1. Самуилова 1:1 Коментар

The history of Samuel here begins as early as that of Samson did, even before he was born, as afterwards the history of John the Baptist and our blessed Saviour. Some of the scripture-worthies drop out of the clouds, as it were, and their first appearance is in their full growth and lustre. But others are accounted for from the birth, and from the womb, and from the conception. What God says of the prophet Jeremiah is true of all: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee," Jer 1:5. But some great men were brought into the world with more observation than others, and were more early distinguished from common persons, as Samuel for one. God, in this matter, acts as a free agent. The story of Samson introduces him as a child of promise, Jdg. 13. But the story of Samuel introduces him as a child of prayer. Samson's birth was foretold by an angel to his mother; Samuel was asked of God by his mother. Both together intimate what wonders are produced by the word and prayer. Samuel's mother was Hannah, the principal person concerned in the story of this chapter. I. Here is her affliction - she was childless, and this affliction aggravated by her rival's insolence, but in some measure balanced by her husband's kindness (Sa1 1:1-8). II. The prayer and vow she made to God under this affliction, in which Eli the high priest at first censured her, but afterwards encouraged her (Sa1 1:9-18). III. The birth and nursing of Samuel (Sa1 1:19-23) IV. The presenting of him to the Lord (Sa1 1:24-28).

We have here an account of the state of the family into which Samuel the prophet was born. His father's name was Elkanah, a Levite, and of the family of the Kohathites (the most honourable house of that tribe) as appears, Ch1 6:33, Ch1 6:34. His ancestor Zuph was an Ephrathite, that is, of Bethlehem-Judah, which was called Ephrathah, Ruth, Rut 1:2. There this family of the Levites was first seated, but one branch of it, in process of time, removed to Mount Ephraim, from which Elkanah descended. Micah's Levite came from Bethlehem to Mount Ephraim, Jdg 17:8. Perhaps notice is taken of their being originally Ephrathites to show their alliance to David. This Elkanah lived at Ramah, or Ramathaim, which signifies the double Ramah, the higher and lower town, the same with Arimathea of which Joseph was, here called Ramathaim-zophim. Zophim signifies watchmen; probably they had one of the schools of the prophets there, for prophets are called watchmen: the Chaldee paraphrase calls Elkanah a disciple of the prophets. But it seems to me that it was in Samuel that prophecy revived, before his time there being, for a great while, no open vision, Sa1 3:1. Nor is there any mention of a prophet of the Lord from Moses to Samuel, except Jdg 6:8. So that we have no reason to think that there was any nursery or college of prophets here till Samuel himself founded one, Jdg 19:19, Jdg 19:20. This is the account of Samuel's parentage, and the place of his nativity. Let us now take notice of the state of the family. I. It was a devout family. All the families of Israel should be so, but Levites' families in a particular manner. Ministers should be patterns of family religion. Elkanah went up at the solemn feasts to the tabernacle at Shiloh, to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts. I think this is the first time in scripture that God is called the Lord of hosts - Jehovah Sabaoth, a name by which he was afterwards very much called and known. Probably Samuel the prophet was the first that used this title of God, for the comfort of Israel, when in his time their hosts were few and feeble and those of their enemies many and mighty; then it would be a support to them to think that the God they served was Lord of hosts, of all the hosts both of heaven and earth; of them he has a sovereign command, and makes what use he pleases of them. Elkanah was a country Levite, and, for aught that appears, had not any place or office which required his attendance at the tabernacle, but he went up as a common Israelite, with his own sacrifices, to encourage his neighbours and set them a good example. When he sacrificed he worshipped, joining prayers and thanksgivings with his sacrifices. In this course of religion he was constant, for he went up yearly. And that which made it the more commendable in him was, 1. That there was a general decay and neglect of religion in the nations. Some among them worshipped other gods, and the generality were remiss in the service of the God of Israel, and yet Elkanah kept his integrity; whatever others did, his resolution was that he and his house should serve the Lord. 2. That Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, were the men that were now chiefly employed in the service of the house of God; and they were men that conducted themselves very ill in their place, as we shall find afterwards; yet Elkanah went up to sacrifice. God had then tied his people to one place and one altar, and forbidden them, under any pretence whatsoever, to worship elsewhere, and therefore, in pure obedience to that command, he attended at Shiloh. If the priests did not do their duty, he would do his. Thanks be to God, we, under the gospel, are not tied to any one place or family; but the pastors and teachers whom the exalted Redeemer has given to his church are those only whose ministration tends to the perfecting of the saints and the edifying of the body of Christ, Eph 4:11, Eph 4:12. None have dominion over our faith; but our obligation is to those that are the helpers of our holiness and joy, not to any that by their scandalous immoralities, like Hophni and Phinehas, make the sacrifices of the Lord to be abhorred, though still the validity and efficacy of the sacraments depend not on the purity of him that administers them. II. Yet it was a divided family, and the divisions of it carried with them both guilt and grief. Where there is piety, it is a pity but there should be unity. The joint-devotions of a family should put an end to divisions in it. 1. The original cause of this division was Elkanah's marrying two wives, which was a transgression of the original institution of marriage, to which our Saviour reduces it. Mat 19:5, Mat 19:8, From the beginning it was not so. It made mischief in Abraham's family, and Jacob's, and here in Elkanah's. How much better does the law of God provide for our comfort and ease in this world than we should, if we were left to ourselves! It is probable that Elkanah married Hannah first, and, because he had not children by her so soon as he hoped, he married Peninnah, who bore him children indeed, but was in other things a vexation to him. Thus are men often beaten with rods of their own making. 