Original Meaning

Hannah’s Song (2:1–11)

OLD TESTAMENT HISTORICAL narratives occasionally insert poetry to supplement a particular episode. Such poems are usually a prayer, a song, or a speech of the central character, and they frequently crystallize the important theological themes of the episode.1 Verse 1 says Hannah prayed this poem, but it is also known as the “Song of Hannah” because of its hymnic qualities. In this instance, the poem in 2:1–11 is an eloquent expression of the theological significance of the birth of Samuel (as such, it brings closure to ch. 1 more than it introduces ch. 2).

This little poem also plays an important structuring role in 1-2 Samuel generally. It corresponds in a kind of point—counterpoint fashion with two poems near the conclusion of the two-volume book. David’s song of praise (2 Sam. 22:1–51) and his last words (2 Sam. 23:1–7) are poems serving as theological summaries of King David’s reign and are central to the final unit’s interpretation of David as charting a course for Israel’s future messianic hopes.2 In other words, Hannah begins 1-2 Samuel by celebrating what Yahweh has done and will do in the future, while David concludes the book by celebrating Yahweh’s faithfulness.

As hermeneutical bookends, these poems interpret the narratives of 1-2 Samuel, especially highlighting the significance of Yahweh’s anointed one.3 Hannah’s song points to the future and anticipates God’s power to answer prayer and to reverse one’s fortunes. David’s thanksgiving hymn looks backward to celebrate numerous times when the Lord has delivered him (2 Sam. 22:1–51). His last words look both backward and forward by defining his special relationship with God as a “covenant,” which must become the paradigm for all future kings of Israel (2 Sam. 23:1–7).4 Thus, these poems at the beginning and end of 1-2 Samuel speak to each other in antiphonal unity. They interpret the narratives between them and tie those narratives together as authoritative canon for believing readers, ancient and modern.

Hannah’s prayer spans the height and depth of Israelite theology and relates it to her circumstances. She begins with an introduction (2:1) that announces the personal joy she has in her relationship with Yahweh: “my heart rejoices,” “my horn is lifted high,” “my mouth boasts,” and “I delight.” The concept of the exalted horn is a Hebrew idiom that has never been satisfactorily explained (harim qeren).5 It appears to be a metaphor in which the horns and head of an animal are held high as a symbol of triumph and power (Dan. 8:3, 5, 9).6 When one’s horn is elevated, it seems to involve visible distinction or exaltation and sometimes designates perpetual distinction through one’s offspring. It is especially meaningful here that Hannah rejoices in Yahweh, who has lifted her horn, implying both her visible vindication before Peninnah and her lasting strength through her offspring. This is a point to which she returns at the center of her song in verse 5b: “She who was barren has borne seven children, but she who has had many sons pines away.”

Hannah’s joy and triumph are firmly rooted in the singular holiness of Yahweh (2:2). Only he is transcendent in power and moral character, and only he is a Rock: “There is no one besides you.” From this certitude flows her confidence, and she bursts forth in a stream of assertions that result from it. The arrogant have no right to continue boasting, for Yahweh knows everything (2:3). Strength is not found in military might, wealth, or honor but in relation to the sovereign Yahweh, who gives to whom he will and who will thunder from heaven and judge the ends of the earth (2:10a).

In the closing phrases of the poem, we return to the idea of the exalted horn, which forms an inclusio, or literary envelope, for the whole (2:10b): “He will give strength to his king and exalt the horn of his anointed.” This is the first time the king of Israel is referred to as “the anointed one.” The mention of Yahweh’s king raises the question: Did someone from later in Israel’s history, during the monarchy, add this conclusion, or did Hannah speak prophetically here? Though it is possible that verse 10b was added at a later time, the entire poem can be identified as a song of triumph, thanking Yahweh for victory over one’s enemies. It is possible that the song originated at the Shiloh sanctuary and that Hannah, having learned it in her regular practice of worship, simply adapted the celebratory song for her new wonderful circumstances. Since the final reference to Yahweh’s king and anointed forms the inclusio with verse 1, it seems likely that it was an original part of the form and structure of the poem. The need for a king had been established during the judges period (cf. Judg. 21:25), and we therefore have no reason to deny this verse as original to the poem.

More importantly, these concluding phrases of Hannah’s song emphasize the Lord’s anointed as especially chosen by God and empowered for the task of leading Israel (also a theme of David in 2 Sam. 22:51). This is the kind of king Israel longs for and needs. He uses God’s power to bring about surprising reversals and to defeat Israel’s enemies. This description of Yahweh’s anointed becomes programmatic for the narratives that follow.7

After this conclusion to Hannah’s song, the narrator leaves us with the simple observation: “Elkanah went home to Ramah, but the boy ministered before the LORD under Eli the priest” (2:11). As if to illustrate that strength is derived only from one’s relationship with Yahweh, we are left with this contrast. The boy Samuel stays behind to serve Yahweh and grow in his devotion to God as he grows in stature. By contrast, the hapless Eli seems destined to rely on his own strength, derived from priestly tradition and status. But Hannah’s song is the harbinger of things to come.

