1 Samuel 1-10
1:12-14
Eli personifies Israel’s disastrous condition of decline and rebellion against Yahweh seen throughout the book of Judges. Here he fails to recognise someone in fervent prayer.
1:17-18
It’s striking that Hannah’s faith following this encounter with God in prayer and Eli’s blessing transformed her state of mind where previously her sadness was visible ...Her face no longer looked sad. (18b)
1:21-28
Despite the condition of the nation, there were some devout individuals loyal to God. Samuel’s mother Hannah is an outstanding example. Despite her longing for a child, she surrenders him early in his life to the service of God. Two sources (at least) say the weaning would likely have lasted around three years. Hannah’s prayers, her willingness to give back to God the child he had given her, together with the naming of Samuel all show active and resolute faith.
2:1-11
As well as marvellously uplifting, Hannah’s prayer is important for many other reasons. It captures the theology of the whole story of 1 Samuel and the Gospel itself, as it celebrates the sovereignty of God in salvation and over all human affairs, summarised in terms of power, wealth and honour. It reaches a crescendo in verse 10, by foretelling what is to happen both in 1 Samuel and with the coming of the Messiah (which is an alternative translation for the Hebrew word translated ‘anointed’ in verse 10). Hannah’s song is also very similar to Mary’s song of Praise in Luke 1:46-55, which of course is inspired by the announcement of the conception and birth of Jesus.
2:27-36
The judgement on Eli and his sons from the anonymous Man of God. The corruption of worship under Hophni and Phineas (12-17) in contrast to the faithfulness of Elkanah and Hannah (18-21) is followed by the account of Eli’s half-hearted attempt to rebuke his sons for their corruption and leads to judgement, delivered by the Man of God, which decrees the rejection of the priesthood of Eli's family line.
3:1-14
More confirmation of Israel’s low spiritual condition. That …the word of the Lord was rare in those days (1) is consistent with Eli’s repeated failure to realise that God was speaking to Samuel, a young man (3) who ...did not yet know the Lord, and the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him (7). The third time Samuel goes to Eli having heard God’s call, it dawns on Eli that it is God’s voice that Samuel is hearing, and he then instructs him how to respond.
The detail that, The lamp of God had not yet gone out (3) is noteworthy because it suggests a failure to observe the instruction in Leviticus 24:1-4, that the lamp was to be kept burning from ‘evening to morning’. No doubt the inclusion of this detail also reflects the use of ‘lamp’ as a metaphor of hope and promise in several places in the OT (ESV Reformation Study Bible, via Biblegateway). To infer that the use of the word ‘yet’ in 3:3 indicates another failure of Eli’s priesthood seems reasonable, but perhaps more importantly, the reference to the lamp of God immediately precedes …Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, who himself proved to be the hope and promise of God to restore Israel from the decline of the period of the Judges and Eli’s corrupt priesthood.
3:15-18
Eli’s use of an oath (17) insisting in a somewhat threatening way that Samuel tell him everything God said, perhaps indicates that Eli expected judgement on his priesthood that wouldn’t be positive.
4:1-5
The defeat of Israel by the Philistines at Aphek leads them to use the Ark of the Covenant as a substitute for God’s presence and support in the battle.
4:5-11
Despite the superstitious dread of the Philistines (6-8) created by Israel’s shout when …the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp (5) they rally, stir up their courage, defeat Israel again and capture the Ark. If anyone is interested in the geography of what happens next, see here.
4:12-22
The priesthood of Eli and his sons comes to an end and the wife of Phinehas goes into labour when she hears the news of their deaths and of the capture of the Ark. And she named the child Ichabod, saying, “The glory has departed from Israel!” because the ark of God had been captured… (21).
5:1-5
The scene of the Ark in the house of the Philistine God Dagon is almost comical, with Dagon as a cartoon character. It was noted that modern western thinking is very inclined to find ways to rationalise incidents that are apparently inexplicable, whereas in perhaps the majority of cultures at most times and places, people would infer that a supernatural event had taken place.
5:6-12
Panic ensues among the Philistines in Ashdod, Gath and Ekron after the Dagon’s house episode and the peoples’ affliction with tumours, until they agree “Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it return to its own place, that it may not kill us and our people.” (11)
After the return of Samuel, with repentance and deliverance from the Philistines in chapter 7, the transition to monarchy begins. The Israelites’ demand for a king was evidently related to dissatisfaction with Samuel’s sons as hereditary judges, although the desire to be ‘like all the nations’ (20) may be significant as well. (4) See the ESV/GSB notes for chapter 8.
