1 Sm 1:1-8

Samuel's pedigree. - 1Sa_1:1. His father was a man of Ramathaim-Zophim, on the

mountains of Ephraim, and named Elkanah. Ramathaim-Zophim, which is only
mentioned here, is the same place, according to 1Sa_1:3 (comp. with 1Sa_1:19 and
1Sa_2:11), which is afterwards called briefly ha-Ramah, i.e., the height. For since
Elkanah of Ramathaim-Zophim went year by year out of his city to Shiloh, to worship
and sacrifice there, and after he had done this, returned to his house to Ramah
(1Sa_1:19; 1Sa_2:11), there can be no doubt that he was not only a native of
Ramathaim-Zophim, but still had his home there; so that Ramah, where his house was
situated, is only an abbreviated name for Ramathaim-Zophim.
(Note: The argument lately adduced by Valentiner in favour of the difference
between these two names, viz., that “examples are not wanting of a person being
described according to his original descent, although his dwelling-place had been
already changed,” and the instance which he cites, viz., Jdg_19:16, show that he has
overlooked the fact, that in the very passage which he quotes the temporary
dwelling-place is actually mentioned along with the native town. In the case before
us, on the contrary Ramathaim-Zophim is designated, by the use of the expression
“from his city,” in 1Sa_1:3, as the place where Elkanah lived, and where “his house”
(1Sa_1:19) was still standing.)
This Ramah (which is invariably written with the article, ha-Ramah), where Samuel
was not only born (1Sa_1:19.), but lived, laboured, died (1Sa_7:17; 1Sa_15:34;
1Sa_16:13; 1Sa_19:18-19, 1Sa_19:22-23), and was buried (1Sa_25:1; 1Sa_28:3), is not a
different place, as has been frequently assumed,
(Note: For the different views which have been held upon this point, see the
article “Ramah,” by Pressel, in Herzog's Cyclopaedia.)
from the Ramah in Benjamin (Jos_18:25), and is not to be sought for in Ramleh near
Joppa (v. Schubert, etc.), nor in Soba on the north-west of Jerusalem (Robinson, Pal. ii.
p. 329), nor three-quarters of an hour to the north of Hebron (Wolcott, v. de Velde),
nor anywhere else in the tribe of Ephraim, but is identical with Ramah of Benjamin,
and was situated upon the site of the present village of er-Râm, two hours to the north-
west of Jerusalem, upon a conical mountain to the east of the Nablus road (see at
Jos_18:25). This supposition is neither at variance with the account in 1 Samuel 9-10
(see the commentary upon these chapters), nor with the statement that Ramathaim-
Zophim was upon the mountains of Ephraim, since the mountains of Ephraim
extended into the tribe-territory of Benjamin, as is indisputably evident from Jdg_4:5,
where Deborah the prophetess is said to have dwelt between Ramah and Bethel in the
mountains of Ephraim. The name Ramathaim-Zophim, i.e., “the two heights (of the)
Zophites” appear to have been given to the town to distinguish it from other Ramah's,
and to have been derived from the Levitical family of Zuph or Zophai (see 1Ch_6:26,
1Ch_6:35), which emigrated thither from the tribe of Ephraim, and from which
Elkanah was descended. The full name, therefore, is given here, in the account of the
descent of Samuel's father; whereas in the further history of Samuel, where there was
no longer the same reason for giving it, the simple name Ramah is invariably used.
(Note: The fuller and more exact name, however, appears to have been still
retained, and the use of it to have been revived after the captivity, in the Ῥαμαθέμ
of 1 Macc. 11:34, for which the Codd. have Ῥαθαμειΐ́ν and Ῥαμαθαιΐ́μ, and Josephus
Ῥαμαθα, and in the Arimathaea of the gospel history (Mat_27:57). “For the
opinion that this Ramathaim is a different place from the city of Samuel, and is to
be sought for in the neighbourhood of Lydda, which Robinson advocates (Pal. iii. p.
41ff.), is a hasty conclusion, drawn from the association of Ramathaim with Lydda
in 1 Macc. 11:34, - the very same conclusion which led the author of the
Onomasticon to transfer the city of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Lydda”
(Grimm on 1 Macc. 11:34).
The connection between Zophim and Zuph is confirmed by the fact that Elkanah's
ancestor, Zuph, is called Zophai in 1Ch_6:26, and Zuph or Ziph in 1Ch_6:35. Zophim
therefore signifies the descendants of Zuph or Zophai, from which the name “land of
Zuph,” in 1Sa_9:5, was also derived (see the commentary on this passage). The tracing
back of Elkanah's family through four generations to Zuph agrees with the family
registers in 1 Chron 6, where the ancestors of Elkanah are mentioned twice, - first of all
in the genealogy of the Kohathites (1Ch_6:26), and then in that of Heman, the leader of
the singers, a grandson of Samuel (1Ch_6:33), - except that the name Elihu, Tohu, and
Zuph, are given as Eliab, Nahath, and Zophai in the first instance, and Eliel, Toah, and
Ziph (according to the Chethibh) in the second, - various readings, such as often occur
in the different genealogies, and are to be explained partly from the use of different
forms for the same name, and partly from their synonymous meanings. Tohu and Toah,
which occur in Arabic, with the meaning to press or sink in, are related in meaning to
nachath or nuach, to sink or settle down.