Bridging Contexts

HANNAH’S SONG. The Israelites had the wonderful ability of singing their theology. Hannah’s song of thanksgiving contains many indications that it was adapted from the nation’s repertoire of hymns. Her references to enemies, warriors, princes, and eventually a king lead to the conclusion this was a public hymn that she learned in her regular habit of worship. The appropriateness of her song is obvious, since her barrenness has been turned to joy by Yahweh’s power, just as Israel’s bleakness will soon be turned to exultation through the ministry of Samuel, the kingmaker. Thus, Hannah has learned how to praise through regular worship, and it serves her well when she wants to express her gratitude to God. In this way, worship often prepares us for life.

Hannah’s song of thanksgiving expresses great confidence in the loving sovereignty of God and expresses gratitude for what he has done. What God has done in the past, he is doing again, now through Hannah. By starting with the holy transcendence of Yahweh, as Hannah does in verse 2, the Israelites are able to see that every blessing in life is from God. Indeed, even those circumstances that we may not consider as “blessings” are from God, since he alone is holy.

God’s sovereignty is not mechanical determinism but knowledge that everything is in his hands and that whatever deliverance comes our way is from him. Just as he will some day exalt the horn of his anointed and give strength to his king (2:10), so Hannah can rejoice in her own exalted horn (2:1). God has lifted her head in vindication, because she trusted in him. But the exaltation of the meek also sets the tone for the rest of 1-2 Samuel.14 After the elevation of Hannah, we will read of the elevation of Samuel, Saul, and eventually David. This rise from humble surroundings to distinction (and power) is indeed the paradigm for what is about to happen for Israel as a nation.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, apparently patterned her own great prayer of praise and gratitude after Hannah’s song (the “Magnificat,” Luke 1:46–55).15 The two hymns have similarities in their beginnings, and they share several common themes. The circumstances of the two women were very different, of course, yet both conceived miraculously. Hannah sang her hymn of praise after Samuel’s birth, while Mary sang her hymn prior to her son’s birth. Unlike Hannah’s situation, Mary’s was an unexpected (and at first unwanted?) surprise blessing. But she came to accept and rejoice in God’s will for her life and was confident in his sovereign rule.

Samuel and Eli’s sons. The middle unit of this chapter highlights the differences between Samuel and the sons of Eli (2:12–26). The interchanging contrast between them pits the wicked actions of Eli’s sons against the innocent and submissive behavior of Samuel. Eli’s sons greedily exploit their position as priests, using power to gratify their own desires.

The narrator portrays a growing urgency about their sin. Their presumptuous actions intensify as the narrative unfolds. At first they steal food not rightfully theirs. Then they sexually abuse the women serving in the tabernacle. Their abhorrent behavior becomes widely known in Israel, and Eli realizes the severity of their sins. Samuel, by contrast, is the boy priest who innocently goes about his work, performing the services of the Lord (2:18). He is lovingly cared for by his mother, who brings him a fresh priestly garment each year and who is herself blessed by God’s good favor with more children. And Samuel gradually becomes mature in his faith.

The narrative’s way of contrasting the two paths of life—that followed by Samuel and that chosen by Eli’s sons—is a chilling lesson in the importance of individual responsibility for life’s choices. Hophni, Phinehas, and Samuel are not of totally dissimilar backgrounds and social privileges. Hophni and Phinehas are the sons of the high priest at Shiloh; Samuel is the son of a priestly family from nearby Ramah. They must have had similar religious education and opportunities. But the sons of Eli become great in their sins while Samuel became great in his faith. How does one explain the differences? Sin is deceptive and has a hardening effect on the human heart. When people continuously choose sinful attitudes and actions, they gradually become hardhearted and turn away “from the living God.” But those who persist in the faith will grow stronger and stand firm to the end in the confidence they had at first (Heb. 3:12–15).

Prophetic condemnation. The final unit of this chapter is the prophetic condemnation of the house of Eli (2:27–36). The formulaic pattern of introduction, accusation, and announcement as noted above prepares us for the fall of Eli (1 Sam. 4) and the concomitant rise of the fortunes of Samuel (1 Sam. 7). Eli and Samuel are headed in opposite directions. Eli was meant to be the nation’s spiritual leader during the premonarchic period. But his inability to control his wicked sons clearly removed him from that role. It is appropriate, then, that his replacement as spiritual leader and eventual kingmaker for Israel is Samuel.

The statement in which Yahweh retracts his commitment to Eli’s family has enduring significance. Verse 30 is notable for its assertion that Yahweh is repealing a promise he had previously stated as eternal. In addition to the promise of Aaronic priesthood (Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13), this verse indicates a commitment to Eli’s house or descendants as priests: “I promised that your house … would minister before me forever.” But the surpassing wickedness of Eli’s sons leads God to nullify that promise.