2. That which followed upon this error was that the two wives could not agree. They had different blessings: Peninnah, like Leah, was fruitful and had many children, which should have made her easy and thankful, though she was but a second wife, and was less beloved; Hannah, like Rachel, was childless indeed, but she was very dear to her husband, and he took all occasions to let both her and others know that she was so, and many a worthy portion he gave her (Sa1 1:5), and this should have made her easy and thankful. But they were of different tempers: Peninnah could not bear the blessing of fruitfulness, but she grew haughty and insolent; Hannah could not bear the affliction of barrenness, but she grew melancholy and discontented: and Elkanah had a difficult part to act between them. (1.) Elkanah kept up his attendance at God's altar notwithstanding this unhappy difference in his family, and took his wives and children with him, that, if they could not agree in other things, they might agree to worship God together. If the devotions of a family prevail not to put an end to its divisions, yet let not the divisions put a stop to the devotions. (2.) He did all he could to encourage Hannah, and to keep up her spirits under her affliction, Sa1 1:4, Sa1 1:5. At the feast he offered peace-offerings, to supplicate for peace in his family; and when he and his family were to eat their share of the sacrifice, in token of their communion with God and his altar, though he carved to Peninnah and her children competent portions, yet to Hannah he gave a worthy portion, the choicest piece that came to the table, the piece (whatever it was) that used to be given on such occasions to those that were most valued; this he did in token of his love to her, and to give all possible assurances of it. Observe, [1.] Elkanah loved his wife never the less for her being barren. Christ loves his church, notwithstanding her infirmities, her barrenness; and so ought men to love their wives, Eph 5:25. To abate our just love to any relation for the sake of any infirmity which they cannot help, and which is not their sin but their affliction, is to make God's providence quarrel with his precept, and very unkindly to add affliction to the afflicted. [2.] He studied to show his love so much the more because she was afflicted, insulted, and low-spirited. It is wisdom and duty to support the weakest, and to hold up those that are run down. [3.] He showed his great love to her by the share he gave her of his peace-offerings. Thus we should testify our affection to our friends and relations, by abounding in prayer for them. The better we love them the more room let us give them in our prayers. (3.) Peninnah was extremely peevish and provoking. [1.] She upbraided Hannah with her affliction, despised her because she was barren, and gave her taunting language, as one whom Heaven did not favour. [2.] She envied the interest she had in the love of Elkanah, and the more kind he was to her the more was she exasperated against her, which was all over base and barbarous. [3.] She did this most when they went up to the house of the Lord, perhaps because then they were more together than at other times, or because then Elkanah showed his affection most to Hannah. But it was very sinful at such a time to show her malice, when pure hands were to be lifted up at God's altar without wrath and quarrelling. It was likewise very unkind at that time to vex Hannah, not only because then they were in company, and others would take notice of it, but then Hannah was to mind her devotions, and desired to be most calm and composed, and free from disturbance. The great adversary to our purity and peace is then most industrious to ruffle us when we should be most composed. When the sons of God come to present themselves before the Lord Satan will be sure to come among them, Job 1:6. [4.] She continued to do this from year to year, not once or twice, but it was her constant practice; neither deference to her husband nor compassion to Hannah could break her of it. [5.] That which she designed was to make her fret, perhaps in hopes to break her heart, that she might possess her husband's heart solely, or because she took a pleasure in her uneasiness, nor could Hannah gratify her more than by fretting. Note, It is an evidence of a base disposition to delight in grieving those that are melancholy and of a sorrowful spirit, and in putting those out of humour that are apt to fret and be uneasy. We ought to bear one another's burdens, not add to them. (4.) Hannah (poor woman) could not hear the provocation: She wept, and did not eat, Sa1 1:7. It made her uneasy to herself and to all her relations. She did not eat of the feast; her trouble took away her appetite, made her unfit for any company, and a jar in the harmony of family-joy. It was of the feast upon the sacrifice that she did not eat, for they were not to eat of the holy things in their mourning, Deu 26:14; Lev 10:19. Yet it was her infirmity so far to give way to the sorrow of the world as to unfit herself for holy joy in God. Those that are of a fretful spirit, and are apt to lay provocations too much to heart, are enemies to themselves, and strip themselves very much of the comforts both of life and godliness. We find that God took notice of this ill effect of discontents and disagreements in the conjugal relation, that the parties aggrieved covered the altar of the Lord with tears, insomuch that he regarded not the offering, Mal 2:13. (5.) Elkanah said what he could to her to comfort her. She did not upbraid him with his unkindness in marrying another wife as Sarah did, nor did she render to Peninnah railing for railing, but took the trouble wholly to herself, which made her an object of much compassion. Elkanah showed himself extremely grieved at her grief (Sa1 1:8): Hannah, why weepest thou? [1.] He is much disquieted to see her thus overwhelmed with sorrow. Those that by marriage are made one flesh ought thus far to be of one spirit too, to share in each other's troubles, so that one cannot be easy while the other is uneasy. [2.] He gives her a loving reproof for it: Why weepest thou? And why is thy heart grieved? As many as God loves he rebukes, and so should we. He puts her upon enquiring into the cause of her grief. Though she had just reason to be troubled, yet let her consider whether she had reason to be troubled to such a degree, especially so much as to be taken off by it from eating of the holy things. Note, Our sorrow upon any account is sinful and inordinate when it diverts us from our duty to God and embitters our comfort in him, when it makes us unthankful for the mercies we enjoy and distrustful of the goodness of God to us in further mercies, when it casts a damp upon our joy in Christ, and hinders us from doing the duty and taking the comfort of our particular relations. [3.] He intimates that nothing should be wanting on his part to balance her grief: "Am not I better to thee than ten sons? Thou knowest thou hast my entire affection, and let that comfort thee." Note, We ought to take notice of our comforts, to keep us from grieving excessively for our crosses; for our crosses we deserve, but our comforts we have forfeited. If we would keep the balance even, we must look at that which is for us, as well as at that which is against us, else we are unjust to Providence and unkind to ourselves. God hath set the one over-against the other (Ecc 7:14) and so should we.