From these genealogies in the Chronicles, we learn that Samuel was descended from
Kohath, the son of Levi, and therefore was a Levite. It is no valid objection to the
correctness of this view, that his Levitical descent is never mentioned, or that Elkanah
is called an Ephrathite. The former of these can very easily be explained from the fact,
that Samuel's work as a reformer, which is described in this book, did not rest upon his
Levitical descent, but simply upon the call which he had received from God, as the
prophetic office was not confined to any particular class, like that of priest, but was
founded exclusively upon the divine calling and endowment with the Spirit of God. And
the difficulty which Nägelsbach expresses in Herzog's Cycl., viz., that “as it was stated
of those two Levites (Jdg_17:7; Jdg_19:1), that they lived in Bethlehem and Ephraim,
but only after they had been expressly described as Levites, we should have expected to
find the same in the case of Samuel's father,” is removed by the simple fact, that in the
case of both those Levites it was of great importance, so far as the accounts which are
given of them are concerned, that their Levitical standing should be distinctly
mentioned, as is clearly shown by Jdg_17:10, Jdg_17:13, and Jdg_19:18; whereas in the
case of Samuel, as we have already observed, his Levitical descent had no bearing upon
the call which he received from the Lord. The word Ephrathite does not belong, so far
as the grammatical construction is concerned, either to Zuph or Elkanah, but to “a
certain man,” the subject of the principal clause, and signifies an Ephraimite, as in
Jdg_12:5 and 1Ki_11:26, and not an inhabitant of Ephratah, i.e., a Bethlehemite, as in
1Sa_17:12 and Rth_1:2; for in both these passages the word is more precisely defined
by the addition of the expression “of Bethlehem-Judah,” whereas in this verse the
explanation is to be found in the expression “of Mount Ephraim.” Elkanah the Levite is
called an Ephraimite, because, so far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged
to the tribe of Ephraim, just as the Levite in Jdg_17:7 is described as belonging to the
family of Judah. The Levites were reckoned as belonging to those tribes in the midst of
which they lived, so that there were Judaean Levites, Ephraimitish Levites, and so on
(see Hengstenberg, Diss. vol. ii. p. 50). It by no means follows, however, from the
application of this term to Elkanah, that Ramathaim-Zophim formed part of the tribe-
territory of Ephraim, but simply that Elkanah's family was incorporated in this tribe,
and did not remove till afterwards to Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin. On the division
of the land, dwelling-places were allotted to the Levites of the family of Kohath, in the
tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh (Jos_21:5, Jos_21:21.). Still less is there
anything at variance with the Levitical descent of Samuel, as Thenius maintains, in the
fact that he was dedicated to the Lord by his mother's vow, for he was not dedicated to
the service of Jehovah generally through this view, but was set apart to a lifelong
service at the house of God as a Nazarite (1Sa_1:11, 1Sa_1:22); whereas other Levites
were not required to serve till their twenty-fifth year, and even then had not to perform
an uninterrupted service at the sanctuary. On the other hand, the Levitical descent of
Samuel receives a very strong confirmation from his father's name. All the Elkanahs
that we meet with in the Old Testament, with the exception of the one mentioned in
2Ch_28:7, whose genealogy is unknown, can be proved to have been Levites; and most
of them belong to the family of Korah, from which Samuel was also descended (see
Simonis, Onomast. p. 493). This is no doubt connected in some way with the meaning
of the name Elkanah, the man whom God has bought or acquired; since such a name
was peculiarly suitable to the Levites, whom the Lord had set apart for service at the
sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of Israel, whom He had sanctified to himself
when He smote the first-born of Egypt (Num_3:13., Num_3:44.; see Hengstenberg, ut
sup.).
1Sa_1:2-3
Elkanah had two wives, Hannah (grace or gracefulness) and Peninnah (coral), the
latter of whom was blessed with children, whereas the first was childless. He went with
his wives year by year ( ‫מיִם‬ ָ‫מיִ מ י מ‬
ָ‫מהָ מ‬
‫מיִ מ‬
ָ‫יִ מ מ‬, as in Exo_13:10; Jdg_11:40), according to the
instructions of the law (Exo_34:23; Deu_16:16), to the tabernacle at Shiloh (Jos_18:1),
to worship and sacrifice to the Lord of hosts. “Jehovah Zebaoth” is an abbreviation of
“Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth,” or ָ‫הָיִ יִ צַהָאמוֹה‬ ֹ‫אָלֱא ה‬
‫הָצ צַ יב מאָאוֹת א‬
‫ ; ה‬and the connection of Zebaoth with
Jehovah is not to be regarded as the construct state, nor is Zebaoth to be taken as a
genitive dependent upon Jehovah. This is not only confirmed by the occurrence of such
expressions as “Elohim Zebaoth” (Psa_59:6; Psa_80:5, Psa_80:8,Psa_80:15, 20;
Psa_84:9) and “Adonai Zebaoth” (Isa_10:16), but also by the circumstance that
Jehovah, as a proper name, cannot be construed with a genitive. The combination
“Jehovah Zebaoth” is rather to be taken as an ellipsis, where the general term Elohe
(God of), which is implied in the word Jehovah, is to be supplied in thought (see
Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 375, English translation); for frequently as this expression
occurs, especially in the case of the prophets, Zebaoth is never used alone in the Old
Testament as one of the names of God. It is in the Septuagint that the word is first met
with occasionally as a proper name (Σαβαώθ), viz., throughout the whole of the first
book of Samuel, very frequently in Isaiah, and also in Zec_13:2. In other passages, the
word is translated either κύριος, or θεὸς τῶν δυναμεων, or παντοκρατωρ; whilst
the other Greek versions use the more definite phrase κύριος στρατιῶν instead.
