Samuel’s Little Robe (I Samuel 2:19)

Whose mother sent him a new coat each year? Samuel’s (I Samuel 2:19)

First Samuel opens with a woman named Hannah troubled by her infertility (I Samuel 1:1-8). She journeys to Israel’s religious epicenter, Shiloh, and prays to the Lord for a child, promising, “I will give him to the Lord all the days of his life, and a razor shall never come on his head.” (I Samuel 1:11 NASB). After being unjustly rebuked by the priest, Eli (I Samuel1:12-18), her prayer is answered and she gives birth to a son, Samuel (I Samuel 1:19-28), for which she famously offers a prayer of thanksgiving (I Samuel 2:1-11).

The narrative then shifts to detailing the impropriety of Eli’s sons (I Samuel 2:12-17) before returning its focus to the boy Samuel, who was being raised in Shiloh (I Samuel 2:18-21).

Immediately after mentioning that Samuel is wearing a priestly ephod (I Samuel 2:18), the text notes that Hannah periodically returns to Shiloh to present her son with a robe (I Samuel 2:19).

And his mother would make him a little robe and bring it to him from year to year when she would come up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. (I Samuel 2:19 NASB)

This child will grow up to become one of the most pivotal figures in Israel’s history. Gene M. Tucker (b. 1935) focuses:

Even children of destiny have parents. Here, of course, his mother Hannah stands out. Although she had “loaned him” to the Lord (I Samuel 1:28, 2:20 RSV) in fulfillment of her vow [I Samuel 1:11], she continued to be his mother. One cannot help but he touched by the account of the mother who sees her young son but rarely, each year bringing him “a little robe” [I Samuel 2:19], He is, after all, a growing boy, and last year’s robe will soon be too short. (Fred B. Craddock [b. 1928], John H. Hayes [1934-2013], Carl R. Holladay [b. 1943] and Tucker, Preaching Through the Christian Year: Year C: A Comprehensive Commentary on the Lectionary, 45)

The image of the young man in his little robe has become iconic. F.B. Meyer (1847-1929) informs:

Dean [Arthur Penrhyn] Stanley [1815-1881] tells us that, in his gentler moments, Martin Luther [1483-1546] used to dwell on these early chapters of the books of Samuel with the tenderness which formed the occasional counterpoise to the ruder passions and enterprises of his stormy life. Indeed, students of the Scriptures in every age have been arrested by the figure of this little child girded with his linen ephod, or in the little robe which his mother brought him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice [I Samuel 2:18-19]. (Meyer, Samuel: The Prophet, 3)

In consecutive verses, the narrative addresses the child’s wardrobe (I Samuel 2:18-19). Bruce C. Birch (b. 1941) tracks:

The failure of Eli’s sons in their priestly duties is followed by a notice concerning Samuel’s education as a priest [I Samuel 2:18-21]...The notice about Samuel’s clothing [I Samuel 2:18] bridges to a brief account of the small robe Hannah would make and bring to Samuel each year [I Samuel 2:19]. (Birch, The New Interpreter’s Bible, Volume II: Numbers, Deuteronomy, Introduction to Narrative Literature, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, 987)

Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) supposes:

He [Samuel] wears a linen ephod, probably a loincloth, in accordance with priestly custom (e.g. I Samuel 22:18); there is no talk of lower-age limits for priestly service in this story where grown men have failed (cf. Numbers 8:24-26; I Chronicles 23:24-32). A more substantial outer robe (I Samuel 2:19) was supplied for his growing frame when his mother made her accustomed visits to Shiloh. (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 82)

Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) evaluates:

Even as a young apprentice priest under Eli’s supervision, Samuel wore the linen ephod characteristic of that ministry [I Samuel 2:18]. Anthony Phillips [b. 1936] (“David’s Linen Ephod,” Vetus Testamentum 19/4 [1969]: 487), primarily on the basis of II Samuel 6:14, attempted to prove that Samuel’s ephod “is not to be understood as a special priestly garment but a brief loincloth suitable for young children.” But Phillips fails to explain why David (II Samuel 6:14) would wear a child’s garment, and he resorts to the Septuagint’s omission of linen in I Samuel 22:18 to confirm his belief that the eighty-five priests slaughtered by Doeg are not described there as “wearing” ephods but as “carrying” an “oracular instrument” (another meaning for ’ēpōd). N.L. Tidwell (“The Linen Ephod: I Samuel 2:18 and II Samuel 6:14,” Vetus Testamentum 24/4 [1974]:505-07) rightly criticizes Phillips’ view in favor of the traditional interpretation: “Linen ephod” always refers to a priest’s garment, whether worn by a youth or by an adult. Indeed, the little “robe” that Samuel’s mother made for him annually as he was growing up (II Samuel 2:19) may well have been an example of the “robe of the ephod” mentioned in Exodus 28:31 (the Hebrew word for “robe” being the same in both passages). Although David is not described as wearing such a robe in II Samuel 6:14, he is so depicted in the parallel text of I Chronicles 15:27. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel ~ 2 Kings (Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 60)

A. Graeme Auld (b. 1941) supplements:

The ephod with which he is girded [I Samuel 2:18] is worn or borne almost always by priests; and we shall find David wearing it bringing the ark to Jerusalem (II Samuel 6:14)...We may wonder whether this youngster’s distinctive uniform anticipates a priestly role or a royal (or at least leadership) role. The topic of dress is immediately developed in the final scene, in which his mother appears (I Samuel 2:19-21). The little “robe” she makes for him is worn alike by princes and priests (indeed Exodus 28:31 talks of “the robe for the ephod”). And, just as he himself had been “brought up” (I Samuel 1:24-25 in both the Greek Text and Masoretic Text) to the sanctuary—the same verb as is also used of offering certain sacrifices there—so too his mother “brings up” this garment “periodically” (the same term is used for the “periodic” sacrifice). (Auld, I & II Samuel: A Commentary (Old Testament Library), 49)

Hannah leaves Samuel in the care of Eli, the priest (I Samuel 1:24-28). Though she is not a daily part of her firstborn son’s life, she does visit him. Most English translations convey annual pilgrimages in conjunction with sacrifice: “each year” (ESV, NLT, NRSV, RSV), “annual” (HCSB, MSG, NIV), “year to year” (ASV, KJV, NASB), “year by year” (NKJV), “every year” (CEV). The Hebrew, however, is not this explicit.

P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (b. 1945) notifies:

From time to time...the seasonal sacrifice [I Samuel 2:19] [is in]...Hebrew miyyāmîm yāmînâ...’et-zebah hayyāmîm. As in I Samuel 1:3, 21 to translate these expressions “Year by year...the annual sacrifice” would be overprecise, even though an annual pilgrimage may in fact be involved here. (McCarter, I Samuel (Anchor Bible), 84)

The notice regarding Samuel’s progress serves to indicate a passage of time (I Samuel 2:18-21). Alfons Schulz (1871-1947) approves:

I Samuel 2:19 delightfully relates how at the pilgrimage each year Hannah, the mother, brings her son, who serves in the sanctuary, a new robe—obviously because in the meantime he has ‘grown out of’ the old one: a splendid, childlike touch in a brief remark. (David M. Gunn [b. 1942], “Narrative Arts in the Books of Samuel,” Narrative and Novella in Samuel: Studies by Hugo Gressmann [1877-1927] and Other Scholars 1906-1923, 168-69)

Many have seen an irregularity as the term for coat is in the singular (I Samuel 2:19): Does Hannah return the same coat on each visit?

