MY CONTEXT
A preacher does not usually give a
sermon from 1 Samuel. This is common in much of evangelicalism, and it is
certainly an experience I share. The Old Testament is generally set aside in
favor of the New Testament, in the same way that one trades in a jalopy for a
modern sports car. However, the most gripping element of this text is the
reference to a “nazarite” in v11; my mind immediately returned to the story of
Samson and the concept of being set apart. Because of this, I feel like I have always
missed the centrality of Hannah who, in some sense, is the one who is set apart
from the beginning and she is the one who sets Samuel apart. Because of the
centrality of Samuel’s mother Hannah to this chapter (and the beginning
narrative as a whole), I feel that the chapter is far more sensitive towards
women than I previously imagined when I first read it.
CO-TEXT
My former film professor would always
stress to use that the first ten minutes of the film were always the most
important. It has to hook the audience in and give sufficient reason to justify
the remainder of the film. I sense that this integrates quite well with 1
Samuel 1. For instance, we sense that Hannah is the underdog, beloved by her
husband, but barren and at the mercy of her husband’s other wife. The themes of
promise and fulfillment are present, as Hannah makes a pledge to God for a son,
and God remembers her and fulfills her promise.
A larger theme is Divine
Remembrance, as God remembered Noah (8:1), Abraham (19:29), Rachel (30:22), and
many other patriarchs and matriarchs. Another potential theme is that Hannah
seems to be consistently misunderstood, by both her husband Elkanah
(v8, “am I not more to you than ten sons?”) and the priest Eli who chastises
her as a drunk (v.14). The trajectory of the narrative pushes us toward Samuel,
but through the witness of his mother. We, of course, sense the parallel with
Samson who was a Narazite (Number 6; Judges 13:5-7), though we are uncertain
about the future of the potential son of Hannah, for Samson’s tale ultimately
ended in violence and death. Will Samuel share in Samson’s fate? However, for
the purpose of this chapter, both Hannah and God are at center stage among many
participants, co-texts, and players.
TEXT AND OBSERVATIONS
1Sam. 1:1 There was a certain man of Ramathaim, a Zuphite from the hill country
of Ephraim, whose name was Elkanah son of Jeroham son of Elihu son of Tohu son
of Zuph, an Ephraimite. 2 He had two
wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah.
Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.
Culturally, Elkanah’s
having two wives does not seem to warrant special attention from an ethical
standpoint. What is interesting, however, is the instruction found in
Deuteronomy 21. Elkanah was apparently not dissatisfied with Hannah not being
able to conceive, for the Torah stated that if he were unsatisfied, he could
release her (though he could not sell her or treat her as a slave, v14). The
lineage is interesting, as Jeroham is a name
mentioned all throughout 1 Chronicles. What is most fascinating is Deuteronomy
21:15-16’s brief instruction to a man with two wives, and how there is no
preference to be shown to the children, even if the man preferred one wife over
the other. Yet in the 1 Samuel narrative, Peninnah’s children are not mentioned
by name. One wonders if this is incidental or not, and has implications for
Samuel perhaps being the preferred child from Elkanah’s
preferred bride. Hannah’s not having children (אֵ֥ין) is the same particle used of Sarai in Gen. 11:30,
suggesting a possible narrative continuity.
1Sam. 1:3 Now this man used to go up year by year from his town to worship and to
sacrifice to the LORD of hosts at Shiloh, where the two sons of Eli, Hophni and
Phinehas, were priests of the LORD.
Why is it that Elkanah
goes alone? Are women not permitted or encouraged to worship and sacrifice to
God at Shiloh? I confess to finding this odd. An interesting note is my Hebrew
interlinear places two Hebrew nouns side by side and translates them as “yearly
yearly.” One wonders if this is intentional, or is Elkanah is representing them
all implicitly.
1Sam. 1:4 On the day when Elkanah sacrificed, he would give portions to his wife
Peninnah and to all her sons and daughters; 5 but to Hannah he gave a double portion, because he loved her, though
the LORD had closed her womb.
It is
fascinating to consider Elkanah’s preference for Hannah in
this section. In an ancient context, it seems that he’s going above and beyond many
husbands. The fact that Deuteronomy 21 and elsewhere had to present rules about
how husbands may or may not treat their wives indicates that mistreatment
abounded. Indeed, the mentioning of “sons” here possibly foreshadows
that possible preferential treatment of Samuel would be forthcoming. It seems
that מָנָ֥ה includes a semantic range involving
“distribution” and “choice selection.”
What an interesting final part of a verse. God closed her womb. A
similar scenario is presented in Genesis 29:31 regarding Leah and Rachel. In
some sense this may be intended to provoke a response from Hannah (which will
happen later), but it could also be a reference to a tragic state of affairs
involving Hannah’s age (as the reference to “year by year” in v.3 may indicate
some significant passage of time). Either way, God has a hand in this and it is
certainly ambiguous.
