|
1Samuel 4:1–22
|
The Philistines Take the Ark of God in Battle
|
Outline of Chapter 4:
vv. 1b–3 Israel is Defeated Before the Philistines
vv. 4–11 Israel is Defeated a Second Time Before the Philistines
vv. 12–18 A Benjamite Brings News of These Battles to Shiloh
vv. 19–22 The Death of the Wife of Phinehas; the Birth of the Son of Phinehas
Charts and Maps:
Introduction The Time Frame of 1Sam. 4
Introduction Text Altering in the Scriptures
v. 4:1b Ancient Renderings of 1Samuel 4:1b
v. 4 The Ark of the Covenant
v. 11 Parallel Passage Psalm 78:56–61
v. 17 Speculation About the Messenger and Eli
v. 18 The Failures of Eli
v. 18 The Successes of Eli
I
ntroduction: Most exegetes group 1Sam. 4:1b–7:1 (or v. 2) as a teaching unit. This is because these three
chapters follow the movement of the Ark of God, which is afterwards, until the time of David, rarely mentioned
(actually, it is not mentioned again—but that requires some explanation, which will occur later). As you will recall,
I placed 1Sam. 4:1a with the previous chapter, and I will add 7:1–2 to the end of 1Sam. 6—when I exegeted the
chapters, apart from ever looking at another exegetes work, these seemed to be the most natural bookends.
Before we launch further into the introduction, I should stop and mentioned a few things. As you may or may not
realize, there are those who view the Old Testament as primarily the compilation of 4 or 5 individuals and/or groups
of people; pretty much, their approach is anyone but the stated author written at any time frame other than what is
generally assigned to the book. However, even though there are some false theories out there, this does not mean
that this book in particular does not have several difference sources (as the book of Genesis, for instance).
However, these theorists suggest that there are multiple authors in this section is because the Ark of God is given
several different names (the Ark of God, the Ark of the Covenant of Jehovah, the Ark of Jehovah, the Ark of the
God of Israel). Now, it may seem silly to you to base doctrines with such great theological significance upon the
occasional change of terms, and that is simply because it is silly. I personally use all of those designations for the
Ark of God, primarily to vary my vocabulary. That an author of the ancient world chose to do the same is no big
deal. However, and this is significant, there is a strong likelihood that all of 1Sam. 5 and much of 6 was written by
a Philistine believer. We will discuss this in chapter 5; and the reasons are more substantial than a different title
for the Ark of God (although, interestingly enough, it is referred to as the Ark of the God of Israel exclusively in
1Sam. 5). The various names applied to the Ark very likely have more significance than a simple variance of
vocabulary; but such things do not require several authors.
We are still at the end of the time of the judges. Israel is still in a state of great degeneracy. Eli, who is an okay
judge and priest, has raised two worthless sons, Hophni and Phinehas, who assumed the duties of the priesthood,
but who are both unbelievers, despite the fact that they function as priests. In the cycles of the book of Judges, you
will recall that we would have a cycle of deliverance, a period of degeneracy, followed by a calling to God, followed
by a deliverance. Where is this cycle?, you may ask. 1Sam. 4 restores that cycle. Certainly, we have the
marvelous woman, Hannah, and her husband, Elkanah, and they dedicated their first son to God, and this first son
was Samuel, who would be a great man. However, he is in a state of growth. Israel, as a whole, is still in a state
of degeneracy. The practices of the Tent of God are still not in keeping with those found in Scripture. So, what we
have in this chapter, is Israel on the discipline cycle. Their deliverer is among them, but they have nothing to be
delivered from. God puts them in the position of needing Him, and simultaneously destroys the scum of Israel in
battle.
We are reintroduced to the Philistines in this chapter. Recall that Joshua conquered most of the Land of Promise,
but there remained several pockets of resistance, the Philistines making up the largest and most powerful group
of heathen living within Israel along what today is the Gaza Strip. In Joshua 13:2–3, God ominously warns Joshua
of the unconquered Philistines: “This is the land that remains: all the regions of the Philistines and all the land of
the Geshurites; from Shihor, which is east of Egypt, even as far as the border of Ekron to the north (it is counted
as Canaanite); the five lords of the Philistines: the Gadite, the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, the Ekronite;
and the Avvite.” And, of all the tribes, Judah and Simeon were the most circumspect when it came to securing their
land, being the only tribes to continue with their campaign against the resident heathen. They in fact took portions
of the Philistine territory in Judges 1:18, capturing Gaza, Ashkelon and Ekron (this would have been
circa 1400–1350 b.c.).
