am."

God primarily, in Scripture, reaches out to man (Gen. 22:1 Ex. 3:4 Psalm 99:6 Acts 9:4). However, Samuel did not realize that it was God Who called out to him. He assumed that it had been Eli who spoke, as word from God was rare in those days. God spoke to Eli concerning Eli's sons, and this was through a prophet. However, other than that, we do not have a lot of communication directly from God (in fact, we have none in the first couple chapters of this book).

Now, there are two ways to look at this verse, which I did not realize until I got part way through this book. The common way to interpret this is first, God calls to Samuel, and he sits straight up in his bed and says, "Here I am." Then he realizes that Eli must have called him, so he runs to Eli's room and repeats, "Here I am." (this is v. 5). The second way to look at this is, God calls out to Samuel ("Samuel, Samuel") and then God adds to this "Behold, [it is] I!" Samuel sits straight up in his bed, thinks that Eli has called him, and runs to Eli's room. Although, like most translators, I lean toward the first interpretation, I am not comfortable without presenting another slightly differing view of these events.

In the first interpretation, where it is Samuel who answers, "Behold, [it is] I"; he then repeats this again in v. 5. God initially calls him, and Samuel sits straight up and says, "Behold, [it is] I"; then he gets up and runs into the next room (or wherever Eli is) and says a second time, "Behold, [it is] I." The first time Samuel speaks, it is coming out of a state of sleep; the second, he is semi-awake and in the sleeping quarters of Eli's room. God didn't call Samuel from the other room; so, it is natural, when coming out of a sleep, for Samuel to answer from where he is sleeping. As we will later note in v. 10, all signs point to God speaking to Samuel in a dream.

Preview of coming attractions: What we will have is, God will call Samuel three times. Each of these three times, Samuel will think that Eli is calling to him and he reports to Eli. Because visions and revelations directly from God were rare, Samuel was not expecting God to call him. In fact, at this point in time, Samuel expects God to call him personally like I expect Moses and Elijah to knock on my front door. The third time this occurs, Eli figures out that God is calling Samuel and tells Samuel so (v. 8).

Here is how others have translated this verse:

Ancient texts:

Masoretic Text And so he ran unto Eli and so he said, "Behold me, for you called to me." And so he said, "I called not. Return; lay down." And so he went and so he lay down.

Septuagint And he ran to Heli, and said, "I, for you called me;" and he said, "I did not call you; return, go to sleep;" and he returned and went to sleep.

Significant differences: No significant differences.

Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:

CEV Then he ran to Eli and said, "Here I am. What do you want?" "I didn't call you," Eli answered. "Go back to bed." Samuel went back.

The Message Then he ran to Eli saying, "I heard you call. Here I am." Eli said, "I didn't call you. Go back to bed." And so he did.

Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):

JPS (Tanakh) He ran to Eli and said, "here I am; you called me." But he replied, "I didn't call you; go back to sleep." So he went back and lay down.

Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:

NASB Then he ran to Eli and said, "Here I am, for you called me." But he said, "I did not call, lie down again." So he went and lay down.

Young's Updated LT And he runs and went unto Eli, and said, 'Here am I, for you have called for me;' and he said, 'I called not, turn back, lie down;' and he went and lay down.

What is the gist of this verse? Samuel goes in to Eli, who he thinks called him, and reports for duty. Eli tells Samuel that he had not been summoned and suggests that he go back to bed.

Translation: So he ran to Eli... Samuel is startled out of his sleep, and he believes Eli, who is a very old man, has called out to him. Therefore, he runs to where Eli is sleeping.