Bible Commentaries
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
1 Samuel 2
Hannah's song of praise. - The prayer in which Hannah poured out thefeelings of her heart, after the dedication of her son to the Lord, is a songof praise of a prophetic and Messianic character. After giving utterance inthe introduction to the rejoicing and exulting of her soul at the salvationthat had reached her (1 Samuel 2:1), she praises the Lord as the only holy One, theonly rock of the righteous, who rules on earth with omniscience andrighteousness, brings down the proud and lofty, kills and makes alive,maketh poor and maketh rich (1 Samuel 2:2-8). She then closes with the confidentassurance that He will keep His saints, and cast down the rebellious, andwill judge the ends of the earth, and exalt the power of His king (1 Samuel 2:9, 1 Samuel 2:10).
This psalm is the mature fruit of the Spirit of God. The pious woman,who had gone with all the earnest longings of a mother's heart to pray tothe Lord God of Israel for a son, that she might consecrate him to thelifelong service of the Lord, “discerned in her own individual experience thegeneral laws of the divine economy, and its signification in relation to thewhole history of the kingdom of God” (Auberlen, p. 564). The experiencewhich she, bowed down and oppressed as she was, had had of the graciousgovernment of the omniscient and holy covenant God, was a pledge to herof the gracious way in which the nation itself was led by God, and a signby which she discerned how God not only delivered at all times the poorand wretched who trusted in Him out of their poverty and distress, andset them up, but would also lift up and glorify His whole nation, whichwas at that time so deeply bowed down and oppressed by its foes. Acquainted as she was with the destination of Israel to be a kingdom, fromthe promises which God had given to the patriarchs, and filled as she waswith the longing that had been awakened in the nation for the realization ofthese promises, she could see in spirit, and through the inspiration of God,the king whom the Lord was about to give to His people, and throughwhom He would raise it up to might and dominion.
The refusal of modern critics to admit the genuineness of this song isfounded upon an a priori and utter denial of the supernatural savingrevelations of God, and upon a consequent inability to discern theprophetic illumination of the pious Hannah, and a completemisinterpretation of the contents of her song of praise. The “proud andlofty,” whom God humbles and casts down, are not the heathen or thenational foes of Israel, and the “poor and wretched” whom He exalts andmakes rich are not the Israelites as such; but the former are the ungodly,and the latter the pious, in Israel itself. And the description is so wellsustained throughout, that it is only by the most arbitrary criticism that itcan be interpreted as referring to definite historical events, such as thevictory of David over Goliath (Thenius), or a victory of the Israelites overheathen nations (Ewald and others). Still less can any argument be drawnfrom the words of the song in support of its later origin, or itscomposition by David or one of the earliest of the kings of Israel. On thecontrary, not only is its genuineness supported by the generalconsideration that the author of these books would never have ascribed asong to Hannah, if he had not found it in the sources he employed; but stillmore decisively by the circumstance that the songs of praise of Mary andZechariah, in Luke 1:46. and Luke 1:68., show, through the manner in whichthey rest upon this ode, in what way it was understood by the piousIsraelites of every age, and how, like the pious Hannah, they recognisedand praised in their own individual experience the government of the holyGod in the midst of His kingdom.
1 Samuel 2:1
The first verse forms the introduction to the song. Holy joy in theLord at the blessing which she had received impelled the favoured motherto the praise of God:
1 My heart is joyful in the Lord,
My horn is exalted in the Lord,
My mouth is opened wide over mine enemies:
For I rejoice in Thy salvation.
Of the four members of this verse, the first answers to the third, and thesecond to the fourth. The heart rejoices at the lifting up of her horn, themouth opens wide to proclaim the salvation before which the enemieswould be dumb. “My horn is high” does not mean 'I am proud' (Ewald),but “my power is great in the Lord.” The horn is the symbol of strength,and is taken from oxen whose strength is in their horns (vid., Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalm 75:5, etc.). The power was high or exalted by the salvation which theLord had manifested to her. To Him all the glory was due, because He hadproved himself to be the holy One, and a rock upon which a man couldrest his confidence.
1 Samuel 2:2-3
2 None is holy as the Lord; for there is none beside Thee;
And no rock is as our God.
3 Speak ye not much lofty, lofty;
Let (not) insolence go out of thy mouth!
For the Lord is an omniscient God,
And with Him deeds are weighed.