This expression, which was not used as a divine name until the age of Samuel, had its
roots in Gen_2:1, although the title itself was unknown in the Mosaic period, and
during the times of the judges. It represented Jehovah as ruler over the heavenly hosts
(i.e., the angels, according to Gen_32:2, and the stars, according to Isa_40:26), who are
called the “armies” of Jehovah in Psa_103:21; Psa_148:2; but we are not to understand
it as implying that the stars were supposed to be inhabited by angels, as Gesenius
(Thes. s. v.) maintains, since there is not the slightest trace of any such notion in the
whole of the Old Testament. It is simply applied to Jehovah as the God of the universe,
who governs all the powers of heaven, both visible and invisible, as He rules in heaven
and on earth. It cannot even be proved that the epithet Lord, or God of Zebaoth, refers
chiefly and generally to the sun, moon, and stars, on account of their being so peculiarly
adapted, through their visible splendour, to keep alive the consciousness of the
omnipotence and glory of God (Hengstenberg on Psa_24:10). For even though the
expression ‫אָם‬ ‫( צ צַב מ מ‬their host), in Gen_2:1, refers to the heavens only, since it is only to
the heavens (vid., Isa_40:26), and never to the earth, that a “host” is ascribed, and in
this particular passage it is probably only the stars that are to be thought of, the
creation of which had already been mentioned in Gen_1:14.; yet we find the idea of an
army of angels introduced in the history of Jacob (Gen_32:2-3), where Jacob calls the
angels of God who appeared to him the “camp of God,” and also in the blessing of
Moses (Deu_33:2), where the “ten thousands of saints” (Kodesh) are not stars, but
angels, or heavenly spirits; whereas the fighting of the stars against Sisera in the song of
Deborah probably refers to a natural phenomenon, by which God had thrown the
enemy into confusion, and smitten them before the Israelites (see at Jdg_5:20). We
must also bear in mind, that whilst on the one hand the tribes of Israel, as they came
out of Egypt, are called Zebaoth Jehovah, “the hosts of Jehovah” (Exo_7:4; Exo_12:41),
on the other hand the angel of the Lord, when appearing in front of Jericho in the form
of a warrior, made himself known to Joshua as “the prince of the army of Jehovah,” i.e.,
of the angelic hosts. And it is in this appearance of the heavenly leader of the people of
God to the earthly leader of the hosts of Israel, as the prince of the angelic hosts, not
only promising him the conquest of Jericho, but through the miraculous overthrow of
the walls of this strong bulwark of the Canaanitish power, actually giving him at the
same time a practical proof that the prince of the angelic hosts was fighting for Israel,
that we have the material basis upon which the divine epithet “Jehovah God of hosts”
was founded, even though it was not introduced immediately, but only at a later period,
when the Lord began to form His people Israel into a kingdom, by which all the
kingdoms of the heathen were to be overcome. It is certainly not without significance
that this title is given to God for the first time in these books, which contain an account
of the founding of the kingdom, and (as Auberlen has observed) that it was by Samuel's
mother, the pious Hannah, when dedicating her son to the Lord, and prophesying of
the king and anointed of the Lord in her song of praise (1Sa_2:10), that this name was
employed for the first time, and that God was addressed in prayer as “Jehovah of hosts”
(1Sa_1:11). Consequently, if this name of God goes hand in hand with the prophetic
announcement and the actual establishment of the monarchy in Israel, its origin cannot
be attributed to any antagonism to Sabaeism, or to the hostility of pious Israelites to the
worship of the stars, which was gaining increasing ground in the age of David, as
Hengstenberg (on Psa_24:10) and Strauss (on Zep_2:9) maintain; to say nothing of
the fact, that there is no historical foundation for such an assumption at all. It is a much
more natural supposition, that when the invisible sovereignty of Jehovah received a
visible manifestation in the establishment of the earthly monarchy, the sovereignty of
Jehovah, if it did possess and was to possess any reality at all, necessarily claimed to be
recognised in its all-embracing power and glory, and that in the title “God of (the
heavenly hosts” the fitting expression was formed for the universal government of the
God-king of Israel, - a title which not only serves as a bulwark against any eclipsing of
the invisible sovereignty of God by the earthly monarchy in Israel, but overthrew the
vain delusion of the heathen, that the God of Israel was simply the national deity of that
particular nation.
(Note: This name of God was therefore held up before the people of the Lord even
in their war-songs and paeans of victory, but still more by the prophets, as a banner
under which Israel was to fight and to conquer the world. Ezekiel is the only
prophet who does not use it, simply because he follows the Pentateuch so strictly in
his style. And it is not met with in the book of Job, just because the theocratic
constitution of the Israelitish nation is never referred to in the problem of that
book.)
The remark introduced in 1Sa_1:3, “and there were the two sons of Eli, Hophni and
Phinehas, priests of the Lord,” i.e., performing the duties of the priesthood, serves as a
preparation for what follows. This reason for the remark sufficiently explains why the
sons of Eli only are mentioned here, and not Eli himself, since, although the latter still
presided over the sanctuary as high priest, he was too old to perform the duties
connected with the offering of sacrifice. The addition made by the lxx, Ἡλι και, is an
arbitrary interpolation, occasioned by a misapprehension of the reason for mentioning
the sons of Eli.