In other words, God’s eternal decrees are formally conditional. Eli’s family do not meet those conditions (2:30); thus, they will not benefit from the Aaronic promises. As elsewhere in Old Testament thought, the benefits of God’s promises are conditioned on people’s faithfulness, “a condition which applies to God’s promises even when it is not explicitly stated.”16 Thus, we may surmise that while God’s promises are eternal, the specific and individual benefits of those promises are contingent on continued faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

SINGING. SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO SING! Hannah had to sing! God had turned her barrenness into joy. By using one of Israel’s national hymns, she was bidding the nation to sing along with her. And her song reveals that she understood full well the significance of God’s sovereign, gift-giving love.

Attendance in public worship is important for numerous reasons. One of those is how it instills in us the ability to relate our circumstances to God’s love and his work in our lives. Our hymns and songs of worship are second only to the reading and exposition of the biblical text. Whether it is the Scripture choruses many of us use in our modern churches or the great classic hymns of the Christian faith, such singing of theology helps shape our thinking and prepares us for the day when we just cannot help ourselves, and we too have to sing.

Sin among church leaders. The contrast between Samuel and Eli’s sons in this chapter is a lesson for all religious professionals, as well as for individuals deeply involved in the life of their local congregation. Martin Luther King Jr. once admitted to being frustrated by ministers of the gospel who often “aren’t concerned about anything but themselves.”17

As the son of a pastor, I grew up watching parishioners and other pastors in our denominational connection. I will never fully understand the number of people intimately plugged into the business of the church—both local and general—who seem to persist in sin because of a hardness of heart. Some of the most hateful behavior I have ever witnessed has come from denominational leaders and local church officials. There is something about throwing oneself into the everyday affairs of the church, into the routine business of doing “church work,” that is deceptive. It soothes our conscience and makes us feel we are in the right state of mind spiritually. But proximity to God’s work is no substitute for submission to the grace of God.

As Hophni and Phinehas warn us, it is possible to handle the things of God regularly (they officiated Israel’s worship services!) and fail to have a heart that is sensitive to God’s will. In fact, it may be that those of us who daily handle the things of Christ are the ones most prone to forget their significance and fall into a laissez-faire approach to the gospel of God. In my current position as a seminary professor, the words edited by the fourteenth-century priest Thomas Hemerken of Kempen (better known as Thomas à Kempis) are apropos:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a [person] holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.18

So what profit was there in being priests for Hophni and Phinehas? And what profit is there in being the chairperson of your local church’s board of trustees or the administrative superintendent of your denomination? Indeed, these types of service are all commendable. But without the sensitive heart of the young Samuel, our service is useless.

Conditionality of benefits. The last section of chapter 2 contains prophetic condemnation of Eli’s house. This pericope has several issues germane to our contemporary context, but I mention just one here. The conditionality of Eli’s benefits and privileges under the Aaronic priesthood has many parallels to the contemporary church. Most Christians today attach themselves to institutions that they feel are squarely within God’s will and therefore are worthy of his continued blessings. These institutions can be whole denominations, individual local churches, Christian colleges or seminaries, an evangelistic association, or even a particular evangelist or minister. People often feel that because a certain institution has been faithful and effective in ministry in the past, it is worthy of continued financial support. But some Christians go further and lend such credibility to that institution (or individual) that they may not hear when God announces, “Far be it from me!” (2:30).

My own denomination has been wonderfully used of God in the history of the United States. I know many ministers who feel they could never leave our church because of an emotional attachment to the church as institution. We should always be aware that there are many valid Christian ministries, and no one organization or denominational group is above reproach. Like Eli’s priesthood, God does not bless forever any institutionalized form of Christianity as is. Institutions that fail to remain faithful to their calling and to uphold biblical principles of discipleship will eventually lose God’s favor. As painful as it often is, today’s Christian needs to realize that Eli’s priesthood did not last forever. There came a time for God to let it go and to look to new leadership to carry forward his work.

Original Meaning

Contrast Between Eli’s Sons and Samuel (2:12–26)

THIS UNIT IS dominated by a literary contrast. It artfully alternates between the sinful practices of Eli’s wicked sons and the innocent purity and righteousness of Samuel and his family. First, the rapacious and unholy actions of Hophni and Phinehas (2:12–17) are contrasted with the righteous conduct of Samuel’s family and the Lord’s blessing on them (2:18–21). This is followed by Eli’s unheeded rebuke of his sons (2:22–25), contrasted finally with a concluding statement of Samuel’s continued maturity, both physically and spiritually (2:26). Such literary interchange heightens both Samuel’s good qualities and Eli’s sons’ bad qualities.

The general statement of verse 12 sets the tone for verses 12–17: “Eli’s sons were wicked men; they had no regard for the LORD.” The designation “wicked men” (lit., “sons of Belial”) in these opening chapters of 1 Samuel refers to cultic abuses, that is, a lack of regard for the proper worship of Yahweh.8 It is ironic that Eli earlier mistakenly assumed Hannah was a “wicked woman” (1:16; lit., “daughter of Belial”); in reality, it is his own sons who are the scoundrels, showing only contempt for Yahweh’s sacrifices. Hannah was a righteous woman, but Eli does not know righteousness when he sees it.