God manifests himself as holy in the government of thekingdom of His grace by His guidance of the righteous to salvation (see atExodus 19:6). But holiness is simply the moral reflection of the glory of theone absolute God. This explains the reason given for His holiness, viz.,“there is not one (a God) beside thee” (cf. 2 Samuel 22:32). As the holy andonly One, God is the rock (vid., Deuteronomy 32:4, Deuteronomy 32:15; Psalm 18:3) in which therighteous can always trust. The wicked therefore should tremble beforeHis holiness, and not talk in their pride of the lofty things which they haveaccomplished or intend to perform. גּבהה is defined moreprecisely in the following clause, which is also dependent upon אל by the word עתק, as insolent words spoken by the wickedagainst the righteous (see Psalm 31:19). For Jehovah hears such words; He is“a God of knowledge” (Deus scientiarum), a God who sees and knowsevery single thing. The plural דּעות has an intensive signification. עללות נתכּנוּ לא might be rendered “deeds are not weighed, orequal” (cf. Ezekiel 18:25-26; Ezekiel 33:17). But this would only apply to theactions of men; for the acts of God are always just, or weighed. But anassertion respecting the actions of men does not suit the context. Hencethis clause is reckoned in the Masora as one of the passages in which לא stands for לו (see at Exodus 21:8). “To Him (with Him) deedsare weighed:” that is to say, the acts of God are weighed, i.e., equal or just. This is the real meaning according to the passages in Ezekiel, and not “theactions of men are weighed by Him” (De Wette, Maurer, Ewald, etc.): forGod weighs the minds and hearts of men (Proverbs 16:2; Proverbs 21:2; Proverbs 24:12), nottheir actions. This expression never occurs. The weighed or righteous actsof God are described in 1 Samuel 2:4-8 in great and general traits, as displayed inthe government of His kingdom through the marvellous changes whichoccur in the circumstances connected with the lives of the righteous andthe wicked.
1 Samuel 2:4-8
4 Bow-heroes are confounded,
And stumbling ones gird themselves with strength;
5 Full ones hire themselves out for bread,
And hungry ones cease to be.
Yea, the barren beareth seven (children),
And she that is rich in children pines away.
6 The Lord kills and makes alive;
Leads down into hell, and leads up.
7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich,
Humbles and also exalts.
8 He raises mean ones out of the dust,
He lifts up poor ones out of the dunghill,
To set them beside the noble;
And He apportions to them the seat of glory:
For the pillars of the earth are the Lord's,
And He sets the earth upon them.
In 1 Samuel 2:4, the predicate חתּים is construed with thenomen rectum גּבּרים, not with the nomen regens קשׁת,because the former is the leading term (vid., Ges. §148, 1, and Ewald, §317,d.). The thought to be expressed is, not that the bow itself is to be broken,but that the heroes who carry the bow are to be confounded or brokeninwardly. “Bows of the heroes” stands for heroes carrying bows. For thisreason the verb is to be taken in the sense of confounded, not broken,especially as, apart from Jeremiah 51:56, חתת is not used to denotethe breaking of outward things, but the breaking of men.
1 Samuel 2:5-8
שׂבעים are the rich and well to do; these wouldbecome so poor as to be obliged to hire themselves out for bread. חדל, to cease to be what they were before. The use of עד as aconjunction, in the sense of “yea” or “in fact,” may be explained as anelliptical expression, signifying “it comes to this, that.” “Seven children”are mentioned as the full number of the divine blessing in children (see 4:15). “The mother of many children” pines away, because she haslost all her sons, and with them her support in her old age (see Jeremiah 15:9). This comes from the Lord, who kills, etc. (cf. Deuteronomy 32:39). The words of1 Samuel 2:6 are figurative. God hurls down into death and the danger of death, andalso rescues therefrom (see Psalm 30:3-4). The first three clauses of 1 Samuel 2:8 arerepeated verbatim in Psalm 113:7-8. Dust and the dunghill are figures used todenote the deepest degradation and ignominy. The antithesis to this is,sitting upon the chair or throne of glory, the seat occupied by nobleprinces. The Lord does all this, for He is the creator and upholder of theworld. The pillars (מצקי, from צוּק = יצק) of the earth are the Lord's; i.e., they were created or set up byHim, and by Him they are sustained. Now as Jehovah, the God of Israel,the Holy One, governs the world with His almighty power, the righteoushave nothing to fear. With this thought the last strophe of the song begins:
1 Samuel 2:9-10
9 The feet of His saints He will keep,
And the wicked perish in darkness;
For by power no one becomes strong.
10 The Lord - those who contend against Him are confounded.
He thunders above him in the heavens;
The Lord will judge the ends of the earth,
That He may lend might to His king,And exalt the horn of His anointed.
The Lord keeps the feet of the righteous, so that they do nottremble and stumble, i.e., so that the righteous do not fall into adversityand perish therein (vid., Ps. 56:14; Psalm 116:8; Psalm 121:3). But the wicked, whooppress and persecute the righteous, will perish in darkness, i.e., inadversity, when God withdraws the light of His grace, so that they fallinto distress and calamity. For no man can be strong through his ownpower, so as to meet the storms of life. All who fight against the Lord aredestroyed. To bring out the antithesis between man and God, “Jehovah” iswritten absolutely at the commencement of the sentence in 1 Samuel 2:10: “As forJehovah, those who contend against Him are broken,” both inwardly andoutwardly (חתת, as in 1 Samuel 2:4). The word עלו, whichfollows, is not to be changed into עליהם. There is simply arapid alternation of the numbers, such as we frequently meet with inexcited language. “Above him,” i.e., above every one who contends againstGod, He thunders. Thunder is a premonitory sign of the approach of the Lord to judgment. Inthe thunder, man is made to feel in an alarming way the presence of theomnipotent God. In the words, “The Lord will judge the ends of theearth,” i.e., the earth to its utmost extremities, or the whole world,Hannah's prayer rises up to a prophetic glance at the consummation of thekingdom of God. As certainly as the Lord God keeps the righteous at alltimes, and casts down the wicked, so certainly will He judge the wholeworld, to hurl down all His foes, and perfect His kingdom which He hasfounded in Israel. And as every kingdom culminates in its throne, or in thefull might and government of a king, so the kingdom of God can only attainits full perfection in the king whom the Lord will give to His people, andendow with His might. The king, or the anointed of the Lord, of whomHannah prophesies in the spirit, is not one single king of Israel, eitherDavid or Christ, but an ideal king, though not a mere personification of thethrone about to be established, but the actual king whom Israel received inDavid and his race, which culminated in the Messiah. The exaltation of thehorn of the anointed to Jehovah commenced with the victorious andsplendid expansion of the power of David, was repeated with everyvictory over the enemies of God and His kingdom gained by the successivekings of David's house, goes on in the advancing spread of the kingdom ofChrist, and will eventually attain to its eternal consummation in thejudgment of the last day, through which all the enemies of Christ will bemade His footstool.