However, the Philistines maintained a strong foothold in the valley, along with one city near
the sea (Ashdod), and eventually took their territory back. In fact, by 1100 b.c., the Philistines were in control of
various portions of Israel and Israel was under Philistine control.
All of this would make perfect sense, as Israel,
upon entering and conquering the land, was vigorous and strong, and spiritually stable. However, after the passing
of two centuries, they had become weak, indolent and spiritually fickle. We would therefore expect a people as
tenacious as the Philistines to eventually come back as a serious force, which began in Judges 13 and continues
until this time.
The Time Frame of 1Sam. 4
|
What we know:
|
Judges 13:1
Judges 13:2–23
Judges 14:4
Judges 14:4–5
Judges 15:20
1Sam. 4:18
1Sam. 4:9
|
● We know that God gave Israel into the hands of the Philistines for forty years.
● Now, in chapter 13, we first have mentioned the rule of the Philistines and then we
have the prophecy of the birth of Samson.
● Now, exactly what Philistine control entailed is unclear, but apparently not only did the
Philistines have a strong foothold in Israeli land (which they had for hundreds of years),
but Israel was apparently under the rule of the Philistines.
● This would reasonably mean occupation by Philistines and that Israel would pay them
tribute. This was during the time when Samson was a young man and still hanging
with his parents. This did not mean that the Philistines ruled over all of Israel, but they
certainly ruled over a significant portion (more than likely the southern mid-section and
possibly the south as well).
● We also know that Samson ruled over Israel 20 years and that Eli was a judge for 40
years. Also, they were judges over the same general portion of Israel—the central and
south central portion of Israel.
● Finally, it appears as though Israel’s slavery to Egypt is in the past.
|
What we conclude:
|
● Samson and Eli were probably not coterminous judges, as they judged over the same area. Therefore, we
have at least 60 years of rule, first by Samson and then by Eli.
● If Samson was born around the time of Philistine domination, and if he dies after judging for 20 years, we
would guess that Samson was a young judge (beginning around age 20), and that he died after 20 years
of judging (at age 40).
● When Samson died, he took several thousand Philistines with him—mostly Philistine royalty
(Judges 16:28–31).
● Therefore, Samson’s last act probably ended Philistine rule.
● When we return to this time frame in the book of Samuel, it does not appear as though the Philistines are
ruling over Israel, but that they are back to land skirmishes again. When the Philistines discuss the problem
of the Ark being brought into the camp of Israel, one in authority remarks, “Take courage and be men, O
Philistines, so that you do not become slaves to the Hebrews, as they have been slaves to you. Therefore,
be men and fight!” (1Sam. 4:9).
● Therefore, the forty years of Eli’s reign would be marked by Philistine aggression and a back and forth
control over certain border portions of Israel, but it does not appear as though the Philistines ruled over
Israel during this time period.
|
Other theories (Barnes):
|
● Barnes notes that the Israeli servitude to the Philistines lasted for forty years (Judges 13:1) and that it
seems to have terminated during the 20th year of his reign (1Sam. 7:2, 13–14).
● Philistine rule seems to have begun before the birth of Samson (Judges 13:5).
● Since Samson’s judgeship lasted for 20 years (Judges 15:20), then Barnes concludes that the latter portion
of the judgeship of Eli and the early portion of Samuel’s judgeship should have been coterminous with the
life of Samson.
● Now, let me take this a little further than Barnes does. What this would mean is that Samson would have
been born during the judgeship of Eli, and that the 20 years of Samson’s judgeship would be roughly
coterminous with the last 20 years of Eli’s judgeship.
● This would allow for us to compress the time of Eli, Samson and Samuel by at least 20 years.
● This theory would require there to be two primary judges functioning in the same area without the writings
of one ever mentioning the other.
● Let me remind of that Samson was kind of goofy and charismatic only insofar as his great strength and
stature. He would not have been my first choice as a judge.