One Midrash explains this perceived discrepancy with an ancient version of Ann Brashares [b.1967]’s The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants. Basil Herring (b. 1947) retells:

The Bible tells us, “Moreover, his mother made him a little robe and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice” (I Samuel 2:19). Now the midrash...asks how it could be that she brought the same robe every year as he was growing up. Did he not outgrow it, as every mother knows? The answer, says the midrash, is that something miraculous occurred: although the child grew from year to year, he never outgrew the garment—it grew with him, it always fit, it was never too tight. Indeed, says the midrash, when he became the leader of Israel, Samuel continued to wear this robe long after his mother had died...What is the midrash trying to suggest? The answer, one might say, is that this mother’s robe was a reflection of her love—it was not static but dynamic; it changed with time; it grew and evolved, it took different forms and expressions, appropriate to the stages of life as Samuel himself went through his own phases...As a mother Hannah had found the key to allowing her love for Samuel to grow with him, in spite of the inevitable separation and distance that time would bring, allowing him to develop his own identity, making his own choices, his own mistakes, and his own life. (Herring, The Jewish Imagination: Discourses on Contemporary Jewish Life, 152)

Most interpreters have come to the logical conclusion that Hannah presents her son with new robes (I Samuel 2:19). Amos Oz (b. 1939) and Fania Oz-Salzberger (b. 1960) praise:

Don’t let the singular noun form mislead you: she made him a new little coat every year, fit to size, and the biblical author recognizes the sweetness of that petit priest-child clothing [I Samuel 2:19]. For Hannah, not Bathsheba, is the earliest linchpin of the two faces of Jewish motherhood: great physical tenderness, and early scholarly sendoff. Heartbroken at the shrine or school gate, but decisively returning home to start next year’s little coat. (Oz and Oz-Salzberger, Jews and Words, 83)

Warren W. Wiersbe (b. 1929) correlates:

In Scripture, garments often speak of the spiritual life (Isaiah 61:10; Zechariah 3:1-5; Ephesians 4:22-32; Colossians 3:8-17; I Peter 5:5), and a change of clothing symbolizes a new beginning (Genesis 35:2, 41:14, 45:22; Exodus 19:10; Revelation 3:18). Each year’s new garments spoke not only of a boy growing physically but also spiritually (I Samuel 2:21), and this reminds us of out Lord who “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52 NKJV). (Wiersbe, Be Successful (1 Samuel): Attaining Wealth That Money Can’t Buy, 29)

Randy Frazee (b. 1961) situates:

Just as Samuel’s mom-made robe got a little bigger each year [I Samuel 2:19], so did the assignment God had in mind for him. In the Upper Story perspective, God was preparing the young man to lead Israel through its own awkward adolescence. (Frazee, The Heart of the Story: God’s Masterful Design to Restore His People, 98)

Hannah bestows her son a “little robe” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, MSG, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “little coat” (KJV), “small coat” (NLT) or “clothes” (CEV) (I Samuel 2:19).

Victor P. Hamilton (b. 1952) identifies:

While we cannot be sure about the nature of the “robe” Samuel wore (I Samuel 2:19), the word me‘îl for the priest’s robe is described at length in Exodus 28:31-35 and Exodus 39:22-26. Jonathan wears one (I Samuel 18:4), as do Saul (I Samuel, 24:5, 12) and even Samuel’s spirit (I Samuel 28:14). (Hamilton, Handbook on the Historical Books: Joshua, Judges, Ruth, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, Ezra-Nehemiah, Esther, 221)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) assumes:

The ephod that Hannah made for Samuel was a distinctive garment of some kind, worn by priests [I Samuel 2:19]. An elaborate description of the ephod worn by the high priest is provided in Exodus 28:5-14. The robe Hannah sewed must have been a simpler form. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 34)

Alexander Francis Kirkpatrick (1849-1940) surveys:

The Hebrew mě‘īl denotes a kind of long upper tunic worn by kings (I Chronicles 15:27), prophets (I Samuel 15:27), men of position (Job 2:12), women of rank (II Samuel 13:18). The term is applied to a part of the High Priest’s dress, the robe of the Ephod (Exodus 28:31), and it is suggested in the Speaker’s Commentary that “mention of the ephod and the robe as worn by the youthful Samuel taken in connexion with his after acts seems to point to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation.” (Kirkpatrick, The First Book of Samuel: with Map, Notes and Introduction, 58)

Some interpreters have associated Samuel’s distinctive attire with a particular status. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) acknowledges:

The “little robe” provided by Hannah is probably an outer garment of some sort to be worn over the linen priestly ephod [I Samuel 2:19]. In both the Bible and the ancient Near East generally, special garments often carried symbolic significance or marked the wearer as holding a particular office or status. (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 281)

John H. Walton (b. 1952) and Kim E. Walton (b. 1954) bolster:

The word translated “robe” [I Samuel 2:19] refers not to everyday clothing but to a priestly garment (Exodus 28:31-34; I Chronicles 15:27). The garment described by this word was worn by others besides priests but was typically worn by someone with a particular status or authority. (Walton and Walton, The Bible Story Handbook: A Resource for Teaching 175 Stories from the Bible, 150)

Keith Bodner (b. 1967) questions:

In two successive sentences there is a reference to Samuel’s garment (“But Samuel was serving in the LORD’s presence, a lad outfitted in a linen ephod. And a little robe his mother would make for him” [I Samuel 2:18-19]). Does this juxtaposition (priestly ephod, prophetic mantle) symbolize or prefigure his multiple offices? Ora Horn Prouser [b. 1961] (1996:27-37) notes that often in I and II Samuel, “clothes make the man,” meaning “clothing” is found at a number of key moments in the narrative. (Bodner, National Insecurity: A Primer on the First Book of Samuel, 31)

Diana Vikander Edelman (b. 1954) remarks:

The me‘îl, while a common piece of clothing for those of rank, seems to have been especially associated with the office of prophet (cf. I Samuel 2:19, 15:27; II Kings 2:13-18). (Edelman, King Saul in the Historiography of Judah, 245-46)

David Toshio Tsumura (b. 1944) equates:

The small robe which Hannah made for Samuel [I Samuel 2:19] may be a special garment for priests like the Akkadian tēlītu garment (cf. I Samuel 15:27, 28:14). (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel (New International Commentary on the Old Testament), 159)

Not all have been convinced that Samuel’s garments indicate status. Peter D. Miscall (b. 1943) differentiates:

The linen ephod is apparently part of his official garb at Shiloh [I Samuel 2:18]; the little robe is an annual gift from his mother and not necessarily any type of cultic attire [I Samuel 2:19]. (Miscall, 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading, 17)

James E. Smith (b. 1939) dismisses:

The robe [I Samuel 2:19] was an outer garment of wool, woven throughout without seam, with holes for the head and arms, and reaching nearly to the ground. This garment was the ordinary dress of all classes of people. It has no special meaning except that in this handiwork, Hannah exhibited her motherly pride and care. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (College Press NIV Commentary), 62)

John Mauchline (1902-1984) concurs:

The little robe (I Samuel 2:19) or ‘small cloak’ which Hannah brought to Samuel on her annual visit to Shiloh was probably not an official vestment but an ordinary wearing garment, which expressed the mother’s care for her son. (Mauchline, 1 and 2 Samuel (New Century Bible), 52)

Regardless of its meaning, Hannah insures that Samuel is well dressed. Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg (1895-1965) determines:

The little robe which the mother makes for her son year by year and brings with her when she comes on pilgrimage is an indication of her motherly care [I Samuel 2:19]—the boy would grow out of the previous year’s robe—and pride; such a garment is a sign of distinction (cf. the mantle in Isaiah 3:6). (Hertzberg, I and II Samuel: A Commentary (The Old Testament Library), 35)

The robe is emphasized in its Hebrew positioning (I Samuel 2:19). J.P. Fokkelman (b. 1940) illumines:

The narrator ensures that we do not underestimate the connotations of the garment and prepares us for any symbolism by an inversion in his second line (I Samuel 2:19a). Even though it is the grammatical object “a small coat” is conspicuously placed in initial position. The article of clothing complements the priestly apron [I Samuel 2:18] and is going to provide the boy with the warmth he is not often to be given by the mountain climate in Ephraim. The small coat symbolizes, and is a substitute for maternal warmth. (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume IV: Vow and Desire, 124)

Roy L. Heller (b. 1963) accents:

His mother...regularly brings him a handmade mě‘îl qātōn (“little robe”) from time to time when she comes to sacrifice with her husband [I Samuel 2:19]. This robe is far from negligible in the context of the story. The syntax of the first clause of I Samuel 2:19 actually fronts the object and relegates the subject, “his mother,” to the very end; the Hebrew reads: ûmě‘îl qātōn ta‘ăśeh lô’immô (“and a little robe she-used-to-make-for-him his-mother”). In the Exodus traditions, the robe was part of the priestly vestments (Exodus 28:4, 31, 34, 29:5, 39:22-26). It is, therefore, unusual that his mother should be making it; he should be given one due to his priestly activities, as with the ephod...The literary significance of mě‘îl (“robe”) in the books of Samuel, however, reveals a very different function. It is, consistently, the article of clothing most closely identified with political, usually royal, power (I Samuel 2:19, 18;4, 24:5, 12; II Samuel 13:18). It is moreover, the article of clothing that will identify Samuel himself in his final confrontation with Saul during his life (I Samuel 15:27) as well as the one after his death (I Samuel 28:14). The little robe worn by the boy Samuel, therefore, serves as a foreshadowing of the political power that he will exercise, and will desperately hold onto, in the later stories about him. In its immediate context here, however, the boy Samuel’s “little robe” serves as the positive introductory image that leads, almost immediately, to Eli’s blessing of his parents [I Samuel 2:20]. Unlike the ineffective speech that Eli will pronounce in the next section [I Samuel 2:22-36], his blessing here leads to YHWH’s regard for Hannah, her conception, and her bearing three sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:21]. (Heller, Power, Politics, and Prophecy: The Character of Samuel and the Deuteronomistic Evaluation of Prophecy, 54)