1Sa_1:4-5
“And it came to pass, the day, and he offered sacrifice” (for, “on which he offered
sacrifice”), that he gave to Peninnah and her children portions of the flesh of the
sacrifice at the sacrificial meal; but to Hannah he gave ָ‫גה‬ ‫מ מ‬
‫חת מ‬
‫אָ ה‬
‫פ היַּם ה‬
‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬, “one portion for
two persons,” i.e., a double portion, because he loved her, but Jehovah had shut up her
womb: i.e., he gave it as an expression of his love to her, to indicate by a sign, “thou art
as dear to me as if thou hadst born me a child” (O. v. Gerlach). This explanation of the
difficult word ‫פ היַּם‬
‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬, of which very different interpretations have been given, is the one
adopted by Tanchum Hieros., and is the only one which can be grammatically
sustained, or yields an appropriate sense. The meaning face (facies) is placed beyond
all doubt by Gen_3:19 and other passages; and the use of ִ‫פי‬ ֹ‫אָ י ה‬
‫ לֱ צַ ה‬as a synonym for ִ‫ני‬
ֹ‫ לֱ מָפ צַ ה‬in
1Sa_25:23, also establishes the meaning “person,” since ‫ניִם‬ ָ‫פ מ מ‬
‫ י‬is used in this sense in
2Sa_17:11. It is true that there are no other passages that can be adduced to prove that
the singular ַ‫אָף‬ ‫ ה‬was also used in this sense; but as the word was employed
promiscuously in both singular and plural in the derivative sense of anger, there is no
reason for denying that the singular may also have been employed in the sense of face
(πρόσωπον). The combination of ‫פ היַּם‬ ‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬with ָ‫גה‬
‫מ מ‬
‫חת מ‬
‫אָ ה‬
‫ ה‬in the absolute state is supported
by many other examples of the same kind (see Ewald, §287, h). The meaning double
has been correctly adopted in the Syriac, whereas Luther follows the tristis of the
Vulgate, and renders the word traurig, or sad. But this meaning, which Fr. Böttcher has
lately taken under his protection, cannot be philologically sustained either by the
expression ‫פלֱוֹ י‬ ַ‫ניִך מ נ מ צ‬
ָ‫( פ מ נ‬Gen_4:6), or by Dan_11:20, or in any other way. ַ‫אָף‬ ‫ ה‬and ‫פ היַּם‬
‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬do
indeed signify anger, but anger and sadness are two very different ideas. But when
Böttcher substitutes “angrily or unwillingly” for sadly, the incongruity strikes you at
once: “he gave her a portion unwillingly, because he loved her!” For the custom of
singling out a person by giving double or even large portions, see the remarks on
Gen_43:34.
1Sa_1:6
“And her adversary (Peninnah) also provoked her with provocation, to irritate her.”
The ‫גם‬ ‫ ה י‬is placed before the noun belonging to the verb, to add force to the meaning.
‫עם‬‫( ר מ ה‬Hiphil), to excite, put into (inward) commotion, not exactly to make angry.
1Sa_1:7
“So did he (Elkanah) from year to year (namely give to Hannah a double portion at
the sacrificial meal), as often as she went up to the house of the Lord. So did she
(Peninnah) provoke her (Hannah), so that she wept, and did not eat.” The two ֵּ‫כ הֹ ין‬
correspond to one another. Just as Elkanah showed his love to Hannah at every
sacrificial festival, so did Peninnah repeat her provocation, the effect of which was that
Hannah gave vent to her grief in tears, and did not eat.
1Sa_1:8
Elkanah sought to comfort her in her grief by the affectionate appeal: “Am I not better
to thee (‫טאוֹב‬
‫ י‬, i.e., dearer) than ten children?” Ten is a found number for a large number.

KeD

1 Sm 1: 1-8
Samuel's pedigreeSamuel pedigree. - 1Sa_1:11Sa_1:1. Seu pai era um homem de
Ramathaim-Zophim, nas montanhas de Efraim e nomeado Elcana. ramathaim-
zophim, que só é mencionada aqui, é o mesmo lugar, de acordo com 1Sa_1:3 (COMP.
com 1Sa_1:19 e 1Sa_2:11), que depois é chamado brevemente ha-ramah, ou seja, a
altura. Para desde então Elcana de Ramathaim-Zophim foi por ano fora de sua cidade
para Shiloh, adoração e sacrifício e depois que ele tinha feito isso, voltou para sua casa
para Ramah (1Sa_1:191Sa_1:19; 1Sa_2:111Sa_2:11), não pode haver nenhuma dúvida
que ele não era apenas um nativo de Ramathaim-Zophim, mas ainda tinha sua casa;
para que Ramah, onde sua casa estava situada, é apenas um nome abreviado para
Ramathaim-Zophim.
(Nota: O argumento ultimamente invocado pelo Valentiner em favor da diferença
entre esses dois nomes, a saber, que "exemplos não estão querendo de uma pessoa
ser descrita de acordo com sua descendência original, embora já havia sido alterada
sua morada," e a instância que ele cita, a saber, Jdg_19:16Jdg_19:16, mostram que
 ele ignorou o fato, que, na passagem muito que ele cita o lugar de moradia
temporário, na verdade é mencionado junto com a cidade de Natal. No caso em
apreço, pelo contrário Ramathaim-Zophim é designado, pelo uso da expressão "de
sua cidade," em 1Sa_1:3, como o lugar onde viveu Elcana e onde "sua casa"
(1Sa_1:19) ainda estava de pé.)
