Tag Archives: Elkanah

Apologetics, Biblical names, The Book of Samuel

ELKANAH WAS AN EPHRATHITE FROM RAMAH OF BENJAMIN

May 25, 2026 randymccracken 2 Comments

Note to Readers: This was an article of mine recently published in Bibliotheca Sacra 182 (April-June 2025), 163-77. It’s more technical than most of my articles on this blog, but feel free to have a read! (All footnotes have been included here as Endnotes. I’ve also noticed that the footnote notations have not appeared. Sorry for that inconvenience.)

ELKANAH WAS AN EPHRATHITE FROM RAMAH OF BENJAMIN

ABSTRACT

Much disagreement exists in the scholarly literature concerning the identity and home of Elkanah. The problem concerns the meaning of the phrase “hill country of Ephraim” and the word אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1. Also of key importance is the uncertainty over the geographical location of Ramathaim and Ramah (and whether they are different locales or one and the same), the Land of Zuph (1 Sam. 1:1; 9:5), and the burial place of Rachel (1 Sam. 10:2; cf. Gen. 35:16, 19: 48:7).

This paper seeks to demonstrate that: 1) The “hill country of Ephraim,” includes the tribal territory of Benjamin; 2) Ramathaim and Ramah are the same town located in the tribe of Benjamin (probably modern er-Ram); 3) The grave of Rachel should be located in the tribal territory of Benjamin near Ramah; and, 4) The context of 1 Samuel 1:1 suggests אֶפְרָתִי is best understood as “Ephrathite.” If true, these four conclusions remove any contradictions and demonstrate the consistency of the Samuel narrative regarding the hometown of Elkanah and Samuel.

PROBLEM: THE IDENTITY AND HOME OF ELKANAH

The introduction of Elkanah in 1 Samuel 1:1 provides background information regarding his ancestry and place of residence. The problem, at least for the modern reader, is that several geographical details and names are open to more than one interpretation. For example, the phrase, “hill country of Ephraim,” and the word אֶפְרָתִי, can suggest that Elkanah is a member of the tribe of Ephraim. However, אֶפְרָתִי can also refer to someone who is an Ephrathite (cf., 1 Sam. 17:12). Other biblical passages also provide evidence that “the hill country of Ephraim,” encompassed more than just the tribal territory of Ephraim (e.g., Judg. 4:5). Furthermore the name of Elkanah’s hometown, Ramathaim, is found only here. Elsewhere he (and his son Samuel) are said to be from Ramah (e.g., 1 Sam. 2:11). Do two different names for Elkanah’s (and Samuel’s) hometown suggest two different places? This question is important, for if Elkanah’s home of Ramathaim is in Ephraim, it is equally clear from passages in 1 Samuel that Samuel’s hometown of Ramah is in Benjamin (e.g., 1 Sam. 7:16-17). How then, is this to be explained?

A related problem concerns Saul’s initial encounter with Samuel in the land of Zuph (1 Sam. 9:5ff.). Is the land of Zuph in the tribal territory of Ephraim, as possibly suggested by 1 Samuel 1:1 and Saul’s travels in 1 Samuel 9, or does Saul’s encounter take place in Ramah of Benjamin? The text’s testimony regarding the home and identity of Elkanah concerns the question of whether it presents a mixed, and thus confused, geographical picture, or one that is accurate and coherent. This paper seeks to address this question.

Miller has pointed to four contributing factors related to potential geographical confusion over biblical sites: 1) Biblical writers assume the readers are familiar with the geography of Benjamin, and, therefore, do not provide much detail; 2) A number of Benjaminite names are appellative names that would be duplicated from site to site. For example, Ramah means “the height,” and was a name given to various sites; 3) Modern development in the area of what was ancient Benjamin has made it more difficult to envision what the topography was like in ancient times; and, 4) Literary-critical analysis, which Miller believes has led to the widest divergence of opinion among scholars. Miller’s own view is that biblical stories “. . . provide authentic memory of ancient Benjaminite toponymy. [However], During the process of transmission from ancient times to the present . . . this memory has been skewed in places.”

Each of these factors present challenges, to the modern scholar and should be given due consideration when reaching any conclusions. It is important to remain open to alternative explanations, and to the possibility of new discoveries which may clarify some issues of interpretation or geography. With that in mind, this paper will suggest the biblical data regarding Elkanah’s identity and home can be reconciled without contradiction, while certain aspects must remain tentative (e.g., the exact location of Ramah, or Rachel’s tomb). What follows is an investigation of each of the key words and phrases describing Elkanah’s identity and geographical location.

WHAT GEOGRAPHICAL AREA IS MEANT BY “THE HILL COUNTRY OF EPHRAIM?”

When reading the phrase, “the hill country of Ephraim,” it seems natural that a modern reader would interpret this to mean the hill country contained within the tribal territory of Ephraim. It appears that some scholars have come to a similar conclusion. If one makes this assumption, then it is natural to conclude that 1 Samuel 1:1 is stating that Elkanah’s hometown of Ramathaim, and the land of Zuph, must be in Ephraimite territory. Later passages that suggest that Elkanah’s (and Samuel’s) home is in Ramah of Benjamin would, then, be understood to be in conflict with 1 Samuel 1:1. Kyle McCarter draws this conclusion. He writes,

Apparently there is confusion in the tradition itself. The older narrative recorded Samuel’s home as Ramathaim of the land of Zuph in the Ephraimite hills. In the course of the transmission of the story, the name became associated with the much more familiar Benjaminite Ramah. The result is a mixed picture. In the present episode there is no barrier to maintaining the assumption that Ephraimite Ramathaim is intended.

Miller comes to a similar conclusion:

Note . . . the apparent confusion concerning the identity and location of Samuel’s family home. 1 Samuel 1:19; 2:11; and 7:17 associate Samuel and his father Elkanah with Ramah. Yet the story in 1 Samuel 9–10, Saul’s search for the Donkeys, associates Samuel with the “land of Zuph,” while 1 Samuel 1:1 identifies Elkanah as an Ephraimite from Ramathaim-zophim. This confusion, in my opinion, . . . is to be explained on literary-critical grounds.

Other scholars also conclude that 1 Samuel 1:1 is stating that Elkanah’s home is in the tribal territory of Ephraim, but that other texts place his home in Ramah of Benjamin.

There are texts, however, that suggest the hill country of Ephraim encompasses a wider geographical area. Judges 4:5 informs us that Deborah held court under a palm tree between Bethel and Ramah “in the hill country of Ephraim.” This is clearly Benjamite territory and illustrates that the hill country of Ephraim has a wider geographical reference than the tribal territory of Ephraim. Another passage which may identify the tribe of Benjamin with the hill country of Ephraim is 2 Samuel 20 concerning the rebellion of Sheba ben Bichri. Sheba is identified as a Benjamite (2 Sam. 20:1) who was from the hill country of Ephraim (2 Sam. 20:21). Rainey and Notley rightly state, “The ‘hill country of Ephraim’ is a generic geographical term for the entire block of hills that included the territory of Benjamin, Ephraim and Manasseh.” The tribe of Ephraim’s prominence appears to be the explanation for this designation. The hill country further south, though still part of the same range, became designated as “the hill country of Judah” (Josh. 21:11), due to the prominence of the tribe of Judah. Similarly, the hill country further north was designated as “the hill country of Naphtali” (Josh. 20:7).

