NIV Application Commentaries are on sale at $7.99. I only realised as I put a couple in my wishlist yesterday and today saw they had been reduced.
That's a great price. Here's a link:
https://www.logos.com/products/search?q=title%3A%22niv+application+commentary%22&start=0&sort=pricelo&pageSize=60
They're not all $7.99, but many of them are.
Thanks for pointing this out - very interesting and welcome[Y]
Wow, that is a great deal. I needed five volumes, and now I have them!
I will be a scab and break my Zondervan boycott for this. I had some other things I was planning on getting tomorrow, but this will take precedence.
Thanks for pointing this out.
This is one of my favorite commentary series. What a great price! Much cheaper than what I paid for them.
I did buy them earlier and had the price appear to change in my cart. But if you hit your back arrow and return to the cart they will probably all show the discount. So do not give up, in the end I did get all 42 at the correct sale price.
I got all 42 volumes for 335 and change. Now that's what I call a super deal; especially, coming from Zondervan!
DAL
I got all 42 volumes for 335 and change. Now that's what I call a super deal; especially, coming from Zondervan! DAL
Did you get that deal today? That is a fantastic deal.
I paid $785 a year ago. I'm simultaneously happy for everyone that's getting this deal and disappointed that I paid too much apparently. I guess I need to adopt and stick to a rule that I won't ever buy anything again that isn't at least 50% discounted.
I just picked up a dozen and am pleased as punch. Everything worked just fine.
The problem is that you never know what's going to be discounted in the future. It's very rare to get this kind of deal, and if you stuck to that rule, you'll miss out on a lot. (FWIW, I already had all 42 volumes, so missed out on the bargain, too.)
I paid $785 a year ago. I'm simultaneously happy for everyone that's getting this deal and disappointed that I paid too much apparently. I guess I need to adopt and stick to a rule that I won't ever buy anything again that isn't at least 50% discounted. The problem is that you never know what's going to be discounted in the future. It's very rare to get this kind of deal, and if you stuck to that rule, you'll miss out on a lot. (FWIW, I already had all 42 volumes, so missed out on the bargain, too.)
I hear you Mark. I've been able to get in on some good deals in the past that more than make up for the difference I paid for NIVAC. Too bad this couldn't have been a deal on the EBC rev. [:)]
This is great to hear for a lot of people. I already picked up the worthwhile volumes in the 2.99 Kindle sales they did in the last year so I won't be grabbing anything else.
This series varies widely in quality so it's in your best interest to check the commentary surveys (OT, NT) to find out which volumes you actually want. Those two books have saved me a lot of money and pointed me to excellent resources I wouldn't have otherwise seen.
Here's another option to check out the ratings of the individual volumes for those who may not want the entire set.
http://bestcommentaries.com/topseries/
This is great to hear for a lot of people. I already picked up the worthwhile volumes in the 2.99 Kindle sales they did in the last year so I won't be grabbing anything else. This series varies widely in quality so it's in your best interest to check the commentary surveys (OT, NT) to find out which volumes you actually want. Those two books have saved me a lot of money and pointed me to excellent resources I wouldn't have otherwise seen.
Based on Best Commentaries I have Exodus, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, and 2 Peter/Jude in my cart. Any other volumes highly recommended? I'm having a tough time finding reviews that go through each book.
I have NICOT/NICNT, NAC, Pillars, NIGTC, and the Tyndale set if that matters. Some of the BECNT and WBC volumes are also on my radar, but I'm not pulling the trigger until they go on sale.
Based on Best Commentaries I have Exodus, Ezekiel, Ecclesiastes, and 2 Peter/Jude in my cart. Any other volumes highly recommended? I'm having a tough time finding reviews that go through each book. I have NICOT/NICNT, NAC, Pillars, NIGTC, and the Tyndale set if that matters. Some of the BECNT and WBC volumes are also on my radar, but I'm not pulling the trigger until they go on sale.
One's opinion of course will be colored by their theological bent and intended purpose. Personally I think the NIVAC is one of the better Evangelical pastoral/devotional commentaries and wouldn't want to be without any of them. I think I've stated this before, but I use them nearly daily for study/devotional purposes and often find value for academic work.
If I were only limited to a few, in addition to the one's you've noted, I would want Walton's Genesis, Gane's Numbers, Hubbard's Joshua, Wilson's Psalms, Jobes' Esther, Wilkins' Matthew, Block's Luke, Blomberg's 1 Corinthians, Hafemann's 2 Corinthians, and Garland's Colossians.
It's interesting that D.A. Carson states in his NT Commentary Survey that he generally doesn't care for the NIVAC (pg. 99), but he seems to recommend quite a few of them despite his general misgivings.
Tremper Longman has a very high opinion of the OT NIVAC vols. He gives the entire OT set 5-stars.
Personally, I love 1 and 2 Samuel by Bill T. Arnold in this series.
Michael, do you also have the NAC commentary on 1 and 2 Samuel? If so, I'm wondering how you would compare the NAC and NIVAC.
Anyone else with a comparison, please also feel free to comment.
