Observing 1Sam 4–6—YHWH in exile

1 Samuel 4:10-11 So the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent; and the slaughter was very great, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers. And the ark of God was taken . . .

In his commentary on 1-2 Samuel, Peter Leithart makes an interesting observation concerning the capture of the ark and its transport to Philistine country:

According to Deuteronomy 28:64ff, the climactic curse of the covenant was the curse of exile. If Israel persisted in idolatry and sin after the Lord brought all the other curses upon her, He would eventually cast her from the land. This was the curse looming in the background in the days of Eli, but this is not what happened. Instead of Israel going into exile, the ark did. Yahweh went into exile, taking on the curse of the covenant for His people and while in exile He fought for them and defeated the gods of Philistia. Israel suffered humiliating defeat at [the] hands of Philistines, but Yahweh shared in their humiliation, and by taking the most intense weight of that humiliation upon Himself, triumphed over the principalities and powers and rulers of the age. [A Son to Me, 56]

Leithart, of course, would have us recognize that this demonstration of solidarity and substitution in the time of Samuel was a foreshadowing the greater triumph that would come when God, this time in the form of a man, was once again handed over to the enemy.

Luke 18:32 For He will be handed over to the Gentiles, and will be mocked and mistreated and spit upon

Acts 2:23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put Him to death.

Galatians 3:13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us– for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE ”

Colossians 2:13-15
When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him, having forgiven us all our transgressions, having canceled out the certificate of debt consisting of decrees against us, which was hostile to us; and He has taken it out of the way, having nailed it to the cross. When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.

Hebrews 2:14-15
Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, He Himself likewise also partook of the same, that through death He might render powerless him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might free those who through fear of death were subject to slavery all their lives.

But the glory of the victory stands against the bleak backdrop of God’s people who bear a discomforting resemblance to the Philistines. Both the Philistines and the Israelites are said to be “struck” down by the Lord when the ark comes to town (5:6, 9, 12 cf 6:19), and both groups remove God from their midst rather than repent before Him. Credit the Israelites for having the sophistication to dress their response in the religious lingo of the day, but ultimately there isn’t much difference between God’s people and their pagan neighbors. Some days it seems that not much has changed.

 

Observing 1Sam 3—Seeing with the ears

1 Samuel 3:1, 21 Now the boy Samuel was ministering to the LORD before Eli. And word from the LORD was rare in those days, visions were infrequent. . . . And the LORD appeared again at Shiloh, because the LORD revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the LORD.

The word of the Lord forms an inclusio for 1Samuel 3, providing us with a framework in which to read the account of Samuel’s call. The story is replete with the kind of vocabulary we would expect in a passage given to the word of the Lord: calling, speaking, listening, tingling ears, etc.

But there are three instances where terms associated with sight appear:

“And word from the Lord was rare in those days, visions [Heb, chazon] were infrequent.” (3:1)

“But Samuel was afraid to tell the vision [Heb, marah] to Eli.” (3:15)

“And the Lord appeared [Heb, raah] again at Shiloh because the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord.” (3:21)

This strikes me as curious since the text never says that Samuel “saw the Lord” nor does it provide a description of a vision as we might expect. It’s entirely possible that Samuel did, in fact, see something that night but the framing statements (vv 1, 21) seem to point in a different direction.

The last sentence in 3:1, has an almost poetic quality to it that borders on synonymous parallelism:

word of the Lord was rare
visions were infrequent

In fact, the Hebrew chazon (vision) is frequently used to signify a revelation without any indication of something seen, particularly in prophetic contexts (see Isa 1:1; Obadiah 1:1; Nahum 1:1; Hab 2:2-3). After surveying the background and use of the chazon root, the Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament concludes:

Its primary meaning is a form of revelation . . . consisting in nocturnal perception of a divine voice during a deep sleep. . . . The verb was also used in the sense of perceiving God and his works, undoubtedly from the realization that in the prophetic experience the word refers to a kind of perception, i.e., hearing God. . . . Only rarely is seeing with the eyes meant. [TDOT 4:290]

So if we have good reason to understand vision along the lines of perception rather than literal sight, what are we to make of 3:21 which states that “the Lord appeared again at Shiloh?” The answer here is a little more obvious on closer reading. The Lord is said to have appeared because he revealed himself by the word of the Lord. God is where his word is.