A further example of a geographical feature named for the tribe of Ephraim, but not within the tribal boundary is the “forest of Ephraim,” where David’s men battled Absalom (2 Sam. 18:6). This battle most likely took place on the other side of the Jordan in the area of Gilead, not within the tribal border of Ephraim (2 Sam. 17:24).

That the hill country of Ephraim also includes the tribe of Benjamin has been noted by several recent scholars. Context is therefore important when deciding what is meant by the “hill country of Ephraim.” Just because Elkanah lived in the hill country of Ephraim, does not automatically rule out that he lived within the tribal territory of Benjamin, nor does it mean that he must be an Ephraimite. The misidentification of Elkanah’s home with the tribe of Ephraim has ramifications for other related texts which we will examine below.

RAMATHAIM AND RAMAH: TWO CITIES, OR TWO DESIGNATIONS FOR THE SAME CITY?

The name Ramathaim has puzzled many scholars. 1 Samuel 1:1 is its only occurrence. Elsewhere, both Elkanah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11) and Samuel (1 Sam. 7:17; 15:34) are said to have lived in Ramah. Two names and seemingly, two different locations (one in Ephraim, one in Benjamin), have led to the confusion. For example, while convinced that 1 Samuel associates Samuel with Ramah of Benjamin (er-Ram), Klein notes that, based on the identification by Eusebius and Jerome, modern scholars associate Ramathaim with Rentis about 16 miles east of Tel Aviv. Klein further asserts that “Ramathaim is the same as Arimathea in the NT (Matt 27:57).” This leads him to conclude that, “. . . the first verse of the book—and possibly v 19 and 2:11—represent an alternate, Ephraimite tradition.” This conclusion, however, is based on two assumptions. First, that the “hill country of Ephraim,” must refer to a person living within the tribal boundary of Ephraim. Second, that the Hebrew term אֶפְרָתִי, refers to a person living in Ephraim. If these assumptions are removed, then it becomes possible to view Ramathaim and Ramah as two names for the same place as several scholars posit.

The dual form in the name Ramathaim should not automatically be interpreted as referring to a town other than Ramah of Benjamin. Other towns and cities in ancient Israel display the same phenomenon. The most famous of these, as noted by Driver, is Jerusalem (yerushalayim). No one would suggest that the singular and dual spellings of Jerusalem refers to two distinct cities. Another example of this phenomenon is Gittaim of Benjamin (2 Sam. 4:3; Neh. 11:33) which appears in the singular form Gath in 1 Chronicles 7:21 and 8:13. Other examples of cities using a dual form include Kiriathaim (Gen. 14:5), Shaaraim, Adithaim, and Gederothaim (Josh. 15:36), to name a few.

Demsky notes that, “Scholars have explained this linguistic form either semantically or morphologically.” The semantic approach interprets the dual forms literally. For example, Shaaraim (1 Sam. 17:52) means “two gates,” Naharaim (Judg. 3:8, 10) means “two rivers,” etc. Using this approach, Ramathaim would mean “two hills,” an interpretation which is frequently put forward by many commentators. Demsky, rightly in my opinion, dismisses this approach, for the most part, stating, “In general, these semantic explanations are too simplistic and somewhat fanciful, and are unable to explain most of the names in the dual form either topographically or historically.” The morphological explanation, first put forward by J. Barth, contends, “that this dual ending is an expanded long ām ending with the special meaning of a locative.” For example, Rainey and Notley conclude, “Ramathaim is the town of Ramah in Benjamin, here with an adverbial locative or directive suffix (homophonous with the dual suffix).” Demsky also rejects the morphological explanation, maintaining that the dual ending in topographical names, “was actually an alternate form of a more common nominal ending.” For our purpose, it is not necessary to choose between Barth’s and Demsky’s explanations. It is enough to note that the use of a dual ending for towns and cities is not an unusual occurrence in ancient Israel. There are several possible explanations for this phenomenon none of which necessitate that the use of the dual form must refer to a different site. The context in Samuel clearly presumes that the Ramathaim of 1 Samuel 1:1 was the same as Elkanah’s home in Ramah (1 Sam. 1:19; 2:11).

EPHRATHITES AND EPHRAIMITES: THE MEANING OF אֶפְרָתִי

Jan Joosten writes, “In Biblical Hebrew, gentilic adjectives can be derived from proper nouns designating a putative ancestor, a clan, a city, an area or a country.”

In the context of 1 Samuel 1:1, אֶפְרָתִי seems to designate an area that Elkanah’s ancestors came from, although a reference to a clan should not be ruled out. Area, or clan, are possible, given the four-generation genealogy in 1 Samuel 1:1. אֶפְרָתִי is an ambiguous term that may refer to someone from the tribe of Ephraim (Judg. 12:5). However, it may also refer to someone from the clan of Ephrath (1 Chron. 2:50-54; 4:4ff.). This clan settled in the northern region of Judah and gave its name to the area, especially the area associated with Bethlehem (e.g., Ruth 1:2; 1 Sam. 17:12). Context is therefore important in determining its meaning. Elkanah, and his ancestors, are designated as אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1. The mention of the hill country of Ephraim earlier in the verse causes many to assume that Elkanah must be an Ephraimite. Driver’s comments are representative of many when he writes, “This word appears to represent Elqanah not merely as resident in Ephraim (מהר אפרים), but as an Ephraimite.”

Again, when these assumptions are suspended and one posits that Elkanah’s home was in the tribal territory of Benjamin (which is a part of the hill country of Ephraim), אֶפְרָתִי naturally takes on the meaning Ephrathite (i.e., a person from the district of, and/or descended from the clan of, Ephrath). Other scholars also recognize Ephrathite as the correct rendering in 1 Samuel 1:1.

There are even scholars who equate the hill country of Ephraim with the tribal territory of Ephraim but maintain that אֶפְרָתִי could be rendered as “Ephrathite” in 1 Samuel 1:1. Tsumura, notes that “. . . 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). Elkanah might have been of Bethlehemite stock rather than being an ‘Ephraimite,’ even though he dwelt in the hill country of Ephraim.”

Again, while supposing that Elkanah lived within the tribal territory of Ephraim, Leuchter makes the following observation: “The verse tells us that Samuel’s father Elkanah has settled in the hill country of Ephraim; the appearance of אפרתי as a reference to Ephraim in the same verse would be redundant.” He continues,

Other traditions point to sacral figures hailing from Bethlehem and later taking up posts in the Ephraimite hinterland (Judg 17:7–8); Elkanah as an Ephratite sojourning in Ephraim is not an anomaly. We thus have grounds to retain the term אפרתי in 1 Sam 1:1 without emendation, suggesting a strong connection between the religious circles of Ephratah-Bethlehem in Judah and the Shilonites of the Ephraimite hinterland.

While this writer contends it is incorrect to locate Elkanah’s home in Ephraim, the above comments demonstrate that even scholars who do, recognize that אֶפְרָתִי should be read as “Ephrathite.” One reason, similar to Leuchter’s argument above, is that it strengthens the literary tie between the end of the Book of Judges (which ends with two stories about Levites who have connections with Bethlehem and the hill country of Ephraim) and the beginning of 1 Samuel. An Ephrathite origin could also hint at Elkanah’s levitical lineage (along with his descent from Zuph, cf. 1 Chron. 6:33-38), thus, justifying Samuel’s service in the tabernacle and later acting as priest. Furthermore, if Ramathaim is the same as Ramah and is to be located in Benjamin, as is being argued here, then אֶפְרָתִי must be read as “Ephrathite” because Ephraimite would make little sense in the context.