Este Ramah (que invariavelmente é escrito com o artigo, ha-Ramah), onde Samuel não
só nasceu (1Sa_1:19.), mas viveu, trabalhada, morreu (1Sa_7:17. 1Sa_15:341Sa_15:34.
1Sa_16:131Sa_16:13. 1Sa_19:18-19, 1Sa_19:22-23), e foi enterrado (1Sa_25:1.
1Sa_28:31Sa_28:3), não é um lugar diferente, como foi assumido com freqüência,
(Nota: para os diferentes pontos de vista realizado sobre este ponto, consulte o
artigo "Ramah," por Pressel, em Herzog Cyclopaedia.)
de Ramah em Benjamin (Jos_18:25) e não deve ser procurado em Ramleh, perto de
Joppa (v. Schubert, etc.), nem em Soba no noroeste de Jerusalém (Robinson, Pal. ii. p.
329), nem três quartos de hora a norte de Hebron (Wolcott, v. de Velde), nem em
qualquer outro da tribo de Efraim, mas é idênticos com Ramah de Benjamin e estava
situada sobre o site da actual vila de er-Râm, duas horas para o noroeste de Jerusalém,
sobre uma montanha cónica a leste da estrada de Nablus (ver Jos_18:25). Esta
suposição é nem em desacordo com a conta em 1 Samuel 9-10 (ver comentário sobre
estes capítulos), nem com a afirmação de que Ramathaim Zophim foi sobre as
montanhas de Efraim, desde as montanhas de Efraim estenderam para o território de
tribo de Benjamim, como é evidente, indiscutivelmente, pela Jdg_4:5Jdg_4:5, onde é
dito que Deborah a profetisa que habitou entre Ramah e Bethel nas montanhas de
Efraim. O nome de Ramathaim-Zophim, ou seja, "duas alturas (da) Zophites" parece
ter sido dada à cidade para o distinguir de outro Ramah e derivada sacerdotais da
família de Zuph ou Zophai (ver 1Ch_6:26, 1Ch_6:35), que emigrou acorram da tribo de
Efraim, e de que Elcana foi descendente. O nome completo, portanto, é dado aqui, na
conta da descida de pai de Samuel. Considerando que na história mais de Samuel, onde
não havia a mesma razão para dar-lhe, o nome simples Ramah invariavelmente é
usado.
(Nota: O nome mais completo e mais exato, no entanto, parece ter sido ainda
retidos e o uso de ele ter sido retomado após o cativeiro, na Ῥαμαθέμ de 1 Macc. 11:
34, para que o Codd. tem Ῥαθαμειΐ́ν e Ῥαμαθαιΐ́μ e Flávio Josefo Ῥαμαθα e de
Arimateia a história do evangelho (Mat_27:57Mat_27:57). "Para parecer que este
Ramathaim é um lugar diferente da cidade de Samuel e está a ser procuradas na
vizinhança de lida, os defensores de Robinson (Pal. III. p. 41ff.), é uma conclusão
precipitada, retirar a associação de Ramathaim com lida no 1. Macc. 11: 34, - a
mesma conclusão que levou o autor do Onomasticon para transferir a cidade de
Samuel do bairro de lida "(Grimm em 1 Macc. 11: 34).
a ligação entre Zophim e Zuph é confirmada pelo fato de que o ancestral do Elcana,
Zuph, é chamado Zophai em 1Ch_6:26 e Zuph ou Ziph em 1Ch_6:35. Zophim significa,
portanto, os descendentes de Zuph ou Zophai, do qual o nome de "terra de Zuph," em
1Sa_9:51Sa_9:5, também foi derivado (ver o comentário sobre esta passagem). O
rastreamento de família da Elcana através de quatro gerações de Zuph concorda com os
registos de famílias em 1 Chron 6, onde estão os ancestrais dos Elcana mencionado por
duas vezes, - primeiro de tudo na genealogia de Kohathites (1Ch_6:26) e, em seguida,
em que Heman, o líder dos cantores, um neto de Samuel (1Ch_6:33), - exceto que o
nome Eliú, Tohu e Zuph, são dadas como Eliabe, Nahath e Zophai em primeira
instância e Eliel, toa e Ziph (de acordo com o Chethibh) na segunda,-várias leituras,
como muitas vezes ocorrem nas genealogias diferentes e estão a ser explicado
parcialmente da utilização de formas diferentes para o mesmo nome e parcialmente a
partir de seus significados sinônimos. Tohu e a toa, que ocorrem em árabe, com o
significado ou afundar, estão relacionadas no sentido de nachath ou nuach , para
afundar ou liquidar para baixo.