This chapter gives an account of the parents of Samuel, of the trouble his mother met with from her rival, and comfort from her husband, Sa1 1:1, of her prayer to God for a son, and of her vow to him, should one be given her, Sa1 1:9 of the notice Eli took of her, and of his censure on her, which he afterwards retracted, and comforted her, Sa1 1:12 of her conception and the birth of her son, the nursing and weaning of him, Sa1 1:19 and of the presentation of him to the Lord, with a sacrifice, Sa1 1:24.

Now there was a man of Ramathaimzophim, of Mount Ephraim,.... Ramathaim is a word of the dual number, and signifies two Ramahs; the city consisted of two parts, being built perhaps on two hills, and were called Zophim; because, as the Rabbins say, they looked one to another; or rather, because situated on eminences, there were watchtowers in them, where watchmen were placed; or because they were inhabited by prophets, who were sometimes called watchmen, Eze 3:17 and here is thought to be a school of the prophets, see Sa1 19:19 and which seems to be countenanced by the Targum, in which the words are paraphrased thus, "and there was one" man of Ramatha, of the disciples of the prophets; or, as others think, the sense is this, this man was one of the Ramathites, the inhabitants of Ramah, and of the family of Zuph, or the Zuphites, which gave the name to the land of Zuph, and the grand ancestor of Elkanah is in this verse called Zuph, see Sa1 9:5. According to Jerom (e), this is the same with Arimathaea, of which Joseph was, Mat 27:57 for thus he writes,"Armatha Sophim, the city of Helcanah and Samuel, in the Thamnitic region near Diospolis (or Lydda), from whence was Joseph, who in the Gospels is said to be of Arimathaea;''but Reland (f) thinks it cannot be the same that was about Lydda, which was all a champaign country; whereas this was in the mountains of Ephraim, which must be sought to the north of Jerusalem, and not the west, and so it follows: of Mount Ephraim: which is added to distinguish it from other Ramahs in several tribes, as in Benjamin, Naphtali, &c. though this may refer not to the situation of Ramathaim, but to the country of this man, who was originally of Mount Ephraim, as was the Levite in Jdg 19:1 who was the cause of much evil to Israel, as this was of great good, as Kimchi observes: and his name was Elkanah; which signifies "God hath possessed"; that is, possessed him, or he was in possession of God; he had an ancestor of the same name, Ch1 6:23. This man was a Levite, one of the Kohathites, and a descendant of Korah; so that the famous prophet Samuel was of the sons of Korah: the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph; the three last of these names are somewhat differently read in Ch1 6:26, where they are Eliab, Nahath, Zophai; and in Ch1 6:34. Eliel, Toah, Zuph: an Ephrathite; which appellation is to be connected, according to Kimchi, not with Elkanah, but with Zuph; though neither of them were so called from Bethlehemjudah, the inhabitants of which were indeed called Ephrathites from Ephratah, another name of it; so Elimelech, and his sons Mahlon and Chilion, being of that city, were so called, Rut 1:2 not from their being of the tribe of Ephraim, as Jeroboam of that tribe is called an Ephrathite, Kg1 11:26, see Jdg 12:5 for these were Levites, the descendants of Kohath, in the line of Korah; but because they sojourned in Mount Ephraim, or dwelt there, as Elkanah did; and it is well known that the Kohathites had cities given them in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos 21:5. (e) De loc. Heb. fol. 88. K. (f) Palestin. Illustrat. tom. 2. p. 581.

Is not this very thing a reason for praising the just person, that one can say of him: “There was one man”? We who are still sinners cannot acquire that title of praise because each of us is not one but many. For looking at me is the face of one who is now angry, and then sad, a little later happy, and then disturbed and then gentle, at times concerned with the things of God and actions leading to eternal life, but shortly after doing things based on greed or the glory of this world. You can see, then, that he who was thought to be one is not one at all; but there seem to be as many persons in him as there are customs.… But as for the just, not only is each said to be one but they are, all together, said to be one. And why shouldn’t they all be called one, who were described as being of “one heart and soul”? They constantly contemplate one wisdom, are of one affection and disposition, reverence one God, confess one Jesus Christ as Lord, are filled with one Spirit of God. They are rightly called not just one [thing] but “one person,” as the apostle indicated when he said, “All the runners compete, but only one receives the prize.”

1. Whom then does this man represent to us, if not our Lord and Redeemer, who both appeared in the weakness of our flesh, and yet did not subdue that same weakness of His assumed nature with the enticements of a more indulgent life? For "man" (vir) is named from "virtue" (virtus): But man, created in paradise, had war with the apostate angel, whom nevertheless he did not take care to resist through his conditional virtue. Therefore, created strong but weakly subjugated to the enemy, he was not a man by combat, who was one by gift. Thus he was made strong in such a way that, with human nature condemned, he could not prevail over the victorious enemy, unless He who existed above men should assume it. Therefore our Creator became our warrior. But whether He was a man is known if it is considered from the virtue He displayed. He assumed our nature, so that while it conquered in Him, it might restore its created nobility, and what had been made strong but weak in Adam might become weak but strong in the Redeemer (Matt. 4). To Him indeed, while He fasted in the wilderness, the tempter came, renewed the weapons of his ancient victory, and hurled the darts of gluttony, pride, and arrogance; but he found Him resisting in all things. Therefore He shone forth as a man through victory, who, overcoming the apostate angel—already a strong conqueror—did not display to him the power of His divinity but the weakness of His humanity. Considering this man, the prophet Jeremiah says: "A woman shall encompass a man" (Jer. 31:22). Zechariah points to Him, saying: "Behold, a man, the Rising is His name" (Zech. 6:12). The blessed apostle Peter, preaching to the Jews, says of Him: "Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved by God among you by powers, wonders, and signs: Him, delivered by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God, you killed by fastening Him through the hands of wicked men" (Acts 2:22-23). Hence Cleopas, conversing with the same Redeemer on the road, said: "Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word" (Luke 24:19). For He was a man who both expelled the ancient enemy from the Church in this world and, dying, bound him in hell. And because He who, dying, shattered the powers of hell, rising again, opened for us the entrance to eternity, He showed us the greatness of His virtue not only by living but also by dying and rising. Therefore, because our Redeemer is known to have done works of great virtue through the humanity He assumed, rightly is he who signifies Him in type declared to have been a man. 2. But we must ask why he is called "one man." For if this "oneness" refers to number, it seems superfluous: for everyone is one, and not two. And Saint Samuel, by whom these things are written, must in no way be believed to have begun in vain contrary to the custom of the writers of Holy Church. For the writer of that volume, when he was presenting the life of blessed Job as an example for the faithful, began thus: "There was a man in the land of Uz, named Job" (Job 1:1). The evangelist Luke also, when at the beginning of his Gospel he was speaking the praises of a just priest, said: "There was in the days of Herod the king a priest named Zechariah" (Luke 1:5). For neither did the former say "one man," nor the evangelist "there was one priest." What then is the reason that the chosen prophet, contrary to the custom of writers, began with such an opening? But because he was not only a writer, but also a prophet, he knew of whom the history spoke; and he knew whom the one spoken of in the history signified. Therefore, what he narrates from history beyond the custom of history, this he speaks for the use of the catholic faith, in the understanding of allegory. Hence also by this new custom, the whole Church together confesses that God and man is one Christ. Therefore he says: "There was one man"; because he was speaking of the God-man, so that he might assert his divinity and humanity, and might more openly demonstrate that the person of the Word receiving and of the man received is not different, but that of God and man is one and the same: which unity, nevertheless, can fittingly be referred to the excellence of his dignity. For even if Holy Church has not had another Redeemer, through the display of virtue she has had many men. Therefore, when he is called "one," he is shown to be incomparable. 3. For He had no equal, who while He looked after the human race with His excellent life and word, was able by a singular gift to give the gifts of Redemption. Hence Paul also says: "Receiving abundance of grace, and of the gift, and of justice, they shall reign in life through one Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:17). Reproaching the Jews for this dignity of His excellence through Himself, He says: "If I had not done among them the works that no other man has done, they would not have sin" (John 15:24). The Psalmist also, considering the excellence of His beauty, said: "Beautiful in form above the sons of men, grace is poured forth on your lips" (Ps. 45:3). Isaiah, testifying to the singular good of Redemption in Him, says: "Truly He has borne our infirmities, and He has carried our iniquities" (Isa. 53:4). The eternal Father also, showing His singular dignity, cried out from the magnificent glory, saying: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased" (Matt. 3:17; 17:5; 2 Pet. 1:17). He was the one man whom Peter, confessing, said: "There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). Paul asserts this greatness of His excellence, saying: "The Lord exalted Him, and gave Him a name which is above every name" (Phil. 2:9). And because the excellence of His virtue surpasses not only the elect among men, but also all the blessed angels, Paul, preaching this to the Hebrews, says: "Who being the brightness of glory, and the figure of His substance, and upholding all things by the word of His power, making purgation of sins, sits at the right hand of the majesty on high, being made so much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You are my Son, this day have I begotten you'? And again: 'I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to me a Son'" (Heb. 1:3-5). Rightly therefore He is called the one man, to whom no one is compared. But now that we have recognized how great He is, let us hear from where He was. 4. From Ramatha Sophim, from the mountain of Ephraim. Ramatha, Sophim, and Ephraim are Hebrew names, of which the first in our language means "Completed Vision," the second "Watchtower," and the third is interpreted as "Fruitful" or "Fruit-bearing." And what is the completed vision, if not the perfect knowledge of almighty God? Indeed, the teacher of the Gentiles indicates this completed vision, saying: "We see now through a mirror in an enigma, but then face to face; now I know in part, but then I shall know, just as I also have been known" (1 Cor. 13:12). And what is understood by watchtowers, if not that sublimity of the angels? For a watchtower is chosen on high for a clearer view. Ramatha is rightly called Sophim: because that perfect knowledge of our Creator can only be possessed by those blessed citizens who stand in that supernal height. For the radiance of eternal light in its fullness is beheld not in the depths of this present exile, but from the state of eternal sublimity. Hence Ramatha Sophim is rightly said to be situated on the mountain of Ephraim. For what is the mountain of Ephraim, if not heaven? For the fruitful mountain is that which always brings forth the flowers of eternal beauty and the fruits of unfailing joy. Rightly both Ramatha and Sophim are said to be situated on Mount Ephraim, because that eternal vision of almighty God, and that height of the blessed citizens, is not held on earth, but in heaven. Indicating that he was from Ramatha, he says: "As the Father knows me, I also know the Father" (John 10:15). Hence again he says: "No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him" (Matt. 11:27; Luke 10:22). He was from the watchtower, that is, from on high, who also rebuking the Jews says: "You are from below, I am from above: you are of this world, I am not of this world" (John 8:23). He was from Mount Ephraim, who says: "I am the living bread who came down from heaven" (John 6:51). John the Baptist, affirming that he was from Mount