The specific nature of the sins of Hophni and Phinehas has to do with their rights as priests. The Old Testament law provided proper and just ways for priests to share in certain meat portions of animals offered at the tabernacle (Lev. 7:28–36; Deut. 18:3). But Eli’s sons at Shiloh have devised their own system, using a fork to pilfer the choicest meat, including the fat usually burned entirely for Yahweh. If the worshiper does not yield to the grasping priests, Eli’s sons threaten to take it by force. The narrator summarizes their great sin as “treating the LORD’s offering with contempt” (2:17).

The positive evaluation of Samuel and his family likewise begins with a general statement, setting the tone for 2:18–21: “Samuel was ministering before the LORD—a boy wearing a linen ephod.” The linen ephod was a garment worn by priests at that time, and the “little robe” supplied by his mother each year (presumably since he outgrew them) may have been an outer cloak worn over the ephod.9 This ideal scene, so lovingly describing the adorned little priest, is surely a dramatic contrast to the grasping and avaricious sons of Eli. Through the years, Eli comes to appreciate this devout family, blessing them and praying that Yahweh will honor their faithfulness. Hannah, attentively supplying young Samuel with his annual priestly garment, also conceives and gives birth over the years to five more children (2:21). Her barrenness has not resumed after Samuel’s birth, nor has Yahweh withdrawn his pleasure from this wonderful family.10

Meanwhile, Eli is either unwilling or unable to control his wayward sons. When he learns of their sexual exploits and their public reputation (2:22–23), he rebukes them and warns them of the inevitable consequences of their actions. But they reject his words, “for it was the LORD’s will to put them to death” (2:25). Like the Pharaoh of the Exodus, who first hardened his own heart and then continued to resist God’s grace until God himself gave him over to his own obstinate nature, so Hophni and Phinehas are clearly committed to their course of action. In their hearts, there is no turning back. As Wesley said: “They had now sinned away their day of grace. They had long hardened their hearts. And God at length gave them up to a reprobate mind and ‘determined to destroy’ them (2 Chron. 25:16).”11 But Samuel, by contrast, continues to mature physically as well as spiritually (1 Sam. 2:26).

Samuel’s maturation in 1 Samuel 1–3 can be traced through four carefully orchestrated statements of the narrator.

1. “The boy ministered before the LORD under Eli the priest” (2:11; cf. 3:1). The irony here is that young Samuel is nurtured in the faith by Eli, the high priest, whose own sons are so wicked that his priestly line will eventually be deposed.

2. “The boy Samuel grew up in the presence of the LORD” (2:21). This time there is no mention of Eli’s influence. Samuel is simply maturing in “the presence of the LORD.”

3. “The boy Samuel continued to grow in stature and in favor with the LORD and with [people]” (2:26). As Samuel matures, he learns to live in such a way as to please God and those around him. Hophni and Phinehas have learned neither, having no regard for the sacrifices of Yahweh (2:17) or the rights of other humans (2:22–25).

4. “The LORD was with Samuel as he grew up, and he let none of his words fall to the ground” (3:19).

In each of the last three statements, Samuel is described by the root gdl (“grow, mature, become great”). Note in 2:17 how the narrator characterizes the sins of Hophni and Phinehas as “very great [g^edolah] in the LORD’s sight.” Thus, both Samuel and the sons of Eli are “great.” Samuel is becoming a great man of God, while Hophni and Phinehas are becoming great sinners.12

Bridging Contexts

HANNAH’S SONG. The Israelites had the wonderful ability of singing their theology. Hannah’s song of thanksgiving contains many indications that it was adapted from the nation’s repertoire of hymns. Her references to enemies, warriors, princes, and eventually a king lead to the conclusion this was a public hymn that she learned in her regular habit of worship. The appropriateness of her song is obvious, since her barrenness has been turned to joy by Yahweh’s power, just as Israel’s bleakness will soon be turned to exultation through the ministry of Samuel, the kingmaker. Thus, Hannah has learned how to praise through regular worship, and it serves her well when she wants to express her gratitude to God. In this way, worship often prepares us for life.

Hannah’s song of thanksgiving expresses great confidence in the loving sovereignty of God and expresses gratitude for what he has done. What God has done in the past, he is doing again, now through Hannah. By starting with the holy transcendence of Yahweh, as Hannah does in verse 2, the Israelites are able to see that every blessing in life is from God. Indeed, even those circumstances that we may not consider as “blessings” are from God, since he alone is holy.