Samuel the servant of the Lord under Eli. Ungodliness of the sons of Eli. - 1 Samuel 2:11 forms the transition to what follows. After Hannah's psalm ofthanksgiving, Elkanah went back with his family to his home at Ramah,and the boy (Samuel) was serving, i.e., ministered to the Lord, in thepresence of Eli the priest. The fact that nothing is said about Elkanah'swives going with him, does not warrant the interpretation given byThenius, that Elkanah went home alone. It was taken for granted that hiswives went with him, according to 1 Samuel 1:21 (“all his house”). את־יחוה שׁרת, which signifies literally, both here and in 1 Samuel 3:1, toserve the Lord, and which is used interchangeably with יי את־פּני שׁרת (1 Samuel 2:18), to serve in the presence of the Lord, is used to denote theduties performed both by priests and Levites in connection with theworship of God, in which Samuel took part, as he grew up, under thesuperintendence of Eli and according to his instruction.
1 Samuel 2:12
But Eli's sons, Hophni and Phinehas (1 Samuel 2:34), were בליּעל בּני, worthless fellows, and knew not the Lord, sc., as Heshould be known, i.e., did not fear Him, or trouble themselves about Him(vid., Job 18:21; Hosea 8:2; Hosea 13:4).
1 Samuel 2:13-14
“And the right of the priests towards the people was (thefollowing).” Mishpat signifies the right which they had usurped tothemselves in relation to the people. “If any one brought a sacrifice(זבח זבח כּל־אישׁ is placed first, and construed absolutely: 'asfor every one who brought a slain-offering'), the priest's servant (lit. youngman) came while the flesh was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in hishand, and thrust into the kettle, or pot, or bowl, or saucepan. All that thefork brought up the priest took. This they did to all the Israelites whocame thither to Shiloh.”
1 Samuel 2:15-16
They did still worse. “Even before the fat was consumed,”i.e., before the fat portions of the sacrifice had been placed in the altar-firefor the Lord (Leviticus 3:3-5), the priest's servant came and demanded flesh ofthe person sacrificing, to be roasted for the priest; “for he will not takeboiled flesh of thee, but only חי, raw, i.e., fresh meat.” And if theperson sacrificing replied, “They will burn the fat directly (lit. 'at thistime,' as in Genesis 25:31; 1 Kings 22:5), then take for thyself, as thy souldesireth,” he said, “No (לו for לא), but thou shalt give now;if not, I take by force.” These abuses were practised by the priests inconnection with the thank-offerings, with which a sacrificial meal wasassociated. Of these offerings, with which a sacrificial meal was associated. Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his sharewas the heave-leg and wave-breast. And this he was to receive after the fatportions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar (see Leviticus 7:30-34). To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offeringhad been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God,and is therefore referred to here with the emphatic particle גּם, asbeing the worst crime that the sons of Eli committed. Moreover, thepriests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrificeboiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altarand giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of theirtaking it forcibly out of the pots while it was being boiled.
1 Samuel 2:17
Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests'servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby broughtthe sacrifice of the Lord into contempt. נאץ, causative, to bringinto contempt, furnish occasion for blaspheming (as in 2 Samuel 12:14). “Therobbery which they committed was a small sin in comparison with thecontempt of the sacrifices themselves, which they were the means ofspreading among the people” (O. v. Gerlach). (Minchah) does not refer hereto the meat-offering as the accompaniment to the slain-offerings, but to thesacrificial offering generally, as a gift presented for the Lord.
sa40
Samuel's service before the Lord. - 1 Samuel 2:18. Samuel served as a boy before theLord by the side of the worthless sons of Eli, girt with an ephod of whitematerial (בּד, see at Exodus 28:42). The ephod was a shoulder-dress, nodoubt resembling the high priest's in shape (see Exodus 28:6.), but altogetherdifferent in the material of which it was made, viz., simple white cloth, likethe other articles of clothing that were worn by the priests. At that time,according to 1 Samuel 22:18, all the priests wore clothing of this kind; and,according to 2 Samuel 6:14, David did the same on the occasion of a religiousfestival. Samuel received a dress of this kind even when a boy, because hewas set apart to a lifelong service before the Lord. חגוּר is thetechnical expression for putting on the ephod, because the two pieces ofwhich it was composed were girt round the body with a girdle.