8:10-22
The eventful account of Saul’s appointment and anointing as Israel’s first king. Chapters 9 and 10 are hard to read without being influenced by the knowledge of how his reign turned out. In particular, the episode of hiding among the baggage when the lot was being cast to identify God’s choice for King in chapter 10:22-23 seems to suggest the worst for his reign, which I guess we tend to see exclusively from the perspective of his celebrated successor David. There is plenty in chapters 9 and 10, however, to indicate that his reign - which lasted 40 years - might have been different.
Eli personifies Israel’s disastrous condition of decline and rebellion against Yahweh seen throughout the book of Judges. Here he fails to recognise someone in fervent prayer.
1:17-18
It’s striking that Hannah’s faith following this encounter with God in prayer and Eli’s blessing transformed her state of mind where previously her sadness was visible ...Her face no longer looked sad. (18b)
1:21-28
Despite the condition of the nation, there were some devout individuals loyal to God. Samuel’s mother Hannah is an outstanding example. Despite her longing for a child, she surrenders him early in his life to the service of God. Two sources (at least) say the weaning would likely have lasted around three years. Hannah’s prayers, her willingness to give back to God the child he had given her, together with the naming of Samuel all show active and resolute faith.
2:1-11
As well as marvellously uplifting, Hannah’s prayer is important for many other reasons. It captures the theology of the whole story of 1 Samuel and the Gospel itself, as it celebrates the sovereignty of God in salvation and over all human affairs, summarised in terms of power, wealth and honour. It reaches a crescendo in verse 10, by foretelling what is to happen both in 1 Samuel and with the coming of the Messiah (which is an alternative translation for the Hebrew word translated ‘anointed’ in verse 10). Hannah’s song is also very similar to Mary’s song of Praise in Luke 1:46-55, which of course is inspired by the announcement of the conception and birth of Jesus.
2:27-36
The judgement on Eli and his sons from the anonymous Man of God. The corruption of worship under Hophni and Phineas (12-17) in contrast to the faithfulness of Elkanah and Hannah (18-21) is followed by the account of Eli’s half-hearted attempt to rebuke his sons for their corruption and leads to judgement, delivered by the Man of God, which decrees the rejection of the priesthood of Eli's family line.
3:1-14
More confirmation of Israel’s low spiritual condition. That …the word of the Lord was rare in those days (1) is consistent with Eli’s repeated failure to realise that God was speaking to Samuel, a young man (3) who ...did not yet know the Lord, and the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him (7). The third time Samuel goes to Eli having heard God’s call, it dawns on Eli that it is God’s voice that Samuel is hearing, and he then instructs him how to respond.
The detail that, The lamp of God had not yet gone out (3) is noteworthy because it suggests a failure to observe the instruction in Leviticus 24:1-4, that the lamp was to be kept burning from ‘evening to morning’. No doubt the inclusion of this detail also reflects the use of ‘lamp’ as a metaphor of hope and promise in several places in the OT (ESV Reformation Study Bible, via Biblegateway). To infer that the use of the word ‘yet’ in 3:3 indicates another failure of Eli’s priesthood seems reasonable, but perhaps more importantly, the reference to the lamp of God immediately precedes …Samuel was lying down in the temple of the Lord, who himself proved to be the hope and promise of God to restore Israel from the decline of the period of the Judges and Eli’s corrupt priesthood.
3:15-18
Eli’s use of an oath (17) insisting in a somewhat threatening way that Samuel tell him everything God said, perhaps indicates that Eli expected judgement on his priesthood that wouldn’t be positive.
Chapter 4 is the first of three chapters in which (apart from the first line, which looks like a bad chapter division) Samuel makes no appearance at all. In fact 4-7 is the account of the execution of the judgement delivered by the anonymous Man of God to Eli in chapter 2 (27-36) and reinforced in God’s direct revelation to Samuel in chapter 3 (10-14).
4:1-5
The defeat of Israel by the Philistines at Aphek leads them to use the Ark of the Covenant as a substitute for God’s presence and support in the battle.
4:5-11
Despite the superstitious dread of the Philistines (6-8) created by Israel’s shout when …the ark of the covenant of the LORD came into the camp (5) they rally, stir up their courage, defeat Israel again and capture the Ark. If anyone is interested in the geography of what happens next, see here.
4:12-22
The priesthood of Eli and his sons comes to an end and the wife of Phinehas goes into labour when she hears the news of their deaths and of the capture of the Ark. And she named the child Ichabod, saying, “The glory has departed from Israel!” because the ark of God had been captured… (21).