1Sam. 1:6 Her rival used to provoke her severely, to irritate her, because the
LORD had closed her womb. 7 So it
went on year by year; as often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she
used to provoke her. Therefore Hannah wept and would not eat. 8 Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Hannah,
why do you weep? Why do you not eat? Why is your heart sad? Am I not more to
you than ten sons?”
A repeated reference to God’s
activity on Hannah’s body, but we now have external pressure placed upon
Hannah, and this adds up “year” upon “year” (c.f. v.3). I imagine this was an awkward
and troubling dinner setting for Hannah, especially as the years have passed by
with her rival wife provoking her. It is somewhat humorous in a dark way, as
Elkanah seems to attempt to understand Hannah, but completely misses the issue.
In some ways, he answers his own question with “why are you sad” when he ends
with the comment about “ten sons.” I wonder if Hannah felt incredibly burdened
due to the cultural expectation placed on wives to bear children, and that she
was somehow a failure as a wife by not being also a mother. Elkanah is
certainly not lacking in empathy, and this makes him a nuanced and compelling
supporting character.
1Sam. 1:9 After they had eaten and drunk at Shiloh, Hannah rose and presented
herself before the LORD. Now Eli the priest was sitting on the seat beside the
doorpost of the temple of the LORD. 10 She was deeply distressed and prayed to
the LORD, and wept bitterly. 11 She made this vow: “O LORD of hosts, if only
you will look on the misery of your servant, and remember me, and not forget
your servant, but will give to your servant a male child, then I will set him
before you as a nazirite until the day of his death. He shall drink neither
wine nor intoxicants, and no razor shall touch his head.”
Aside from the uncomfortable
dinner, Hannah’s distress seems to climax here as she prays. She acts of her
own volition to promise her son, seemingly against a cultural expectation that
the (potential) father would have control over this matter. Given Elkanah’s
previous tenderness towards her, one can assume that she did so of her own
freedom and knowing he would not challenge a pledge to God. Her prayer is
especially powerful: “do not forget your servant.” This is deeply haunting,
especially in light of the tale of the oppressed in all lands who are not
remembered. Will God remember her, is the essential question. Psalm 10:12 seems
to sum this up nicely with “Rise up, O Lord; O God, lift up your hand; do not forget [my emphasis] the oppressed.” תִשְׁכַּ֣ח seems to sometimes be used in the context of imploring
God not to forget the one in distress (Ps. 44:24; 74:19; Proverbs 4:5) and its
an apt verb for Hannah to use here.
As it happened in Judges where
Israel went astray into violence and depravity, the reader here may be curious
about how this new nazirite will behave under God’s command. She assumes
sovereignty over Samuel’s destiny, declaring for him to be a nazirite and the
ethical restrictions on the life of a nazarite are similar to the one’s
prescribed in Numbers 6 and the reference is clearly parallel to Samson’s hair
in Judges 13:5, “for no razor shall touch his head.”
1Sam. 1:12 As she continued praying before the LORD, Eli observed her mouth. 13 Hannah was praying silently; only her lips
moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore Eli thought she was drunk. 14 So Eli said to her, “How long will you make
a drunken spectacle of yourself? Put away your wine.” 15 But Hannah answered, “No, my lord, I am a
woman deeply troubled; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have
been pouring out my soul before the LORD. 16 Do not regard your servant as a worthless woman, for I have been
speaking out of my great anxiety and vexation all this time.”
Eli is surprisingly harsh for a
priest. For it says that Hannah was not making any noise. In some sense, one
wonders to what extent Eli is comparable to a jaded pastor who thinks they have
seen it all already. Perhaps it is a sexist attitude, a presumption that Eli
offers in bitterness. If this is not the first time Hannah has arrived to the
house of the Lord, is there a chance she has come in drunk before, and Eli is
referring to the past where she did so? Or does grief simply overwhelm her and
it is a visible equivalent to being intoxicated? Given also that she is known
as someone who cannot bear children (presumably), his condescension reveals a
deeply embedded cultural prejudice towards the role and worth of a woman. Hannah’s
response, however, is gracious and straightforward. She may placate him with
self-depreciation (c.f. the “worthless woman” comment) and makes it about her
deep personal grief, hoping to strike a chord with Eli.
1Sam. 1:17 Then Eli answered, “Go in peace; the God of Israel grant the petition
you have made to him.” 18 And she
said, “Let your servant find favor in your sight.” Then the woman went to her
quarters, ate and drank with her husband, and her countenance was sad no
longer. 19 They rose early in the
morning and worshiped before the LORD; then they went back to their house at
Ramah. Elkanah knew his wife Hannah, and the LORD remembered her.
Eli seems to relent from some of his
condescension, and blesses her. Hannah returns to the table to eat and
fellowship with Peninnah and Elkanah. The significance of a return to
fellowship and a meal cannot be underestimated. Throughout the Old Testament it
seems that to eat and drink with another person is to be in communion with them
(Ex. 24:11), or in some cases be seen in excess (Judges 19). That Hannah
returns to fellowship with her husband seems to indicate that she is relieved
and at peace. The emphasis on they both going together in the morning to
worship suggests a repair in the relationship, whereas Elkanah is the only one
mentioned at the beginning to who goes and worships (c.f. v.2-3). Maybe this
was the first time Hannah knew that God has heard, and to be heard is to be affirmed
in a truly human sense: to be known by God is a wonderful Old Testament theme (Psalm
44:21).