1 Samuel 2:19
The small מעיל also (Angl. “coat”), which Samuel'smother made and brought him every year, when she came with herhusband to Shiloh to the yearly sacrifice, was probably a coat resemblingthe meïl of the high priest (Exodus 28:31.), but was made of course of somesimpler material, and without the symbolical ornaments attached to thelower hem, by which that official dress was distinguished.
1 Samuel 2:20
The priestly clothing of the youthful Samuel was in harmonywith the spiritual relation in which he stood to the high priest and toJehovah. Eli blessed his parents for having given up the boy to the Lord,and expressed this wish to the father: “The Lord lend thee seed of thiswoman in the place of the one asked for (השּׁאלה), whom they(one) asked for from the Lord.” The striking use of the third pers. masc. שׁאל instead of the second singular or plural may be accounted foron the supposition that it is an indefinite form of speech, which the writerchose because, although it was Hannah who prayed to the Lord for Samuelin the sight of Eli, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, hadshared the wishes of his pious wife. The apparent harshness disappears atonce if we substitute the passive; whereas in Hebrew active constructionswere always preferred to passive, wherever it was possible to employthem (Ewald, §294, b.). The singular suffix attached to למקומו after the plural הלכוּ may be explained on the simple ground,that a dwelling-place is determined by the husband, or master of the house.
1 Samuel 2:21
The particle כּי, “for” (Jehovah visited), does not meanif, as, or when, nor is it to be regarded as a copyist's error. It is onlynecessary to supply the thought contained in the words, “Eli blessedElkanah,” viz., that Eli's blessing was not an empty fruitless wish; and tounderstand the passage in some such way as this: Eli's word was fulfilled,or still more simply, they went to their home blessed; for Jehovah visitedHannah, blessed her with “three sons and two daughters; but the boySamuel grew up with the Lord,” i.e., near to Him (at the sanctuary), andunder His protection and blessing.
Eli's treatment of the sins of his sons. - 1 Samuel 2:22. The aged Eli reproved hissons with solemn warnings on account of their sins; but without hiswarnings being listened to. From the reproof itself we learn, that beside thesin noticed in 1 Samuel 2:12-17, they also committed the crime of lying with thewomen who served at the tabernacle (see at Exodus 38:8), and thus profanedthe sanctuary with whoredom. But Eli, with the infirmities of his old age,did nothing further to prevent these abominations than to say to his sons,“Why do ye according to the sayings which I hear, sayings about youwhich are evil, of this whole people.” רעים את־דּבריכם is insertedto make the meaning clearer, and כּל־ה מאת is dependentupon שׁמע. “This whole people” signifies all the people thatcame to Shiloh, and heard and saw the wicked doings there.
בּני אל, “Not, my sons,” i.e., do not such things, “for thereport which I hear is not good; they make the people of Jehovah totransgress.” מערים is written without the pronoun אתּם in an indefinite construction, like משׁלּחים in 1 Samuel 6:3 (Maurer). Ewald's rendering as given by Thenius, “The report which I hearthe people of God bring,” is just as inadmissible as the one proposed byBöttcher, “The report which, as I hear, the people of God are spreading.”The assertion made by Thenius, that העביר, without any furtherdefinition, cannot mean to cause to sin or transgress, is correct enough nodoubt; but it does not prove that this meaning is inadmissible in thepassage before us, since the further definition is actually to be found in thecontext.
“If man sins against man, God judges him; but if a man sins againstJehovah, who can interpose with entreaty for him?” In the use of פּללו and יתפּלּל־לו there is a paranomasia which cannot bereproduced in our language. פּלּל signifies to decide or pass sentence (Genesis 48:11), then to arbitrate, to settle a dispute as arbitrator (Ezekiel 16:52; Psalm 106:30), and in the Hithpael to act as mediator, hence to entreat. Andthese meanings are applicable here. In the case of one man's sin againstanother, God settles the dispute as arbitrator through the properauthorities; whereas, when a man sins against God, no one can interpose asarbitrator. Such a sin cannot be disposed of by intercession. But Eli's sonsdid not listen to this admonition, which was designed to reform daringsinners with mild words and representation; “for,” adds the historian,“Jehovah was resolved to slay them.” The father's reproof made noimpression upon them, because they were already given up to thejudgment of hardening. (On hardening as a divine sentence, see thediscussions at Exodus 4:21.)
The youthful Samuel, on the other hand, continued to grow in stature, andin favour with God and man (see Luke 2:52).