Some have been bothered by the robe remaining perpetually “little” (I Samuel 2:19 NASB). Henry Preserved Smith (1847-1927) presumes:

There seems no reason to find fault with the statement on the ground that as the boy grew it would no longer be a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. The narrator has the early years especially in mind. Doubtless the cloth was spun and woven by his mother, as well as the robe cut and sewed by her. (Smith, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel (International Critical Commentary), 19)

Even as a child, Samuel is dressed as a little man (I Samuel 2:18-19). Martin Sicker (b. 1931) considers:

As the child grew, every year his mother made him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19], “a long outer garment worn by people of rank or special status.” It has been suggested that the reason for pointing out that she made him a little robe, it being self-evident that the robe for a toddler would have to be small, is that robes usually were worn by grown men and not by children. Dressing the child in a robe, which was replaced yearly with a new one, so that he always appeared well groomed and clothed as a small man, markedly different in appearance from other children, served as tangible affirmation of Hannah’s conviction that Samuel was destined to be a man of great importance in Israel...It may be observed that although Samuel was not and never would be eligible for service as a priest [Leviticus 18:1-7; I Samuel 1:1] even from the time he was a toddler his mother dressed him in clothes clearly emblematic of the officiating priesthood, effectively emulating Moses who, in consecrating Aaron and his sons as priests, invested them with visible emblems of their holiness, including the distinctive ephod and robe [Exodus 28:1-4]. (Sicker, The First Book of Samuel: A Study in Prophetic History, 33-34)

Frank G. Honeycutt (b. 1957) illustrates:

I read a book long ago written by Randall Balmer [b. 1954], who teaches religion at Dartmouth College in Hanover, New Hampshire. Randall had a very dominant pastor father who wanted his son to grow up and preach the Word. There’s a great picture in the book of Randall at age six, standing behind his birthday present that year: a miniature pulpit just his size, every hair in place with Vitalis. This is how I usually think about Samuel in our lesson—dutiful, obedient, cherubic, small; robed with his little slippers. A very, very good little boy. (Honeycutt, Jesus and the Family: Crisis and Conversion in the American Household, 58)

Samuel will come to be associated with a robe for the remainder of his career. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) reveals:

Samuel would wear a robe for the rest of his life (and beyond!), and his robe will feature at two important points later in the story (I Samuel 15:27 and I Samuel 28:14). (Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word), 56)

J.P. Fokkelman (b. 1940) reviews:

The reader, who has taken a look further on, now knows what Hannah is not able to foresee: the coat (me‘īl) [I Samuel 2:19] is to accompany Samuel constantly and is to be an essential attribute of his, in his office as prophet, during two dramatic encounters with Saul [I Samuel 15:27, 28:14). There the garment has to do with the doom and the death of the first king...Hannah is not only linked through her poetry, to the monarchy which is the future of the country, but to this concrete object which she herself makes and replaces annually. Via the small coat she protects Samuel right from the start in his new stage of life, which stage is never to come to an end, that of being a Nazirite [I Samuel 1:11]. That way whilst remaining in absentia for most of the year she nevertheless keeps on looking after the boy whom we know is to grow into a kingmaker. (Fokkelman, Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, Volume IV: Vow and Desire, 124)

Robert Polzin (b. 1937) echoes:

From the earliest days of his youth to his resurrection in I Samuel 28:11-20, Samuel wears a robe representing the royalty that was wrapped around Israel during the course of the story. When Samuel first started ministering to the LORD at Shiloh, his mother Hannah began a practice of making a small robe (me‘îl qāton), which she would take him each year when she went up to Shiloh (I Samuel 2:19). That young, berobed Samuel is now an old man and dead, and the robe has become a shroud [I Samuel 28:14]. During his career, Samuel’s robe was torn by Saul (I Samuel 15:27), an action Samuel interprets as the tearing away of the kingdom from Saul. Jonathan’s robe played a similar role when he stripped it off to hand over to David (I Samuel 18:4), again signifying the transfer of royal power, the kingdom, from Saul’s house to David’s. Then David himself cut off the end of Saul’s robe in I Samuel 24:5, presenting Saul and the reader with a cleaner, more clearcut image of the seizing of kingship. When Saul had seized Samuel’s robe, the kingdom was torn from Saul’s grasp; when David cut Saul’s robe, it was delivered up into his hands. This robe of royalty appears one final time in I Samuel, now wrapped around a dead person. In line with the conjoined character zones of Samuel and Saul throughout the story, Samuel is clothed in a dead man’s robe as he foretells the imminent death of Saul and his sons. The robe as shroud enfolds Saul’s death and well as Samuel’s. (Polzin, Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History, Part Two: 1 Samuel, 218)

Meir Shalev (b. 1948) connects:

I see Samuel’s robe as his trademark garment, akin to Elijah’s mantle [II Kings 2:11-14]. Samuel’s custom of always wearing a robe originated in his early childhood, when his mother Hannah gave him over to the House of the Lord at Shiloh [I Samuel 2:19]. The “little robe”—these are the Bible’s touching words—was the gift she would bring on her annual visit to her son who grew bigger each year, and it became the symbol of her love, and her main connection with him. I imagine that Samuel’s enormous rage after the war with Amalek, when Saul clutched and accidentally tore the hem of his robe [I Samuel 15:27], derived from Samuel’s deep emotional bond with his garment. (Shalev, Beginnings: Reflections on the Bible's Intriguing Firsts, 84)

Significantly, First Samuel sandwiches notices of Samuel’s growth (I Samuel 2:18-21, 26) between accounts of the shortcomings of Eli’s family (I Samuel 2:12-17, 22-25, 27-36).

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) observes:

“The rise of Samuel” is narrated in counterpoint to the account of “Eli’s fall” [I Samuel 2:11-36]. Samuel’s rise is punctuated by a series of carefully placed statements reporting his growth to manhood and his maturation in faith [I Samuel 2:18-21, 26]. There is irony in the fact that he is nurtured in faith by Eli, the very one whom he displaces. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 22)

James D. Newsome, Jr. (b. 1931) asks:

As if the final compiler of this story wished to weave a tapestry, the dark fibers of the priests’ sacrilege are interrupted at important points by the emerging bright thread of young Samuel’s purity and innocense (I Samuel 2:18-20, 26). And lying side by side, the two patterns of behavior seem all the more at odds. How could Hophni and Phinehas stoop so low, we are asked to wonder. How could the boy remain so essentially good in such a corrupted atmosphere? (Newsome, 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel (Knox Preaching Guides), 21)

Ben F. Philbeck, Jr. (1931-1989) praises:

The insertion of these brief verses [I Samuel 2:18-21] describing God’s blessings on Samuel’s family demonstrates the author’s mastery of the storyteller’s art. The passage adds little to the progress of the narrative, but the account of Samuel’s simple ministry before the Lord and of Hannah’s good fortune serve as a perfect foil for the misfortunes which are about to befall Eli’s house [I Samuel 2:27-36]. (Clifton J. Allen [1901-1986], General Articles, 1 Samuel - Nehemiah (Broadman Bible Commentary), 17)

Samuel is intentionally juxtaposed with Eli’s sons. Bill T. Arnold (b. 1955) encapsulates:

The positive evaluation of Samuel and his family...begins with a general statement, setting the tone for I Samuel 2:18-21: “Samuel was ministering before the LORD—a boy wearing a linen ephod” [I Samuel 2:18]...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 [I Samuel 2:20]. (Arnold, 1 & 2 Samuel (NIV Application Commentary))

Tony W. Cartledge (b. 1951) contrasts:

The narrator purposefully punctures the account of Eli’s worthless sons with periodic glimpses at Hannah’s more worthy child. While Hophni and Phinehas were appropriating Israel’s sacrifices for their own gain [I Samuel 2:12-17], “Samuel was ministering before the LORD, a boy wearing a linen ephod” (I Samuel 2:18). (Cartledge, 1 & 2 Samuel: Bible Commentary (Smyth & Helwys Bible Commentary), 55)

Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) expounds:

In contrast with the grasping materialism of Hophni and Phinehas [I Samuel 2:12-17] is the thankful service offered by Samuel and his mother. Samuel was ministering before the LORD [I Samuel 2:18], presumably as his age allowed under Eli’s direction. The ongoing contribution of Hannah—giving Samuel to God [I Samuel 1:11] and giving clothes to Samuel [I Samuel 2:19]—is mentioned, alongside Eli’s blessing [I Samuel 2:20]. It appears that Eli did not participate in his sons’ irreverent greed, and his cooperation with those coming to offer sacrifices contrasts with the bullying of his sons and their servants. God’s gracious response to this obedient service, giving Hannah five more children [I Samuel 2:21], provides a further contrast with God’s condemnation of Eli’s sons (I Samuel 2:27-36). (Evans, 1 & 2 Samuel (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series))