None of this is to deny the biblical accounts of dreams and visions, but it’s a great reminder that the word of the Lord is no mere consolation prize and that anyone who would see the Lord must see him through his Word. And if God is to be seen by his word, what visions must now be available to us (Psa 119:18; Jn 1:14, 18; 2Cor 4:6; 2Pet 1:19)?

 

 

Observing 1 Sam 2:12-36—Worthless sons

1 Samuel 2:25 But [Hophni and Phineas] would not listen to the voice of their father [Eli], for the LORD desired to put them to death.

The warning falls on deaf ears because the Lord intended to judge the offenders. A good reminder that rejection isn’t always a sign of a defective message and/or messenger (Jn 12:37-40; 2Cor 4:3-4).

1 Samuel 2:29-30 ‘Why do you kick at My sacrifice and at My offering which I have commanded in My dwelling, and honor your sons above Me, by making yourselves fat with the choicest of every offering of My people Israel?’ “Therefore the LORD God of Israel declares, ‘I did indeed say that your house and the house of your father should walk before Me forever’; but now the LORD declares, ‘Far be it from Me– for those who honor Me I will honor, and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed.

The interaction between Eli and his sons is hard to assess: (i) did Eli only rebuke his sons for their sexual immorality (1Sam 2:22-25) but ignore their abuse of the sacrifices (1Sam 2:12-17)? (ii) Was the apparent rebuke in 2:23-25 not an actual rebuke (3:13)? Eli doesn’t condone his sons behavior but he’s held responsible for it. I take it that Eli’s guilt was due to his unwillingness to take action against his sons. I wonder how much of our “speaking against” sin will be judged meaningless because we fail to follow through with action or, conversely, how much of our love and acceptance will turn out to be a cover for despising the Lord. On this point I’m only thinking of how the church disciplines its own (1Cor 5:12-13).

1 Samuel 2:35 ‘But I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in My heart and in My soul; and I will build him an enduring house, and he will walk before My anointed always.

The language about the Lord building an enduring house for his priest is mirrored in 2 Samuel when the Lord says he will build an enduring house for his king (see 2Sam 7:16, 26-27). Negatively, Eli’s house finds a counterpart in Saul’s house as both men see their respective offices taken from them and their descendants. But where sin abounds grace abounds all the more. God will not purge the priesthood and the throne only to leave it vacant. God’s people need more than just a good priest and king; they need those righteous office holders to be permanent and enduring. But where an endless succession of priests and kings exists, God’s people can have no garauntee of unending righteousness. This realization is one of the reasons we can confidently say that all of God’s good promises become better promises when the fulfillment is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. The Son has been appointed to the office of priest and king and becomes the righteous minister and ruler they need. More than that, because he cannot die, this new Priest-King needs no successor so that God’s people no longer fear the loss of what they now enjoy (see Psa 110 and Heb 5:5-6).

Observing 1Sam 2:1-10 — Hannah’s song

When poetry is embedded in narrative literature we ought to consider two things: (1) what the poem means on its own terms in conjunction with the present setting of the story (2) what, if any, significance the poem carries for the broader storyline.

First, Hannah’s song signifies her turn from sorrow to joy as barrenness gives way to birth. More than that, it ties theology to life as we consider how the outcome of Hannah’s circumstances reveal God’s work and his ways.

The Lord makes poor and rich / He brings low, He also exalts. (2:7)

The song’s theme is God’s reversing of human fortune. Weak are made strong, hungry are fed, and the godly are preserved while the wicked are shattered, the full beg for bread, and the mighty are rendered impotent.  In fact, this sovereign upending of the “natural” order is an outworking of God’s holiness (i.e. no one is like Him in this respect; 2:2). Hannah has come to see firsthand that the Lord favors His godly ones who are characteristically despised by the world (1:6-7). And as the Lord will later say through Isaiah, “I act and who can reverse it?”