Personally, I love 1 and 2 Samuel by Bill T. Arnold in this series. Michael, do you also have the NAC commentary on 1 and 2 Samuel? If so, I'm wondering how you would compare the NAC and NIVAC. Anyone else with a comparison, please also feel free to comment.
I. “Story of Samuel” — with the Embedded “Story of the Ark of God” (1:1–7:17)The beginning of the First Book of Samuel is placed late in the period of the judges, which is probably the mid-eleventh century B.C. It is set against the background of “the grand finale” of the book of Judges, chapters 17–21, which gives “a disconcerting picture of cultic and moral chaos,” as described in the formulaic expression: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg. 17:6; 21:25).1 In this dark time in the history of Israel, Yahweh chose as his prophet Samuel, who was destined to appoint the first kings in Israel. Thus, the first seven chapters, chs. 1–7, constitute a unified whole, dealing with the transitional period from the end of judgeship to the new era of kingship.2The story of the ark (4:1–7:1), which constitutes itself a unified episode, is embedded in the entire story of Samuel (1:1–7:17). Its embedding, however, is intentional and well planned, as the very first verse (4:1a) refers back to the preceding section (ch. 3). Recent scholarly emphasis on the unity and “interconnections” between the embedded story of the ark and its surrounding chapters in 1 Samuel 1–7 is a welcome feature, though one need not to wait until the exilic era, as Polzin and Birch do3, in order to write out this early event in the history of Israel. The present writer is inclined to take the account in chs. 4–6 as pre-Davidic, though its final editing into a wider section, chs. 1–7, could be during the early Davidic era; see “Introduction.”A. Rise of Samuel as Prophet (1:1–3:21)1 Samuel 1–3 deals with the rise of the prophet Samuel in contrast to the decline of the Shilonite priesthood. This is reflected in the alternating literary structure ABABBA. (A) Birth of Samuel, with the embedded prayer of Hannah (1:1–2:11) (B) Sins of Eli’s sons (2:12–17) (A) Samuel and his family (2:18–21a), with a note of Samuel’s growth (2:21b) (B) Sins of Eli’s sons (2:22–25), with a note of Samuel’s growth (2:26),followed by (B) A divine message to Eli through “a man of God” (2:27–36) (A) The prophetic call of Samuel (3:1–21).There is a “resumptive repetition” of the expression, “the boy/Samuel was ministering to/before the Lord,” in 1 Sam. 2:11a, 18.In this section, Hannah, Elkanah, and Samuel are sharply contrasted with Eli and his two sons, Hophni and Phinehas. At that time the ark of God was still at Shiloh, the chief Israelite sanctuary, and was the symbol of Yahweh’s presence in the midst of the covenant people, though it was soon to be carried away by the Philistines (1 Sam. 4). Such a dreadful thing had never happened in the history of the covenant people Israel. It was surely one of the darkest times of its history when Samuel was called to be a prophet of the Lord (1 Samuel 3). This teaches us that regardless of how desperate the situation looks outwardly, God is certainly preparing his chosen individuals in order to fulfill his plan and purpose according to his sovereign will and gracious concern for his people.1 Sam. 1:1–2:11The birth of Samuel (1 Samuel 1) inaugurated “a decisive period” like the birth of Moses (Exodus 1–2) or of Jesus (Luke 1–2).4 A new era — the era of the monarchy — was brought about by the birth of the kingmaker. The story is not just about a devout woman whose prayer was heard. In the midst of an ordinary family life situation, God directed Hannah’s life so she played a crucial role as mother of the kingmaker. The one who was to be born to her was not only a prophet of Israel but the one who would establish kingship in Israel, appointing first Saul, then David. This Samuel takes the decisive role in the period of transition from the days of the judges to the monarchical era, leading to the establishment of the House of David and the beginning of the worship of Yahweh in Jerusalem. If an incident in a woman’s ordinary family life could be such a significant step in the eternal plan of a saving God, each day can be no less significant to a believer for God’s plan and purpose.Although Hannah’s prayer for a son (1 Sam. 1:11) does not involve the need of an heir for her husband, C. H. Gordon is right: “Preoccupation with the birth of a son is part of the repertoire of what was worth recording down through the period of the Judges and Samuel, but not thereafter.”5 But, the “song” (2:1b-10) that Hannah prayed is not so much a thanksgiving for the son as a “hymn” to the sovereign God Yahweh, a song which became the prototype of the Magnificat (Luke 1). Thus, the story of Samuel’s birth reaches its climax with the “song” of Hannah in the story unit, 1:1–2:11.61. Birth and Dedication of Samuel (1:1–28)A look at the discourse structure, based on the analysis of the “verbal sequence” of the text as it stands (see “Introduction” [Section VI, A]), shows that vv. 1–3 give the background information (“Elkanah and his two wives”: SETTING) for the following two EVENTs, that is, “Hannah’s prayer and vow” (vv. 4–19: EVENT 1) and the “Dedication of Samuel” (vv. 20–28: EVENT 2). And v. 28 is a transition leading toward the TERMINUS at 2:11, with the embedded “Hannah’s song” (2:1b-10). It is noteworthy that the entire chapter begins (v. 3: This man used to go up) and ends (v. 28: they worshipped) with Elkanah’s family worshipping God, and with a focus on Hannah, who will give praise to Yahweh.a. Elkanah and His Two Wives (1:1–3) 1 There was a man, one of the Zuphites from Ramathaim, from the hill country of Ephraim; his name was Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu,7 son of Zuph an Ephrathite. 