Dale Ralph Davis (b. 1944) notices:

One cannot help but observe the contrast between I Samuel 2:19-21 and I Samuel 2:22-26, a delightful scene set against an ominous one...There is a clear parallelism between the two scenes, but the parallels highlight the differences. Here (I Samuel 2:19-21), Yahweh is giving life, there he has resolved death. (Davis, Looking on the Heart: Expositions of the Book of 1 Samuel, Volume 1: 1 Samuel 1-14, 32)

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) adds:

In antithesis and parallel to Eli, Samuel...points us toward the monarchy: his role in the story to come will be as the radar for the legitimacy of Israel’s kings. The priest of the Lord will elect and deselect Yahweh’s kings. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 26)

Samuel’s superiority over Eli’s sons may be evident even in his clothing (I Samuel 2:18-19). Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) contemplates:

Whereas the scoundrel sons, Hophni and Phinehas, are characterized by a story in which they aggressively grab whatever they can get from the holy place [I Samuel 2:12-17], Samuel, the blessed son, is characterized by a story in which he is clothed year after year in a succession of priestly robes, custom-sown by his mother, suited to his growing stature [I Samuel 2:18-21]. Clothing can either disguise or reveal our true identity. Eli’s sons, dressed in their inherited, hand-me-down priestly robes, looked like priests but were, in fact, wolves in sheep’s clothing (Matthew 7:15). The handmade, custom-tailored robe worn by Hannah’s son revealed his true priestly identity. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 34)

Linking these accounts reminds the reader that this mixed bag, a holy place run by an unholy family, marks the atmosphere in which Samuel is raised (I Samuel 2:12-21). John Goldingay (b. 1942) resolves:

This is the context in which Samuel is brought up! Did Hannah know? What chance is there that he will grow up in the proper way, as a “boy” functioning among the other “boys” implicated in the abuses undertaken by Eli’s sons [I Samuel 2:12-17]? Fortunately Samuel is growing up “in Yahweh’s presence” as well as “in Eli’s presence” [I Samuel 2:11]. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 29)

Andrew W. Blackwood (1882-1966) assures:

A good child can grow up with evil men, much as a white lily may emerge from the blackest muck. More than a little depends on the character of the original stock. Even when forced to dwell among older fellows as base as the sons of Eli, a lad like Samuel keeps on serving the God of his mother and father. In army and navy training camps, here at home and on countless battlefields beyond the seven seas, young men who had loved God back at home kept on being loyal despite all the seductions of a world at war. (Blackwood, Preaching From Samuel, 33)

Hannah’s bestowing Samuel with a robe is typically seen as an act of love (I Samuel 2:19). It is a means for Hannah to see her son (I Samuel 2:19). Serge Frolov (b. 1959) footnotes:

The verbal forms used in I Samuel 2:19a identify both actions that it refers to as equally repetitive; the sequence ימימה מימים לו והעלתה אמו תעשה־לו קטן ומעיל should therefore be rendered ‘and his mother used to make him a little overcoat and regularly bring it up to him’. In other words, Hannah cleverly used the natural process of the boy’s physical growth, referred to in I Samuel 2:21b, to stay in touch with him: before each pilgrimage she would make a new, presumably larger, coat and bring it to Shiloh. The King James Version obscures this nuance by using indicative simple past forms (“His mother made him a little coat and brought it to him from year to year”). (Frolov, The Turn of the Cycle: 1 Samuel 1-8 in Synchronic and Diachronic Perspectives, 103)

Like Little Orphan Annie’s beloved locket, the robe serves as a tangible reminder to Samuel that his mother loves him. She is present even when she is absent.

Eugene H. Merrill (b. 1934) interprets:

Though Samuel’s mother had given Samuel to the LORD [I Samuel 1:11], she retained her maternal love and responsibility. She came yearly to Shiloh to attend to the needs of her son [I Samuel 2:19]. Nor did the LORD forget Hannah. As is so often the case, He gave her not only what she had prayed for but much more—in her case three sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:21] (cf. the example of Rachel, Genesis 30:22-24; 35:16-18). (John F. Walvoord [1910-2002] and Roy B. Zuck [1932-2013], The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, 435)

Joan E. Cook infers:

After the intercalated story of Eli’s corrupt sons [I Samuel 2:12-17] (further reason for Hannah to wonder about her own son’s safety) the narrative implies that Hannah lived in Ramah with Elkanah when the conclusion explains that they made the annual trip together, and each year she took him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. She did not completely relinquish care of him, but continued to look after his well-being. And we can be sure she took the opportunity to make certain that her son was receiving proper care from his mentor at the shrine. Eli blessed the couple, praying that they would have other children, after which Hannah had three more sons and two daughters [I Samuel 2:20-21]. (Cook, Hannah’s Desire, God's Design: Early Interpretations of the Story of Hannah, 40)

Stephens G. Lytch (b. 1953) envisions:

Her love was evident in the gift that she took him on her regular visits to Shiloh. She always brought him a little robe [I Samuel 2:19]. It was nothing extravagant, but one can imagine the love she poured into each stitch as she made the robe, thinking of her son and whispering prayers of gratitude to God for the gift of his life. One hopes that the presents we give our loved ones are as loaded with care and gratitude. (David L. Bartlett [b. 1941] and Barbara Brown Taylor [b. 1951], Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration, 148)

Dallas A. Brauninger (b. 1943) relates:

Someone sees when a parent does the little sustaining things for a child in the name of love. Parents will know later what this teaches a child. So be of good courage, you who are a parent, for being a parent is a holy trust. (Brauninger, Lectionary Worship Aids: Series V, Cycle C, 24)

Elizabeth George (b. 1944) applies:

How does a woman who loves God and her family fill her days when her nest is empty? Note Hannah’s example. Mark it well! Rather than give in to sadness, Hannah worked on long-distance love. Each year she made Samuel a little robe and took it to him (I Samuel 2:19). (George, The Remarkable Women of the Bible: And Their Message for Your Life Today, 181)

Hannah’s attentiveness to her son moves the priest Eli; he pronounces blessing and she births five more children (I Samuel 2:20-21). Robert P. Gordon (b. 1945) comments:

As with the midwives in the Exodus story (Exodus 1:21), Hannah’s faithfulness was rewarded with the gift of a family (cf. Psalm 127:3). Significantly, this prosperity is connected with Eli’s priestly blessing, and the relationship between the aged priest and Elkanah’s family fulfills the ideal of a happy co-operation between priesthood and people which is so desiderated in I Samuel 1:12-17. (Gordon, I & II Samuel: A Commentary, 82-83)

Antony F. Campbell (b. 1934) inspects:

Samuel and his family stand in sharp contrast. Samuel is in the service of the LORD. The little robe, renewed each year, is a pointer to the child’s growth [I Samuel 2:19]; the reference to the repeated visits and the birth of five more children evokes the passage of time [I Samuel 2:21]. But, above all, it is symbolic of the blessing and favor bestowed on the family, in direct connection with Samuel (I Samuel 2:20). While Eli blesses Elkanah and his wife, the weight of his blessing seems to fall on the man; when its fulfillment is reported, the emphasis is on the LORD’s visiting the woman. And Samuel grew in the presence of the LORD (I Samuel 2:21b), while the sons of Eli were growing in contempt of the LORD (I Samuel 2:17). Eli is treated gently (I Samuel 2:20); the reproach is reserved for his sons. (Campbell, 1 Samuel (Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 49)

This marks Hannah’s last appearance in Bible’s narrative (I Samuel 2:18-21). Presumably tending to her children, she is effectively written out of the text.