An important related question is, “What exactly is an Ephrathite and does this designation denote someone from Bethlehem?” 1 Chronicles 2:19, 50-54 gives a genealogy of a certain Caleb the son of Hezron of the tribe of Judah (1 Chron. 2:18). After the death of his first wife, Caleb married a woman named Ephrath. Ephrath became the matriarch of a clan that bore her name. Ephrath’s descendants are listed in both 1 Chronicles 2:50-54 and 4:1-10. Ephrath gave birth to various sons who became the ancestors of those who lived in various towns in northern Judah. These towns included Bethlehem, Kirjath Jearim, and Tekoa, among others. According to Demsky’s detailed study of this genealogy,

Bethlehem . . . was the primary city of the Ephrathites, whose area of settlement extended at first along the mountain range from Kiriath-jearim to Gedor. Secondary expansion went to proximate villages to the west – Manahath, Hushah and probably Bether and Giloh – and to the east around Tekoa. Tertiary expansion moved down to the Shephelah, to sites such as Zorah, Eshtaol and perhaps Sha’araim. Bethlehem was therefore the epicentre for the larger territory of Ephrath.

Ephrath was, therefore, a large area which encompassed a number of cities, but chief among them was Bethlehem. Identifying Elkanah as an Ephrathite could mean that his ancestors came from any area within the Ephrathite domain. The connection with the stories at the end of Judges suggests that Bethlehem might be in mind. Furthermore, there are only two occurrences of אֶפְרָתִי in the books of Samuel and there is no doubt that it should be rendered as “Ephrathite” in the second passage. In 1 Samuel 17:12 David is described as the son of Jesse “that Ephrathite from Bethlehem.” The fact that the only other occurrence of אֶפְרָתִי is in 1 Samuel 1:1 suggests these two passages should be compared. The use of the word to describe only these two individuals (and their families), suggests a possible link between the two. This is borne out literarily. Elkanah parallels Jesse, as both are fathers of sons who will bring deliverance to Israel. Samuel and David are not only parallel as deliverers, but are directly connected through Samuel’s anointing of David as king.

THE LAND OF ZUPH AND THE TOMB OF RACHEL: LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION!

Two other passages that bear on the location of Samuel’s Ramah occur in the introductory story of Saul. When Saul went looking for his father’s lost donkeys, he traveled through the hill country of Ephraim, eventually coming to the land of Zuph and the city of Samuel (1 Sam. 9:4-6). Following his anointing by Samuel, he was given three signs to confirm his anointing. One of those signs involved going by the tomb of Rachel which is described as being “in the territory of Benjamin at Zelzah” (ESV, 1 Sam. 10:2). The mention of the “land of Zuph” automatically recalls 1 Samuel 1:1. Understanding the land of Zuph to be in the tribal territory of Ephraim has led some scholars to suggest a contradiction with 1 Samuel 9:4-5 which places Zuph in the territory of Benjamin.

Similarly, certain passages in Genesis (35:16-20; 48:7) may be interpreted as locating Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem (which aligns with the current tradition in Israel). These call into question 1 Samuel 10:2, which places Rachel’s tomb in the territory of Benjamin, near Ramah. In this section these passages will be examined and it will be demonstrated that Ramah of Benjamin is once again the best choice when all the data is considered. If it is allowed that ancient Israelite authors knew their history and geography well, then a solution that solves any apparent contradictions should be considered superior to an interpretation that suggests irreconcilable differences.

The Location of the Land of Zuph. One of the challenges in understanding Saul’s journey in looking for his father’s lost donkeys is that several of the place names have not been confidently identified geographically. As Gilmour notes, “Many scholars have attempted to locate these place names but no consensus has yet been reached.” Diana Edelman has also observed that,

1 Sam. 9:1-10:16 has been the subject of many diverse investigations over the past 135 years. No single route and series of identifications has gained acceptance, however, and some scholars have despaired that it is impossible to reconstruct the journey on the basis of the scanty evidence available.”

The mention of “the hill country of Ephraim,” leads many scholars to assume that Saul’s search carried him into the tribe of Ephraim. This seems doubtful for, as already noted, the hill country of Ephraim can apply to the tribe of Benjamin as well. In reading the passage it seems that “the hill country of Ephraim” is a summary statement of the area traversed by Saul and his servant.

Equating the hill country of Ephraim with the tribal territory of Ephraim leads Edelman to suggest that Saul began his search outside of the tribe of Benjamin. The basis of this contention is that the text does not name his hometown and therefore the point of his departure is unknown. While true, the most natural reading of the context suggests that Saul left from his family home and that after three days he was concerned to return there knowing his father would be worried about him (1 Sam. 9:3, 5). It makes little sense for Saul’s search to have begun in Ephraim, rather than starting near his home. As McCarter notes, “Saul began his search, as we might expect, ‘in his own backyard.’”

If Saul began his search from Gibeah of Benjamin, then the lands of Shalishah, Shaalim, Yamin, and finally, Zuph would suggest an ever-widening search for the donkeys in these districts. Cogan and Tadmor state that these names represent family districts in the territory of Benjamin. This certainly fits the designation of the land of Zuph which echoes the ancestral area Elkanah is from (1 Sam. 1:1). It is in the land of Zuph that Saul encountered Samuel at Ramah. This appears to be the northern limit of his search. After three days of wandering all over the territory between Gibeah and Ramah (cf. 1 Sam. 9:20), Saul was ready to return home.

A three day journey, or period of time, is very common in Scripture (e.g., Gen. 22:4; 30:36; Exod. 5:3; 15:22; Num. 33:8; Josh. 1:11; 1 Sam. 20:19; 2 Sam. 20:4; 1Kgs. 12:5; 2 Kgs. 2:17; 1 Chron. 12:39; Jonah 1:17; 3:3). “In the biblical world, three days was a typical period of preparation for something important.” This observation is appropriate to the context here where Saul’s three-day search for the donkeys ended with a sacred meal (1 Sam. 9:19-24) and his anointing by Samuel (1 Sam. 10:1). Context appears to determine whether the three days represents a short or long period of time. For example, the description of Nineveh being a city that takes three days to traverse, suggests a very large city (Jonah 3:3). However, Moses’s request to Pharaoh that the Israelites make a three-day journey into the wilderness to sacrifice to Yahweh, suggests a short journey (Exod. 5:3).

While it is not impossible, it seems a stretch to suggest, as a number of scholars do, that Saul’s search encompassed an area of sixty miles in these three days. This sixty-mile distance is based on the assumption that Saul’s journey took him into the tribal territory of Ephraim. While identification of the geographical regions remains in doubt, it seems that such an area is too large for a three-day search. It is more realistic to suppose that the donkeys would not have wandered that far away and that a thorough search of the area between Gibeah and Ramah would easily take three (or parts of three) days. We are not talking a search in a direct line between Gibeah (modern Tel el-Ful) and Ramah (modern er-Ram), only a distance of about 2 miles or 3 kilometers, but a slow, methodical, ever widening search, traversing east and west in mountainous terrain between these two cities. It also makes more sense for Saul’s father to be worried about him being gone three days if the distance was short, than if a wider area had been canvassed. One would assume that a search of sixty miles would take some significant time, whereas a search in the vicinity of one’s home should be concluded more quickly. Based on the report by the men at Rachel’s tomb (if the tomb is near Ramah), it does appear that the donkeys did not wander far. Therefore, unless further geographical evidence is produced in the future that proves otherwise, nothing suggests that Saul’s search took him beyond the tribal limits of Benjamin.