2 He had two wives: the name of the first was Hannah and the name of the second was Peninnah; Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children. 3 This man used to go up from his city annually8 to worship and sacrifice to the Lord of Hosts at Shiloh, where Eli’s9 two sons, Hophni and Phinehas10, were [acting as] priests for the Lord.1–3 In terms of discourse grammar the first three verses constitute the SETTING. While vv. 1–2 introduce the major dramatis personae, Elkanah and his wife Hannah, v. 3 explains what this man used to do and where. The mention of Shiloh and the priestly family of Eli as well as the Lord of Hosts, the hidden but ultimate agent of the events, foreshadows the entire narrative to come.1 Like the stories of Saul and of Samson, the story of Samuel starts with the expression: There was a man (cf. 1 Sam. 9:1, “There was a man from Benjamin,” and Judg. 13:2, “There was a certain man of Zorah, of the tribe of the Danites”). The MT ’îš ’eḥād is usually translated as “a certain man” (NRSV; NASB; NIV; REB) as in 2 Sam. 18:10. But with this translation, the plural of ṣôpîm (Zuphite) cannot be explained satisfactorily. Hence, most scholars take the pl. mem of ṣôpîm as dittography of the following m and read ṣwpy mhr ’prym: for example, “a certain man from Ramathaim, a Zuphite from …” (REB).11 Another suggestion is to take ṣôpîm without emendation as plural and to connect it with Ramathaim: for example, “Ramathaim-zophim” (KJV; NASB);12 “Ramathaim of the Zuphites” (JPS). However, it is also possible to see here an instance of the AXB pattern, in which AB: ’eḥād ṣôpîm (one of the Zuphites) is interrupted by the insertion of X: min-hārāmātayim (from Ramathaim) while keeping the relationship between A and B; hence, X modifies A … B as a whole; see “Introduction” (Section VII, C). With this explanation, the pl. form of ṣôpîm causes no problem, and the phrase is translated one of the Zuphites from Ramathaim.This man is described as one of the Zuphites, a description in harmony with the son of Zuph an Ephrathite of the end of this verse. It is also in keeping with 1 Sam. 9:5, which places Samuel’s home town in “the land of Zuph.” Zuph is the ancestor of a local clan, while Ephraim is the tribal ancestor.13The location of Ramathaim is a matter of dispute. McCarter identifies it with modern Rentis, about 16 miles east of Tel Aviv on the western slope of the hills of Ephraim14. Later in the book it is called Ramah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11; 8:4; 25:1; 28:3), the usual name for Samuel’s home town (7:17), which is presumably “the city where the man of God was” (9:10), the Zuphite Ramah (9:5). Eusebius associated it with Arimathea of the NT and identified it with the village of Rempthis, whereas Jerome located it in the region of Timnah, about 9 miles northwest of Bethel. On the identification of Ramah, see on 1:19. The city was called Ramathaim (lit. “two hills”) probably because there were two hills associated with it; one for the city itself and the other for a high place. According to 1 Samuel 9, the high place, which was presumably on a hilltop (see 9:25), was located outside the city, which was itself on the top of a hill (see 9:11f.).Elkanah (“God created”; cf. Gen. 14:19) must have been from a well-to-do family (see on 1 Sam. 1:24), as suggested by his pedigree and his dual marriage.15 The phrase “the Ephrathites” can refer either to “those hailing from Ephrath” (i.e., Bethlehem) or “Ephraimites,” members of the northern tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5; 1 K. 11:26).16 According to Haran, ’eprāt or ’eprātāh is an “appellative” of the city Bethlehem (Gen. 35:16; 48:7; Ruth 4:11; Mic. 5:2; etc), whereas the gentilic ’eprātî denotes either a member of the tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5; 1 K. 11:26) or an inhabitant of Bethlehem (1 Sam. 17:12; Ruth 1:2).17 Elkanah might have been of Bethlehemite stock rather than being an “Ephraimite,” even though he dwelt in the hill country of Ephraim.2 In the ancient Near East, having an heir was very important, for lacking an heir meant the end of one’s “house.” For example, King Keret of the Ugaritic epic, though he had gold and silver, lost all his male children and so his dynasty was about to be extinguished.18 It was common in real life for a well-to-do man to take a second wife if the first did not bear him an heir. Sarah, of course, advised Abraham to take her slave-girl Hagar as his second “wife” (NEB; or concubine) so that he might have an heir (Gen. 16:1–6). One can easily guess that there was tremendous tension because of jealousy and enmity in a household where a man had two wives. In the light of the above, the term ’aḥat in this context probably means first.19 The construction the first … the second.. . appears in Gen. 4:19; Exod. 1:15; Ruth 1:4; cf. 1 Sam. 8:2; 25:3.Hannah, the central figure in this chapter, appears for the first time. C. Meyers even suggests that “the narrative of Samuel’s birth could just as well be