Ephraim, says: "He who comes from heaven is above all" (John 3:31). Hence the Psalmist says: "His going forth is from the highest heaven" (Ps. 18:7). Hence the teacher of the Gentiles says: "The second man is from heaven, heavenly" (1 Cor. 15:47). Therefore the man, who is declared to have been one, is said to have come from Ramatha Sophim, from Mount Ephraim: because he who was born among all shone forth above all, and appeared so great on earth because he came from heaven. He was from Ramatha Sophim, because even though he shone here incomparably, nevertheless the greatness of his excellence is not grasped except where the perfect knowledge of him is displayed to the eternal citizens. For one who had beheld him in the excellence of his power here said: "What we have seen and heard, and our hands have handled concerning the word of life" (1 John 1:1). But because he had not seen the greatness of his excellence, he promises it to us in Ramatha, saying: "When he appears, we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is" (1 John 3:2). 5. Moreover, by the name of this mountain, the most blessed ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, can be designated: for she was indeed a mountain, who by the dignity of her election transcended all the height of every chosen creature. Was not Mary a sublime mountain, who, in order to attain to the conception of the eternal Word, raised the summit of her merits above all the choirs of angels, even to the throne of the Godhead? Indeed, Isaiah prophesying of the most excellent dignity of this mountain, said: "In the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of the mountains" (Isaiah 2:2). For she was indeed a mountain on the top of mountains, because the height of Mary shone forth above all the saints. For just as a mountain designates height, so a house designates a dwelling. Indeed, she is fittingly called both mountain and house, because while she was illuminated by incomparable merits, she prepared her sacred womb for the only-begotten Son of God to rest in. For Mary would not have become a mountain on the top of mountains, if divine fruitfulness had not raised her above the height of the angels. And she would not have become the house of the Lord, if the divinity of the Word had not lain in her womb through the humanity he assumed. But she is rightly called a fruitful mountain, from whom the best fruit, that is, the new man, is born; and certainly the prophet, beholding her beautiful and adorned in the glory of her fruitfulness, said: "A shoot shall come forth from the root of Jesse, and a flower shall rise from his root" (Isaiah 11:1). For concerning the fruit of this mountain, David exulting in God said: "Let the peoples praise you, O God, let all the peoples praise you; the earth has yielded its fruit" (Psalm 67:6). For the earth yielded its fruit, because what the Virgin bore, she conceived not by material work, but by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35). Hence it is said to that same king and prophet by the Lord: "Of the fruit of your womb I will set upon your throne" (Psalm 132:11). Hence Isaiah says: "The fruit of the earth shall be sublime" (Isaiah 4:2). For he whom the Virgin bore was not only a holy man, but also mighty God. Concerning this fruit, to the same blessed Virgin, when Elizabeth greeted her, it is said: "Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb" (Luke 1:42). Rightly therefore she is called the mountain of Ephraim, because while she is raised up by the ineffable dignity of divine generation, in her fruit the barren shoots of the human condition grow green again. Therefore a man from Ramathaim-zophim was made from the mountain of Ephraim: because he who by the power of his divinity created the angels, from the flesh of the most exalted Virgin, took on the form of humanity. And because through the humanity which he assumed, he wished to be born not from unbelievers, but from believers, there follows: "The son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph." 6. Indeed, four names of the fathers are assigned: because when the Lord took flesh from the faithful people, He had them as fathers through His humanity, whom He illuminated with the glory of just as many principal virtues. Hence it is said by divine promise not to some unfaithful person, but to faithful Abraham: "In your seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed" (Gen. 22:18). Hence the evangelist Matthew, weaving the order of His genealogy, says: "The book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" (Matt. 1:1). Hence He speaks to the Samaritan woman through Himself, saying: "Salvation is from the Jews" (John 4:22). Hence Paul says: "Whose is the adoption of sons, and the glory, and the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the service, and the promises: whose are the fathers, from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things God blessed forever" (Rom. 9:4-5). Because indeed prudence was present in them for the knowledge of things; justice, by which they desired to arrange rightly what they knew; fortitude, by which they were able to carry out the good things they wished; temperance, through which they would accomplish all things with discretion—they are fittingly designated by the number four. 7. There follows: An Ephrathite. But why is he who is said to be from Mount Ephraim called an Ephrathite? Yet this is clear according to the letter, because evidently someone could be from Mount Ephraim who was not born from the tribe of Ephraim. He is therefore called an Ephrathite, so that he who is shown to be from that place might also be recognized as being from that lineage of descent. But since Ephrathite means "fruitful," this is rightly ascribed to the person of the Redeemer, who is proclaimed by the prophecy of the prophet: He shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, which shall give its fruit in its season (Ps. 1:4). For appearing in the preordained fullness of times, he turned the flowers of heavenly teaching into the fruits of the elect; and as many as he joined to himself from the human race, he brought forth as so many fruits unto eternity. In this passage, while the life of the Redeemer is described, the perdition of the devil is also secretly shown. For he was from Mount Ephraim, and yet was not an Ephrathite: because indeed he fell from heaven, but the bad tree did not bear good fruit. (Verse 2.) He had two wives; the name of one was Anna, and the name of the second was Peninnah: and Peninnah had children, but Anna had no offspring.