● We know little about Eli’s competence as a judge. He raised two crappy children; but he appears to do a
good job in guiding Samuel. Bear in mind that, when you raise children, they do have their own volition, and
that there is not much you can do about that. That is, you can be the best parent in the world and end up
with a loser for a son (or daughter) if they get themselves caught up in negative volition. However, I have
seriously digressed from my topic, which is the time line.
|
Conclusions: The time line here really hinges upon when did the Philistines cease ruling over Israel. They
ceased being a major thorn in the side of Israel during 1Sam. 7:13–14; this does not necessarily mean that is
when they stopped ruling over Israel. Their rule over Israel probably concluded much earlier than that, as strongly
implied by 1Sam. 4:9.
|
Israel will go to war against the Philistines and they will be soundly defeated. They return with the Ark of God as
a good luck charm. In all of this, they do not consult God, Eli or Samuel. They just grab the Ark and return to battle,
and (1) they lose; (2) the unbelieving, degenerate sons of Eli are killed; and, (3) the Ark is taken by the Philistines
in battle, something which shocks and surprises both sides at battle.
We also have, with this chapter, a series of judgements upon the house of Eli. Keil and Delitzsch: Israel...suffered
a still greater defeat, in which Eli’s sons fell and the ark was taken by the Philistines (vv. 3–11). The aged Eli,
terrified at such a loss, fell from his seat and broke his neck (vv. 12–18); and his daughter-in-law was taken in
labour, and died after giving birth to a son (vv. 19–22). With these occurrences the judgment began to burst upon
the house of Eli.
You may recall that the sentence structure and vocabulary in the previous chapter, as well as in chapter 1, has
been fairly simple. It is kind of like reading the writings of John in the Greek; chapters 1 and 3 would be good
Hebrew primers. Although the sentence structure in this chapter is not complex, it is more complex than that of
those other two chapters. The vocabulary has become less repetitive, and there is an introduction of vocabulary
not found in previous chapters (the latter of which may be explained because of the subject matter change).
However, what would appear to be the case is that there is a new author.
Please allow me a digression at this point.
|
Text Altering in the Scriptures
|
One of the things which I have dealt with on a number of occasions is the accusation that some organization
came along and changed the Scriptures to suit their doctrinal perspective. Usually the Catholic Church is
blamed for this. These accusations are made by people who do not have any clue about the Scriptures; they
have made up their mind that some big organization wants them to think in a certain way or wants to control
them, and so, therefore, this big organization must have come in and made widespread changes to the Bible
in order to advance their peculiar doctrines. This is such a gross misconception, but it seems to be quite
widespread.
|
1. The book of Samuel, as you have already seen, is one of the books with the greatest number of variant
readings. The Greek (which is a translation) and the Hebrew are, at times, radically different.
|
2. For instanct, in v. 15 of this chapter, Eli is said to be 98 in the Hebrew and Latin, 90 in the Greek, and 78
in the Syriac. The difference in the Greek could be explained by a portion of the manuscript being
unreadable; the difference in the Syriac can be explained by a mistaken letter.
|
3. In v. 16, for some reason, a portion of v. 14 is repeated in v. 16 in the LXX (this could be due to the Hebrew
manuscript from which they worked had this repetition as well). This repetition actually makes the narrative
slightly more clear. Apart from that, the only differences are those which are probably based upon the
translation, rather than being real differences.
|
4. In v. 17, a man who brings the news to Shiloh is called a young man in the Greek, but the bringer of news
in the Hebrew.
|
5. In v. 18 of this chapter, the Greek has that Eli broke his back and the Hebrew tells us that he broke his neck.
The problem is one word which is found nowhere else and has no easy cognates which would help to
determine the meaning. Therefore, even though the Latin, Syriac and Hebrew all agree that this word is
neck; this is not something that we can conclude with 100% accuracy.
|
6. Now, I am not about to spend several hours dealing with each and every difference between the Hebrew
and the most ancient translation of the Bible; however, what should be clear is, all of these differences are
minor, many of them can be easily explained, and none of them have any sort of influence of some religious
authority attempting to lay down this or that doctrine which was not there before.
|
7. When dealing with the disputed readings of the Old Testament, this tends to be the case throughout. As
you can see, there are 4 verses right in a row in 1Samuel 4 which are problematic. Samuel is one of the
most problematic books in the Bible when it comes to determining what the original text should be.