Announcement of the judgment upon Eli and his house. - 1 Samuel 2:27. Before theLord interposed in judgment, He sent a prophet (a “man of God,” as inJudges 13:6) to the aged Eli, to announce as a warning for all ages thejudgment which was about to fall upon the worthless priests of his house. In order to arouse Eli's own conscience, he had pointed out to him, on theone hand, the grace manifested in the choice of his father's house, i.e., thehouse of Aaron, to keep His sanctuary (1 Samuel 2:27 and 1 Samuel 2:28), and, on the otherhand, the desecration of the sanctuary by the wickedness of his sons (1 Samuel 2:29). Then follows the sentence: The choice of the family of Aaron stillstood fast, but the deepest disgrace would come upon the despisers of theLord (1 Samuel 2:30): the strength of his house would be broken; all the members ofhis house were to die early deaths. They were not, however, to beremoved entirely from service at the altar, but to their sorrow were tosurvive the fall of the sanctuary (1 Samuel 2:31-34). But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest, and cause him to walk beforeHis anointed, and from him all that were left of the house of Eli would beobliged to beg their bread (1 Samuel 2:35, 1 Samuel 2:36). To arrive at the true interpretationof this announcement of punishment, we must picture to ourselves thehistorical circumstances that come into consideration here. Eli the highpriest was a descendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, as we maysee from the fact that his great-grandson Ahimelech was “of the sons ofIthamar” (1 Chronicles 24:3). In perfect agreement with this, Josephus (Ant. v. 11, 5) relates, that after the high priest Ozi of the family of Eleazar, Eli ofthe family of Ithamar received the high-priesthood. The circumstanceswhich led to the transfer of this honour from the line of Eleazar to that ofIthamar are unknown. We cannot imagine it to have been occasioned by anextinction of the line of Eleazar, for the simple reason that, in the time ofDavid, Zadok the descendant of Eleazar is spoken of as high priest alongwith Abiathar and Ahimelech, the descendants of Eli (2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 20:25). After the deposition of Abiathar he was reinstated by Solomon as solehigh priest (1 Kings 2:27), and the dignity was transmitted to hisdescendants. This fact also overthrows the conjecture of Clericus, that thetransfer of the high-priesthood to Eli took place by the command of Godon account of the grievous sins of the high priests of the line of Eleazar;for in that case Zadok would not have received this office again inconnection with Abiathar. We have, no doubt, to search for the true reasonin the circumstances of the times of the later judges, namely in the fact thatat the death of the last high priest of the family of Eleazar before the timeof Eli, the remaining son was not equal to the occasion, either because hewas still an infant, or at any rate because he was too young andinexperienced, so that he could not enter upon the office, and Eli, who wasprobably related by marriage to the high priest's family, and was no doubta vigorous man, was compelled to take the oversight of the congregation;and, together with the supreme administration of the affairs of the nationas judge, received the post of high priest as well, and filled it till the timeof his death, simply because in those troublous times there was not one ofthe descendants of Eleazar who was able to fill the supreme office ofjudge, which was combined with that of high priest. For we cannot possibly think of an unjust usurpation of the office of highpriest on the part of Eli, since the very judgment denounced against himand his house presupposes that he had entered upon the office in a justand upright way, and that the wickedness of his sons was all that wasbrought against him. For a considerable time after the death of Eli the high-priesthood lost almost all its significance. All Israel turned to Samuel,whom the Lord established as His prophet by means of revelations, andwhom He also chose as the deliverer of His people. The tabernacle atShiloh, which ceased to be the scene of the gracious presence of God afterthe loss of the ark, was probably presided over first of all after Eli's deathby his grandson Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, as his successor in the high-priesthood. He was followed in the time of Saul by his son Ahijah orAhimelech, who gave David the shew-bread to eat at Nob, to which thetabernacle had been removed in the meantime, and was put to death bySaul in consequence, along with all the priests who were found there. Hisson Abiathar, however, escaped the massacre, and fled to David (1 Samuel 22:9-20; 1 Samuel 23:6). In the reign of David he is mentioned as high priest alongwith Zadok; but he was afterwards deposed by Solomon (2 Samuel 15:24; 2 Samuel 17:15; 2 Samuel 19:12; 2 Samuel 20:25; 1 Kings 2:27).
Different interpretations have been given of these verses. The majority ofcommentators understand them as signifying that the loss of the high-priesthood is here foretold to Eli, and also the institution of Zadok in theoffice. But such a view is too contracted, and does not exhaust the meaningof the words. The very introduction to the prophet's words points tosomething greater than this: “Thus saith the Lord, Did I reveal myself tothy father's house, when they were in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh?”The ה interrogative is not used for הלא (nonne), but is emphatic,as in Jeremiah 31:20. The question is an appeal to Eli's conscience, which hecannot deny, but is obliged to confirm. By Eli's father's house we are notto understand Ithamar and his family, but Aaron, from whom Eli wasdescended through Ithamar. God revealed himself to the tribe-father of Eliby appointing Aaron to be the spokesman of Moses before Pharaoh (Exodus 4:14. and Exodus 4:27), and still more by calling Aaron to the priesthood, forwhich the way was prepared by the fact that, from the very beginning,God made use of Aaron, in company with Moses, to carry out Hispurpose of delivering Israel out of Egypt, and entrusted Moses and Aaronwith the arrangements for the celebration of the passover (Exodus 12:1, Exodus 12:43). This occurred when they, the fathers of Eli, Aaron and his sons, were stillin Egypt at the house of Pharaoh, i.e., still under Pharaoh's rule.
