Charles Ellicott Commentary 1 Samuel 1

Now there was a certain man. —Literally, And there was, etc. These introductory words do not signify that this history is the continuation of the Book of Judges or of any preceding writing. It is a common historical introductory formula. We find it at the beginning of Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 Kings, Esther, Ezra, Ezekiel, etc. The circumstances under which this record was probably compiled are discussed elsewhere.

Of Ramathaim-zophim. —The name Ramathaim—literally, The Two Ramahs—is the dual form of the well-known Ramah, the name by which this city is usually known. The old city was, no doubt, built on two hills that faced each other; from this, perhaps, comes the name Zophim, the watchers. Possibly, at an early date, watchtowers or outlooks were built on the summits of these hills to enable the citizens to guard against surprise. Either of these suppositions would account for the suggestive name by which Ramah was once known, the “Ramahs of the Watchers.”

Others would connect the term “Zophim” with the family of Zuph, from whom Elkanah descended (see 1 Chronicles 6:35 and 1 Samuel 9:5, where the land of Zuph is mentioned). An interesting, though fanciful, derivation refers Zophim, watchers, to the “prophet-watchmen” of the house of Israel, since Ramah in later years was a school of the prophets.

On the whole, the simplest and least strained explanation is the one given above, which refers the name to the hills so placed that they overlooked each other or, better still, to the watchtowers built at an early date on the two summits.

His name was Elkanah. —Elkanah, the father of the future prophet-judge, was a Levite of the family of Kohath (Compare the genealogy given here with 1 Chronicles 6:22). He is here termed an Ephrathite, that is, an Ephraimite, because, as far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim.

Some have found a difficulty in reconciling Samuel’s Levitical descent with his dedication to the Lord by his mother, supposing that in the case of a Levite this would be unnecessary. However, it should be remembered that Samuel’s dedication was a lifelong one, whereas the Levitical service only began when a Levite was twenty-five years old, and even then, the service was not continuous.

And he had two wives. —The primeval Divine ordination, we know, gave its sanction alone to monogamy. The first who seems to have violated God’s original ordinance appears to have been Lamech, of the family of Cain (Genesis 4:19). The practice apparently had become general throughout the East when the Mosaic Law was formulated. In this Divine code it is noticeable that while polygamy is accepted as a custom everywhere prevailing, it is never approved.

The laws of Moses—as in the case of another universally accepted practice, slavery—simply seek to restrict and limit it by wise and humane regulations. The inspired writer in this narrative of the home life of Elkanah of “Ramah of the Watchers” quietly reveals the curse which almost invariably accompanied this miserable violation of the relations of the home life, to which in the old Eden days the eternal law had given its sanction and blessing. The Old Testament Book contains many of these gently-worded but fire-tipped rebukes of sin and frailty—sins condoned and even approved by the voice of mankind.

Peninnah. —Hannah signifies grace or favour, and has ever been a favourite name among the women of the East. It was the name of the Punic Queen Dido’s sister, Anna. The traditional mother of the Virgin Mary was named Anna . Peninnah is translated by some scholars “coral;” according to others it signifies “pearl.” We have adopted the same name under the modern “Margaret.”

Went up out of his city yearly.—The Hebrew expression rendered "yearly" is found in Exodus 13:10, and there refers to the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Passover. There is little doubt that this great national festival is referred to here. It was the Passover that the whole family was accustomed to keep at the sanctuary of the Eternal.

The writer places in strong contrast the piety and devotion which evidently still existed in the family life of many in Israel with the fearful disorders and crime which disfigured the priestly life in those days. There were, no doubt, many in Israel who, like Elkanah and his house, honoured the name of the Lord, while the recognised rulers and religious guides of the people, like the sons of Eli the high priest, too often lived in open and notorious sin.

Unto the Lord of hosts.—This is the first time in the Old Testament that we find the well-known title of the Eternal, “Jehovah Sabaoth,” Lord of hosts.

It is calculated that this title of God occurs 260 times in the Old Testament, but it is not found in any of the books written or compiled before this time. In the New Testament it is used only once .

This glorious title, with which Isaiah (who uses it some sixty times) and Jeremiah (some eighty times) have especially made us familiar, represented Jehovah, the Eternal One, as ruler over the heavenly hosts—that is, over the angels and the stars. The stars were conceived to be the dwelling places of these immortal beings.

The idea of their invisible God-Friend being the sovereign Master of a host of those innumerable glorious beings usually known as angels, or messengers, was not unfamiliar to Hebrew thought. For instance, already in the story of Jacob we find the patriarch calling the angels who appeared to him the camp of God (Genesis 32:1–2).

In the blessing of Moses, in the magnificent description of the giving of the law on Sinai (Deuteronomy 33:2), we read of ten thousands of saints (Kodesh). The glorious Angel who allowed Joshua to worship him under the towers of Jericho (Joshua 5:14) speaks of himself as captain or prince of the host of the Lord.

It is especially noteworthy that this stately title of the real King in Israel, which afterwards became so general, first appears here in the Books of Samuel, which tell of the establishment of an earthly sovereignty over the tribes. It was the solemn protest of Samuel and his school against any overshadowing of the mighty but invisible sovereignty of the Eternal by the passing splendours and the outward pomp of an earthly monarchy set up over the people.

It also told foreign peoples that the God who loved Israel was also the star ruler, the Lord of the whole universe, visible and invisible.

In Shiloh.—That is, rest. This sacred city was situated in Ephraim. It became the sanctuary of Israel in the time of Joshua, who set up the tent of the Tabernacle there.

Shiloh, as the permanent seat of the Ark and the Tabernacle, was the religious centre of Israel during the entire period of the judges. On rare occasions the sacred tent, and all or part of the holy furniture, seems to have been temporarily moved to such places as Mizpah and Bethel, but its regular home was Shiloh. At the time of the birth of Samuel, and during his younger days, the high priest resided there, and the religious families of the people were in the habit of making an annual pilgrimage to this, the central sanctuary of the worship of Jehovah.

The priests of the Lord.—The mention of these two priests of the Lord by no means suggests that the ritual of the Tabernacle had become so meagre and deficient as to require the services of only two or three ministers; indeed, the contrary is indicated by the description of just one portion of the ceremonies given in the next chapter. These two, Hophni and Phinehas, are referred to here specially by name for several reasons:

1. On account of their rank and connection with the high priest Eli, to whose high dignity one of the brothers would probably succeed.
2. Because these unfortunate men were involved in one of the great historical disasters of the people.
3. The writer, out of many servants of the sanctuary, chose these two prominent figures to illustrate the terrible state of corruption into which the priesthood had fallen.

Bishop Wordsworth here draws a curious but suggestive lesson: “Although Hophni and Phinehas were among the priests, yet Elkanah and Hannah did not separate themselves from the service of the sanctuary when they ministered—a lesson against schism.”

A worthy portion. —Literally, one portion for two persons: i.e., a double portion. It was an expression of his deep love for her. As Von Gerlach puts it, “You are as dear to me as if you had borne me a child.” Some scholars would translate the difficult Hebrew expression here as, “But to Hannah he gave a portion of anger or sadness,” thus intensifying the natural sorrow of Hannah by representing her husband as unkind. The Vulgate, Luther, and Abarbanel favour this singular interpretation; but the one adopted by the English Version, and explained above, is in all respects grammatically and exegetically to be preferred.

And her adversary also provoked her sore. —Jealousy, grief, anger, malice, the many bitter fruits of this way of living, so different to God’s original appointment, here show themselves. The one sin of polygamy poisons the whole home life of the family, in all other respects apparently a quiet, Godfearing, orderly household.