The Location of Rachel’s Tomb. Another geographical uncertainty of the early chapters of 1 Samuel is the location of Rachel’s tomb. Although 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15, firmly locate it in the territory of Benjamin, other scholars point to Genesis 35:16-20 and 48:7 which mention Ephrath, further identifying the area as near Bethlehem. To complicate matters a traditional tomb located near Bethlehem today is identified as Rachel’s tomb. While most scholars maintain that the original site of Rachel’s tomb is in Benjamin, there are a few who prefer the Bethlehem location.

Na’aman has presented the most thorough case for defending the Bethlehem location. He argues that the Bethlehem tradition is older, going back to the Ephrathites who moved into the area from the tribe of Ephraim. Na’aman also believes that the tradition of Rachel’s tomb in Benjamin goes back to a wrong identification which equates the tomb of Deborah (Rachel’s nurse) with Rachel’s tomb (see Gen. 35:8).

When read carefully, however, the Genesis texts do not locate Rachel’s tomb near Bethlehem. Genesis 35:16 states that Rachel gave birth after leaving Bethel while “still some distance from Ephrath” (ESV, NASB). Genesis 35:19 similarly states that Rachel was buried “on the way to Ephrath” (ESV, NASB). When Jacob retells the story (Gen. 48:7), he uses the same expressions found in Genesis 35:16 and 19. Demsky writes,

The idea that Rachel dies near Ephrat (or Bethlehem), just before they got there, is based on a misunderstanding of the phase דרך ‘the road to’ or לבוא ‘the way of/approaching.’ In the Bible, and in general, a road is named after the destination, so it is called ‘the way of Ephrat’ because that is where they were going, but it does not mean they were anywhere near there.”

Sarna points out that a Bethlehem location for Rachel’s tomb is unlikely because Genesis 35:21 states that after burying Rachel, Jacob moved on to Migdal Eder which is identified with a section of Jerusalem (cf. Mic. 4:8). If Rachel was buried near Bethlehem, Jacob would have had to reverse his direction. Instead, Sarna supports Kiriath Jearim as the most likely place for Rachel’s tomb (it being on the Benjamin/Judah border in an area identified with Ephrath). Sarna is not alone in this conclusion. However, there is no ancient or modern tradition connecting Rachel’s tomb with Keriath Jearim. Based on the biblical texts, Ramah of Benjamin remains the best option.

One objection to Ramah as the site of Rachel’s tomb is that Jeremiah 31:15 does not use the Hebrew article he (ה). Normally, when referencing the city of Samuel, Ramah does include the Hebrew article. Thus, some suggest that Jeremiah 31:15 is using the word in its natural Hebrew meaning of “height.” However, Jeremiah 40:1 makes it clear that Ramah was the place from which the exiles were carried away to Babylon and Jeremiah 31:15 is referring to this same event.

Based on a study by Ernst Vogt, Wenham notes that the Hebrew word כִּבְרַת (used in Gen. 35:16; 48:7, and translated as “still some distance”) “. . . equates Hebrew ברה with Akk. bēru, the distance traveled in two hours, roughly eleven kilometers or seven miles.” The distance from Ramah (er-Ram) to Bethlehem is slightly farther, being ten miles or 16 kilometers. If כִּבְרַת is being used in an approximate way, as seems likely from the context in Genesis, then a location near Ramah is reasonable. In fact, Vogt states that the distance communicated by כִּבְרַת is not exact but depends on the time and the gait of a person. Based on the Genesis texts (and 1 Samuel 10:2), Vogt argues that the distance being specified by כִּבְרַת is the distance between Rachel’s tomb (near Ramah) and Ephrath. Thus, there is no need to conclude that a discrepancy exists between the Genesis accounts of Rachel’s tomb and the accounts in 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

It has been demonstrated that the “hill country of Ephraim,” also encompasses the tribal territory of Benjamin and that Ramathaim is another name for Ramah, the dual form being a characteristic of other ancient city names. If then, Ramah of Benjamin is the location of Elkanah’s hometown, אֶפְרָתִי in 1 Samuel 1:1 should be understood as “Ephrathite.” The connection with the end of the Book of Judges (Judg. 17:7-8; 19:1) as well as the connection with Jesse the father of David (1 Sam. 17:12), further strengthens this interpretation.

We have also noted that Saul’s search for his father’s lost donkeys need not have taken him beyond the border of Benjamin. In fact, it seems more likely that his search was in a relatively smaller area (between Gibeah and Ramah) than what some scholars suggest, given the three-day time frame of his search and what is realistically known about the complexities and time element involved in such a search. Thus, when Saul met Samuel in 1 Samuel 9:10-14, the city was Ramah of Benjamin and not a Ramah or Ramathaim in the tribal territory of Ephraim as some assert.

We have also demonstrated that there is no conflict between the texts in Genesis and 1 Samuel 10:2. The Genesis texts are more vague in their location of Rachel’s tomb, giving only the general area, which plausibly includes the southern part of the tribal territory of Benjamin. In contrast, 1 Samuel 10:2 and Jeremiah 31:15 clearly locate Rachel’s tomb in Ramah of Benjamin. Vogt, followed by Wenham, has argued that the word כִּבְרַת can reasonably refer to the distance between Ramah and Ephrath.

All scholars are in agreement that the text of 1 Samuel locates the home of Samuel in Ramah of Benjamin (most concluding it is the modern er-Ram). When all of the evidence is considered, it is not only clear that Samuel lived in Ramah of Benjamin, but that his father Elkanah and mother Hannah did as well and that there is no contradiction between the statements of 1 Samuel 1:1, 9:4-5; 10:2, or any other passages in 1 Samuel relating to the identification of his hometown. Thus, the proper understanding of 1 Samuel 1:1 is that Elkanah was an Ephrathite from Ramah of Benjamin.

End Note

All Scripture quotations are from the ESV unless otherwise noted

2 Max Miller, “Notes on Benjaminite Place Names,” JNSL 25.1 (1999): 61–62.

3 Miller, 62.

4 P. Kyle McCarter Jr., 1 Samuel, AB 8 (Doubleday, 1980), 61–62.

5 Miller, “Benjaminite Place Names,” 63.

6 For example, Henry Preserved Smith states, “The genealogy given seems to leave no doubt that Elkanah was an Ephraimite by blood.” A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel, ICC (T&T Clark, 1992), 5. See also, Tony W. Cartledge, 1 and 2 Samuel, SHBC (Smyth & Helwys, 2001), 27; and A. Graeme Auld, 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, OTL (Westminster John Knox, 2011), 27.

7 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, trans. James Martin, vol. 2 of Commentary on the Old Testament (Hendrickson, 1996), 372–73. Conversely, Miller contends that the Benjaminites were southern Ephraim clans that settled in the southern hill country of Ephraim. He believes that Benjamin’s tribal status was a literary rather than a historical development. “Benjaminite Place Names,” 62. While there is no solid evidence for this conjecture, Miller’s theory does not negate the suggestion that the hill country of Ephraim encompassed the tribe of Benjamin.