David Jobling (b. 1941) discusses:

Hannah assists and monitors Samuel’s progress at the shrine when each year she takes him a new robe [I Samuel 2:19]. When we last hear of her she has become the mother of a large family, a family that, we are led to believe, she owes to the priestly blessing of Eli [I Samuel 2:20-21]. It is not clear that either she or Elkanah wants these children. (Jobling, 1 Samuel (Berit Olam: Studies in Hebrew Narrative & Poetry), 133)

Hillel I. Millgram (b. 1931) investigates:

With this touching picture of Hannah settled among her growing family, sewing a new little robe for her son and bringing it to him each year [I Samuel 2:19], Hannah fades from the view of history. And were this all there is to the story, the mystery of the author’s reason for opening the book with Hannah would remain unsolved. But this is not all. Besides her great act of commitment and renunciation, she left us another legacy, commonly known as “Hannah’s Prayer” [I Samuel 2:1-10]. (Millgram, The Invention of Monotheist Ethics: Exploring the First Book of Samuel, 34)

The woman whose story began with bemoaning her barrenness, is remembered as a mother. Lillian R. Klein (b. 1929) attends:

Hannah’s narrative concludes with a comment on her annual visit with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice [I Samuel 2:19]. At that time, her motherhood is emphasized: it is not “Hannah” but “his [Samuel’s] mother” who makes a “little robe” and brings it to him at Shiloh...Hannah’s image is secure indeed: she is recognized as mother of Samuel — who becomes a prophet, judge, and king-maker — and as a good woman. (Carol L. Meyers [b. 1942], Toni Craven [b. 1944] and Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948], “Hannah”, Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books and New Testament, 91)

Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) attributes:

Samuel’s mother annually brought Samuel a robe (mě‘îl) [I Samuel 2:19], a longer outer garment worn by members of the Levitical tribe involved in priestly service (cf. Leviticus 8:7). This thoughtful gift from Hannah suggests that although Samuel was gone from the household in Ramah, he was still very much in Hannah’s heart (cf. Proverbs 31:19-21). Through the use of clothing motif in portraying Samuel’s career (cf. I Samuel 15:27), the writer suggests that Samuel’s life was the outcome of a splendid mother of faith. (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 79-80)

Samuel may be gone from Hannah’s day to day life but he is not forgotten. Her bringing a “little robe cut to his size” (I Samuel 2:19 MSG) reveals that she keeps watch over him and loves him continually though her physical presence in his life is only sporadic. In kind, Samuel, one of Israel’s greatest figures, is remembered more as the son of his mother than that of his father. Hannah’s love, embodied in his robe, carries him throughout his life.

What is Hannah trying to communicate by bringing Samuel a new robe (I Samuel 2:19)? What does the garment mean to Samuel? What other items could Hannah have brought her son? Were you Samuel, what would you have wanted your parents to send you? What does Samuel’s coat speak to parents who cannot be involved in the daily activities of their children? Does Samuel’s adult attire hinder his experience of childhood? If Hannah provides Samuel’s little robe, who bestows his ephod (I Samuel 2:18-19)? Does the ephod complement or conflict with the robe provided by Hannah? What is the desired relationship between clergy and lay people? When has a child consistently dressed as an adult? Who do you know of who wore the same attire throughout life; who has a signature outfit? What did your parents or guardians dress you in? If there is a specific attire associated with your profession; if so who provided your first specimen? Do you keep anything associated with your parents? What objects represent love to you?

Contrary to the natural interest of many readers, the Bible is silent regarding Hannah’s emotional response to having her son raised apart from her.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) indicates:

And a little cloak would his mother make him [I Samuel 2:19]. This is a poignant instance of the expressive reticence of biblical narrative. We have been told nothing about Hannah’s feelings as a mother after her separation from the child for whom she so fervently prayed [I Samuel 1:10-11]. This minimal notation of Hannah’s annual gesture of making a little cloak for the son she has “lent” to the LORD beautifully intimates the love she preserves for him. The garment, fashioned as a gift of maternal love, stands in contrast to the ephod, the acolyte’s official garb for his cultic office. (Alter, The David Story: A Translation with Commentary of 1 and 2 Samuel, 2)

The Bible’s silence has not prevented many a reader from empathizing with the lonely mother. Janet S. Jagers (b. 1942) infers:

Hannah continues to see her son each year [I Samuel 2:19]. I imagine she must have treasured the opportunity to talk with him, catch up with the latest news, and make sure he was all right. How hard do you think it was for her to leave him at the end of each yearly visit? Yet we see not even a hint of sorrow in her actions, just gratefulness. She continues to sacrifice and worship the Lord, just as she had done before Samuel was born [I Samuel 1:3-8]. (Jagers, Women at the Well: A Five-Week Study of Women in the Bible, 80)

Francine Klagsbrun (b. 1931) laments:

The loss Hannah feels after relinquishing her child touches us through an exquisitely sensitive detail. Each year when she and Elkanah make their pilgrimage to Shiloh, she brings the young Samuel, a little robe that she has made herself (I Samuel 2:19). She sees her son just once a year, we learn from this detail, and her only way of measuring his growth is through the new robe she sews for each visit. Hannah had promised her child away before she knew how quickly she would fall in love with him; now the robe is her ongoing embrace. (Gail Twersky Reimer [b. 1950] and Judith A. Kates [b. 1941], Beginning Anew: A Woman’s Companion to the High Holy Days, 101)

John Pinkston (b. 1937) consoles:

Once a year, his mother came to visit Samuel, bringing him a little coat which she had made when she and her husband came to offer their seasonal sacrifices [I Samuel 2:19]...However, God knew of the empty feeling that Hannah experienced each year as she left her little boy behind. God had mercy upon Hannah and she had three sons and two daughters because of her commitment and generosity to God in turning her firstborn over to Him for His Service [I Samuel 2:20-1]...Samuel became a prophet and Israel’s last judge. (Pinkston, Our Lost National Identity: Tracing the Lineage of Israel’s Lost Ten Tribes, 103)

Hannah and her husband, Elkanah, have been presented as paragons of parenthood. Joe O. Lewis (b. 1935) extols:

Contrary to Eli’s sons [I Samuel 2:12-17], Samuel’s parents are models of devotion. Hannah saw her son annually and brought him a new robe each year [I Samuel 2:19]. The story hints at the difference in Hannah’s attitude during these years. Her burden has been removed. In subsequent years Hannah bore five more children (I Samuel 2:21). Eli’s blessing referred each year to the vow in which Hannah “asked” for a child (I Samuel 1:20) and “lent” him to God. Both words are the same and reflect the meaning of Samuel’s name. During those years, Samuel “grew”; literally he “became great” with the Lord (I Samuel 2:21). (Lewis, 1 & 2 Samuel, 1 Chronicles (Layman’s Bible Book Commentary), 17)

The life of Samuel’s parents, like his own, centers around worship. John Woodhouse (b. 1949) notices:

This [I Samuel 2:18-21] reminds us of the beginning of our story. It all began with those visits to Shiloh that were so miserable for Hannah year after year (I Samuel 1:3-7). The annual pilgrimage was still taking place, but now it was a time for Hannah’s tender motherly love to find expression in the new robe she brought each year for her growing boy. We can easily picture the care with which that robe was made each year — each year a little bigger! (Woodhouse, 1 Samuel: Looking for a Leader (Preaching the Word), 56)

Grenville J.R. Kent (b. 1965) studies:

After the birth, Elkanah maintains his worship cycle, while Hannah breaks it only until the weaning (I Samuel 1:21-23). Then she brings him a new robe ימימה מימים (from year to year, literally from days to days) (I Samuel 2:19). Thus it is worship and sacrifice that provide the rhythm of their lives, and Hannah’s worship of Yahweh is stylistically linked to her pregnancy, subtly advancing the theme that the baby is God-given in answer to prayer. (Kent, Say It Again, Sam: A Literary and Filmic Study of Narrative Repetition in 1 Samuel 28, 104)

Karen Pidcock-Lester (b. 1956) characterizes:

Hannah and Elkanah...cherish their son. No one can dispute that. They have waited long and prayed fervently for his arrival. But as much as they love Samuel, their lives are shaped not by their devotion to him, but by their devotion to God. They worship, praise, sacrifice for, give thanks to, submit to, and serve not Samuel, but God. They recognize that God has different plans for Samuel from what they might have envisioned, but they surrender their plans and submit to God’s. They do what they can to help Samuel fulfill God’s purposes for his life, “making a little robe and taking it to him each year” [I Samuel 2:19]. (David L. Bartlett [b. 1941] and Barbara Brown Taylor [b. 1951], Feasting on the Word: Preaching the Revised Common Lectionary, Year C, Volume 1, Advent through Transfiguration, 148)

Hannah actively seeks God’s will for her son. Steven E. Albertin (b. 1949) correlates:

Hannah making her yearly visit to the temple to give her son the gift of a little robe she had made for him [I Samuel 2:19]. It is a very simple and tender picture of mother expressing her love for her son. But to our modern eyes the tenderness of this picture begins to fade when we realize that this yearly visit would never have even been necessary if Hannah had not already taken the drastic action of giving her son away. Contrary to our world, where our children are constantly worshiped and adored, here we see a parent whose focus was not on pampering her son but on worshiping God. Hannah’s willingness to giver her son to the Lord and only to be able to visit him occasionally in the temple is stunning when compared to how parents treat their children today. (Albertin, Charles D. Reeb [b. 1973] and Richard E. Gribble [b. 1952], Sermons on the First Readings: Cycle C, 62)

Hannah not only seeks God’s will, she participates in it. Uriel Simon (b. 1929) understands:

Evidently the narrator mentions the lad’s holy apparel so that he can juxtapose it to the little robe, thus suggesting that the robe, too, is one of his sacred garments [I Samuel 2:18-19]. If this is true, Hannah’s motivation for making her son a new robe every year is not concern that he be well-dressed but a desire to continue her act of giving. For her, the dedication of her son to service in the sanctuary is not a one-time deed, but one renewed each year by the recurrent donation of a sacred robe to the lad who serves in the sanctuary. (Simon [translated by Lenn J. Schramm], Reading Prophetic Narratives, 29)

Samuel becomes a great man, no less than a kingmaker. His life trajectory begins with a mother who put God’s will for her child’s life above all else. May we do the same.

