Tag Archives: Hannah

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

February 3, 2021 randymccracken Leave a comment

Allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel

“The Meeting of Jacob and Rachel” by William Dyce (mid-nineteenth century).

Rachel is one of the matriarchs of Israel. As such, she plays an important role in the unfolding story of the Book of Genesis. Rachel is best known as the beloved wife of Jacob (Gen. 29:18-20), and the mother of Joseph (Gen. 30:22-24). Other famous episodes in her life include the rivalry between her and her sister Leah (Gen. 30:8), her stealing the household gods of her father Laban (Gen. 31:19), and the birth of her second born son Benjamin which results in her death (Gen. 35:16-20). Many readers of 1 Samuel may be unaware of the numerous allusions to Rachel in its pages. Since Rachel lived approximately 800 years before the events recorded in 1 Samuel, what is the significance of the constant allusions to her? A brief discussion of typology, or intertextuality, as it is frequently referred to, is necessary to answer this question. Then we will look at each occurrence in 1 Samuel that alludes to Rachel and seek to understand its significance.

Typology, or Intertextuality in the Bible

I have written more extensively on the topic of typology elsewhere (see here). Peter Leithart provides a good succinct definition. He writes, “Typology means that earlier characters and events are understood as figures of later characters and events, and the text is written in a way that brings out the connection” (Peter Leithart, “A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1&2 Samuel,” p. 13). As I explained in my post on typology: “Biblical authors intentionally recall earlier stories, characters, and events as a way of commenting on the story, character, or event they are relating. The student of the Bible is being invited to compare the stories or characters in order to notice these similarities and differences. Through this comparison, the reader gains insight into what the biblical author is communicating. This is especially helpful when one is trying to understand a particular biblical character.” This practice or technique is what is meant by intertextuality. To put it simply, it is using Scripture to interpret Scripture.

Texts Alluding to Rachel in 1 Samuel and Their Meaning

Hannah and Rachel

1 Samuel begins with an immediate allusion to Rachel. Elkanah’s marriage to Hannah and Peninnah recalls Jacob’s marriage to Rachel and Leah (1 Sam. 1:1-6). This allusion is further solidified by the fact that one woman is barren (Hannah/Rachel) and one is fertile (Leah/Peninnah), which leads to conflict between them. Robert Polzin (Samuel and the Deuteronomist), followed by Keith Bodner (1 Samuel: A Narrative Commentary), suggests that the birth story of Samuel (the kingmaker) looks forward to the birth of kingship in Israel. There are a number of connections in 1 Sam. 1 with 1 Sam. 8-9. The conflict between the women leads Bodner to conclude: “The advent of kingship in Israel will also produce conflict, and at this point in the story this conflict is symbolically represented in Hannah and Peninnah” (p. 16).

Ichabod and Rachel

Rachel dies giving birth — The Birth of Benjamin and the death of Rachel by D. Chiesura.

The birth of Ichabod in 1 Samuel 4:19-22 contains the next allusion to Rachel. When the daughter-in-law of Eli hears of his death, the death of her husband (Phinehas), and the capture of the ark, she is overcome with premature labor and gives birth. The birth is difficult and results in her death. Before dying, however, she gives her son a strange name–Ichabod–which means, “the glory has departed.” These circumstances bear some resemblance to the story of Rachel giving birth to Benjamin. It should also be noted that the man who delivers the bad tidings in 1 Sam. 4 is “a man from Benjamin” (1 Sam. 4:12). When Rachel gives birth, she too dies, and in the process, she also gives her son an unusual name with a sad meaning. Benjamin’s original name as given by Rachel is Ben-Oni which means “son of my sorrow.” Apparently Jacob did not wish his son to be stuck with such a negative legacy and so changed his name to Benjamin (Gen. 35:18). In my book, Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel, I suggest the following application: “The parallel between the two birth stories may lie in the contrast they provide to one another. Ben-Oni does not properly reflect the future of Jacob’s family, and so Jacob changes his son’s name to Benjamin. However, the name, Ichabod, stands because it is a true reflection of the situation—“the glory has departed” (p. 77). It should be remembered that Saul is a Benjamite. Barbara Green (How Are the Mighty Fallen? A Dialogical Study of King Saul in 1 Samuel, p. 145) points out that the news the man from Benjamin brings leads to the mother’s death and the outcry of the people. Is this perhaps a harbinger of the problems that Saul’s kingship will bring upon Israel? It is interesting that a few of the ancient Rabbis even identified this Benjamite as the young man Saul!