8 Anson F. Rainey and R. Steven Notley, The Sacred Bridge: Carta’s Atlas of the Biblical World, 2nd ed. (Carta, 2014), 137.

9 For a fuller discussion, see Henry O. Thompson, “Ephraim, Forest of,” in ABD, ed. David Noel Freedman (Doubleday, 1992), 2:557.

10 Jack M. Sasson, Judges 1–12, AB 6D (Yale University Press, 2014), 188; and Mark S. Smith and Elizabeth Bloch-Smith, Judges 1: A Commentary on Judges 1:1–10:5, Hermeneia (Fortress, 2021), 259–60.

11 According to Diana Edelman, “Ramathaim of the Zuphites should not be equated with Ramah of Benjamin, which almost certainly is to be identified with er-Rām. The latter lay within Benjamin, just south of the probable geographical border between the central Ephraimite land masse and the territory of Benjamin.” “Saul’s Journey Through Mt. Ephraim and Samuel’s Ramah (1 Sam. 9:4–5; 10:2–5),” ZDPV 104 (1988): 56. Edelman’s statement illustrates that er-Ram is the presumed site of many scholars were it not for the assumption that the Ramathaim of 1 Samuel 1:1 must be located in Ephraim.

12 Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, WBC 10 (Word, 1983), 5.

13 David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT (Eerdmans, 2006), 124–25; John B. Song, “Rathamin,” in The Lexham Bible Dictionary, ed. John D. Barry et al. (Lexham, 2016), ebook; and Brandon Ridley, “Ramah of Benjamin,” in Barry, Lexham Bible Dictionary, ebook.

14 S. R. Driver does not believe the dual forms of city names are original but reflect a later artificial expansion of the original. He points out that the Tel el-Amarna letters point to -im as being the original ending for Jerusalem. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel, 2nd ed. (Clarendon, 1913), 1–2.

15 Wesley I. Toews, “Gittaim,” in Freedman, ABD, 2:1030. This Gath should not be confused with the more famous Gath of Judah.

16 Aaron Demsky, “Hebrew Names in the Dual Form and the Toponym Yerushalayim,” in These Are the Names: Studies in Jewish Onomastics, ed. Aaron Demsky, vol. 3 (Bar-Ilan University Press, 2002), 11–20.

17 Demsky, 12.

18 Demsky, 12.

19 Rainey and Notley, Sacred Bridge, 143. See also Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, 2nd ed., trans. and ed. A. F. Rainey (Westminster, 1979), 120.

20 Demsky, “Hebrew Names,” 13. Demsky’s reasons for his assertion are beyond the scope of this paper.

21 Jan Joosten, “Construct-Phrase Gentilics: A Distinctive Feature of Classical Biblical Hebrew,” Orientalia Suecana 73 (2024): 61.

22 Some scholars suggest that this is an etymological coincidence. John Mauchline, for example, states, “Ephrathah is derived from a Hebrew verb which means ‘to be fruitful’ (pārāh). Its use for more than one area is intelligible.” 1 and 2 Samuel, NCB (Oliphants, 1971), 42. See also, Lamontte M. Luker, “Ephrathah (Place),” in Freedman, ABD, 2:557-58. On the other hand, Nadav Na’aman contends that ephrati originally referred to Ephraimites who migrated southward into northern Judah, and the area of Ephrath received its name from these Ephraimite immigrants. “The Settlement of the Ephrathites in Bethlehem and the Location of Rachel’s Tomb,” RB 29–516 :)2014 (121.4)

23 Folker Willesen, however, argues that even in Judges 12 the word should be translated “Ephrathite.” “The יתרפא of the Shibboleth Incident,” VT 8.1 (1958): 97–98. Mark Leuchter also argues that the designation יִתָרְפֶא has a theopolitical importance “in presenting Jeroboam as a legitimate Davidic type.” “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” JBL 125.1 (2006): 60.

24 Hans Wilhelm Hertzberg states, “Elkanah . . . is described as an Ephrathite. Here the word is meant to indicate the Ephraimite descent of the family and not, as in Ruth 1:2 (cf. Micah 5:2), to describe a clan of Bethlehem.” 1 and 2 Samuel: A Commentary, trans. J. S. Bowden, OTL (Westminster, 1964), 22–23. Hertzberg’s differentiation appears to be based on his assumption that “the hill country of Ephraim” must mean the tribal territory of Ephraim.

25 Driver, Notes on the Hebrew Text, 4 (emphasis original).

26 David G. Firth, 1 and 2 Samuel, ApOTC 8 (InterVarsity Press, 2009), 49; and Harry A. Hoffner Jr., 1 and 2 Samuel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Lexham, 2015), 1 Samuel 1:1, ebook.

27 Tsumura, First Book of Samuel, 107 (emphasis original).

28 Leuchter, “Jeroboam the Ephratite,” 60.

29 Leuchter, 61

30 Many scholars note the connection between the end of the Book of Judges and the beginning of 1 Samuel. For example, J. P. Fokkelman states, “In Hebrew narrative art a geographical name is often more than a neutral spatial co-ordinate. This phenomenon is well-illustrated by the end of Judges and the beginning of Samuel.”Vow and Desire, trans. L. Waaning-Wardle, vol. 4 of Narrative Art and Poetry in the Books of Samuel, SSN 31 (Van Gorcum, 1993), 6. See also Robert Polzin, 1 Samuel, part 2 of Samuel and the Deuteronomist: A Literary Study of the Deuteronomic History (Indiana University Press, 1989), 23–24, 29–30; and Johanna W. H. van Wijk-Bos, The Road to Kingship: 1–2 Samuel, A People and a Land 2 (Eerdmans, 2020), 16-17.

31 Hoffner makes a similar observation. 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Sam 1:1, ebook.

32 Aaron Demsky demonstrates that there is a chiastic layout to these chapters, and he provides a helpful map detailing the area of the Ephrathites. “The Clans of Ephrath: Their Territory and History,” TA 13.1 (1986): 46–59.

33 Demsky, 51 (emphasis suppressed)

34 McCarter, for example, takes exception with the reading of the Masoretic Text, since he is convinced that Zuph must be in Ephraim. He writes, “As generally agreed MT ʾereṣ yĕmînî, “the land of Benjamin” (!), cannot be correct. Saul, who has been traveling for some time, is about to reach the land of Zuph. To assume that he has somehow doubled back to Benjamin leaves any reconstruction of the itinerary in shambles.” 1 Samuel, 174.

35 Not all will agree with this presupposition of course, but it seems more reasonable to trust the accuracy of the ancient authors (or redactors), who were closer to the events and geography, than to trust modern interpretations, which are farther removed. The fact that many modern interpreters equate “the hill country of Ephraim” with only the tribal territory of Ephraim is a case in point.

36 Rachelle Gilmour, “Suspense and Anticipation in 1 Samuel 9:1–14,” JHebS 9 (2009): 9, https://doi.org/10.5508/jhs.2009.v9.a10.