called the Hannah Narrative.”20 The names Hannah (“favor [with God?]”) and Peninnah21 appear in chiastic order, that is, Hannah — Peninnah — Peninnah — Hannah. However, the focus here is on Hannah.3 This verse, which begins with a wqtl NP (This man used to go up), fills in more of the SETTING.22Elkanah went annually to Shiloh to perform the seasonal sacrifice (see 1 Sam. 1:21). The three annual festivals — the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks and the Feast of Booths (see Exod. 23:14–17; Lev. 23:15–20) — are not mentioned in 1 Samuel. Elkanah’s visit to Shiloh was made only once a year (1 Sam. 1:7, 21f.), and according to Haran his annual sacrifice was “a family or clan feast, confined to the family and celebrated by all its members, women and children included.”23 1 Sam. 20:6 also refers to “a yearly feast … for the entire family” of David; see on “a family feast” in 1 Sam. 20:29.24Elkanah’s visit could have been connected to the feast of the Lord in Shiloh mentioned in Judg. 21:19. About this feast there are two opposing views: one view takes it as the autumnal vintage festival;25 the other view denies any connection with such a festival.26 The view that sacrifices were offered to the dead at Shiloh with the assistance of the priest Eli is, however, sheer speculation.27 Regardless of the exact origin of this feast, Elkanah’s annual visit to Shiloh may well have had a historical significance for a member of the covenant people.The phrase the Lord of Hosts (YHWH ṣebā’ôt) is a construct chain, with a proper noun as the first noun in status constructus like the Ugaritic DN il brt “El of covenant” (KTU 1.128:14–15) and il dn “El of judgment” (128:16). Such a genitival explanation can be supported by the phrases “Yahweh of Teman” and “Yahweh of Samaria” in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions.28 The “hosts” (ṣebā’ôt) can refer to heavenly bodies (Judg. 5:20; Isa. 40:26), angelic beings (Josh. 5:14f.), the armies of Israel (1 Sam. 17:45), or all creatures (Gen. 2:1). The noun (f.pl.) has probably an abstract meaning such as “plentifulness, numberlessness” and is intensified by plural form. Hence, it refers to numerous entities such as heavenly bodies and earthly armies. As 1 Sam. 1:3, 11 imply, “the original connection was evidently with worship rather than with battles, in which case the ‘hosts’ were angelic beings.”29This is the first occurrence in the Bible of the phrase.30 It may originally have been specially connected with the Shiloh sanctuary (also v. 11; 4:4). Mettinger goes further and even hypothesizes that the phrase refers to the heavenly king who sits on his cherubim throne in the temple and that the notion of the Lord as king was seemingly current among the priests at Shiloh. Moreover, he makes the assumptions that the designation “originated in connection with the meeting of religions in Canaan” and that the original form of the name was ’el ṣebā’ôt.31 However, it is not easy to see exactly how and when this “meeting” happened. Similarity in matters of language and symbolism is not necessarily the result of a religious syncretism or influence.32 Mettinger’s view is highly conjectural,33 though his view that the kingship of Yahweh was seemingly current in the Shilonite cult might be supported in view of Hannah’s song; see “Introduction” (Section IX, A).Shiloh, the modern site Khirbet Seilun [MR177–162], is situated 1.5 miles east of the Jerusalem-Nablus (Arabic name for Shechem) road and 20 miles north of Jerusalem. The first occurrence of this name in the OT is Josh. 18:1. As A. Mazar notes, “Shiloh seems to have been a sacred place long before the Iron Age, and perhaps this tradition led to its choice as the religious center of the Israelites during the period of the Judges.”34 It remained so during the period of tribal history (e.g., Josh. 21:2; Judg. 21:12), and a yearly feast of the Lord was held there (Judg. 21:19–21). Its destruction in the eleventh century B.C. is later mentioned in Jer. 7:12–14 and Ps. 78:60, and traces of the destruction have been discovered in excavations.35The Hebrew phrase kōhănîm laYHWH (lit., “priests of the Lord”) appears only in this verse. Usually the phrase kōhănê YHWH “the priests of Yahweh” (1 Sam. 22:17, 21; Isa. 61:6; 2 Chr. 13:9) is used. The author may have had reservations about accepting them as “the priests of Yahweh”; hence, the translation [acting as] priests for the Lord may be preferred here. R. P. Gordon sees already at this stage the narrator’s “ominous note in relation to the ensuing narrative.”36b. Hannah’s Prayer and Vow (1:4–19) (1) Hannah and Her Tormenter (1:4–8) 4 On such a day37 Elkanah made a sacrificial banquet38 — he used to39 give shares (of the meat) to his wife Peninnah and all her sons and daughters; 5 but to Hannah he used to give two noses40 (of sheep) as one share, for it was Hannah whom he loved, though the Lord had closed her womb. 6 And her tormentor used to provoke her severely41 with the result that42 she would aggravate her, for the Lord had shut her womb. 7 Such things had been done43 year after year, as often as she went up to the house of the Lord, and in such a manner she kept provoking44 her to anger — and Hannah began to weep and would not eat. 8 Elkanah, her husband, said to her, “Hannah, why45 are you weeping? Why aren’t you eating? Why do you let your heart be troubled? Am I not better than ten sons to you?”4 This