Saul and Rachel

When Samuel anoints Saul, he gives him 3 signs. The first concerns Rachel’s tomb.

While the previous story of Ichabod’s birth alludes to Rachel’s death, the next story expressly mentions her tomb. After Saul is anointed by Samuel, he is given three signs to confirm his appointment. The first sign involves encountering two men by Rachel’s tomb (1 Sam. 10:2). As Saul arrives at the tomb of the matriarch of his tribe, he will receive news that the donkeys he went to seek have been found, and that his father is concerned about what has happened to him. While the immediate context confirms Samuel’s word that the Lord has anointed him, some suggest that in the bigger picture of Saul’s story the mention of Rachel’s tomb and the words of his father, may sound an ominous note. A tomb quite naturally speaks of death. Peter Miscall (1 Samuel: A Literary Reading) remarks, “…’tomb’ tips the ambiguous symbol of Benjamin toward the pole of misfortune and death” (p. 55). Regarding the father’s words, Bodner comments, “…the words of Saul’s father Kish mean more than the speaker(s) may realize. Kish says, ‘What will I do about my son?, suggesting that uncertainty clouds the future of his son” (p. 94).

Michal and Rachel

Michal's idol recalls Rachel — Michal hiding an idol in David’s bed is reminiscent of Rachel hiding idols in her saddlebag.

When Saul threatens David’s life, Michal seeks to protect him. Michal helps David out through a window in the house and then does something very interesting. She takes an idol (one wonders where she gets it), puts it in David’s bed and covers the head with goat’s hair (1 Sam. 19:11-17). When Saul’s soldiers come to take him, she claims that David is sick which allows David extra time to escape. Several features of this story recall incidents in the lives of both Jacob and Rachel. Bodner sums up the similarities: “Both of these episodes feature deceptive father-in-laws (Laban and Saul), younger daughters (Rachel and Michal), fugitive husbands (Jacob and David), and hidden idols (author’s italics, p. 206). In Family Portraits, my conclusion is: “Although Rachel is one of the matriarchs of Israel, the comparison here is not flattering. It serves to confirm that Michal’s religious devotion is misplaced” (p. 127). Michal’s possession of an idol, and lying to her father that David threatened to kill her, places her in a negative light, in spite of the fact that she saved David’s life on this occasion.

Saul and David, Rachel and Leah

In the larger picture of 1&2 Samuel we learn that Saul ,the first king, is a member of the Tribe of Benjamin. David, of course, is from the Tribe of Judah. Genesis reveals that Rachel had two sons, Joseph and Benjamin. The first king of Israel is, therefore, a descendant of Rachel’s. The Tribe of Judah, however, is descended through Leah and Judah becomes the preeminent son among Leah’s progeny (Gen. 49:8-12). The conflict between David (Judah) and Saul (Benjamin) is reminiscent of the conflict between the two matriarchal mothers and sisters, Rachel and Leah. Interestingly, although Rachel was the most loved by Jacob, it was Leah who rested by him in the end, as she and Jacob were both buried in the ancestral cave at Machpelah purchased by Abraham (Gen. 49:29-31). Similarly, it was David, the descendant of Leah, persecuted by Saul, the descendant of Rachel, who triumphed in the end.

Conclusion

Rachel is one of the revered matriarchs of Israel and deserves her place among the great women of the nation. Yet, it must be said, that her character description in Genesis, like that of her husband Jacob, is less than ideal. She is remembered for being beautiful (Gen. 29:17) and to her credit, she seeks the Lord in her barrenness and is granted a son (Gen. 30:22-24). However, she also has a fiery temper and a competitive nature driven, at least at times, by envy (Gen. 30:1-2). Rachel, like Jacob, can also be deceptive. As illustrated when she steals her father’s gods and lies about it (Gen. 31:19, 34-35).