(Moral Exposition) In this one man, what is more fittingly designated than each new despiser of the world? For he is called a man because he is strong in purpose; but one, because he is singular in love; for he is a man because from great virtue he despises all present things; but one, because he desires to enjoy the vision of almighty God alone. For whoever perfectly despises earthly things is a man from fortitude, but if he does not ardently desire to see his Creator, he is not one from intention. Therefore the perfection of the man is placed in the praise of unity, so that he who powerfully despises the world may not divide his mind, may yearn only for heavenly things, may sigh only for those eternal joys which come from the vision of the Creator. Such indeed was he who confessing to God said: What remains for me in heaven, and what have I desired from you upon earth (Ps. 72:25)? Hence he also says: Your face, O Lord, I will seek (Ps. 26:8). For he who desired nothing on earth was indeed a man; but he who desired nothing either in heaven or on earth except Him alone, who, spurning all things, sought only His face, was not only a man but also one. Concerning this unity the Lord speaks to Martha in the Gospel, saying: Martha, Martha, you are anxious and troubled about many things; but one thing is necessary (Luke 10:41-42). Hence Luke, speaking of the perfect number of believers, says: They had one heart and one soul (Acts 4:32). For they had one heart because through the intention of reason they had looked upon the Creator alone; they had one soul because through the affection of love they desired to see His face alone. Hence it is that the devoted Prophet considers within himself, saying: My soul has thirsted for God, the living fountain; when shall I come and appear before the face of God (Ps. 41:2)? For obtaining this unity, Truth teaching says: Whoever does not renounce all that he possesses cannot be my disciple (Luke 14:33). These things also belong to us, because we who, renouncing the world, have sought the seclusion of a more remote life, are called monks. 'Monos' indeed is Greek, but in Latin it means "one." We are inscribed with this title of appellation so that the word of our name may intimate to us the height of our dignity, and our soul may raise itself the more ardently toward the vision of the Creator, inasmuch as it bears, as it were displayed on its forehead, the sublimity of that brightness in which it must always abide. But the sublimity of divine love is granted only within the catholic Church to the truly elect. Rightly therefore is the man who is called "one" said to have been from Ramathaim-zophim, from Mount Ephraim. For Ramathaim, as I have already said, is a Hebrew name, but in Latin it means "Consummated vision." This appellation indeed befits the holy Church, which was foreseen long ago by the prophets, but was established at the end of the ages in faith in the Redeemer. Therefore the holy Church is called "consummated vision" because it was raised up to the summit of religion through the Redeemer of the human race, whereas formerly it was only foreseen through the spirit of prophecy. Moreover, it is described as being built at Zophim on Mount Ephraim, because it is most lofty in the contemplation of God and fruitful in spiritual virtues. For Zophim means "watchtower," and Ephraim "fruitful." These words indeed rightly intimate the position of the holy Church, which is exalted not only in the intention of its vision but also in the excellence of its way of life. By these words also both the madness of heretics and the barrenness of other wicked people are condemned. For those who deviate from the rectitude of faith do not have the speculation of sublimity; while those who see rightly what they should do but always pretend not to do it indeed have a watchtower, but do not attain the mountain of virtues through an excellent life. But the holy Church, because it is sublime in Zophim, that is, in speculation, glories, saying: "Our conversation is in heaven" (Phil. 3:20). Because it is also established on the mountain of virtues through the fruit of good work, condemning the crushed faith of the reprobate, it says: "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:20, 26). Hence also in preaching it says: "While we have time, let us do good to all, but especially to those of the household of faith" (Gal. 6:10). Therefore the man who is called "one" is said to be from Mount Ephraim, because both to despise earthly things and to desire heavenly things profits only him who through the catholic faith keeps himself within the holy Church. There follows: "And his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph." We have also shown above that this name, translated from the Hebrew language into our own, means "fervor of God." This name of the man indeed fits well with the order of spiritual exposition. For he who is called one man must necessarily be regarded as proceeding from the fervor of God. For who could either despise temporal things or love heavenly things without divine grace? It is indeed necessary that divine grace precede him, so that, kindled by the fire of the Holy Spirit, the more ardently he loves the highest things, the more strongly he may despise the lowest. For him also, in the order of genealogy, the names of four fathers are recorded, because he was begotten in the faith of the Redeemer through their preaching—those who believed in the same Redeemer of the human race through the writings of the four Evangelists from every part of the world. He is also called an Ephrathite. From Mount Ephraim, and an Ephrathite is one who is not barren in fertile land. For many within the holy Church are counted by the name of faith, yet produce no fruits of action. These indeed, when they come forth from the Church, are perceived to be as if from a fruitful mountain; but because they themselves do not have the fruit of good works, they are not Ephrathites. Therefore, he is from Mount Ephraim and is not an Ephrathite who learned the catholic faith in the Church but does not perform works worthy of faith. To such as these, Truth threatens in the Gospel, saying: "The kingdom of God will be taken from you and given to a nation producing its fruit" (Matthew 21:34). Hence, under the image of the fig tree, commanding the farmer of the holy Church to reject the unfruitful soul, he says: "Cut it down; why should it occupy the land?" (Luke 13:7). Hence John the Baptist, threatening, says: "Already the axe is laid to the root of the tree. Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire" (Matthew 3:10; Luke 3:9). He had also shown that they were from Mount Ephraim but not Ephrathites, about whom Truth says in the Gospel through a parable: "He will miserably destroy those wicked men and lease his vineyard to other farmers who will render him the fruit in their seasons" (Matthew 21:41). Therefore, the man from Mount Ephraim is called an Ephrathite, because all of us who hold the catholic faith within the holy Church, while we cast away earthly things through the ardor of affection and love heavenly things, must also be separated from the earthly things we despise through the labor of good work and be prepared for the heavenly things we love. Therefore, to be in the Church and not to do good works, because it does not profit for acquiring the good of eternal salvation, the man who is declared to be from Mount Ephraim is also remembered to have been an Ephrathite.

There was a man from Ramathaim Zophim ... Elkanah, etc. The first reading of Blessed Samuel typically designates one and the same Lord Christ, to be believed always as the Redeemer and Ruler of both the Synagogue and the Church; of one, boasting of herself from the justice of the law and the abundance of her believing progeny; of the other, lamenting the injustices of her long desolation with humble devotion at the mercy of her same Redeemer, and therefore, breathing again with the sublime consolation of that Redeemer. Ramathaim, as we find in the books of locations, is a city in the region of Thannitica, near Diospolis, from which was Joseph, who in the Gospels is written of as from Arimathea. Moreover, Zophim is a mountain of Ephraim in the place of Ramathaim, which the old edition called Armathem. Ramathaim, however, is interpreted as "their heights"; Zophim as "watchtower"; Ephraim as "fruitful" or "increasing"; and Elkanah as "God's possession." Therefore, there was a man from their heights, that is, a watchtower of men, from the fruitful and increasing mountain, and his name is "God's possession." One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God (Eph. IV), who always has a beloved possession, and consecrates a dwelling in the spiritual hearts of the faithful. These, having transcended the earthly conversation, with all the effort of the mind, desire to observe the heavenly light of wisdom, possessing that mountain, which, with the pomp of worldly empire destroyed, grew with the fruit of believing peoples, and filled the whole earth. Of which the Psalmist says: "And He heard me from His holy mountain" (Psalm III), that is, He redeemed me through the man whom He singularly accepted as holy. This one man, namely, man Christ, explaining His own name says: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of His ways" (Proverbs VIII). But this must also be noted according to the letter, because it is not written in vain, nor superfluously, "There was one man"; since it might seem sufficient to say, "There was a man from Ramathaim," or it could more fittingly have been said, "There was a certain man"; as some have even dared to translate against the faith of Hebrew truth. But this addition of "one" refers to the laudable title of Elkanah who, according to the Apostle's admonitions (Eph. IV), being stable and immovable, abounding in the work of the Lord, was never carried about by every wind of doctrine. For the wise man remains like the sun. For the fool changes like the moon (Eccles. XXVII). And this most fittingly applies to men of this kind, that, placed in the high watchtower of the mind and rejoicing in the fruitful summit of virtues, they are called "God's possession." Not only is any one of the perfect in Christ rightly called "one man"; but the heart and soul of the multitude of believers were one (Acts IV), imitating after their measure Him to whom it is said: "But You are the same" (Psalm CI). On the contrary, the reprobate are many, not only in different persons or in committing errors in various ways; but each one of them, due to the various movements of his changing mind, is many. For the heart of fools will be different, and a double-minded man is unstable in all his ways (Proverbs XI; James I). Hence, the very cities in which they serve are "one confusion"; and this is of the Chaldeans, that is, the fierce, or as it were of demons; the other is called the "vision of peace," whose creator and founder is that one man, of whom it is said, "Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is one Lord" (Deut. VI). Indeed, that chorus of like-mindedness in the house, which sings: "One thing I have asked of the Lord, this I will seek after, that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life" (Psalm XXVI).