God’s sovereignty is not mechanical determinism but knowledge that everything is in his hands and that whatever deliverance comes our way is from him. Just as he will some day exalt the horn of his anointed and give strength to his king (2:10), so Hannah can rejoice in her own exalted horn (2:1). God has lifted her head in vindication, because she trusted in him. But the exaltation of the meek also sets the tone for the rest of 1-2 Samuel.14 After the elevation of Hannah, we will read of the elevation of Samuel, Saul, and eventually David. This rise from humble surroundings to distinction (and power) is indeed the paradigm for what is about to happen for Israel as a nation.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, apparently patterned her own great prayer of praise and gratitude after Hannah’s song (the “Magnificat,” Luke 1:46–55).15 The two hymns have similarities in their beginnings, and they share several common themes. The circumstances of the two women were very different, of course, yet both conceived miraculously. Hannah sang her hymn of praise after Samuel’s birth, while Mary sang her hymn prior to her son’s birth. Unlike Hannah’s situation, Mary’s was an unexpected (and at first unwanted?) surprise blessing. But she came to accept and rejoice in God’s will for her life and was confident in his sovereign rule.

Samuel and Eli’s sons. The middle unit of this chapter highlights the differences between Samuel and the sons of Eli (2:12–26). The interchanging contrast between them pits the wicked actions of Eli’s sons against the innocent and submissive behavior of Samuel. Eli’s sons greedily exploit their position as priests, using power to gratify their own desires.

The narrator portrays a growing urgency about their sin. Their presumptuous actions intensify as the narrative unfolds. At first they steal food not rightfully theirs. Then they sexually abuse the women serving in the tabernacle. Their abhorrent behavior becomes widely known in Israel, and Eli realizes the severity of their sins. Samuel, by contrast, is the boy priest who innocently goes about his work, performing the services of the Lord (2:18). He is lovingly cared for by his mother, who brings him a fresh priestly garment each year and who is herself blessed by God’s good favor with more children. And Samuel gradually becomes mature in his faith.

The narrative’s way of contrasting the two paths of life—that followed by Samuel and that chosen by Eli’s sons—is a chilling lesson in the importance of individual responsibility for life’s choices. Hophni, Phinehas, and Samuel are not of totally dissimilar backgrounds and social privileges. Hophni and Phinehas are the sons of the high priest at Shiloh; Samuel is the son of a priestly family from nearby Ramah. They must have had similar religious education and opportunities. But the sons of Eli become great in their sins while Samuel became great in his faith. How does one explain the differences? Sin is deceptive and has a hardening effect on the human heart. When people continuously choose sinful attitudes and actions, they gradually become hardhearted and turn away “from the living God.” But those who persist in the faith will grow stronger and stand firm to the end in the confidence they had at first (Heb. 3:12–15).

Prophetic condemnation. The final unit of this chapter is the prophetic condemnation of the house of Eli (2:27–36). The formulaic pattern of introduction, accusation, and announcement as noted above prepares us for the fall of Eli (1 Sam. 4) and the concomitant rise of the fortunes of Samuel (1 Sam. 7). Eli and Samuel are headed in opposite directions. Eli was meant to be the nation’s spiritual leader during the premonarchic period. But his inability to control his wicked sons clearly removed him from that role. It is appropriate, then, that his replacement as spiritual leader and eventual kingmaker for Israel is Samuel.

The statement in which Yahweh retracts his commitment to Eli’s family has enduring significance. Verse 30 is notable for its assertion that Yahweh is repealing a promise he had previously stated as eternal. In addition to the promise of Aaronic priesthood (Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13), this verse indicates a commitment to Eli’s house or descendants as priests: “I promised that your house … would minister before me forever.” But the surpassing wickedness of Eli’s sons leads God to nullify that promise.

In other words, God’s eternal decrees are formally conditional. Eli’s family do not meet those conditions (2:30); thus, they will not benefit from the Aaronic promises. As elsewhere in Old Testament thought, the benefits of God’s promises are conditioned on people’s faithfulness, “a condition which applies to God’s promises even when it is not explicitly stated.”16 Thus, we may surmise that while God’s promises are eternal, the specific and individual benefits of those promises are contingent on continued faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

SINGING. SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO SING! Hannah had to sing! God had turned her barrenness into joy. By using one of Israel’s national hymns, she was bidding the nation to sing along with her. And her song reveals that she understood full well the significance of God’s sovereign, gift-giving love.

Attendance in public worship is important for numerous reasons. One of those is how it instills in us the ability to relate our circumstances to God’s love and his work in our lives. Our hymns and songs of worship are second only to the reading and exposition of the biblical text. Whether it is the Scripture choruses many of us use in our modern churches or the great classic hymns of the Christian faith, such singing of theology helps shape our thinking and prepares us for the day when we just cannot help ourselves, and we too have to sing.

Sin among church leaders. The contrast between Samuel and Eli’s sons in this chapter is a lesson for all religious professionals, as well as for individuals deeply involved in the life of their local congregation. Martin Luther King Jr. once admitted to being frustrated by ministers of the gospel who often “aren’t concerned about anything but themselves.”17

As the son of a pastor, I grew up watching parishioners and other pastors in our denominational connection. I will never fully understand the number of people intimately plugged into the business of the church—both local and general—who seem to persist in sin because of a hardness of heart. Some of the most hateful behavior I have ever witnessed has come from denominational leaders and local church officials. There is something about throwing oneself into the everyday affairs of the church, into the routine business of doing “church work,” that is deceptive. It soothes our conscience and makes us feel we are in the right state of mind spiritually. But proximity to God’s work is no substitute for submission to the grace of God.