37 Edelman, “Saul’s Journey,” 44. For a detailed summary of the various itineraries suggested by scholars, see 44–48.

38 Edelman notes that K. Budde observed this in 1881. Because Edelman supposes that “the hill country of Ephraim,” must refer to Ephraimite territory, she contends that Budde contradicts himself because he locates the various areas mentioned in 1 Samuel 9:4 within the tribal territory of Benjamin (48).

39 Edelman, 50.

40 McCarter, 1 Samuel, 174.

41 Yamin is often translated as “Benjamin,” which is a possible meaning. Tsumura states, “The term seems to be a designation of a district like Shalishah and Shaalim rather than of the tribal group.” First Book of Samuel, 264n10.

42 Mordechai Cogan and Hayim Tadmor, 2 Kings, AB 11 (Yale University Press, 1988), 59.

43 Bruce K. Waltke, Genesis: A Commentary (Zondervan, 2001), 307.

44 Scholars can be found who support both positions. For example, D. E. Garland states, “ ‘The Third Day’ is a Semitic idiom referring to an unexpectedly short period of time.” “Third Day,” in ISBE, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Eerdmans, 1977–88), 4:840. On the other hand, Rhiannon Graybill, John Kaltner, and Steven L. McKenzie reference two earlier scholars (Bauer 1958; Eynikel 2005) when they maintain that “three days as a measure of time is frequently a topos for a relatively long period.” Jonah, AB 24H (Yale University Press, 2023), 224 (emphasis original)

45 McCarter, 1 Samuel, 163, has a map of Saul’s travels that suggests a wide area covered while looking for the lost donkeys. V. Philips Long states that if the areas mentioned in 1 Samuel 9:4 are in Ephraimite territory, then Saul’s search covered some sixty miles over its three-day duration. “1 Samuel,” in Zondervan Illustrated Bible Backgrounds Commentary, ed. John H. Walton (Zondervan, 2009), 2:312. Driver states that to cover this distance in three days “does not seem very probable.” Notes on the Hebrew Text, 70.

46 There is nearly unanimous agreement among scholars that modern Tel el-Ful should be equated with ancient Gibeah. For a summary of the evidence and various identifications of Gibeah, see S. Shalom Brooks, “Gibeah, Geba,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Historical Books, ed. Bill T. Arnold and H. G. M. Williamson (Inter-Varsity Press, 2005), 330–32.

47 There is still some question as to the location of Ramah of Benjamin. Most scholars suggest modern er-Ram, which correlates well with the biblical data (e.g., Judg 19:13; Isa 10:29; Hos 5:8). See Patrick M. Arnold, “Ramah,” in Freedman, ABD, 5:613–14. The vicinity of present-day Ramallah is also suggested by some, such as Aaron Demsky, based on the assumption that 1 Samuel 1:1 locates Elkanah’s home near the border of Ephraim and Benjamin. “Where Was Rachel Buried?,” TheTorah.com, updated 2023, https://www.thetorah.com/article/where-was-rachel-buried.

48 The Manasseh Hill Country Survey begun by the late Adam Zertal in 1978 is still in process. The survey consists of a small team meeting each Friday and traversing the country on foot searching for ancient sites. This survey, a little farther north than where Saul and his servant would have been searching for the lost donkeys, illustrates what a painstaking task it is to search for something in the central hill country and the length of time involved in such a search. Serge Frolov, while assuming a larger search area, makes the same point: “All reconstructions of Saul’s journey, including my own . . . represent his route as a line. It is obvious, however, that simply pushing forward would be an ineffective way of looking for the lost animals. If Saul and his servant ever cared about finding their livestock, they had no other choice but to comb one area after another; this is why it took them three days (9.20) to reach the city of anointing that could hardly be more than a dozen miles away.” “The Semiotics of Covert Action in 1 Samuel 9–10,” JSOT 31.4 (2007): 435n10

49 The current structure dates to the Crusades. However, Matitiahu Tsevat points out that the location of Rachel’s tomb (whether in Benjamin or Judah) was already confusing rabbis in the early centuries AD. “Studies in the Book of Samuel: Interpretation of 1 Samuel 10:2: Saul at Rachel’s Tomb,” HUCA 33 (1962): 107n1.

50 E.g., R. Riesner, “Archeology and Geography,” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 34.

51 Na’aman, “Settlement of the Ephrathites,” 516–29. See also, Serge Frolov and Vladimir E. Orel, “A Nameless City,” JBQ 23.4 (1995): 252-56.

52 Demsky, “Where Was Rachel Buried?”

53 Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary (Jewish Publication Society, (1989), 408.

54 See e.g., Tsevat, “Studies in the Book of Samuel,” 112.

55 Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT (Eerdmans, (1995), 386.

56 Ernst Vogt, “Benjamin geboren ‘eine Meile’ von Ephrata,” Bib 56.1 (1975): 30–36.

57 Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 16–50, WBC 2 (Word, 1994), 32

58 Vogt, “Benjamin geboren,” 34.

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits

My Musings About Going to Church

May 12, 2015 randymccracken 4 Comments

My Musings About Going to Church

What comes to our mind when we speak of "going to church?" — What comes to our mind when we speak of “going to church?”

When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, a popular slogan was coined which said, “Jesus ‘Yes,’ the Church, ‘No.'” This statement spoke of what some saw as the irrelevancy of the church. Some people were relating to what they learned of Jesus, but they were turned off by what was referred to as the “institutional church.” For some, the church conjured up images of monotonous rituals with no relevancy to daily life, cold, unfeeling, and hypocrital people, lavish buildings, and money-hungry preachers. There was much in this negative portrayal of the church that had a basis in reality, and certainly needed to be addressed. While some have sought to address these and other issues facing the church, new issues continue to arise and some continue to reject the church or the need for going to church.

What Do We Mean By “Going to Church?”

How would you identify the church in this picture? Is it the building or the people?

The statement “going to church” is, in certain ways, a misnomer. It is an expression that has developed over the centuries meaning the building where people meet. Of course, biblically, it refers to the body of believers for whom Christ died–those who are “called out” and saved by the blood of Christ. While many Christians understand this difference, our use of the phrase “going to church” waters down the true meaning of “church.” I wonder if Christians revived the biblical meaning of church if we would be as quick to dispense with the church. When I determine that, “I’m not going to church anymore,” it can have a very impersonal ring to it. By it I may mean, “I don’t need an institution or building to worship God in,” which is true enough. But if I understand “church” to mean “the family of God,” “the people for whom Christ died,” “the body of Christ,” etc., then my statement takes on a different meaning. Is it true that I don’t need the family of God, or that it’s alright for me to separate myself from fellow believers for whom Christ died? It’s much easier to disassociate myself from a building or institution, but do I have the right to disassociate myself from worshipping with fellow believers?

God’s People Have Always Worshipped as a Community

From the day of Pentecost onward, believers in Jesus have gathered together to worship. “They continued steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in prayers” (Acts 2:42, NKJV). The early believers did this quite naturally because it was their heritage as the people of God to meet together to worship God. Whether meeting at the tabernacle, the temple, or later in synagogues, the people of God had always gathered together to worship, celebrate, fellowship, and learn of God. While the Scripture focuses on individuals who displayed great faith in God in their own personal lives, the context of their story is always the community of God’s people. In other words, the Bible never entertains a solitary believer who is not a part of the community of God’s people. My point here is not to denigrate home bible studies; after all, the early church usually met in homes. But I do have a concern with those who intentionally isolate (and insulate) themselves from the church body by “doing church” at home in the form of listening to Cds, or the radio or TV (I am not speaking of the elderly or those who are physically incapable). My concern is also with “drive-in” churches or similar arrangements where it is not necessary to fellowship or interact with the body of Christ.