When we turn to the allusions of Rachel in 1 Samuel, once again negativity dominates. Rachel’s comparison with Hannah is indeed a positive (both are the loved wife who is barren), but the similarity also extends to the conflict and rivalry represented in both families. The allusion between Benjamin’s birth and Ichabod’s is foreboding of difficult times ahead. If “the glory has departed” at the birth of Ichabod and he is the “new Benjamin,” then what does that forecast for the future of the tribe of Benjamin? We have already noted above that Saul’s first sign of kingship being confirmed in the vicinity of Rachel’s tomb does not seem to suggest a bright future. Finally, the similarities between Rachel and Michal are not complimentary to either, but, in the end, Rachel certainly fares better than Michal in biblical history.

Except for some aspects in the comparison with Hannah, it must be said that all of the allusions to Rachel in 1 Samuel are designed to communicate a negative message. Perhaps this relates to our final point above that the kingship was ultimately not destined for a descendant of Rachel from the Tribe of Benjamin, but for a descendant of Leah from the Tribe of Judah, and this may be one of the main reasons that the inspired author draws so many allusions to her in 1 Samuel.

Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Available at the following sites: Amazon USA / UK, and WestBow Press as well as other internet outlets.

Insights from Family Portraits, The Book of Samuel

Looks Can Be Deceiving

August 18, 2015 randymccracken 1 Comment

Looks Can Be Deceiving

We’re all aware that “what you see is not always what you get.” In spite of the fact that we know we shouldn’t “judge a book by its cover,” we still do. Although this is a very human problem, modern advertising, along with the entertainment industry, has trained us to trust what we see. Appearance is often everything! Sometimes falling prey to the “looks can be deceiving,” trap is relatively harmless. There are times when appearances suggest that we shouldn’t expect too much. So we are pleasantly surprised when we actually get more than we bargained for. Of course, the opposite can be just as true, and we find ourselves disappointed that things are not what they were “cracked up to be.” While getting caught up in the trap of “looks can be deceiving” is not always a life or death situation, there are times when it does have serious, and even deadly, consequences as the picture on the right illustrates. Apparently the Lord sees this as such an important human problem that he included examples of it over and over again in the books of 1 and 2 Samuel. This article looks at three examples from 1 and 2 Samuel (although there are many more!). Each example illustrates an important aspect of the “looks can be deceiving” trap that we all should seek to avoid.

Looks Can Be Deceiving: Hannah and the Problem of Judging Too Quickly

Desperate Hannah appeared to be drunk to Eli, demonstrating that looks can be deceiving!

Hannah is introduced in 1 Samuel 1 as part of the dysfunctional family of Elkanah. She is one of two wives (1 Sam. 1:2), and is unable to have children. The other wife, Peninnah, is described as her “rival” (1 Sam. 1:6), and has a number of children (1 Sam. 1:2, 4). We are informed that Peninnah constantly provokes her, probably due to the fact that Elkanah “loved Hannah” (1 Sam. 1:5). This difficult situation goes on year after year (1 Sam. 1:7), until on one occasion Hannah rushes to the tabernacle to poor out her grief before the Lord. She is described as being “in bitterness of soul,” and weeping “in anguish” (1 Sam. 1:10). Although the reader is privy to all of this information about Hannah, Eli the priest knows only what he observes. He sees a desperate woman who’s mouth is moving but saying no words. The author tells us that Hannah was praying, but it was unusual in the ancient world to pray silently. Based on appearance, Eli jumps to the conclusion that Hannah is drunk and issues a strong rebuke saying, “How long will you be drunk? Put your wine away from you!” (1 Sam. 13-14). The reader is immediately aware of how wrong Eli is, and Hannah seeks to set the record straight immediately: “No my lord, I am a woman of sorrowful spirit. I have drunk neither wine nor intoxicating drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord” (1 Sam. 1:16). To Eli’s credit, he recognizes his mistake and seeks to reverse his harsh rebuke with words of blessing (1 Sam. 1:17).

It is true that a quick harsh judgment without the facts, often says more about us than the other person.