As Hophni and Phinehas warn us, it is possible to handle the things of God regularly (they officiated Israel’s worship services!) and fail to have a heart that is sensitive to God’s will. In fact, it may be that those of us who daily handle the things of Christ are the ones most prone to forget their significance and fall into a laissez-faire approach to the gospel of God. In my current position as a seminary professor, the words edited by the fourteenth-century priest Thomas Hemerken of Kempen (better known as Thomas à Kempis) are apropos:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a [person] holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.18

So what profit was there in being priests for Hophni and Phinehas? And what profit is there in being the chairperson of your local church’s board of trustees or the administrative superintendent of your denomination? Indeed, these types of service are all commendable. But without the sensitive heart of the young Samuel, our service is useless.

Conditionality of benefits. The last section of chapter 2 contains prophetic condemnation of Eli’s house. This pericope has several issues germane to our contemporary context, but I mention just one here. The conditionality of Eli’s benefits and privileges under the Aaronic priesthood has many parallels to the contemporary church. Most Christians today attach themselves to institutions that they feel are squarely within God’s will and therefore are worthy of his continued blessings. These institutions can be whole denominations, individual local churches, Christian colleges or seminaries, an evangelistic association, or even a particular evangelist or minister. People often feel that because a certain institution has been faithful and effective in ministry in the past, it is worthy of continued financial support. But some Christians go further and lend such credibility to that institution (or individual) that they may not hear when God announces, “Far be it from me!” (2:30).

My own denomination has been wonderfully used of God in the history of the United States. I know many ministers who feel they could never leave our church because of an emotional attachment to the church as institution. We should always be aware that there are many valid Christian ministries, and no one organization or denominational group is above reproach. Like Eli’s priesthood, God does not bless forever any institutionalized form of Christianity as is. Institutions that fail to remain faithful to their calling and to uphold biblical principles of discipleship will eventually lose God’s favor. As painful as it often is, today’s Christian needs to realize that Eli’s priesthood did not last forever. There came a time for God to let it go and to look to new leadership to carry forward his work.

Original Meaning

Prophecy Against Eli’s Priesthood (2:27–36)

THE SUDDEN AND UNEXPECTED APPEARANCE of “a man of God” (2:27) in Old Testament narrative is seldom good news. Such anonymous prophetic figures often bring messages of impending judgment. This pericope contains the features of prophetic speech often used by such prophets to announce judgment against an individual, a genre of speech well known elsewhere in the Old Testament.13 Such prophetic speech has a discernible form: introduction, followed by accusation and then by the announcement of judgment. As is typical, the prophetic “Thus says Yahweh” introduces the whole speech (koh ʾamar ywhw; NIV “This is what the LORD says,” 2:27). It is followed by the accusation, which here takes the form of a question. This particular accusation in fact contains three questions: “Did I not clearly reveal myself to your father’s house … ?” “Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering … ?” and “Why do you honor your sons more than me … ?” (2:27–29).

The final stage of the prophetic speech is the announcement of judgment, which begins with the “therefore” in 2:30. Typically such announcements contain a singular statement of punishment about to befall the person to whom the speech is directed. Occasionally, as in our case against Eli, the announcement contains a contrast motif in which the offense of the guilty party is contrasted with the fact that he has received many benefits from Yahweh. In this passage, Yahweh reminds Eli that he had committed himself by divine oracle to the Elide house as priests (n^eʾum yhwh; NIV “the LORD declares”), that they would minister before the Lord “forever.” But as elsewhere in the Bible, such divine eternal promises are conditioned on continued faithfulness, even where such conditions are not specifically spelled out. Will the Lord abide the sinful and wicked behavior of Eli’s sons? The answer is an emphatic “Far be it from me!” (2:30). The condition for continued good favor with God is stated succinctly, requiring only four words in Hebrew: “Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.”

There is one more important component of the prophetic judgment speech against an individual pertinent to this passage. The greater part of the announcement of such speeches is usually connected to the declaration of a “sign” (ʾot), as in the familiar “therefore the LORD himself will give you a sign” (Isa. 7:14). One needs a sign only when the thing announced is expected to appear later, perhaps years later. The sign attests to the validity of the speech in the immediate historical context in which it is delivered. So the sign is announced in 2:34: “What happens to your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will be a sign [ʾot] to you.”

The specifics of God’s judgment against Eli are both corporate and personal. The entire house of Eli will suffer the consequences of the present wickedness. Every one of its members will die early, making Eli the last old man in his priestly line (2:22). But the immediate and personal application for Eli relates to his sons, Hophni and Phinehas (2:34–36): They will both die on the same day! Yahweh will raise up in their place a faithful priest, who “will minister before my anointed one always” (2:35).