When a Christian's attitude is, "It's all about me," we can dispense with going to church. — When a Christian’s attitude is, “It’s all about me,” we can dispense with going to church.

Our Western World, and this is especially true of America, has promoted the value of Individualism. Americans are especially proud of “pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps,” or singing “I Did It My Way.” However, this focus on the individual alone is contrary to biblical values which, not only focus on the significance of community, but the interdependence of God’s people on one another. Try reading Paul’s instructions to the Corinthian church in 1 Corinthians 11-14 with an individualistic mindset. Statements such as, “But now indeed there are many members, yet one body” (1 Cor. 12:20); “And if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; or if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and members individually” (1 Cor. 12:26-27), become nonsensical. Our individualistic spirit might consider the writer of Hebrews exhortation “And let us consider one another in order to stir up love and good works, not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some, but exhorting one another and so much the more as you see the Day approaching,” (Heb. 10:24-25) as being a bit melodramatic. “C’mon, I can do this Christian thing on my own. I don’t need others to stir me up to love and good works. I don’t need others to encourage my walk with the Lord. I don’t need others to help me keep a correct perspective on doctrine and belief.” Seriously? I doubt any one would word it this way, but in practice this is what it boils down to. Not only does “forsaking the assembly” of believers rob me of many good things that God intends for me, it also prevents God from using my gifts for the benefit of the body.

Going to Church: The Example of Elkanah (1 Samuel 1-2)

1 Samuel 1-2 pictures Elkanah as a godly man who consistently takes his family to worship God in Shiloh.

While the New Testament is filled with good reasons for “going to church,” my inspiration for faithfulness in worshipping God with His people comes from an unusual place. It’s through the example of Elkanah (Samuel’s father) in 1 Samuel 1-2, that God spoke to me the most clearly about “going to church.” While Elkanah is far from a perfect man, one of the things stressed in 1 Samuel 1-2 is his commitment to worship God with his family at the place where God had commanded. Elkanah’s commitment to worship God at Shiloh (where the tabernacle was in those days) is emphasized 4 times in the first two chapters of 1 Samuel (1 Sam. 1:3, 7, 21; 2:19-20). This may not seem remarkable at first glance, but the writer notes a number of obstacles that Elkanah faces which makes his commitment all the more remarkable. The first obstacle is the corrupt priesthood of Eli and his sons. The first statement of Elkanah’s commitment to worship God is found in 1 Samuel 1:3, which also notes that the sons of Eli are the priests at Shiloh. 1 Samuel 2:12-17 reveals the wickedness of these men and how they steal the sacrificial offerings of the people. Next we learn that there is rivalry and bitterness between Elkanah’s two wives, Hannah and Peninnah. We are specifically told that this rivalry rears its ugly head each year when the family is making its pilgrimage to Shiloh to worship the Lord (1 Sam. 1:6-7). Corrupt leadership alone would seem a good enough reason for Elkanah to dispense with the yearly visits to Shiloh. Add to that the dysfunction of his own family, and Elkanah has multiple reasons not to make the yearly trek to Shiloh. The devil has always been good at discouraging people from worshipping God due to our own hypocrisy or the hypocrisy of others. He whispers, “Why do you want to go church? There’s no one there but a bunch of hypocrites!” Or, “Who do you think you are to take your family to church when it is in such a mess?” Or, “Look at the problems that develop everytime you try to go to church. It’s too much trouble, why don’t you just stay home?” These ploys have proven very effective over the centuries and the devil has, apparently, seen no need to change his strategy.

Elkanah and Micah: Going to Church vs. Homemade Religion

Instead of “going to church” Micah opted for his own brand of homemade religion in Judges 17.

Elkanah’s example is particularly powerful when contrasted with a story found in Judges 17. In fact, I believe Elkanah is deliberately contrasted with Micah and the Levite in Judges 17. In the Hebrew Bible the Book of Judges immediately preceeds the Books of Samuel (Ruth is found among “the Writings” in the Hebrew division of the Bible). Both stories begin with the story of certain men who are living in “the mountains of Ephraim” (Judg. 17:1; 1 Sam. 1). Both stories deal with corrupt priests and corrupt worship (Judg. 17:4-13; 1 Sam. 2:12-17). Finally, both stories include levites. Judges 17 clearly speaks about a Levite who comes to dwell with Micah in the mountains of Ephraim (Judg. 17:6-10). The author of 1 Samuel never tells us that Elkanah is a Levite. However, this may have been obvious to the readers of his day based on the genealogy given in 1 Samuel 1:1 (Elkanah is also called “an Ephrathite,” but levites lived throughout the tribes of Israel). The writer of Chronicles clarifies Elkanah’s lineage as being from the levitical family known as the Kohathites (1 Chron. 6:33-35). The point of the contrast between Micah and Elkanah suggests that, even though Elkanah may seem to have many “legitimate” reasons to start his own homemade religion, he refuses to do what Micah and the Levite had done. In spite of all the obstacles, Elkanah remains faithful to the command to worship God in the place God had chosen (Deut. 12:5-8). Elkanah’s example of faithfulness in worship, in spite of many difficult obstacles, stands as a testimony to modern believers who often forsake “going to church” (i.e., worshipping God with fellow believers) for less trivial reasons (I got my feelings hurt; I don’t like the pastor; I don’t like the music; etc.). In fact, Micah’s homemade religion suggests the dangers inherent in forsaking the worship of God with His people in favor of a “I’ll do what is right in my own eyes, thank you very much” spirituality.

Purchase at Amazon USA / UK, or get the ebook from westbow press.com

Does the modern Church have problems? Do I really need to answer that? The Church, and the people of God of all ages, have always had problems. That’s precisely why we need the Lord and each other! God knows that and so He has created a community, a family, which He has purchased with His own blood (Acts 20:28). We forsake that blood-bought community at our own peril. No, the Church is not perfect, and as has often been said, if it were and we attended it, we would ruin its perfection! However, it is God’s gift to us, and we honor God and the sacrifice of Christ when we participate in it and assemble together to worship our God and Savior.

This article was inspired by the research in my book–Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Please check it out at westbowpress.com or at Amazon USA / UK. Available in hardback, softcover, or e-book.

Character Studies, Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Peninnah: The Other Woman

October 14, 2014 randymccracken Leave a comment

The following article is an excerpt from my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. It is taken from chapter 2 which is a character study on Peninnah, one of the wives of Elkanah, the father of Samuel. I chose this excerpt because the study on Peninnah is the shortest in the book. The article is essentially the same as the book with a few editorial comments added to help the reader who doesn’t have access to the book (the photos are not original to the book but are also added). If you enjoy this excerpt please consider purchasing a copy of Family Portraits. Clicking on the book icon (on the right or in the left margin below) or on the links at the end of the article will connect you to sites where the book can be purchased.

Peninnah: The Other Woman (Samuel’s Stepmother)

And her rival also provoked her severely, to make her miserable (1 Sam. 1:6)

How Would You Want to Be Remembered?