1 Samuel 2:28
“And did I choose him out of all the tribes for a priest tomyself.” The interrogative particle is not to be repeated beforeוּבחור, but the construction becomes affirmative with the inf. abs. instead of the perfect. “Him” refers back to “thy father” in 1 Samuel 2:27, andsignifies Aaron. The expression “for a priest” is still further defined by theclauses which follow: על מ לעלות, “to ascend upon minealtar,” i.e., to approach my altar of burnt-offering and perform thesacrificial worship; “to kindle incense,” i.e., to perform the service in theholy place, the principal feature in which was the daily kindling of theincense, which is mentioned instar omnium; “to wear the ephod beforeme,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy of holies, which the high priestcould only enter when wearing the ephod to represent Israel before theLord (Exodus 28:12). “And have given to thy father's house all the firings of thechildren of Israel” (see at Leviticus 1:9). These words are to be understood,according to Deuteronomy 18:1, as signifying that the Lord had given to the houseof Aaron, i.e., to the priesthood, the sacrifices of Jehovah to eat in theplace of any inheritance in the land, according to the portions appointed inthe sacrificial law in Lev 6-7, and Num 18.
1 Samuel 2:29
With such distinction conferred upon the priesthood, and suchcareful provision made for it, the conduct of the priests under Eli was aninexcusable crime. “Why do ye tread with your feet my slain-offerings andmeat-offerings, which I have commanded in the dwelling-place?” Slain-offering and meat-offering are general expressions embracing all the altar-sacrifices. מעון is an accusative (“in the dwelling”), like בּית, in the house. “The dwelling” is the tabernacle. This reproof appliedto the priests generally, including Eli, who had not vigorously resistedthese abuses. The words which follow, “and thou honourest thy sonsmore than me,” relate to Eli himself, and any other high priest who like Elishould tolerate the abuses of the priests. “To fatten yourselves with thefirst of every sacrificial gift of Israel, of my people.” לעמּי servesas a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of givinggreater prominence to the idea of עמּי (my people). רשׁית, the first of every sacrificial gift ((minchah), as in 1 Samuel 2:17), which Israeloffered as the nation of Jehovah, ought to have been given up to its God inthe altar-fire because it was the best; whereas, according to 1 Samuel 2:15, 1 Samuel 2:16, thesons of Eli took away the best for themselves.
1 Samuel 2:30
For this reason, the saying of the Lord, “Thy house (i.e., thefamily of Eli) and thy father's house (Eli's relations in the other lines, i.e.,the whole priesthood) shall walk before me for ever” (Numbers 25:13), shouldhenceforth run thus: “This be far from me; but them that honour me I willhonour, and they that despise me shall be despised.” The first declarationof the Lord is not to be referred to Eli particularly, as it is by C. a Lapideand others, and understood as signifying that the high-priesthood wasthereby transferred from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, andpromised to Eli for his descendants for all time. This is decidedly atvariance with the fact, that although “walking before the Lord” is not ageneral expression denoting a pious walk with God, as in Genesis 17:1, butrefers to the service of the priests at the sanctuary as walking before theface of God, yet it cannot possibly be specially and exclusively restrictedto the right of entering the most holy place, which was the prerogative ofthe high priest alone. These words of the Lord, therefore, applied to the whole priesthood, orthe whole house of Aaron, to which the priesthood had been promised,“for a perpetual statute” (Exodus 29:9). This promise was afterwards renewedto Phinehas especially, on account of the zeal which he displayed for thehonour of Jehovah in connection with the idolatry of the people at Shittim(Numbers 25:13). But even this renewed promise only secured to him aneternal priesthood as a covenant of peace with the Lord, and not speciallythe high-priesthood, although that was included as the culminating point ofthe priesthood. Consequently it was not abrogated by the temporarytransfer of the high-priesthood from the descendants of Phinehas to thepriestly line of Ithamar, because even then they still retained thepriesthood. By the expression “be it far from me,” sc., to permit this totake place, God does not revoke His previous promise, but simplydenounces a false trust therein as irreconcilable with His holiness. Thatpromise would only be fulfilled so far as the priests themselves honouredthe Lord in their office, whilst despisers of God who dishonoured Him bysin and presumptuous wickedness, would be themselves despised.
This contempt would speedily come upon the house of Eli.
1 Samuel 2:31
“Behold, days come,” - a formula with which prophets wereaccustomed to announce future events (see 2 Kings 20:17; Isaiah 39:6; Amos 4:2; Amos 8:11; Amos 9:13; Jeremiah 7:32, etc.), - “then will I cut off thine arm, and the arm ofthy father's house, that there shall be no old man in thine house.” To cutoff the arm means to destroy the strength either of a man or of a family(see Job. 1 Samuel 22:9; Psalm 37:17). The strength of a family, however,consists in the vital energy of its members, and shows itself in the fact thatthey reach a good old age, and do not pine away early and die. Thisstrength was to vanish in Eli's house; no one would ever again preserve hislife to old age.