verse opens with first narrative tense (wayqtl), a linguistic signal that here the main story begins.On such a day (wayhî hayyôm) refers to a day like one mentioned in the previous information (the SETTING); see also on 1 Sam. 14:1. It is the report of a specific incident on a particular occasion: On such a day Elkanah made a sacrificial banquet … and she began to weep.. . (vv. 4a, 7b). The sacrifice is usually followed by a banquet feast, and “sacrificing” and “banqueting” became almost one and the same event; hence, the translation made a sacrificial banquet.46 As C. H. Gordon notes, slaughtering beasts for food normally was done only as part of a sacrifice, and so gods and men both received shares of the feast.47The section vv. 4b-7a, which is inserted between two wayqtl (vv. 4a, 7b), is parenthetical, giving background information about customary actions. These “shares” would have been taken from the worshipper’s share of the “peace offering” (Lev. 7:11–18).48 In Ugarit, the ideal son is supposed to eat his “portion” in the “house” of El (bt. il).49Here, “Peninnah” is mentioned before Hannah so that the focus can remain on “Hannah” (v. 5); see 1 Sam. 1:2b. This literary device of dealing with the secondary figure first in order to focus on the primary figure can be seen in other biblical narratives: for example, Gen. 10 (Japheth — Ham — Shem); 11:28–29 (Haran — Abram).5 The term ’appāyim (dual; lit., “two noses”; or “face,” e.g. 1 Sam. 25:23)50 has been translated variously: for example, “a double portion” (NASB; NRSV); “a worthy portion” (KJV); “choice portion” (Targum); also “une unique part d’honneur” (Caquot and de Robert, p. 33). It has often been emended to ’epes (“except”) from the LXX plēn hoti, but this equivalence is not securely established.51 There are many other suggestions, but none seems convincing. It seems best to keep the literal meaning “two noses” and, with Barthélemy, to read the MT form as a technical term of the sacrificial ritual.52 It is interesting to note that the Ugaritic ap “nose” appears together with “lung” (npḥ) as an offering to deities in ritual texts.53 The dual form might reflect the practice that animals were sacrificed in pairs in ancient Canaan because the sheep was an animal often offered in pairs (ṯn šm, “two [heads of] sheep”) at Ugarit.54 Two or seven (or twice-seven) sheep were sacrificed in Israel (see Numbers 28f.).Elkanah gave to Hannah two of the choicest parts of sheep, that is, two noses “as one share” (MT accentuation: mānāh ’aḥat). Or, Elkanah gave “one of two noses” (’aḥat ’appāyim) to Hannah as a share55. In the Emar rituals, the head of the sacrificed animal was treated as a favored part, reserved for the deity, for the diviner, and, sometimes, for the king.56 It may be that two noses in our text stands for two heads of sheep. Most translations (KJV; NIV; NRSV; etc.) take the giving to Hannah of the ’appāyim as a mark of love and favor and translate “he gave her … for he loved her …, though ….” However, some interpreters think that the distribution favored Peninnah since she had children, and they translate it “he gave her … although he loved her, because ….”57 The former interpretation is preferable, for she could hardly expect to have as much as a large group.6 Peninnah is her tormentor;58 compare “her rival” (NASB; NRSV); “her adversary” (KJV); “co-wife” (Walters).59 The name “Peninnah” no longer appears after v. 5, but while she thus keeps silence in the scene, she is “powerfully present in the background.”60 The plural marriage thus created severe tensions in this family as it did in Abraham’s (Gen. 16:4–5); see also “rival-wife” (NEB) in Lev. 18:18. Because Hannah was childless, Peninnah tormented Hannah, as Hagar despised the childless Sarah after Ishmael was born (Gen. 16:4–6); later, it was Sarah who afflicted Hagar, with the approval of her husband. It is noteworthy that the Lord’s closing of Hannah’s womb was the reason why Peninnah used to provoke her severely, while, on the other hand, despite of it, Elkanah loved her (v. 6).7 It is often argued that the sanctuary of Shiloh was “a temple” (see v. 9; also 1 Sam. 3:3) built of stone,61 while 2 Sam. 7:6 states that the Lord had never lived in “a house” before the time of David but had been moving about in “a tent.” Hence, some conclude that the traditions are contradictory. However, there is no evidence in the biblical text that this “temple” at Shiloh was made of stone. The term house in this verse simply refers to a dwelling place without reference to its material; on the other hand, the “house” in the context of 2 Sam. 7:6–7 refers to the “house of cedar,” that is, a wooden shrine surrounded by a stone structure. The reference to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting (1 Sam. 2:22) rather suggests that the central part of the house of the Lord at Shiloh was in fact made of cloth. It may be that a more stable structure was built around the tent-shrine.62The door post in v. 9 suggests that this house was apparently set up more like a temple than a portable tent. The doors are also mentioned in 3:15. In v. 9 the temple of the Lord (hêkāl YHWH), the word hêkāl, whose etymology goes back to the Sumerian word É.gal “a large house,” appears for the first time in the OT. The term temple definitely signifies a large structure; it could in fact refer to a large tent structure as in Ugaritic and Mari documents.63 Though