And (he said) his name was Elkanah, etc. The names of the fathers of Elkanah unveil their lives, faith, virtues, and the sublimity of those in whom and through whom the Lord is accustomed to be spiritually born; that is, in whose acts or inspirations, faith and love of Him are infused into hearts where they were not before. Hieroam, indeed, means merciful: Heliu, my God is his: Thau signifies a sign, Suph a watcher: Ephratite is said to mean fruitful or dusty. And the life of the saints is taught to be greatly strengthened by mercy, who said: Give alms, and behold all things are clean for you (Luke XI). Those who believe in the redemption through the incarnation of Christ rightly confess Him as their God, because the Eternal Father of Him, Lord of heaven and earth, from the time of assumed humanity, began to also be His God; whence He says, From the womb of my mother, you are my God (Psalm XXI). The virtues and works of saints are also a sign of the coming, the teaching, and the acts fitting for the flesh of Christ, when He Himself says: And in the hands of the prophets I have been assimilated (John V). And speaking of Moses in the Gospel: For concerning me, he says, he wrote. If it is read as sons of Thau, that is, of the testament, or of the wandering, this name also fits their virtues, who know how to say; whether we are out of our mind, it is for God; or if we are sober, it is for you; and we are fools for Christ. But the foolishness of God is wiser than men (2 Cor. V: 1 Cor. I). Finally, Paul, standing in chains before the judges of this world, because having received the faculty of speaking, he did not plead about the chains that burdened him externally, but about the confidence in the virtues he gloried in inwardly, heard: You are mad, Paul; much learning is driving you mad (Acts XXVI). And the Savior Himself speaks to the Father: God, you know my foolishness (Psalm LXVIII). Whom, in the Gospel, even His relatives wanted to bind as if He were out of His mind, and the adversaries reproached Him for having a demon (John XVII). But the watcher of heavenly joys, which is the soul of the elect alone, unaware of the joy of that life, has learned to speculate on nothing. Therefore, in the heart and mouth or work of such people, the Savior is always generated by faith, hope, and charity, and was pleased to be called and appear dusty and fruitful at the same time, while taking on the frailty of the flesh, He bore our sins in His body on the wood. And by the unique fruitfulness of His same sacrifice, destroying the kingdom of death, He has opened for us the entrance to life forever. But according to history, it must be noted that Elkanah is called an Ephratite, not because he was of the tribe of Ephraim, but because he was born in the city of that lot. For the words of days tell us that he was a Levite, that is, from the sons of Isaac, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi (2 Chronicles VI).

Some account of Elkanah and his two wives, Peninnah and Hannah, Sa1 1:1, Sa1 1:2. His annual worship at Shiloh and the portions he gave at such times to his wives, Sa1 1:3-5. Hannah, being barren, is reproached by Peninnah, especially in their going up to Shiloh; at which she is sorely grieved, Sa1 1:6, Sa1 1:7. Elkanah comforts her, Sa1 1:8. Her prayer and vow in the temple, that if God would give her a son, she would consecrate him to His service, Sa1 1:9-11. Eli, the high priest, indistinctly hearing her pray, charges her with being drunk, Sa1 1:12-14. Her defense of her conduct, Sa1 1:15, Sa1 1:16. Eli, undeceived, blesses her; on which she takes courage, Sa1 1:17, Sa1 1:18. Hannah and Elkanah return home; she conceives, bears a son, and calls him Samuel, Sa1 1:19, Sa1 1:20. Elkanah and his family go again to Shiloh to worship; but Hannah stays at home to nurse her child, purposing, as soon as he is weaned, to go and offer him to the Lord, according to her vow, Sa1 1:21-23. When weaned, she takes him to Shiloh, presents hear child to Eli to be consecrated to the Lord, and offers three bullocks, an ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, for his consecration, Sa1 1:24-28.

Ramathaim-zophim - Literally, the two high places of the watchman; these were, no doubt, two contiguous hills, on which watchtowers were built, and in which watchmen kept continual guard for the safety of the country and which afterwards gave name to the place.