 Destas genealogias crônicas, aprendemos que Samuel era descendente de Kohath,
filho de Levi e, portanto, foi uma Levita. Não é nenhuma objeção válida para a correção
deste ponto de vista, que sua descendência sacerdotais nunca é mencionada, ou que
Elcana é chamada um efrateu. O primeiro destes muito facilmente pode ser explicado
pelo facto de, que trabalho de Samuel como um reformador, que é descrito neste livro,
não descansar após sua descendência sacerdotais, mas simplesmente após a chamada
que ele recebeu de Deus, como o office profética foi confinado para qualquer classe em
particular, como que de sacerdote, mas foi fundada exclusivamente sobre a chamada
divina e a doação com o espírito de Deus. E a dificuldade que Nägelsbach expressa em
Herzog Cycl., saber, "como afirmou-se das dois levitas (Jdg_17:7Jdg_17:7; Jdg_19:1),
que viviam em Belém e Efraim, mas somente depois que eles tinham sido
expressamente descritos como levitas, devem ter esperado encontrar o mesmo no caso
de pai de Samuel, "é removida pelo simples fato, que no caso de ambos as levitas era de
grande importância, que diz respeito as contas que são eles, que sua posição sacerdotais
deve ser claramente mencionada, como é claramente demonstrado por Jdg_17:10,
Jdg_17:13 e Jdg_19:18. Considerando que, no caso de Samuel, como já observamos,
sua descendência sacerdotais não tinha nenhum rolamento após a chamada que ele
recebeu do Senhor. A palavra efrateu não pertence, desde que a construção gramatical
é em questão, quer para Zuph ou Elcana, mas um certo homem,"o tema da cláusula
principal e significa um Ephraimite, como em Jdg_12:5 e 1Ki_11:26 e não um habitante
de Ephratah, ou seja, belemita, como em 1Sa_17:12 e Rth_1:2. para tanto nestas
passagens a palavra é mais precisamente definida pela adição da expressão "de
Bethlehem-Judá," Considerando que neste versículo a explicação deve ser encontrado
na expressão "de Mount Ephraim." Elcana a Levita é chamada um Ephraimite, pois,
que sua capacidade civil estava preocupada, ele pertencia à tribo de Efraim, assim como
a Levita em Jdg_17:7Jdg_17:7 é descrita como pertencente à família de Judá. Os levitas
foram contados como pertencentes a essas tribos no meio de que eles viveram, para que
havia judaico levitas, Ephraimitish levitas e assim por diante (ver Hengstenberg, Diss.
Vol. ii. p. 50). Não decorre, no entanto, a aplicação deste termo para Elcana, que
Ramathaim Zophim fazia parte do território de tribo de Efraim, mas simplesmente da
que Elcana família foi incorporada em desta tribo e não remove até depois de Ramah da
tribo de Benjamim. Sobre a divisão das terras, locais de habitação foram atribuídas
para os levitas da família dos Kohath, as tribos de Efraim, Dan e Manasseh (Jos_21:5,
Jos_21:21.). Menos ainda existe algo em desacordo com o sacerdotais descida de
Samuel, como Thenius sustenta, no fato de que ele foi dedicado ao Senhor pelo voto de
sua mãe, ele não foi dedicado ao serviço de Jeová geralmente através deste modo de
exibição, mas foi definido para além de um serviço ao longo da vida na casa de Deus
como uma nazarita (1Sa_1:11, 1Sa_1:22); Considerando que outros levitas não eram
obrigadas a servir até seu vigésimo quinto ano e mesmo, em seguida, tinham não
executar um serviço ininterrupto no Santuário. Por outro lado, a descida sacerdotais de
Samuel recebe uma confirmação muito forte do nome de seu pai. Todos os Elkanahs
que nos reunimos com o Antigo Testamento, com exceção de um mencionado no
2Ch_28:72Ch_28:7, cuja genealogia é desconhecida, pode ser provados ter sido levitas.
e a maioria deles pertence à família de Coré, que Samuel também era descendente (ver
Simonis, Onomast. p. 493). Este é sem dúvida ligado de alguma forma com o
significado do nome do Elcana, o homem a quem Deus tem comprado ou adquirido;
desde que esse nome foi particularmente adequado para os levitas, quem o senhor
tinha diferenciam de serviço no Santuário, no lugar do primogênito de Israel, a quem
ele tinha santificado a mesmo quando smote o primogênito do Egito (Num_3:13.,
Num_3:44.; consulte Hengstenberg, ut sup.).
1Sa_1:2-3
Elcana teve duas esposas, Hannah (graça ou graça) e Penina (coral), o último dos
quais foi abençoado com as crianças, Considerando que a primeira não teve filhos. Ele
foi com suas esposas por ano ( ‫מיִם‬ ָ‫מיִ מ י מ‬
ָ‫מהָ מ‬
‫מיִ מ‬
ָ‫ יִ מ מ‬, como em Exo_13:10. Jdg_11:40), de
acordo com as instruções da lei (Exo_34:23. Deu_16:16), para o Tabernáculo em Shiloh
(Jos_18:1), para adorar e sacrificar o Senhor dos exércitos. "Jeová Zebaoth" é uma
abreviação de "Zebaoth de Elohe de Jehovah," ou ָ‫הָיִ יִ צַהָאמוֹה‬ֹ‫אָלֱא ה‬
‫הָצ צַ יב מאָאוֹת א‬
‫ ; ה‬e a conexão de
Zebaoth com Jeová não deve ser considerado como o estado de construção, nem é
Zebaoth para ser tomado como um genitivo dependente de Jeová. Não só foram
confirmadas pela ocorrência de tais expressões como "elohim zebaoth"
(Psa_59:6Psa_59:6. Psa_80:5, Psa_80:8, Psa_80:15, 20. Psa_84:9Psa_84:9) e
"Adonai Zebaoth" (Isa_10:16Isa_10:16), mas também por esta circunstância que
Jeová, como um nome próprio, não pode ser interpretado com um genitivo. A
combinação "Jeová Zebaoth" é um pouco para ser tomado como uma elipse, onde o
termo geral Elohe (Deus), que está implícito na palavra Jehovah, deve ser fornecido no
pensamento (ver Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 375, tradução para o inglês). para
perguntas como esta expressão ocorre, especialmente no caso dos profetas, Zebaoth
nunca é usado sozinho no Antigo Testamento como um dos nomes de Deus. É na
Septuaginta que a palavra é primeiro reuniu com ocasionalmente como um nome
próprio ( Σαβαώθ ), saber, ao longo de todo o primeiro livro de Samuel, muito
freqüentemente em Isaías e também em Zec_13:2Zec_13:2. Em outras passagens, a
palavra é traduzida ou κύριος , ou θεὸς τῶν δυναμεων , ou παντοκρατωρ ;
enquanto que as outras versões gregas usam a frase mais definida κύριος στρατιῶν
em vez disso.