5:1-5
The scene of the Ark in the house of the Philistine God Dagon is almost comical, with Dagon as a cartoon character. It was noted that modern western thinking is very inclined to find ways to rationalise incidents that are apparently inexplicable, whereas in perhaps the majority of cultures at most times and places, people would infer that a supernatural event had taken place.
5:6-12
Panic ensues among the Philistines in Ashdod, Gath and Ekron after the Dagon’s house episode and the peoples’ affliction with tumours, until they agree “Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it return to its own place, that it may not kill us and our people.” (11)
6:1-9
The Global Study Bible notes for 6:1-9 are well worth consulting on the Ancient Near East religious practice that forms the background to this strange sequence of events. The key to the passage ending with verse 9 is perhaps to recognise that: Untrained milk cows could not pull a cart well as a team. If they went anywhere, it would be home to their calves. Therefore, if they pulled the cart uphill toward Israel, it must be the work of the Lord (v. 9 ESV/GSB).
6:10-21
The people of Beth-shemesh hardly fared better than the Philistines when the Ark was recovered, although they rejoiced and offered sacrifices (13-15). The chapter ends with them asking the inhabitants of Kiriath-jearim to come and take it from them (20-21). The fact that Israel failed to seek the Lord’s guidance in the first place (4:4) but decided the Ark would be better assurance for the battle against the Philistines than seeking God’s guidance, is evidently the error at the root of the whole episode. Note also that the plan had the cooperation of Hophni and Phinehas who, as priests, should not have sanctioned the Ark's use.
NB There is a textual problem with verse 19, regarding the number of people of Beth-shemesh who were killed …because they looked upon the ark of the Lord. The earliest manuscripts say 5070, but a number of recent translations have 70, apparently on the basis that for Beth-shemesh to have had a population of more than 50,000 seems implausible. There are further details (for serious Bible Nerds) in Net Bible note (14) on 6:19 here.
The Global Study Bible notes for 6:1-9 are well worth consulting on the Ancient Near East religious practice that forms the background to this strange sequence of events. The key to the passage ending with verse 9 is perhaps to recognise that: Untrained milk cows could not pull a cart well as a team. If they went anywhere, it would be home to their calves. Therefore, if they pulled the cart uphill toward Israel, it must be the work of the Lord (v. 9 ESV/GSB).
6:10-21
The people of Beth-shemesh hardly fared better than the Philistines when the Ark was recovered, although they rejoiced and offered sacrifices (13-15). The chapter ends with them asking the inhabitants of Kiriath-jearim to come and take it from them (20-21). The fact that Israel failed to seek the Lord’s guidance in the first place (4:4) but decided the Ark would be better assurance for the battle against the Philistines than seeking God’s guidance, is evidently the error at the root of the whole episode. Note also that the plan had the cooperation of Hophni and Phinehas who, as priests, should not have sanctioned the Ark's use.
NB There is a textual problem with verse 19, regarding the number of people of Beth-shemesh who were killed …because they looked upon the ark of the Lord. The earliest manuscripts say 5070, but a number of recent translations have 70, apparently on the basis that for Beth-shemesh to have had a population of more than 50,000 seems implausible. There are further details (for serious Bible Nerds) in Net Bible note (14) on 6:19 here.
After the return of Samuel, with repentance and deliverance from the Philistines in chapter 7, the transition to monarchy begins. The Israelites’ demand for a king was evidently related to dissatisfaction with Samuel’s sons as hereditary judges, although the desire to be ‘like all the nations’ (20) may be significant as well. (4) See the ESV/GSB notes for chapter 8.
8:10-22
The Israelites were not deterred by the prospect of a ‘high tax’ monarchy and wanted a military leader.
The eventful account of Saul’s appointment and anointing as Israel’s first king. Chapters 9 and 10 are hard to read without being influenced by the knowledge of how his reign turned out. In particular, the episode of hiding among the baggage when the lot was being cast to identify God’s choice for King in chapter 10:22-23 seems to suggest the worst for his reign, which I guess we tend to see exclusively from the perspective of his celebrated successor David. There is plenty in chapters 9 and 10, however, to indicate that his reign - which lasted 40 years - might have been different.
10:17-19
Samuel seems to be aggrieved that Israel is insisting on having a king to rule over them, reminding them that God didn’t need a king to deliver them from slavery in Egypt. The latter event was definitive in their history and always remained the OT reference point for proclamations of the sovereignty of God and his commitment to his chosen people.
Comments
Post a Comment