How do Hannah’s consistent worship patterns contribute to Samuel’s development? Does worship characterize your life? What are the consequences to Hannah and Samuel of his being raised away from her? Did the absence of his parents in adolescence effect Samuel’s demeanor later in life? What would be the psychological results of Samuel’s unusual upbringing? In what ways have you given your child to God?

“It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” - attributed to Frederick Douglass (1818-1895)

Voice Recognition: (I Samuel 3:1-14)

Whose voice did young Samuel think he heard when God called him three times? Eli’s (I Samuel 3:4-8)

The third chapter of First Samuel describes a time of limited prophetic activity (not unlike our own) when “word from the Lord was rare” and “visions were infrequent” (I Samuel 3:1 NASB). The priest Eli and his young protégé Samuel are lying down at the Shiloh temple (I Samuel 3:2), the former resting by the ark of the covenant (I Samuel 3:3). After three verses establishing a highly ordinary setting, the pace picks up when God initiates action.

The Lord called Samuel; and he said, “Here I am.” Then he ran to Eli and said, “Here I am, for you called me.” But he said, “I did not call, lie down again.” So he went and lay down. (I Samuel 3:4-5 NASB)

When called, Samuel excitedly runs to answer the priest (I Samuel 3:5). His youthful enthusiasm is misdirected as he mistakenly interprets the voice’s origin. Fortunately, God’s call is deliberate and persistent. Undeterred, the Lord awakens Samuel four times (I Samuel 3:4, 6, 8, 10). In a comedic scene, three times the confused young man awakens Eli. After the third attempt, the seasoned priest recognizes that God is calling Samuel and instructs his pupil to respond in kind (I Samuel 3:8-9). The fourth time is the charm as Samuel receives the revelatory word (I Samuel 3:10-14). As such, Samuel first hears the voice of God while literally lying down on the job (I Samuel 3:4).

The setting is significant, symbolic of the nation’s theological predicament. Richard D. Phillips (b. 1960) observes:

The setting for Samuel’s calling is provocatively stated: “The lamp of God had not yet gone out” (I Samuel 3:3). This indicates that it was in the early hours before dawn that God called to Samuel, since the lamps were kept lit until morning. But this was also symbolically true: the lamp of God’s presence in Israel was dim but not completely out. In such a setting, the voice of the Lord was once more heard within his house. (Phillips, 1 Samuel (Reformed Expository Commentary), 65)

The light is scarce but it is not yet extinguished. The voice in the darkness mirrors the hope for renewal embodied in Samuel.

Kevin J. Mellish (b. 1968) adds:

The location where Eli and Samuel slept at the time of the theophany is also symbolic. Eli was in his own room and separated from the ark. Samuel was lying down in the temple...where the ark of God was (I Samuel 3:3). Based on this description, Samuel must have slept in the inner sanctuary where the ark resided. It is noteworthy that Samuel, the prophet/priest designate, remained near the presence of God, which was symbolized by the ark of the covenant. Eli, the soon to be deposed priest, slept at a distance from it. The imagery is fitting considering that Yahweh’s presence no longer abided with Eli as it was with Samuel, This is also the first, albeit brief, reference to the ark in Samuel. (Mellish, 1 & 2 Samuel: A Commentary in the Wesleyan Tradition (New Beacon Bible Commentary), 61)

Some have posed that Samuel’s position indicates that he is seeking just such a divine encounter. V. Philips Long (b. 1951) explains:

That Samuel is described as “lying down in the temple of the LORD, where the ark of God was” (I Samuel 3:3), has led some to speculate that he may have been engaging in a well-attested ancient Near Eastern practice called “incubation.” Incubation involves spending a night in the temple precinct in the hope of receiving a divine or oracular dream. The practice is attested among the Egyptians, with manuals of dream interpretation being used as early as the New Kingdom period, among the Hittites of Anatolia, and in Canaan during the biblical period...Extrabiblical examples of such theophanies, or auditory message dreams as they are sometimes called, come from Egypt (Thutmose IV, fifteenth century), Ugarit (in both the Kirta Epic and ‘Aqhatu Legend), Hatti (Hattušiliš, thirteenth century), and Babylonia (Nabonidus, sixth century). (John H. Walton [b. 1952], Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel (Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary), 282-83)

Ralph W. Klein (b. 1936) counters:

We are not told why Samuel slept by the ark. The view that he was participating in some kind of incubation ritual seems contradicted by his repeated suspicion that Eli—and not God—was calling him. (Klein, 1 Samuel (Word Biblical Commentary), 32)

Instead, Samuel is likely taking his turn in fulfilling priestly duties. Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) assumes:

While Samuel was fulfilling the Torah obligations to tend the lamp of God (cf. Leviticus 24:3; Numbers 18:23), the Lord called the youth and delivered a message of judgment to him. In a form paralleling Abraham, Jacob, and Moses’ obedient responses to divine calls (Genesis 22:1, 11, 31:11; Exodus 3:4), Samuel responded, “Here I am” (I Samuel 3:4). Because he did not initially know the Lord, however, Samuel at first went to Eli for further instructions (I Samuel 3:5-6, 8)...It is...probable that the writer included this note to demonstrate Samuel’s diligence in fulfilling Torah mandates. As a son of Aaron, Eli was required “to keep the lamps burning before the LORD from evening till morning” (Exodus 27:21; cf. Leviticus 24:3; also Numbers 18:23). However, since Eli apparently was too old for active service before Yahweh as a priest (cf. Numbers 8:23-26), the Levite Samuel was permitted to act as his surrogate in this matter (cf. Numbers 18:23). (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel (New American Commentary), 86)

God calls Samuel while he is already on duty. Though Samuel does not know who is calling, he responds promptly and politely. Josephus (37-100) records that Samuel is only twelve years old at the time (Antiquities of the Jews 5.10.4).

It is clear that Samuel perceives the voice audibly, originating outside of himself. T.M. Luhrmann (b. 1959) determines:

The striking phenomenonological detail is that Samuel looked for the source of the voice. When someone gives you that detail—they heard a voice and then looked to see who was speaking—it is good evidence that they heard the voice with their ears. (Luhrmann, When God Talks Back: Understanding the American Evangelical Relationship with God, 344)

Samuel’s call marks a rare instance of a human hearing the audible call of God. Steven J. Andrews (b. 1954) and Robert D. Bergen (b. 1954) characterize Samuel’s experience:

Being so physically close to the Lord’s throne, Samuel was bound to meet him. All of chapters 1 and 2 has led up to this point. God was going to do something wonderful with this young man who was dedicated by his parents to minister before the Lord...Here was the moment of contact. Here was God’s call. It was personal and face-to-face. It was private when no one else was around. It came in God’s house in the early morning. Samuel answered...but he didn’t know who called him. He heard, but he wasn’t listening...God is certainly persistent. The verb call occurs eleven times in I Samuel 3:4-10. Anyone who has ever experienced a call from God can tell you that sometimes it is relentless. God does not give up. (Andrews and Bergen, I & II Samuel (Holman Old Testament Commentary), 32-33)

Samuel incorrectly assumes that the voice he hears is Eli’s. To explain this error, the text offers a narrative aside to remind the reader that Samuel has yet to hear the voice of God; Samuel is not yet the legendary prophet (I Samuel 3:7). One can hardly blame Samuel for his failure to recognize the voice. God has not spoken to him previously and Eli’s is the most likely voice. In this secluded setting, who else would be calling him?