However, in no case that I have come across, do we find some verse which may have been altered in order
to reflect this or that doctrinal perspective.
|
8. The KJV had, as its oldest Old Testament manuscripts texts from the tenth century a.d. These are known
as the Masoretic texts. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered in 1947 (and some in subsequent
years), we got to look at texts which could be dated as far back as 100 b.c. (possibly even earlier). We
have also a plethora of Greek, Latin and Syriac manuscripts which have been uncovered as well, all of
which pre-date the Masoretic text upon which the KJV was based. The result is, there have been a few
changes and a few questions have been raised about a number of passages.
|
9. However, and listen well, there has been no evidence of manuscript tampering where this or that doctrinal
perspective was slipped into the text. A huge percentage of the differences can be explained, even if we
might still disagree as to which is accurate.
|
10. But this is key: there is no fundamental doctrine which is affected by any of these manuscript differences.
Many English translations make mention of these differences (NASB, NRSV, NKJV), and these differences
are well-known to scholars throughout the world. However, no cult or denomination has seized upon this
or that difference and based some new or strange doctrine upon it.
|
11. With regards to the New Testament, without going into any great depth: we have over 24,000 New
Testament manuscripts (partial or whole), some of which date back as early as 125 a.d. This is unheard
of in ancient literature; that is, most of our ancient literature is separated in time from its writing typically by
a 1000 years. Furthermore, the number of manuscripts which we have from any ancient literature tends
to be a number that you can count on the fingers of one hand. There are three strong exceptions to this.
We have 193 copies of the writing of Sophocles (the intervening time period, by the way, is 1400 years);
we have 200 copies of a work by Demosthenes (1300 intervening years) and a remarkable 643 copies of
Homer’s Iliad (which only 500 intervening years). So, we have about a fortieth of the number of manuscripts
which we have for the New Testament.
|
12. Do you grasp what I am telling you here? The New Testament is completely unique when compared to any
ancient manuscript.
|
13. If there was some evil organization which came along and altered New Testament manuscripts in order to
reflect this or that doctrinal perspective, when did this occur? The Catholic church did not come on the
scene until the 4th century a.d. We know how Jerome translated the Old and New Testaments—we have
copies of his Latin work. We also know that he did an outstanding job in this regard. So far, I have come
across not a single passage which reflects Catholic doctrine as opposed to any other viewpoint in Jerome’s
translation. Now, the Catholics do have some peculiar doctrines, and they come from two sources: (1) the
Catholics recognize the Apocrypha
as divine (which it is not) and the pope has the authority to make papal
pronouncements which overrule Scripture and/or previous Catholic doctrines. When you have that kind of
authority, you do not need to alter Scripture. Furthermore, throughout the Middle Ages, the Catholic church
vigorously acted to keep the Bible out of the hands of common men (when common men got their hands
on Scripture, what happened was the Reformation—which was a return to Scripture and Scriptural
authority).
|
14. We have far too many New Testament manuscripts from a period of time when there was no ruling body,
no large church organization and no large religious organization which would have altered the Scriptures.
|
15. To get an idea as to what has to be done in order to propagate a particular viewpoint which is not consistent
with Scripture, we go to Robert Funk, a theologian who believed that we have a mistaken view of Jesus, and
that He was a great religious leader, but not divine; and He certain did not do anything miraculous. In order
for Funk and his followers to come to this incorrect view of Jesus, they must throw out 80% of the gospels.
That is, they must disregard 80% of eyewitness testimony in order to promulgate their own distorted beliefs.
|
16. However, when it comes to disputed readings in the New Testament, we are dealing with 0.5% of the New
Testament. By the way, no other example of ancient literature can make that same claim to accuracy.
|
17. By way of example, one might think that Shakespear, who wrote about 300 years ago, and after the advent
of printing, that his writings would be as accurate, if not more so, than the New Testament, since the New
Testament was written 2000 years ago, long before the advent of printing. In the New Testament, with the
exception of perhaps as many as 20 verses, scholars have come to agree on correct text. However, if we
look at Shakespear’s 37 plays, there are a 100 readings which are still in dispute, which readings materially
affect the meaning of the passages in which they occur.