The reference to “knew his wife” is
a fairly word (וַיֵּ֤דַע) found throughout the Old
Testament referring to sexual intercourse (Adam and Eve in Gen. 4:25), though
it is not limited to sexual intercourse in some circumstances. In other instances
the word seems to refer to mental knowledge (2 Chron. 33:13); the implied writer
of this story seems to use the word in a fuller sense. Elkanah knew and knew his wife.
1Sam. 1:20 In due time Hannah conceived and bore a son. She named him Samuel, for
she said, “I have asked him of the LORD.”
I’ve heard that Samuel does not
precisely mean, “I have asked him of the LORD.” Instead, a friend who knows
Hebrew said it is something like “heard of [or from] God.” This makes good
sense, as it seems to place the activity of God’s hearing (or remembering) to
the forefront as the one who “heard” and “acted.” This all happened in due
time, which may intimate that Hannah becoming with child was the point all
along. I’m reminded of St. Paul’s doxological proclamation in Romans 11:33: “O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable
are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” What is most powerful is that
this episode occurs after Hannah and Elkanah (if they were ever at odds) seem
to have reconciled fully with one another. The birth of Samuel is thus a consequence
of a restored marriage, with implications possibly towards a restored Israel,
though this remains to be seen.
1Sam. 1:21 The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to the LORD the
yearly sacrifice, and to pay his vow. 22
But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is
weaned, I will bring him, that he may appear in the presence of the LORD, and
remain there forever; I will offer him as a nazirite for all time.” 23 Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Do what
seems best to you, wait until you have weaned him; only—may the LORD establish
his word.” So the woman remained and nursed her son, until she weaned him.
This time, perhaps because of the
previously restored relationship, Elkanah’s entire household comes with him,
unless we were meant to believe that Elkanah was representing his entire
household as a type of figurehead. It is interesting that Hannah has the
freedom to refuse to go up to the house of the Lord, telling her husband
(presumably for the first time) that she has made a vow, which Elkanah takes
with the utmost seriousness as vows are highly esteemed in Israel. Numbers 30:2-3
mentions both men and women making vows, so Hannah is certainly with Torah to make
an independent vow to God provided Elkanah does not disagree. He does not, a seemingly
more sensitive man. This is, after all, his son too.
The question lingers, however,
about why Hannah did not immediately take Samuel to Eli. Perhaps she wanted to
be more involved in his upbringing, and I cannot fathom the pain of giving up
your only child. Maybe she is staving off the inevitable, but I suspect it is
because she knows she has freedom to take her own initiative.
1Sam. 1:24 When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a
three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine. She brought him to
the house of the LORD at Shiloh; and the child was young. 25 Then they slaughtered the bull, and they
brought the child to Eli. 26 And she
said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here
in your presence, praying to the LORD. 27 For this child I prayed; and the LORD has granted me the petition that
I made to him. 28 Therefore I have
lent him to the LORD; as long as he lives, he is given to the LORD.”
She left him there for the LORD.
For me, the most interesting part
of this text is the paragraph break in the NRSV. The emphasis is surely upon
the final sentence, as Hannah’s final word to Samuel is “he is given to the
LORD.” In cinematic terms, it is the final lingering shot that the camera holds,
watching Hannah turn and leave Samuel there. It is powerful that Hannah is grateful
to God for Samuel and says that she has “lent” (הִשְׁאִלְתִּ֙הוּ֙)
him to God. It looks like this is the only time that specific word appears in
the Old Testament, so this usage is especially significant to the implied writer’s
narrative. Does Hannah harbor some optimism for Samuel to be returned to her
someday, hope against all hope? According to the rest of the Samuel character
arc, this does not happen. The story suggests otherwise, and one suspects that
Hannah, based on her interaction with God and the fulfillment of his promise,
that there may yet be mercy. It does not make her story a tragedy, but reveals
the humanness of finite human beings. In the end, we hope for Hannah and Samuel’s
reunion—this side or the next.
FINAL INTERPRETATION
The author is intent on setting up a grand story, but takes
an entire chapter to establish the bleakness of the human condition as seen
through the eyes of a barren wife. This prologue forces us to consider Samuel’s
unique upbringing and his future through the lens of a broken society that has
yet to be fully healed, and the importance of this is to establish, ultimately,
the working of God in human history. The original audience likely saw Samuel as
a mighty man, a man conceived from a strong woman through the power and promise
of God, with the intent to restore Israel. The beginning of Samuel is filled
with pain and loss, but also fulfillment and hope. God in his mercy has not
forgotten us and God in his love did not forget them.
No comments:
Post a Comment