one might see in these expressions “anachronistic touches based on conditions existing during the monarchical period,”64 such an explanation is unnecessary in the light of these second millennium evidences.8 The pharase ten sons here is a literary cliché like “seven sons”; see on 1 Sam. 2:5. One might think that Elkanah conveys here his thought that “a husband … can more than make up for the lack of natural offspring.”65 Also, the form of the question, the four-fold question with three “why’s,” conveys Elkanah’s concern for his beloved wife. However, despite his love, he cannot give her children, and so all depends on Hannah’s actions and God’s response. (2) Hannah’s Prayer and Vow (1:9–11) 9 Hannah arose66 after the eating and drinking67 at Shiloh — Now Eli the priest was sitting on his chair by the door post of the temple of the Lord; 10 as for her, she was bitter in spirit68 — and prayed to the Lord, weeping hard, 11 and made a vow:69 “O Lord of Hosts! If you will indeed70 pay attention to the affliction of your maidservant and remember me and do not forget71 your maidservant and give your maidservant a child72, I will give73 him to the Lord all the days of his life, his head no razor shall touch.”9 Hannah, the future mother of Samuel, here encounters Eli, the father of Hophni and Phinehas, sitting on his chair74 of high-priesthood. A chair was a sign of honor in a society where most people sat on the ground. This prepares the way toward contrast between their sons in 1 Samuel 2. Verses 9b-10a are parenthetical and “break into the main narrative to supply information relevant to or necessary for the narrative.”75For the paired expression, eating and drinking, see Gen. 24:54; 25:34; 26:30; Exod. 24:11; etc. Since these two verbal phrases are so commonly paired, the phrase after the eating and drinking probably simply denotes “after dinner” or the like, without specifying whether Hannah had drunk wine or other alcohol; see v. 14.Why is Shiloh mentioned here when the audience already knows the setting? It may be “intended to formalize the turn of events”76. Or it may be that “Shiloh” is mentioned in order to officially introduce Eli, the priest there. Or it may simply be a reminder that this scene is set there, since it has not been mentioned since v. 3. The initial waw of the directly following clause (we‘ēlî.. .) introduces a circumstantial clause (Now Eli.. .) and explains the situation of that place at that moment. So, mention of Shiloh as Eli’s sphere of activity here is not odd. This background information continues to v. 10a; thus, vv. 9b-10a are parenthetical, the main thought resuming at v. 10b (“and prayed to the Lord …”). On the door post of the temple of the Lord, see above (v. 7).10 With the wayqtl (and prayed) in v. 10b, the main line of the story resumes, picking up Hannah’s previous action “she arose” (wayqtl in v. 9). As a person with a struggling spirit (see v. 15), Hannah here takes refuge in the Lord, bringing her problem directly to her God by prayer. Affliction (v. 11) can often direct believers closer to their holy God.11 Hannah’s agony finally finds words in the form of a vow. The only other example of “making a vow” in Samuel is 2 Sam. 15:7–8. According to Parker, a comparison with the Ugaritic Keret Epic shows a common form for vows both in Israel and in Late Bronze Age Syria.77 Van der Toorn78 notes in the expression “son of my vows” (Prov. 31:2) apparently another biblical case in which a child is the result of a mother’s vow.79 In her plea that Yahweh remember me, Hebrew *zkr (remember) has much stronger nuance than simply putting something into one’s memory; it includes positive actions toward the one “remembered”; for example, Ps. 8:4 (//*pqd “to care for”).The sentence I will give him to the Lord has a “performative” force; it shows not only that Hannah promises it but also that she has already given him by faith. Usually a woman who had suffered so from not having a child would not give him up once he was born, but Hannah, a dedicated woman, was willing. Compare Abraham in Genesis 22. Here Hannah promised and gave; there Abraham was promised and was ordered to give. Both acted on faith. See vv. 27–28.The phrase all the days of his life signifies life-long dedication, though the Nazirite consecration was normally a temporary one (see Numbers 6). See 1 Sam. 27:12 on the expression “an eternal servant” (also Ugaritic ‘bd ‘lm). Scholars are divided as to whether the MT here describes Samuel as a Nazirite. Some say it does, for there are correspondences between the present episode and that of the birth of Samson the Nazirite in Judges 13. For No razor shall touch his head, see Judg. 13:5; 16:17; cf. tá‘ar lō’-ya‘ăbōr ‘al-rō’šô (Num. 6:5). McCarter, based on the LXX and 4QSama, even restores before the razor the phrase: “and wine and strong drink he will not drink.”80 But others argue that the Naziritism was due to the later growth in LXX and 4QSama.81 The fact remains that explicit reference to the Nazirite is not made and the abstinence from grape products (see Num. 6:3–4) is not mentioned here in the MT.82Without contesting the first possibility, R. P. Gordon suspects that the narrator presents here “a deliberate contrast” with the Samson story. He holds that “Hannah’s reference to the razor … may be expressing the conviction that the same depilatory disaster as befell Samson (Judg. 16:17–21) will not overtake [her] son.” However, one might need to read the text in a more immediate context before reading it in a wider context “with an eye on intertextual concerns.”83 Taking note of the “aural” feature of the narrative (see “Introduction” [Section VI, D; VII, B]), especially in direct speech, it would not be strange if Hannah mentioned only a part of the Nazirite customs. A sentence may stop even in the middle of an utterance and hence be grammatically incomplete, leaving an incomplete feeling: that is, “aposiopesis” (see v. 22 below). Also, perhaps she limits herself to the hair provision because the prohibition of cutting his hair would begin in infancy, while the prohibition on wine drinking would come into force later. (3) Background Information (1:12–13) 12 While84 she continued praying before the Lord, Eli was watching her mouth. 13 As for Hannah, she was speaking in her heart; only her lips were quivering but her voice could not be heard. So Eli thought she was drunk.12–13 Verses 12–13 parenthetically provide background information to the following EVENT. The expression praying before occurs here for the first time in the OT. The sense is that Hannah was fully absorbed in the presence of the Lord (also 1 Sam. 1:15: “pouring out my soul before the Lord”), forgetting herself and, for a long time, not knowing that Eli was watching.85 Note that “to pray before the Lord” in the present context is distinct from “to pray to the Lord.” While the former emphasizes the prayer in the presence of Yahweh, the latter emphasizes the direction of prayer, implying more distance from him. Though closer, Eli misread her quivering mouth as the mild derangement of a drunk. (4) Dialogue between Eli and Hannah (1:14–18) 14 And Eli said to her, “How long will you make yourself drunken? Put aside your wine away from you!” 15 And Hannah answered:86 “No, my lord! I am a woman struggling in spirit87 I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink88. I have been pouring out my soul before the Lord. 16 Do not deliver up89 your maidservant to the Daughter of Beliyaal, for because of my great anguish and my vexation I have spoken until now.” 17 And Eli answered: “Go in peace! May the God of Israel grant (you) the request90 you have made of him!” 18 And she said, “May your handmaid91 find favor in your eyes!” And the woman went her way and ate;92 she no longer looked miserable.9314 Here begins a dialogue between Eli and Hannah. Eli’s approach to her marks the decisive start of a new development in the story. Naturally, it is Eli, a senior male and a priest, who initiates the dialogue. By mistaking Hannah as being drunken, he commands her to put aside her wine.15 Hannah replies to Eli’s irritated rebuke by explaining herself. She is a woman struggling in spirit. Muraoka compares the expression who is struggling in spirit with the “determinedness” of Sihon in Deut. 2:30 and explains that Hannah was “firmly determined to take up the matter with her God.”94The expression pouring out my soul denotes not simply an inward state of one’s heart or mind, but an involvement of the whole being.95 Hannah’s prayer completely consumes her. The verbal root *špk means “to pour (some thing) out of (its container) into (some place).”96 Here, with this expression, Hannah rephrases the narrator’s comment “she was praying before the Lord” (v. 12). Hannah “pours out” words of agonizing petition. In both passages before the Lord means more than just being in a temple; it refers to the divine presence where she faced the holy God in person.16 The first half of this verse (deliver up … to.. .) is a crux interpretum, and all ancient witnesses are taken as “unintelligible.” Since comparison with Job 3:24 and 4:19 is hardly sufficient to establish the meaning of nātan lipnê as “regard as, treat as,” McCarter suggests reading lpnyk lbt… instead of lpny bt… and translates: “Do not set your maidservant before you as a worthless woman,” that is, “Do not reckon your maidservant a worthless woman.” However, the most natural translation of MT is: Do not deliver up your maidservant to bt bly‘l. Hence, our passage has something to do with delivering up Hannah to someone. The real issue is how to interpret the phrase “the daughter of Beliyaal” (bt bly‘l). Most modern scholars take it for granted that it means “a worthless woman,” but the “Excursus” (below) defends the preferred Daughter of Beliyaal.17 The expression Go in peace! marks “a successful conclusion of negotiation or assurance that the request for a desired state of relationships has been granted”;97 see also 1 Sam. 20:42; 2 Sam. 15:9. It is noteworthy that Eli invokes here the blessing of the God of Israel, while Hannah prayed to and before the Lord of Hosts, citing this intimate name of the covenant, Yahweh, quite frequently (vv. 11[x2], 15, 20, 22, 26, 27, 28a[x2]). The narrator seems to emphasize the personal and intimate relationship of Hannah and Elkanah with Yahweh (see vv. 3[x2], 5, 6, 10, 12, 19[x2], 21, 23, 28b) in contrast with Eli’s formal association with the cult of Yahweh. The word the request anticipates the wordplay in vv. 27f. R. P. Gordon notes that this is the only place in the OT where a priest blesses an individual.9818 Hannah responds positively to Eli, wishing to enjoy his good will always. Note the contrast between and she would not eat in v. 7 and and she ate here. Evidently, she was deeply encouraged by Eli’s words, which she