My horn is exalted in the Lord (2:1) . . . [He] will exalt the horn of His anointed (2:10)

The poem is framed by the repetition of the Lord exalting a *horn (a structural feature known as an inclusio). The movement within this framework starts with a specific act (vv1-3) to a generalizing pattern (vv4-7) back to a specific act (vv8-10). It’s as if Hannah is saying:

{Specific} “Look at what the Lord has done for me.
{General} But isn’t this just like the Lord? He’s always doing this kind of work.
{Specific}And I trust that he’ll do this for His king, too.”

Similar examples of this pattern can be found in other poetic passages (see Psa 34) and it’s worth considering how these examples might shape the content of our worship, particularly in prayer.

Second, Hannah’s song encompasses more than the first two chapters as it establishes a recurring theme/pattern in 1Samuel. With an increasing degree of drama, we move from one rivalry to another: Peninah–Hannah / Eli & Sons–Samuel / Saul–David. In each case, the “established” character is supplanted by a character of lesser status by a sovereign work of the Lord. Even the great king, David himself, is a virtual nobody until the Lord raises him up to sit on the throne.

 


*The literal image of the horn is of an animal horn. Generally speaking, an animal’s horn signified its strength and so became a metaphor for power or status in a social context. (Dictionary of Biblical Imagery, 400)

Observing 1Samuel 1 — Artistic silence

Our church has begun a study of 1Samuel on Sunday mornings. This is, I hope, the first of many posts to flow from the study.

1 Samuel 1:7-8 It happened year after year, as often as she went up to the house of the LORD, she would provoke her; so she wept and would not eat. 8 Then Elkanah her husband said to her, “Hannah, why do you weep and why do you not eat and why is your heart sad? Am I not better to you than ten sons?”

This brief snapshot almost feels like the script to a sitcom. Here we have the well-meaning husband and his (seemingly) tone deaf encouragement for his wife who’s been traversing the wilderness of infertility. We wince at Elkanah’s words and brace ourselves for Hannah’s response–will it be an outburst of bitter sarcasm or a heart-rending expression of grief? We get neither. Hannah remains silent. Three verses and a new scene later Hannah finally speaks–not to her her husband but to the Lord. The “delayed” speech leaves us not just sympathetic but stunned by the godliness of a woman who holds her tongue in the face of persecution and platitudes, choosing instead to entrust herself to the Lord (1Pet 2:23). Her model response is even more striking when compared to the speech of Israel’s matriarchs as they walked through barrenness (Gen 16:1-6; Gen 30:1ff).

1 Samuel 1:12-14 Now it came about, as she continued praying before the LORD, that Eli was watching her mouth. 13 As for Hannah, she was speaking in her heart, only her lips were moving, but her voice was not heard. So Eli thought she was drunk. 14 Then Eli said to her, “How long will you make yourself drunk? Put away your wine from you.” 15 But Hannah replied, “No, my lord, I am a woman oppressed in spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I have poured out my soul before the LORD. 16 “Do not consider your maidservant as a worthless woman, for I have spoken until now out of my great concern and provocation.”

The circumstances surrounding Eli’s encounter with Hannah is a great example of atistic ambiguity. Eli assumes that Hannah is drunk but why? Maybe Hannah’s comportment was exceptionally strange. Maybe this wasn’t the first time that an intoxicated worshipper had stumbled onto the tabernacle grounds. Perhaps we get some sort of clue in Hannah’s reply and its connection with a later passage. Hannah pleads with Eli not to consider her a worthless woman which is the word used to describe Eli’s sons in 2:12 (i.e. “the sons of Eli were worthless men”). If the spiritual leaders are worthless it’s no wonder that Eli would assume the worst from anyone who looked a little “off.”