1 Samuel 2:32
“And thou wilt see oppression of the dwelling in all that He hasshown of good to Israel.” The meaning of these words, which have beenexplained in very different ways, appears to be the following: In all thebenefits which the lord would confer upon His people, Eli would see onlydistress for the dwelling of God, inasmuch as the tabernacle would fallmore and more into decay. In the person of Eli, the high priest at that time,the high priest generally is addressed as the custodian of the sanctuary; sothat what is said is not to be limited to him personally, but applies to allthe high priests of his house. מעון is not Eli's dwelling-place,but the dwelling-place of God, i.e., the tabernacle, as in 1 Samuel 2:29, and is agenitive dependent upon צר. היטיב, in the sense ofbenefiting a person, doing him good, is construed with the accusative ofthe person, as in Deuteronomy 28:63; Deuteronomy 8:16; Deuteronomy 30:5. The subject to the verb ייטיב is Jehovah, and is not expresslymentioned, simply because it is so clearly implied in the wordsthemselves. This threat began to be fulfilled even in Eli's own days. Thedistress or tribulation for the tabernacle began with the capture of the arkby the Philistines (1 Samuel 4:11), and continued during the time that theLord was sending help and deliverance to His people through the mediumof Samuel, in their spiritual and physical oppression. The ark of thecovenant - the heart of the sanctuary - was not restored to the tabernacle inthe time of Samuel; and the tabernacle itself was removed from Shiloh toNob, probably in the time of war; and when Saul had had all the priestsput to death (1 Samuel 21:2; 1 Samuel 22:11.), it was removed to Gibeon, whichnecessarily caused it to fall more and more into neglect. Among thedifferent explanations, the rendering given by Aquila ( καὶ ἐπιβλέψει [ ἐπιβλέψης ] ἀντίζηλον κατοικητηρίου ) has met with thegreatest approval, and has been followed by Jerome (et videbis aemulum tuum), Luther, and many others, including De Wette. According to thisrendering, the words are either supposed to refer to the attitude of Samueltowards Eli, or to the deposition of Abiathar, and the institution of Zadokby Solomon in his place (1 Kings 2:27). But צר does not mean theantagonist or rival, but simply the oppressor or enemy; and Samuel wasnot an enemy of Eli any more than Zadok was of Abiathar. Moreover, ifthis be adopted as the rendering of צר, it is impossible to find anysuitable meaning for the following clause. In the second half of the versethe threat of 1 Samuel 2:31 is repeated with still greater emphasis. כּל־היּמים,all the time, i.e., so long as thine house shall exist.
1 Samuel 2:33
“And I will not cut off every one to thee from mine altar, thatthine eyes may languish, and thy soul consume away; and all the increaseof thine house shall die as men.” The two leading clauses of this versecorrespond to the two principal thoughts of the previous verse, which arehereby more precisely defined and explained. Eli was to see the distress ofthe sanctuary; for to him, i.e., of his family, there would always be someone serving at the altar of God, that he might look upon the decay with hiseyes, and pine away with grief in consequence. אישׁ signifies everyone, or any one, and is not to be restricted, as Thenius supposes, toAhitub, the son of Phinehas, the brother of Ichabod; for it cannot beshown from 1 Samuel 14:3 and 1 Samuel 22:20, that he was the only one that was leftof the house of Eli. And secondly, there was to be no old man, no oneadvanced in life, in his house; but all the increase of the house was to die inthe full bloom of manhood. אנשׁים, in contrast with זקן, is used to denote men in the prime of life.
1 Samuel 2:34
“And let this be the sign to thee, what shall happen to (comeupon) thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall bothdie.” For the fulfilment of this, see 1 Samuel 4:11. This occurrence, which Elilived to see, but did not long survive (1 Samuel 4:17.), was to be the sign tohim that the predicted punishment would be carried out in its fullestextent.
1 Samuel 2:35
But the priesthood itself was not to fall with the fall of Eli'shouse and priesthood; on the contrary the Lord would raise up for himselfa tried priest, who would act according to His heart. “And I will build forhim a lasting house, and he will walk before mine anointed for ever.”
1 Samuel 2:36
Whoever, on the other hand, should still remain of Eli's house,would come “bowing before him (to get) a silver penny and a slice of bread,” and would say, “Put me, I pray, in one of the priests' offices, that Imay get a piece of bread to eat.” אגורה, that which is collected,signifies some small coin, of which a collection was made by begging singlecoins. Commentators are divided in their opinions as to the historicalallusions contained in this prophecy. By the “tried priest,” Ephraem Syrusunderstood both the prophet Samuel and the priest Zadok. “As for thefacts themselves,” he says, “it is evident that, when Eli died, Samuelsucceeded him in the government, and that Zadok received the high-priesthood when it was taken from his family.” Since his time, most of thecommentators, including Theodoret and the Rabbins, have decided infavour of Zadok. Augustine, however, and in modern times Thenius andO. v. Gerlach, give the preference to Samuel. The fathers and earliertheologians also regarded Samuel and Zadok as the type of Christ, andsupposed the passage to contain a prediction of the abrogation of theAaronic priesthood by Jesus Christ.