This expression, which was not used as a divine name until the age of Samuel, had its
roots in Gen_2:1, although the title itself was unknown in the Mosaic period, and
during the times of the judges. It represented Jehovah as ruler over the heavenly hosts
(i.e., the angels, according to Gen_32:2, and the stars, according to Isa_40:26), who are
called the “armies” of Jehovah in Psa_103:21; Psa_148:2; but we are not to understand
it as implying that the stars were supposed to be inhabited by angels, as Gesenius
(Thes. s. v.) maintains, since there is not the slightest trace of any such notion in the
whole of the Old Testament. It is simply applied to Jehovah as the God of the universe,
who governs all the powers of heaven, both visible and invisible, as He rules in heaven
and on earth. It cannot even be proved that the epithet Lord, or God of Zebaoth, refers
chiefly and generally to the sun, moon, and stars, on account of their being so peculiarly
adapted, through their visible splendour, to keep alive the consciousness of the
omnipotence and glory of God (Hengstenberg on Psa_24:10). For even though the
expression ‫אָם‬ ‫( צ צַב מ מ‬their host), in Gen_2:1, refers to the heavens only, since it is only to
the heavens (vid., Isa_40:26), and never to the earth, that a “host” is ascribed, and in
this particular passage it is probably only the stars that are to be thought of, the
creation of which had already been mentioned in Gen_1:14.; yet we find the idea of an
army of angels introduced in the history of Jacob (Gen_32:2-3), where Jacob calls the
angels of God who appeared to him the “camp of God,” and also in the blessing of
Moses (Deu_33:2), where the “ten thousands of saints” (Kodesh) are not stars, but
angels, or heavenly spirits; whereas the fighting of the stars against Sisera in the song of
Deborah probably refers to a natural phenomenon, by which God had thrown the
enemy into confusion, and smitten them before the Israelites (see at Jdg_5:20). We
must also bear in mind, that whilst on the one hand the tribes of Israel, as they came
out of Egypt, are called Zebaoth Jehovah, “the hosts of Jehovah” (Exo_7:4; Exo_12:41),
on the other hand the angel of the Lord, when appearing in front of Jericho in the form
of a warrior, made himself known to Joshua as “the prince of the army of Jehovah,” i.e.,
of the angelic hosts. And it is in this appearance of the heavenly leader of the people of
God to the earthly leader of the hosts of Israel, as the prince of the angelic hosts, not
only promising him the conquest of Jericho, but through the miraculous overthrow of
the walls of this strong bulwark of the Canaanitish power, actually giving him at the
same time a practical proof that the prince of the angelic hosts was fighting for Israel,
that we have the material basis upon which the divine epithet “Jehovah God of hosts”
was founded, even though it was not introduced immediately, but only at a later period,
when the Lord began to form His people Israel into a kingdom, by which all the
kingdoms of the heathen were to be overcome. It is certainly not without significance
that this title is given to God for the first time in these books, which contain an account
of the founding of the kingdom, and (as Auberlen has observed) that it was by Samuel's
mother, the pious Hannah, when dedicating her son to the Lord, and prophesying of
the king and anointed of the Lord in her song of praise (1Sa_2:10), that this name was
employed for the first time, and that God was addressed in prayer as “Jehovah of hosts”
(1Sa_1:11). Consequently, if this name of God goes hand in hand with the prophetic
announcement and the actual establishment of the monarchy in Israel, its origin cannot
be attributed to any antagonism to Sabaeism, or to the hostility of pious Israelites to the
worship of the stars, which was gaining increasing ground in the age of David, as
Hengstenberg (on Psa_24:10) and Strauss (on Zep_2:9) maintain; to say nothing of
the fact, that there is no historical foundation for such an assumption at all. It is a much
more natural supposition, that when the invisible sovereignty of Jehovah received a
visible manifestation in the establishment of the earthly monarchy, the sovereignty of
Jehovah, if it did possess and was to possess any reality at all, necessarily claimed to be
recognised in its all-embracing power and glory, and that in the title “God of (the
heavenly hosts” the fitting expression was formed for the universal government of the
God-king of Israel, - a title which not only serves as a bulwark against any eclipsing of
the invisible sovereignty of God by the earthly monarchy in Israel, but overthrew the
vain delusion of the heathen, that the God of Israel was simply the national deity of that
particular nation.