Peninnah only appears in four verses in 1 Samuel chapter 1. It is hardly enough to gain a true portrait of the woman herself, but is enough to give us a negative impression of her. The writer of 1 and 2 Samuel cannot possibly develop fully the story of every person he mentions, but the question comes to mind, “If you were going to be remembered for only one thing, what would you want that to be?” Unfortunately for Peninnah, our only memory of her is that of a bitter and spiteful person. She is described as Hannah’s “rival” (1 Sam. 1:6). Birch notes that this is “a term seldom used in describing family relationships and often translated as ‘enemy’ or ‘adversary’ in describing relationships between peoples or nations.” (Bruce Birch, The First and Second Books of Samuel, The New Intepreter’s Bible, p. 975) In a book where family rivalries will sometimes turn into deadly national conflicts, perhaps this word intentionally suggests a “preview of coming attractions.” If it had been possible to take a photograph of Peninnah, like any good rival, she would have had a frown on her face and a scowl on her lips.

“Facing” the Facts: Peninnah’s Name (1 Sam. 1:2)

The meaning of Peninnah’s name is obscure. It may be related to the word “ruby” or “pearl.” Fokkelman (Vow and Desire, p. 17) writes it “is a name which suggests a beautiful exterior,” which in the present context would be ironic (that is, beautiful on the outside but jealous and spiteful on the inside). It has also been suggested that her name means “prolific” which would correspond to her role as the childbearing wife in this story (Ralph Kline, 1 Samuel, Word Biblical Commentary, p. 6). However, I would suggest the significance of Peninnah’s name lies more in its sound than in its meaning. Several of the names mentioned in chapters 1 and 2 have the letters “peni ” (or, “pheni ”) in them. In addition to Peninnah, these letters are also found in the names Hophni and Phinehas. While this easily goes unnoticed in English, it is more obvious in the original language. The word peni (or, pheni — the same consonant can be pronounced as a hard or soft “p”) in Hebrew means “face,” or “before” (ESV “in the presence of”); and is used frequently throughout the first and second chapters (1 Sam. 1:12, 15, 18, 19, 22; 2:11, 17, 18, 21).

This puts a spotlight on the word “face,” or “before.” It is important to note that this word is always connected with the Lord in this story. Perhaps the story is highlighting the importance of seeking the Lord’s “face” (or “presence”), or perhaps we are being reminded that all we do is done “before” the “face” of the Lord.

Seeking the Lord’s face is certainly important in understanding the change in Hannah’s countenance (1:12, 15, and 18). But the sin of Hophni and Phinehas is also done “before the LORD” (2:17), and so we may be justified in saying that this story is reminding us that all we do, whether good or evil, is done “before the LORD.” We have all experienced that the presence of certain people can be an encouragement to do what is right. This is one of the important aspects of Christian fellowship. If we are constantly aware of God’s presence in our life, setting our minds on heavenly things (Col. 3:2), and having fellowship with him (1 John 1:3), then we will act and think in a Christ-like way. An awareness that we are always “before the face” of the Lord is a great deterrent to sin.

Family Worship or “War”ship? (1 Sam. 1:4–7)

Peninnah hassled Hannah each year they went to the feast at Shiloh

Would Peninnah’s actions have been different if she had been conscious of the fact that all she did was “before the LORD”? The only thing we know about Peninnah, besides the fact that she had several sons and daughters, is that she continually rubbed Hannah’s nose in this fact. Peninnah’s timing makes her actions even more reprehensible. She chooses the time of the yearly pilgrimage to Shiloh to hound Hannah about being barren. What should be a joyous time of celebrating and worshipping the Lord becomes a miserable family fiasco. It is interesting how everything can be alright until it is time to go to church. All of a sudden, husbands and wives have a fight, or the kids start fighting with one another, or mom and dad are yelling at the kids to behave. In the car, on the way to church, an otherwise godly family can become screaming lunatics!

Each year the pilgrimage to Shiloh for Elkanah’s family was the holiday from hell. Our admiration for Elkanah grows (Elkanah faces a number of challenges that I elaborate on in his character study in chapter 1). The easy thing to do would be to cancel the trip and save everyone the pain and misery. But Elkanah, this “God-bought” man (one of the possible meanings of Elkanah’s name, also discussed in chapter 1), knows the importance of worshipping the Lord together as a family.

When one considers the family obstacle, along with going to a sanctuary presided over by a corrupt priesthood, Elkanah’s commitment is quite extraordinary. Satan still uses the same methods of discouragement today. He whispers, “If it is this much hassle for your family, you are better off not going to church.” Or he says, “Look at the mess your family is in. Who do you think you are, to be going to church!” If he can’t persuade us this way, he will turn our eyes to the leaders or other members of the church and say, “You are better off staying at home, look at those hypocrites. Do you really want to worship with them!” Elkanah’s response needs to be our response as well.

Worshipping God naturally leads to loving others! (This photos is from a worship service at Calvary Chapel York)

This painful scene portrays an important truth. 1 Samuel 1:7 states, “So it was, year by year, when she went up to the house of the LORD, that she provoked her.” Peninnah fails to make the connection between worshipping the Lord and her treatment of others. It is while she is on her way to worship that she treats Hannah so spitefully! How is it that we can sit in a worship service and praise the Lord, yet immediately think or speak so cruelly of others made in God’s image? Speaking of the tongue, James writes, “With it we bless our God and Father, and with it we curse men, who have been made in the similitude of God. Out of the same mouth proceed blessing and cursing. My brethren, these things ought not to be so” (James 3:9-10). Or as John writes, “If someone says, ‘I love God,’ and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, how can he love God whom he has not seen?” (1 John 4:20).

Conclusion: Should We Pity Peninnah?

It is tempting to feel sorry for Peninnah. After all, she is Elkanah’s second choice and she knows it. The reason for her bitterness and spite is because she is not loved with the same measure as Hannah, if at all (1 Sam. 1:5). Elkanah was doubtless guilty of open favoritism, which in a family can be devastating—just ask Isaac, Rebekah, and Jacob, who were guilty of the same thing (Gen. 27 and 37). There are two lessons here. First, Elkanah is ultimately responsible for the pain he and his family experienced. If he had trusted God in the first place, he would never have married Peninnah and thus they all would have been spared the grief caused by this less-than-ideal situation (This is further discussed in Elkanah’s character study in chapter 1). Despite the mistake of bigamy, if he had treated his wives more equitably there would have been less room for jealousy.

Second, Peninnah also bears responsibility for her actions. She was clearly seeking her security in the love of her husband rather than in the Lord she was supposedly worshipping. This is not to ignore her very real pain of being loved less; it is only to say that she still had a responsibility for the way she responded. We will not always be loved by others the way we would like to be. Sometimes the circumstances are of our own making, but sometimes they are not. Circumstances may influence attitudes, but they are not the only determining factor. God has given us an ability to choose. We choose to grow bitter or we choose to grow in grace. Circumstances may help or hinder, but the choice is still ours. Today’s society is quick to absolve people of responsibility. “It is my parents’ fault” or “my spouse’s fault” that I am the way I am. This kind of reasoning is foreign to the Bible. It is right to have empathy for people who are in difficult situations with much pain and suffering, but it is wrong for the person in that situation to allow those circumstances to mold their character in a negative way. God is the Potter and he can take any circumstance and use it for good, but we must yield our lives to his gracious, omnipotent hands.