The New Testament is far more accurate in its
transmission than one of the most famous writers of our recent history.
|
The conclusion is, there has never been any organization which has made great hidden changes to the Old or
New Testaments in order to promulgate some particular set of doctrines.
|
All that is found in the next section is simply repeated from the end of 1Sam. 3.
And so was a word of Samuel to all Israel.
|
1Samuel
4:1a
|
And thus the word of Samuel came [lit., was] to
all Israel.
|
And in this way, the word of Samuel came to all Israel.
|
Let’s see how others have rendered this:
Ancient texts:
Latin Vulgate And the word of Samuel came to pass to all Israel. This is actually the end of
1Sam. 3:21 in the Latin.
Masoretic Text And so was a word of Samuel to all Israel.
Septuagint [nothing]
Significant differences:
Thought-for-thought translations; paraphrases:
CEV Then Samuel would speak to the whole nation of Israel. [given as a part of 1Sam. 3]
REB Samuel’s word had authority throughout Israel.
TEV And when Samuel spoke, all Israel listened.
Mostly literal renderings (with some occasional paraphrasing):
God’s Word™ And Samuel spoke to all Israel. [given as a part of 1Sam. 3]
JPS (Tanakh) ...and Samuel’s word went forth to all Israel. [given as a part of 1Sam. 3]
Literal, almost word-for-word, renderings:
NASB Thus the word of Samuel came to all Israel.
Young's Literal Translation And the word of Samuel is to all Israel,...
What is the gist of this verse? God’s teaching went through Samuel; and Samuel’s word was taught throughout
all of Israel.
1Samuel 4:1a
|
Hebrew/Pronunciation
|
Common English Meanings
|
Notes/Morphology
|
BDB and Strong’s
Numbers
|
wa (or va) (ַו)
[pronounced wah]
|
and so, and then, then, and
|
wâw consecutive
|
No Strong’s #
BDB #253
|
hâyâh (ה ָי ָה)
[pronounced haw-YAW]
|
to be, is, was, are; to become, to
come into being; to come to
pass
|
3rd person masculine
singular, Qal imperfect
|
Strong's #1961
BDB #224
|
dâbâr (רָבָ) [pronounced
dawb-VAWR]
|
word, saying, doctrine, thing,
matter, command
|
masculine singular
construct
|
Strong's #1697
BDB #182
|
Shemûwêl (ל̤אמש)
[pronounced she-moo-ALE]
|
which means heard of El; it is
transliterated Samuel
|
proper masculine noun
|
Strong’s #8050
BDB #1028
|
lâmed (ל) [pronounced le]
|
to, for, towards, in regards to,
with reference to, as to, with
regards to, belonging to
|
preposition
|
No Strong’s #
BDB #510
|
kôl (לֹ) [pronounced
kohl]
|
every, each, all of, all; any of
|
masculine singular
construct not followed by
a definite article
|
Strong’s #3605
BDB #481
|
Yiserâêl (לֵאָר ׃̣י)
[pronounced yis-raw-ALE]
|
transliterated Israel
|
masculine proper noun
|
Strong’s #3478
BDB #975
|
Translation: And thus the word of Samuel came [lit., was] to all Israel. As is quite obvious, a great many modern
translations append chapter 3 with the first half of v. 1 of the next chapter (this includes, but it not limited to, the
CEV, TEV, the JPS, the NRSV, the REB, the NAB, the NJB, the NASB, and God’s Word™). What follows is: Now
Israel went out to meet the Philistines in battle and camped beside Ebenezer while the Philistines camped in Aphek
(1Sam. 4:1b). As you see, there is little or no connect between v. 1a and 1b. Who made this original separation
and why is a mystery. However, they did a pretty sloppy job with the book of Samuel (as we will see in subsequent
chapters).
This verse belongs with the previous chapter and was exegeted in great detail there. However, there is an alternate
explanation, which is that Samuel incites Israel to go to war with the Philistines, which would place v. 1a with 1b.
Keil and Delitzsch suggest that the sense of v. 1 is, At the word or instigation of Samuel, Israel went out against the
Philistines to battle.
As you may recall, Barnes rejects this, saying that such an interpretation does not reflect the
natural understanding of these words.