(Nota: este nome de Deus, portanto, foi mantido antes do povo do senhor mesmo
em suas canções de guerra e louvores de vitória, mas foi ainda mais pelos profetas,
como uma faixa em que Israel para lutar e conquistar o mundo. Ezequiel é o único
profeta que usá-lo, simplesmente porque ele segue o Pentateuco tão estritamente
no seu estilo. E ele não é encontrado no livro de trabalho, só porque a Constituição
teocrática da nação Israelitish nunca é referida no problema do que o livro).
a observação introduzida em 1Sa_1:31Sa_1:3, "e lá foram os dois filhos de Eli,
Finéias e Hofni, sacerdotes do senhor," ou seja, exercer as funções do sacerdócio, serve
como uma preparação para o que se segue. Este motivo para a observação
suficientemente explica por que os filhos de Eli só são mencionados aqui e não Eli,
desde então, embora este ainda presidiu ao Santuário como sumo sacerdote, ele era
muito velho para desempenhar as tarefas relacionadas com a oferta de sacrifício. A
adição feita por lxx, Ἡλι και é uma interpolação arbitrária, ocasionada por um
equívoco do motivo para mencionar os filhos de Eli.
1Sa_1:4-5
"E veio passar, o dia e ele ofereceram sacrifício (," em que ele ofereceu sacrifício"),
que deu a Penina e suas partes de crianças da carne do sacrifício a refeição sacrificial;
mas a Hannah deu ָ‫גה‬ ‫מ מ‬
‫חת מ‬‫אָ ה‬
‫פ היַּם ה‬
‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬, "uma porção para duas pessoas," ou seja, uma
parte dupla, porque ele a amava, mas Jeová tinha fechado seu ventre: ou seja, ele deu-
lhe como uma expressão de seu amor por ela, para indicar por um sinal, "tu és tão caro
para mim como se tu tinhas nascido-me uma criança" (O. v. Gerlach). Esta explicação
da palavra difícil ‫פ היַּם‬ ‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬, de ter que interpretações muito diferentes, o adoptada por
Tanchum Hieros., e é o único que pode ser sustentado gramaticalmente, ou gera um
sentido apropriado. O significado face (face) é colocado para além de todas as dúvida
por Gen_3:19Gen_3:19 e outras passagens. e o uso de ִ‫פי‬ ֹ‫אָ י ה‬
‫ לֱ צַ ה‬como um sinônimo para
ִ‫ני‬
ֹ‫ לֱ מָפ צַ ה‬na 1Sa_25:23, também estabelece a significado "pessoa", desde que ‫ניִם‬ ָ‫פ מ מ‬
‫ י‬é usado
neste sentido em 2Sa_17:11. É verdade que não há nenhuma outras passagens que
podem ser invocadas para provar que o singular ַ‫אָף‬ ‫ ה‬também foi usada neste sentido;
mas como a palavra foi empregada indiscriminadamente no singular e plural no
sentido de derivados de raiva, não há nenhuma razão para negar que o singular
também pode ter sido empregado no sentido de face ( πρόσωπον ). A combinação de
‫פ היַּם‬ ‫אָ י‬‫ ה‬com ָ‫גה‬ ‫מ מ‬
‫חת מ‬‫אָ ה‬
‫ ה‬no estado absoluto é suportado por muitos outros exemplos do
mesmo tipo (ver Ewald, §287, h). O significado Duplo corretamente adoptou em
siríaco, Considerando que Lutero segue tristis da Vulgata e processa a palavra traurig,
ou triste. Mas isto significa, que o Padre Böttcher ultimamente tomou sob sua proteção,
não pode ser philologically sustentado pela expressão ‫פלֱוֹ י‬ ַ‫ניִך מ נ מ צ‬
ָ‫( פ מ נ‬Gen_4:6), ou por
Dan_11:20, ou em qualquer outra forma.ַ‫אָף‬ ‫ ה‬e ‫פ היַּם‬
‫אָ י‬
‫ ה‬na verdade significa raiva, mas
raiva e tristeza são duas idéias muito diferentes. Mas quando Böttcher substitui "com
raiva ou involuntariamente" Infelizmente, a incongruência você atinge uma vez: "deu-
lhe uma parte involuntariamente, porque ele a amava!" Para o costume de destaca uma
pessoa dando duplos ou mesmo grandes partes, consulte os comentários em
Gen_43:34Gen_43:34.
1Sa_1:6
"e seu adversário (Penina) também provocou ela com provocação, para irritá-la." A
‫גם‬
‫ ה י‬é colocado antes do substantivo pertencentes ao verbo, para adicionar força ao
significado.‫עם‬ ‫( ר מ ה‬Hiphil), para excitar, colocar em comoção (para dentro), não é
exatamente a irritados.
1Sa_1:7
"Assim fez ele (Elcana) de ano para ano (dar nomeadamente a Hannah uma parte
dupla na refeição sacrificial), quantas vezes ela foi para a casa do Senhor. Assim fez
ela (Penina) provocá-la (Hannah), para que ela chorou e não comer. " Os dois ֵּ‫כ הֹ ין‬
correspondem a um outro. Como Elcana mostrou o seu amor para Hannah no cada
festival de sacrifício, então fiz Penina repetir sua provocação, o efeito foi que Hannah
deu vent à sua tristeza em lágrimas e não comer.
1Sa_1:8
Elcana procurou confortar dela em seu luto por recurso afetuoso: "Am I não melhor
para te ( ‫טאוֹב‬
‫ י‬, ou seja, dearer) de dez filhos?" Dez é um número encontrado para um
grande número de.

Ked