The fulfillment of this prophecy comes in stages. First, Eli’s sons meet an untimely and tragic death, resulting also in the pitiable end of Eli’s life (1 Sam. 4). Many years later, eighty-five of Eli’s descendants meet a violent death in one of the darkest episodes of Israel’s first king, Saul (22:6–23). Eventually, Eli’s line of descendants is completely displaced by the Zadokite priests under Solomon (1 Kings 2:26–27). This illustrates the way in which Old Testament prophecy often finds fulfillment—first in a partial and incomplete way in the near future, and then in more complete and final ways in the remote future.

Bridging Contexts

HANNAH’S SONG. The Israelites had the wonderful ability of singing their theology. Hannah’s song of thanksgiving contains many indications that it was adapted from the nation’s repertoire of hymns. Her references to enemies, warriors, princes, and eventually a king lead to the conclusion this was a public hymn that she learned in her regular habit of worship. The appropriateness of her song is obvious, since her barrenness has been turned to joy by Yahweh’s power, just as Israel’s bleakness will soon be turned to exultation through the ministry of Samuel, the kingmaker. Thus, Hannah has learned how to praise through regular worship, and it serves her well when she wants to express her gratitude to God. In this way, worship often prepares us for life.

Hannah’s song of thanksgiving expresses great confidence in the loving sovereignty of God and expresses gratitude for what he has done. What God has done in the past, he is doing again, now through Hannah. By starting with the holy transcendence of Yahweh, as Hannah does in verse 2, the Israelites are able to see that every blessing in life is from God. Indeed, even those circumstances that we may not consider as “blessings” are from God, since he alone is holy.

God’s sovereignty is not mechanical determinism but knowledge that everything is in his hands and that whatever deliverance comes our way is from him. Just as he will some day exalt the horn of his anointed and give strength to his king (2:10), so Hannah can rejoice in her own exalted horn (2:1). God has lifted her head in vindication, because she trusted in him. But the exaltation of the meek also sets the tone for the rest of 1-2 Samuel.14 After the elevation of Hannah, we will read of the elevation of Samuel, Saul, and eventually David. This rise from humble surroundings to distinction (and power) is indeed the paradigm for what is about to happen for Israel as a nation.

Mary, the mother of Jesus, apparently patterned her own great prayer of praise and gratitude after Hannah’s song (the “Magnificat,” Luke 1:46–55).15 The two hymns have similarities in their beginnings, and they share several common themes. The circumstances of the two women were very different, of course, yet both conceived miraculously. Hannah sang her hymn of praise after Samuel’s birth, while Mary sang her hymn prior to her son’s birth. Unlike Hannah’s situation, Mary’s was an unexpected (and at first unwanted?) surprise blessing. But she came to accept and rejoice in God’s will for her life and was confident in his sovereign rule.

Samuel and Eli’s sons. The middle unit of this chapter highlights the differences between Samuel and the sons of Eli (2:12–26). The interchanging contrast between them pits the wicked actions of Eli’s sons against the innocent and submissive behavior of Samuel. Eli’s sons greedily exploit their position as priests, using power to gratify their own desires.

The narrator portrays a growing urgency about their sin. Their presumptuous actions intensify as the narrative unfolds. At first they steal food not rightfully theirs. Then they sexually abuse the women serving in the tabernacle. Their abhorrent behavior becomes widely known in Israel, and Eli realizes the severity of their sins. Samuel, by contrast, is the boy priest who innocently goes about his work, performing the services of the Lord (2:18). He is lovingly cared for by his mother, who brings him a fresh priestly garment each year and who is herself blessed by God’s good favor with more children. And Samuel gradually becomes mature in his faith.

The narrative’s way of contrasting the two paths of life—that followed by Samuel and that chosen by Eli’s sons—is a chilling lesson in the importance of individual responsibility for life’s choices. Hophni, Phinehas, and Samuel are not of totally dissimilar backgrounds and social privileges. Hophni and Phinehas are the sons of the high priest at Shiloh; Samuel is the son of a priestly family from nearby Ramah. They must have had similar religious education and opportunities. But the sons of Eli become great in their sins while Samuel became great in his faith. How does one explain the differences? Sin is deceptive and has a hardening effect on the human heart. When people continuously choose sinful attitudes and actions, they gradually become hardhearted and turn away “from the living God.” But those who persist in the faith will grow stronger and stand firm to the end in the confidence they had at first (Heb. 3:12–15).

Prophetic condemnation. The final unit of this chapter is the prophetic condemnation of the house of Eli (2:27–36). The formulaic pattern of introduction, accusation, and announcement as noted above prepares us for the fall of Eli (1 Sam. 4) and the concomitant rise of the fortunes of Samuel (1 Sam. 7). Eli and Samuel are headed in opposite directions. Eli was meant to be the nation’s spiritual leader during the premonarchic period. But his inability to control his wicked sons clearly removed him from that role. It is appropriate, then, that his replacement as spiritual leader and eventual kingmaker for Israel is Samuel.