Mary J. Evans (b. 1949) muses:

The story continues with the young Samuel asleep in the area where the ark of God was kept, a fact that shows how fully he had been integrated into priestly service. He hears a voice and immediately goes to Eli—maybe it was a regular occurrence for the almost blind Eli to need help. Samuel’s willingness to get up three times in the night, apparently without complaint, to attend to the ailing old man speaks well for the character of the young priest and draws attention to his worthiness to receive the prophetic word. (Evans, 1 and 2 Samuel (New International Biblical Commentary), 28)

Samuel’s mistake is also natural as the voice of God is often filtered through human beings. Kenneth Chafin (1926-2001) acknowledges:

How easy it still is not to be able to discern God’s voice from other voices. It would be so much easier if all of God’s messages to us came with a clearly printed label: “From God.” But, as my colleague, Frank Tupper [b. 1941], says, “God speaks to us through familiar voices.” While there is a tendency to think of the more dramatic revelations of God as normative, most people experience God’s guidance in quite ordinary ways: through experiences good and bad, while reading the Scripture, through the counsel of another, or out of a growing interest. (Chafin, 1, 2 Samuel (Mastering the Old Testament), 46)

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) adds:

Learning to discern the difference between human words and God’s word is basic to his prophetic and priestly life: Samuel listens. Listening is an act of personal attentiveness that develops into answering. The emphatic “Let anyone with ears listen!” with which Jesus concluded his parables (Matthew 13:9, 43) is repeated in the Spirit’s urgent messages to the churches in the Revelation (Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29, 3:6, 13, 22)...Samuel answers, which is to say, he prays...Samuel’s very existence is a result of prayer, the prayer of his praying mother, Hannah. The story of his call in the temple, introducing his prophetic vocation, shows him learning how to pray for himself, that is, listen to God’s personal word to him and then respond. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38-39)

Ironically, Eli the priest is seldom depicted speaking for God. Yet here it is Eli, not Samuel, who correctly discerns the voice of God. Eli is finally doing his job: presenting a worldview with God at its center.

Alister E. McGrath (b. 1959) writes:

On the first three occasions, Samuel assumes that the natural sound he has heard has a natural referent, and behaves accordingly...The turning point of the narrative takes place when Eli offers an alternative interpretive framework. Confronted with the evident failure of the most obvious schema, Samuel is invited to consider an alternative explanation of his experience (I Samuel 3:9). Eli can here be seen as a representative of the tradition of Israel, which offers an alternative way of interpreting nature – in this case, as a gateway to the transcendent. God is made known through the natural order. (McGrath, The Open Secret: A New Vision for Natural Theology, 176)

It might have even been presumptuous for Samuel to assume that God is calling him. Jack M. Sasson (b. 1941) elucidates:

It is not a lack of intelligence that prevents Samuel from understanding what Eli does comprehend but rather a profound psychological block. Is it possible that God is calling him rather than Eli the priest? Conversely, Eli apprehends what Samuel fails to see, not because of superior intelligence or experience, but because he lacks the inhibitions generated by self-interest. Nothing deters him from assuming that God might turn to the young servant and pass over the old priest! In this way, Eli’s humility compensates for Samuel’s. (John Kaltner[b. 1954] and Louis Stulman [b. 1953], Inspired Speech: Prophecy in the Ancient Near East Essays in Honor of Herbert B. Huffmon [b. 1933], 179)

God speaks to Samuel in such a way that causes Eli to fulfill his primary duty as priest: directing his congregant to God. In some small way, Eli redeems himself. In a sad irony, God’s message to Samuel is confirmation of the fall of Eli’s household (I Samuel 3:11-14). Tragically, Eli’s most effective act as priest occurs while mediating his displacement.

Dallas Willard (b. 1935) praises:

How wonderful that Eli recognized what was happening to young Samuel and could tell him what to do to begin his lifelong conversational walk with God! Otherwise, it might have been years before Samuel would have found his way by himself. We must not mistakenly assume that if God speaks to someone, he or she automatically knows what is happening and who is taking. If Samuel did not know, surely many others also would not. (Willard, Hearing God, Updated and Expanded: Developing a Conversational Relationship with God, 143-44)

In this case, as in many, effectively hearing God is an act of collaboration. For God’s voice to be heard, the lad needs to be open to it, but he also needs guidance from an elder.

Though the passage illuminates the struggle that clergy experience in discerning their calling, discerning the voice of God and distinguishing it from one’s own is a universal challenge that plagues clergy and laymen alike. Hearing God’s voice is often difficult. But it does not mean that God is not speaking.

Eugene H. Peterson (b. 1932) asserts:

God speaks to Samuel. That God speaks is the basic reality of biblical faith. The fundamental conviction of our faith is not so much that God is, as that God speaks. The biblical revelation begins with God creating by word, speaking the cosmos into being (Genesis 1:1-31). It concludes with Jesus, the Word of God, speaking in invitation, “Come...” (Revelation 22:17). All the pages in between are packed with sentences that God speaks—in creation and invitation, in judgment and salvation, in healing and guidance, in oracle and admonition, in rebuke and comfort. The conspicuous feature in all this speaking is that God speaks in personal address. God does not speak grand general truths, huge billboard declarations of truth and morals; the Lord’s speaking is to persons, named persons: Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Paul. And Samuel. Personal address, not philosophical discourse or moral commentary or theological reflection, is God’s primary form of speech. Whenever we let the language of religious abstraction or moral principles (and we do it often) crowd the personal address, we betray the word of God. (Peterson, First and Second Samuel (Westminster Bible Companion), 38)

Though God speaks, hearing is not often easy. Even Samuel, who literally lives in the temple, struggles to do so. Samuel’s experience demonstrates that a person can even be in the precarious position of encountering God without knowing it.

Norman J. Cohen (b. 1943) cautions:

Samuel reminds all of us how difficult it is to truly hear, see, and meet the other in our lives. When we finally do experience a moment of recognition and engagement, we sometimes are so overwhelmed that we cannot find the right words to express what we are thinking and feeling. As we are overcome with emotion, both elation and fear at the same time, words may seem impossible. (Cohen, “The Difficulty of Discerning the Call”, Hineini in Our Lives: Learning to Respond to Others Though 14 Biblical Texts & Personal Stories, 81)

Like all prophets, Samuel’s first prophetic act is to listen. His experience demonstrates that disambiguating the voice of God is a learned skill. This provides both a challenge and hope for us all as we echo Samuel’s words: “Speak, for your servant is listening (I Samuel 3:10 NASB).”

Why does God not make his identity more obvious when dealing with Samuel? When have you been called by an unfamiliar voice? If God called you, how would you know? Have you ever audibly heard God? In your mind, whose voice is most like God’s? What would have happened to Samuel had Eli failed to direct him? When has God spoken to you through a “familiar voice”? In what ways has God spoken to you? How have you been changed by the voice of God?

God speaking to Samuel forever changes his and his nation’s history. James E. Smith (b. 1939) notes:

One night (literally, “it came to pass on that day”) suggests that the day was special, a milestone in Samuel’s rise to leadership, and consequently in redemptive history. (Smith, 1 & 2 Samuel (The College Press NIV Commentary), 74)

The third chapter of First Samuel relays a coming of age story as Samuel is moving from “lad” to prophet. Samuel does not become a renowned prophet over night.

Richard L. Schultz (b. 1952) clarifies:

Hearing God’s call did not suddenly move Samuel from childhood to adulthood; following this encounter he still had to “grow up” (I Samuel 3:19). This text emphasizes God’s judgment on blatant sin in the family of Eli, Israel’s religious leader. It also portrays God’s careful preparation of Samuel for significant spiritual and political leadership as one who was open to hearing God’s voice and obeying. (Schultz, Out of Context: How to Avoid Misinterpreting the Bible, 86)

Samuel’s experience invites a discussion of calling. John Goldingay (b. 1942) projects:

Speaking with students often suggests to me that we think of ministry as something that enables us to find fulfillment, as it makes it possible for us to give expression to the gifts God has given us. Discernment thus begins as our seeking to perceive what our gifts are and how we may express them. There’s none of this way of thinking in the Old Testament or the New Testament. Samuel is not called because this will be the way he finds fulfillment...Given that the connotations of the word “call” have changed, we might do better to use the word “summons” rather than “call” to describe what happens to Samuel or Paul. Samuel gets the idea when he recognizes in the middle of the night that his boss has summoned him to do something, so he reports for duty; he just doesn’t realize which boss it is...There is nothing wrong with people using their gifts to serve God...It just has nothing to do with calling. (Goldingay, 1 & 2 Samuel for Everyone, 31)

As the message Samuel receives concerns Eli, many note that I Samuel 3:1-21 is not technically a call narrative. Anthony F. Campbell (b. 1934) advances:

The initiative is...given to Eli, and the focus of interest moves to his reaction. The story comes to rest with his acceptance...It is important to recognize that this is not a prophetic call narrative; there is no call. It may serve in place of a call narrative, since after this first experience of God’s word Samuel continues as a trustworthy prophet of the Lord. For all that, it is not a call narrative. (Campbell, 1 Samuel (The Forms of the Old Testament Literature), 57)

In contrast, Ronald F. Youngblood (b. 1931) offers:

The literary genre of I Samuel 3 has usually been considered a prophetic-call narrative in the grand tradition of Exodus 3 (Moses), Isaiah 6, Jeremiah 1, and the like. Recently, however, on the basis of ancient Near Eastern parallels, Robert Gnuse [b. 1947], in The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance has theorized that I Samuel 3 is best analyzed as an auditory message dream theophany. Although he sometimes tilts the evidence in his direction...his arguments are impressive...Of course, the genre could turn out to be a blend of both types (a not uncommon feature of Old Testament literature)—prophetic-call narrative plus auditory message dream theophany. But the advantage of Gnuse’s analysis is that it deals adequately with the fact that the Lord speaks to Samuel at night—a matter not handled convincingly by the theory that I Samuel 3 is a prophetic-call narrative and nothing more. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], 1 Samuel-2 Kings (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 65)

Some argue that as Samuel is awake as the story unfolds, the story cannot accurately be labeled a dream theophany. What cannot be argued is that this story marks a new era for Samuel and Israel. Samuel becomes an agent of change in both the nation’s religion (as a prophet) and politics (as the anointer the kings). His authorization to do so is significant.