(Note: Theodoret, qu. vii. in 1 Reg. Οὐκοῦν ἡ πρόῤῥησις κυρίως μὲν ἁρμόττει τῷ σωτὴρι Χριστῷ. Κατὰ δὲ ἱστορίαν τῷ Σαδούκ , ὅς ἐκ τοῦ Ἐλεάζαρ κατάγων τὸ γένος τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην διὰ τοῦ Σολομῶνος ἐδέξατο . Augustine says (Decivit. Dei xvii. 5, 2): “Although Samuel was not of a different tribefrom the one which had been appointed by the Lord to serve at thealtar, he was not of the sons of Aaron, whose descendants had beenset apart as priests; and thus the change is shadowed forth, which wasafterwards to be introduced through Jesus Christ.” And again, §3:“What follows (1 Samuel 2:35) refers to that priest, whose figure was borne bySamuel when succeeding to Eli.” So again in the Berleburger Bible, tothe words, “I will raise me up a faithful priest,” this note is added:“Zadok, of the family of Phinehas and Eleazar, whom king Solomon,as the anointed of God, appointed high priest by his ordinance, settingaside the house of Eli (1 Kings 2:35; 1 Chronicles 29:22). At the sametime, just as in the person of Solomon the Spirit of prophecy pointedto the true Solomon and Anointed One, so in this priest did He alsopoint to Jesus Christ the great High Priest.”)
This higher reference of the words is in any case to be retained; for therabbinical interpretation, by which Grotius, Clericus, and others abide, - namely, that the transfer of the high-priesthood from the descendants ofEli to Zadok, the descendant of Eleazar, is all that is predicted, and thatthe prophecy was entirely fulfilled when Abiathar was deposed bySolomon (1 Kings 2:27), - is not in accordance with the words of the text. On the other hand, Theodoret and Augustine both clearly saw that thewords of Jehovah, “I revealed myself to thy father's house in Egypt,” and,“Thy house shall walk before me for ever,” do not apply to Ithamar, butto Aaron. “Which of his fathers,” says Augustine, “was in that Egyptianbondage, form which they were liberated when he was chosen to thepriesthood, excepting Aaron? It is with reference to his posterity,therefore, that it is here affirmed that they would not be priests for ever;and this we see already fulfilled.” The only thing that appears untenable isthe manner in which the fathers combine this historical reference to Eli andSamuel, or Zadok, with the Messianic interpretation, viz., either byreferring 1 Samuel 2:31-34 to Eli and his house, and then regarding the sentencepronounced upon Eli as simply a type of the Messianic fulfilment, or byadmitting the Messianic allusion simply as an allegory.
The true interpretation may be obtained from a correct insight into therelation in which the prophecy itself stands to its fulfilment. Just as, in theperson of Eli and his sons, the threat announces deep degradation and evendestruction to all the priests of the house of Aaron who should walk in thefootsteps of the sons of Eli, and the death of the two sons of Eli in oneday was to be merely a sign that the threatened punishment would becompletely fulfilled upon the ungodly priests; so, on the other hand, thepromise of the raising up of the tried priest, for whom God would build alasting house, also refers to all the priests whom the Lord would raise upas faithful servants of His altar, and only receives its complete and finalfulfilment in Christ, the true and eternal High Priest. But if we endeavourto determine more precisely from the history itself, which of the OldTestament priests are included, we must not exclude either Samuel orZadok, but must certainly affirm that the prophecy was partially fulfilledin both. Samuel, as the prophet of the Lord, was placed at the head of the nationafter the death of Eli; so that he not only stepped into Eli's place as judge,but stood forth as priest before the Lord and the nation, and “had theimportant and sacred duty to perform of going before the anointed, theking, whom Israel was to receive through him; whereas for a long time theAaronic priesthood fell into such contempt, that, during the general declineof the worship of God, it was obliged to go begging for honour andsupport, and became dependent upon the new order of things that wasintroduced by Samuel” (O. v. Gerlach). Moreover, Samuel acquired astrong house in the numerous posterity that was given to him by God. The grandson of Samuel was Heman, “the king's seer in the words ofGod,” who was placed by David over the choir at the house of God, andhad fourteen sons and three daughters (1 Chronicles 6:33; 1 Chronicles 25:4-5). But the very fact that these descendants of Samuel did not follow theirfather in the priesthood, shows very clearly that a lasting house was notbuilt to Samuel as a tried priest through them, and therefore that we haveto seek for the further historical fulfilment of this promise in thepriesthood of Zadok. As the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli,even if it did not find its only fulfilment in the deposition of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:27), was at any rate partially fulfilled in that deposition; so thepromise concerning the tried priest to be raised up received a newfulfilment in the fact that Zadok thereby became the sole high priest, andtransmitted the office to his descendants, though this was neither its lastnor its highest fulfilment. This final fulfilment is hinted at in the vision ofthe new temple, as seen by the prophet Ezekiel, in connection with whichthe sons of Zadok are named as the priests, who, because they had notfallen away with the children of Israel, were to draw near to the Lord, andperform His service in the new organization of the kingdom of God as setforth in that vision (Ezekiel 40:46; Ezekiel 43:19; Ezekiel 44:15; Ezekiel 48:11). This fulfilment iseffected in connection with Christ and His kingdom. Consequently, theanointed of the Lord, before whom the tried priest would walk for ever, isnot Solomon, but rather David, and the Son of David, whose kingdom is aneverlasting kingdom.
Add Comment
Comments