OF ELKANAH AND HIS TWO WIVES. (Sa1 1:1-8) a certain man of Ramathaim-zophim--The first word being in the dual number, signifies the double city--the old and new town of Ramah (Sa1 1:19). There were five cities of this name, all on high ground. This city had the addition of Zophim attached to it, because it was founded by Zuph, "an Ephrathite," that is a native of Ephratha. Beth-lehem, and the expression "of Ramathaim-zophim" must, therefore, be understood as Ramah in the land of Zuph in the hill country of Ephratha. Others, considering "mount Ephraim" as pointing to the locality in Joseph's territory, regard "Zophim" not as a proper but a common noun, signifying watchtowers, or watchmen, with reference either to the height of its situation, or its being the residence of prophets who were watchmen (Eze 3:17). Though a native of Ephratha or Beth-lehem-judah (Rut 1:2), Elkanah was a Levite (Ch1 6:33-34). Though of this order, and a good man, he practised polygamy. This was contrary to the original law, but it seems to have been prevalent among the Hebrews in those days, when there was no king in Israel, and every man did what seemed right in his own eyes [Jdg 21:25].

I. History of the People of Israel Under the Prophet Samuel - 1 Samuel 1-7 The call of Samuel to be the prophet and judge of Israel formed a turning-point in the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God. As the prophet of Jehovah, Samuel was to lead the people of Israel out of the times of the judges into those of the kings, and lay the foundation for a prosperous development of the monarchy. Consecrated like Samson as a Nazarite from his mother's womb, Samuel accomplished the deliverance of Israel out of the power of the Philistines, which had been only commenced by Samson; and that not by the physical might of his arm, but by the spiritual power of his word and prayer, with which he led Israel back from the worship of dead idols to the Lord its God. And whilst as one of the judges, among whom he classes himself in Sa1 12:11, he brought the office of judge to a close, and introduced the monarchy; as a prophet, he laid the foundation of the prophetic office, inasmuch as he was the fist to naturalize it, so to speak, in Israel, and develope it into a power that continued henceforth to exert the strongest influence, side by side with the priesthood and monarchy, upon the development of the covenant nation and kingdom of God. For even if there were prophets before the time of Samuel, who revealed the will of the Lord at times to the nation, they only appeared sporadically, without exerting any lasting influence upon the national life; whereas, from the time of Samuel onwards, the prophets sustained and fostered the spiritual life of the congregation, and were the instruments through whom the Lord made known His purposes to the nation and its rulers. To exhibit in its origin and growth the new order of things which Samuel introduced, or rather the deliverance which the Lord sent to His people through this servant of His, the prophetic historian goes back to the time of Samuel's birth, and makes us acquainted not only with the religious condition of the nation, but also with the political oppression under which it was suffering at the close of the period of the judges, and during the high-priesthood of Eli. At the time when the pious parents of Samuel were going year by year to the house of God at Shiloh to worship and offer sacrifice before the Lord, the house of God was being profaned by the abominable conduct of Eli's sons (1 Samuel 1-2). When Samuel was called to be the prophet of Jehovah, Israel lost the ark of the covenant, the soul of its sanctuary, in the war with the Philistines (1 Samuel 3-4). And it was not till after the nation had been rendered willing to put away its strange gods and worship Jehovah alone, through the influence of Samuel's exertions as prophet, that the faithful covenant God gave it, in answer to Samuel's intercession, a complete victory over the Philistines (1 Samuel 7). In accordance with these three prominent features, the history of the judicial life of Samuel may be divided into three sections, viz.: 1 Samuel 1-2; 3-6; 7.

Samuel's pedigree. - Sa1 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 Sa1 1:3 (comp. with Sa1 1:19 and Sa1 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 (Sa1 1:19; Sa1 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 Sa1 1:3, as the place where Elkanah lived, and where "his house" (Sa1 1:19) was still standing.) This Ramah (which is invariably written with the article, ha-Ramah), where Samuel was not only born (Sa1 1:19.), but lived, laboured, died (Sa1 7:17; Sa1 15:34; Sa1 16:13; Sa1 19:18-19, Sa1 19:22-23), and was buried (Sa1 25:1; Sa1 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-Rm, 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 Ch1 6:26, Ch1 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 Ῥαθαμεΐ́ν and Ῥαμαθαΐ́μ, and Josephus Ῥαμαθά, 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 Ch1 6:26, and Zuph or Ziph in Ch1 6:35. Zophim therefore signifies the descendants of Zuph or Zophai, from which the name "land of Zuph," in Sa1 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 (Ch1 6:26), and then in that of Heman, the leader of the singers, a grandson of Samuel (Ch1 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 Ngelsbach 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 Kg1 11:26, and not an inhabitant of Ephratah, i.e., a Bethlehemite, as in Sa1 17:12 and Rut 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 (Sa1 1:11, Sa1 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 Ch2 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.). Sa1 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 (ימימה מיּמים, 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 הצּבאות אלהי יהוה; and 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 Zac 13:2. In other passages, the word is translated either κύριος, or θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων, or παντοκράτωρ; 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 צבאם (their 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 (Sa1 2:10), that this name was employed for the first time, and that God was addressed in prayer as "Jehovah of hosts" (Sa1 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 Sa1 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, Ἡλὶ καὶ, is an arbitrary interpolation, occasioned by a misapprehension of the reason for mentioning the sons of Eli. Sa1 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 אפּים אחת מגה, "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 אפּים, 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 לאפּי as a synonym for לפני in Sa1 25:23, also establishes the meaning "person," since פּנים is used in this sense in Sa2 17:11. It is true that there are no other passages that can be adduced to prove that the singular אף was 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 אפּים with אחת מגה in 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. Bttcher has lately taken under his protection, cannot be philologically sustained either by the expression פניך נפלוּ (Gen 4:6), or by Dan 11:20, or in any other way. אף and אפּים do indeed signify anger, but anger and sadness are two very different ideas. But when Bttcher 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. Sa1 1:6 "And her adversary (Peninnah) also provoked her with provocation, to irritate her." The גּם is placed before the noun belonging to the verb, to add force to the meaning. רעם (Hiphil), to excite, put into (inward) commotion, not exactly to make angry. Sa1 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 כּן 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. Sa1 1:8 Elkanah sought to comfort her in her grief by the affectionate appeal: "Am I not better to thee (טּוב, i.e., dearer) than ten children?" Ten is a found number for a large number.