Robert Alter (b. 1935) remarks:

The idea of revelation...is paramount to the story of Samuel, whose authority will derive neither from cultic function, like the priests before him, nor from military power, like the judges before him and the kings after him, but from prophetic experience, from an immediate, morally directive call from God. (Alter, The Art of Biblical Narrative, 109)

Walter Brueggemann (b. 1933) expounds:

The narrative takes great care to show that Samuel’s credibility does not rest on any conventional political confirmation. Rather, Samuel is presented as having an authorization rooted in nothing other than the freedom and promise of God. Samuel’s freshly authorized voice in Israel’s public life stands over against all conventional modes of power and brusquely displaces them. Surely the old Israelites—and the storytellers—are political realists. They understand how political-priestly power works, how it is secured, maintained, and exercised. They want to assert, at the same time, a holy governance that matters in concrete life, a holy governance that is not bounded by accustomed power, by ordained authority, by conventional leadership. There is a chance for newness. (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 27)

Samuel is authorized to lead, but more importantly Samuel becomes Samuel through the process. His purpose is completely changed as he finds his identity in connection to God.

Francesca Aran Murphy (b. 1960) analyzes:

In order to become a moral individual, a person, Samuel must be called out of the familial collective and enter a direct relationship to God. God does not, here, just call an individual to effect a change in Israel’s culture: he creates an individual so to do...Only when the Lord calls with a single voice and reveals his unity, and only when the recipients of this revelation absorb communication of “Who he is,” can they become unified individuals, persons who act on history and cocreate it. (Murphy, 1 Samuel (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible), 29)

Merold Westphal (b. 1940) informs:

It takes little imagination to hear the resonances of Emmanuel Levinas [1906-1995]’s me voici, whose origins in any case are biblical, in Samuel’s “Here am I.” While this speech act is an expression of Samuel’s freedom, there is more heteronomy than autonomy in it. He does not originate the conversation but is called, called forth, even called into being by a voice not his own. The meaning of the situation in which he finds himself is not determined by his horizons of expectation, which are simultaneously surprised and shattered. Nor is it just his situation that is changed; his very identity is changed, as he becomes no longer merely Hannah’s son or Eli’s helper, but the one who stands coram deo, in God’s presence, by a call that is at once invitation and command. Everything begins with “you called me.” Prayer is the beginning of responsibility because it begins as response...He identifies himself as the servant before his Lord...Actually, when he responds in accord with Eli’s instruction, he does not name the speaker, but simply says, “Speak, for your servant is listening.”...The heavy lifting is done by Samuel’s self-identification as the servant of the speaker, whose divinity he now recognizes. He calls himself ebbe, a bond-servant. (Bruce Ellis Benson [b. 1960] and Norman Wirzba [b. 1964], “Prayer as the Posture of the Decentered Self”, The Phenomenology of Prayer (Perspectives in Continental Philosophy), 17)

Samuel’s awakening is intended to awaken us to our calling as well. Though we may not be called to be prophets or national leaders, our true identity is to be found as servants of God.

Who are today’s change agents? What have you been authorized to do? What has God called you to do? Have you found your identity in God?

“Not only do we not know God except through Jesus Christ, but also we do not know ourselves except through Jesus Christ.” - Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pensées, p. 7

Ichabod: Named in Despair (I Samuel 4:21)

Who named her child Ichabod? Phinehas’ wife (Personally, I would have also accepted Mrs. Crane.)

The name Ichabod resulted from a tragic chain of events that began on a battlefield pitting the Israelites against the Philistines. 30,000 Israelites, including the high priest of forty years, Eli, and his sons, Phinehas and Hophni were lost (I Samuel 4:10-11). Even more damningly, the Ark of the Covenant fell into enemy hands (I Samuel 4:11). The shock from so much loss induced premature labor in Phinehas’ unnamed pregnant wife (I Samuel 4:19). This resulted in her death but not before she gave birth to a son (I Samuel 4:20-22). The Bible allows the reader into the privacy of the birth chamber as she bestows her son with the memorable name, “Ichabod” (I Samuel 4:21).

And she called the boy Ichabod, saying, “ The glory has departed from Israel,” because the ark of God was taken and because of her father-in-law and her husband. She said, “The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God was taken.” (I Samuel 4:21-22 NASB)

The name was no less peculiar to the original Hebrew audience than to contemporary readers. No one else in the Bible bears the ignominious name. Ichabod means “no glory” or “inglorious”. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr. (b. 1945) has argued that the name means “Where is (the) glory?” or “Alas (for the) glory!” (McCarter, I Samuel: The Anchor Bible, Vol. 8, 116). Ichabod certainly had an inglorious beginning as in his first day of life, he lost his parents, grandfather, and even the Ark of the Covenant, the representation of the glory of God.

Though many give their children Biblical names, few ever christen their child Ichabod. As there is a certain poetry to his birth narrative, the name Ichabod did find its way into significant 19th century literature. T.H. Huxley (1825-1890, “A Liberal Education”) and Anthony Trolloppe (1815-1882, Barchester Towers, p. 452) used the name as an exclamation and Charlotte Brontë (1816-1855) referenced Ichabod in her novel, Villete (p. 284). The poem “Ichabod” by John Greenleaf Whittier (1807-1892) expressing the author’s lament over abolitionist Daniel Webster (1782-1852)’s support of the Missouri compromise, is a staple of American Literature. Ironically, the name’s most famous use, in Washington Irving (1783-1859)’s short story The Legend of Sleep Hollow, does not draw upon the Biblical text but rather an acquaintance of Irving, U.S. army captain Ichabod Bennet Crane (1787-1857).

Does your name have meaning? What is the worst name you have ever heard? If you have children, why did you name your kids as you did? Where is the glory? Have you ever felt such utter despair as did Phinehas’ wife?

Phinehas’ wife understood profoundly the consequences of her situation. There is a double saying at the end of her story as Phinehas’s wife says not once, but twice that “the glory has departed from Israel” (I Samuel 4:21-22 NASB). Despite her great personal loss, Phinehas’ wife emphasized that the real tragedy her child’s name commemorated was the big picture - the lost Ark. There could be no greater tragedy than the departing of God’s presence.

Even the joy of a child did not ease her despair. She thought her son had no future. Like many modern couples, she doubted that she wanted to bring a child into the world in the state it was in, especially into a nation that was seemingly powerless.

In naming Ichabod, he was marked for life, a walking reminder of a catastrophic day. A woman naming her son after dreadful circumstances is not unique in the Old Testament. As Rachel died during childbirth, she attempted to name her son, Ben-oni (“son of my sorrow”) but the child’s father, Jacob, overruled her and renamed the son as he is remembered - Benjamin (Genesis 35:18). Jabez, whom Bruce Wilkinson (b. 1947) immortalized in his book The Prayer of Jabez, was named “sorrow” by his mother “because I bore him with pain” (I Chronicles 4:9-10). The miserable circumstances of Ichabod’s birth were more widespread than these other cases as everything in Israel had seemingly crumbled. Ichabod would forever be tied to the past with a name synonymous with shame.

We know little of Ichahod’s life or whether his name was a detriment to him. No action of Ichabod is recorded in Scripture and his name appears only twice (I Samuel 4:21, 14:3). It has been suggested that he gained prominence as Ahitud is later described as being Ichabod’s brother (I Samuel 14:3). Recognizing someone by a sibling (as opposed to a parent) is rare. What is clear is that Ichabod lived.

Phinehas’ wife saw her situation as hopeless. Life as she knew it was indeed over. But life was not over. Though his family died, Ichabod lived. Ichabod is a picture of life out of death. His name should be a reminder that what we see as hopeless is never so, as long as we have a God who can bring forth life from death.

Have you ever felt that God departed from you? What reminds you of bad times? What thoughts get you through those bad times? How do you avoid despair?

“Do not abandon yourselves to despair. We are the Easter people and hallelujah is our song.” - Pope John Paul II (1920-2005)