The statement in which Yahweh retracts his commitment to Eli’s family has enduring significance. Verse 30 is notable for its assertion that Yahweh is repealing a promise he had previously stated as eternal. In addition to the promise of Aaronic priesthood (Ex. 29:9; Num. 25:13), this verse indicates a commitment to Eli’s house or descendants as priests: “I promised that your house … would minister before me forever.” But the surpassing wickedness of Eli’s sons leads God to nullify that promise.

In other words, God’s eternal decrees are formally conditional. Eli’s family do not meet those conditions (2:30); thus, they will not benefit from the Aaronic promises. As elsewhere in Old Testament thought, the benefits of God’s promises are conditioned on people’s faithfulness, “a condition which applies to God’s promises even when it is not explicitly stated.”16 Thus, we may surmise that while God’s promises are eternal, the specific and individual benefits of those promises are contingent on continued faithfulness.

Contemporary Significance

SINGING. SOMETIMES YOU JUST HAVE TO SING! Hannah had to sing! God had turned her barrenness into joy. By using one of Israel’s national hymns, she was bidding the nation to sing along with her. And her song reveals that she understood full well the significance of God’s sovereign, gift-giving love.

Attendance in public worship is important for numerous reasons. One of those is how it instills in us the ability to relate our circumstances to God’s love and his work in our lives. Our hymns and songs of worship are second only to the reading and exposition of the biblical text. Whether it is the Scripture choruses many of us use in our modern churches or the great classic hymns of the Christian faith, such singing of theology helps shape our thinking and prepares us for the day when we just cannot help ourselves, and we too have to sing.

Sin among church leaders. The contrast between Samuel and Eli’s sons in this chapter is a lesson for all religious professionals, as well as for individuals deeply involved in the life of their local congregation. Martin Luther King Jr. once admitted to being frustrated by ministers of the gospel who often “aren’t concerned about anything but themselves.”17

As the son of a pastor, I grew up watching parishioners and other pastors in our denominational connection. I will never fully understand the number of people intimately plugged into the business of the church—both local and general—who seem to persist in sin because of a hardness of heart. Some of the most hateful behavior I have ever witnessed has come from denominational leaders and local church officials. There is something about throwing oneself into the everyday affairs of the church, into the routine business of doing “church work,” that is deceptive. It soothes our conscience and makes us feel we are in the right state of mind spiritually. But proximity to God’s work is no substitute for submission to the grace of God.

As Hophni and Phinehas warn us, it is possible to handle the things of God regularly (they officiated Israel’s worship services!) and fail to have a heart that is sensitive to God’s will. In fact, it may be that those of us who daily handle the things of Christ are the ones most prone to forget their significance and fall into a laissez-faire approach to the gospel of God. In my current position as a seminary professor, the words edited by the fourteenth-century priest Thomas Hemerken of Kempen (better known as Thomas à Kempis) are apropos:

What good does it do to speak learnedly about the Trinity if, lacking humility, you displease the Trinity? Indeed it is not learning that makes a [person] holy and just, but a virtuous life makes him pleasing to God. I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it. For what would it profit us to know the whole Bible by heart and the principles of all the philosophers if we live without grace and the love of God? Vanity of vanities and all is vanity, except to love God and serve Him alone.18

So what profit was there in being priests for Hophni and Phinehas? And what profit is there in being the chairperson of your local church’s board of trustees or the administrative superintendent of your denomination? Indeed, these types of service are all commendable. But without the sensitive heart of the young Samuel, our service is useless.

Conditionality of benefits. The last section of chapter 2 contains prophetic condemnation of Eli’s house. This pericope has several issues germane to our contemporary context, but I mention just one here. The conditionality of Eli’s benefits and privileges under the Aaronic priesthood has many parallels to the contemporary church. Most Christians today attach themselves to institutions that they feel are squarely within God’s will and therefore are worthy of his continued blessings. These institutions can be whole denominations, individual local churches, Christian colleges or seminaries, an evangelistic association, or even a particular evangelist or minister. People often feel that because a certain institution has been faithful and effective in ministry in the past, it is worthy of continued financial support. But some Christians go further and lend such credibility to that institution (or individual) that they may not hear when God announces, “Far be it from me!” (2:30).

My own denomination has been wonderfully used of God in the history of the United States. I know many ministers who feel they could never leave our church because of an emotional attachment to the church as institution. We should always be aware that there are many valid Christian ministries, and no one organization or denominational group is above reproach. Like Eli’s priesthood, God does not bless forever any institutionalized form of Christianity as is. Institutions that fail to remain faithful to their calling and to uphold biblical principles of discipleship will eventually lose God’s favor. As painful as it often is, today’s Christian needs to realize that Eli’s priesthood did not last forever. There came a time for God to let it go and to look to new leadership to carry forward his work.