took as God’s promise. She ate because she was confident that her request had been heard. Now she no longer looked miserable, of course, not because she ate, but because she put her complete trust on Eli’s words. Her confidence clearly shone on her contented face. Excursus: “Daughter of Beliyaal” (1 Sam. 1:16)Various translations have attempted to render the phrase bt bly‘l: for example, “a wicked woman” (NIV); “a worthless woman” (NASB, NRSV, JPS); “base woman” (NEB “degraded”).99 The term bly‘l appears nine times in Samuel besides this verse. “Son(s) of B.” (1 Sam. 2:12; 10:27; 25:17), “man/men of B.” (1 Sam. 25:25; 30:22; 2 Sam. 16:7; 20:1), “the torrents of B.” (2 Sam. 22:5), and “B.” (2 Sam. 23:6). In 2 Sam. 22:5 the term is in parallel to “death,” though “the verse is not proof that the word means Sheol.”100 In its twemtu-seven occurrences in the OT it never appears in the plural, but sometimes with a definite article (1 Sam. 25:25; 2 Sam. 16:7; 1 K. 21:13).For the etymology of the term Beliyaal, there are basically two possibilities: one analyzes it as a noun with a negative particle bl; the other posits a verbal root *bl‘. 1. belî + yā‘al “without worth” or “worthlessness”; cf. Ugar. blmt “immortality” (Gordon, UT, §19.466). McCarter, following Cross and Freedman, takes it to be a “ (place of) not-coming-up,” which refers to “hell, the underworld”; this is refuted by Emerton.101 2. For the verbal root *bl‘, various translations have been suggested: “to confuse” (G. R. Driver), yielding the noun “confusion” (with an afformative -l); “to swallow” (Thomas 1963), yielding “the swallower” (cf. Prov. 1:12; the idea of Sheol swallowing people102); or “to destroy” (Emerton) yielding “destructiveness.” In Emerton’s words, “The sons of Belial are … those whose characters are destructive, harmful, evil.”103Thomas thinks that the phrase “indicates one whose actions or words engulf a man, bring him to the abyss, to the underworld.”104 McCarter suggests similarly for “fiend of hell.”105 However, as Emerton notes, Sheol in the OT is “not the place of torment or the abode of fiends. It is not a pleasant place, but it is the place to which everyone goes ….”106 Emerton thinks that belîyā‘al does not mean “hell” but probably “destructiveness” or the like.Whatever its etymology, the term seems to have experienced the following semantic change: (1) a common noun: “worthlessness” (belî + yā‘al) or “utter destructiveness” (bly‘+ l) with a superlative (’)l “god” (2) a divine name: Belîyā‘al. (3) idiomatic expressions: “sons of Beliyaal” = “utterly destructive men”; “daughter of Beliyaal” = “utterly destructive woman”I propose that here the phrase bat belîyā‘al is an archaic phrase reflecting the second stage and probably means “the Daughter of Beliyaal,” which refers to the Queen of the underworld, like Eresh-ki-gal of the Mesopotamian tradition.107 This fits the context of the MT: “Do not deliver up your maidservant before/to the presence of the Daughter of Beliyaal.” In other words, the expression “to deliver up someone to the presence of Beliyaal’s daughter” is an idiom which means “to bring someone for judgment by Beliyaal’s daughter,” that is, “to destroy someone utterly.” (5) Back to Ramah (1:19) 19 And they got up early in the morning and worshipped before the Lord and came back to their home in Ramah. And Elkanah knew108 Hannah his wife. And the Lord remembered her.19 Here the stage shifts from Shiloh to Ramah, so the narrator’s viewpoint moves from *šwb “returned (from Shiloh)” to *bw’ “came (to Ramah)”; hence came back rather than simply “came.” See “Introduction” (Section VI, D) on the use of “come” and “go.” This change of location signals the transition of this narrative toward the next stage.Ramah here is that of Benjamin, probably modern er-Rām, 7–8 kilometers north of Jerusalem.109 The biblical tradition names both Ramathaim and Ramah of Benjamin as Samuel’s home town (1 Sam. 1:1 and 7:17). Perhaps the city’s name proper was “Ramah” (also 1 Sam. 2:11) and was sometimes called by its descriptive name, Ramathaim “Two Hills” (see above on 1 Sam. 1:1).That God remembered means he “fulfilled” his agreed promises. As McCarter comments, “Remembering in the religious terminology of Israel and other Northwest Semitic societies referred to the benevolent treatment of an individual or group by a god, often, as in this case, in response to a specific plea.”110 With the short sentence, And the Lord remembered her (wayyizkerehā YHWH), this part of the narrative ends (i.e., the TERMINUS). See on 1 Sam. 1:11. The actions which implement that memory are soon to follow.David Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 103–125.
Scored the entire set for $335.58. This sat on my wishlist over $900 for a very long time. This deal was to big to pass up.
My advice to those who are still hesitating is: Get it! and if you don't like it return it, but as it is right now the price is cheaper for the entire old and New Testament set than just the New Testament alone at regular price. Don't pass up this great opportunity you will regret it -- heck, even those who bought it more expensive before the sale regret not waiting a little bit longer for such a great deal to come along. Sale ends May 9th!
You'll all be happy to know that I've talked my wife into letting me get the commentaries - of course that's all in my mind. Now I just have to actually talk to her about it.