Thus, in the very first story of 1 Samuel we are introduced to the theme of “looks can be deceiving.” Here the purpose is clearly to warn readers against jumping too quickly to the wrong conclusion and thus misjudging someone. Harsh and unfounded judgments often result in the disruption of a relationship. Of course leaders of God’s people need to make judgments. Leaders are to be concerned for God’s flock and to protect them from harm. This involves discerning a wolf in sheep’s clothing (Acts 20:28-31), or exercising discipline when necessary (1 Cor. 5:1-13). When Jesus warns, “Judge not, that you be not judged” (Matt. 7:1), he is not talking about the wise exercise of leadership that seeks to protect the people of God. Rather, he is speaking of the same sort of error made by Eli, who, not knowing the real facts, simply jumped to the wrong conclusions and then acted on them. This story affirms how important it is that people not judge others merely based on appearances. Fortunately, Eli admitted his mistake and was able to form a warm, lasting bond with Hannah and her family (1 Sam. 2:19-20).

Looks Can Be Deceiving: Playing the Hypocrite

Interestingly, 1 Samuel 1 gives us not one, but two examples of the theme, “looks can be deceiving.” A closer look at Eli reveals another aspect to this theme. Eli is introduced to us in 1 Samuel 1:9. In our English Bibles the introduction seems normal enough and is probably passed over without much thought by most readers. However, a number of the words in the original language have more than one meaning. When the other meaning of these words are applied, Eli’s introduction is totally transformed. For starters, Eli’s name means “exalted.” We’re not used to meeting many people who introduce themselves as “Mr. Exalted.” The meaning of Eli’s name provokes certain expectations. Are you really “exalted?” Next, we are told that Eli was “sitting on the seat.” The word translated “seat” is the normal Hebrew word for “throne,” used, of course, when speaking of kings. We are then told that Eli sits “by the doorpost.” The use of “doorpost,” particularly in a cultic situation (Eli is at the tabernacle), associates Eli with the greatest commandment in the Law. In Deuteronomy 6:4-9, Moses exhorts Israel to love the Lord and to teach his law “diligently to your children.” This includes writing the words “on the doorposts of your house.” Thus the “doorpost” associates Eli, Israel’s leader, with the task of seeing that others observe the Law. Perhaps now we have a better understanding of why he comes off so forceful to Hannah when he misinterprets her actions. The doorpost is still significant in modern Judaism. This word in Hebrew is mezuzah and it is used to refer to a small rectangular receptacle which many Jewish people place on their doorposts. The receptacle includes a rolled up scroll with a copy of the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) and is a reminder to keep God’s Law. The last significant word in Eli’s introduction is the word translated as “house” (NIV) or “tabernacle” (NKJV). This is another unusual selection of terms. Normally this word is translated “temple,” or in the context of kingship as “palace.” If we step back now and reread Eli’s introduction with these other words in mind, it reads something like this: “Now Exalted was sitting on a throne by the doorpost (being a loyal follower and enforcer of God’s Law) of the palace of the Lord.” This is a lofty introduction for Eli and leads the reader to wonder exactly who it is that is being introduced here? Is this the savior Israel has been waiting for? Will he lead Israel back on the path of righteousness? Our appetites are certainly whet by this impressive introduction.

Sadly, our initial impression of Eli proves to be a mirage. Over the next few chapters (1 Sam. 2-4), the biblical author begins to reveal another image of Eli which proves to be more accurate. 1 Samuel 2-4 reveals three physical flaws regarding Eli. The reader is told 3 times that Eli is old (1 Sam. 2:22; 4:15, 18), twice that he is blind (1 Sam. 3:2; 4:15), and twice that he has a weight problem (1 Sam. 2:29; 4:18). If we wonder why the inspired author chooses to dwell on these unflattering physical flaws of Eli, the answer lies in the fact that these physical imperfections suggest spiritual imperfections. One example will have to suffice for the sake of brevity. In 1 Samuel 2:12-17 the reader learns that Eli’s sons are wicked and steal the sacrificial meat that belongs to the people and to God. In 1 Samuel 2:29, we also learn that Eli partakes in these stolen sacrifices. The result is that he and his sons are “fat.” In other words, the spiritual wickedness of Eli and his sons (stealing and eating sacrificial meat that does not belong to them), manifests itself in a real physical way. The consumption of stolen meat makes Eli fat. Thus Eli’s weight problem becomes a symptom of a much more serious spiritual failing. What we learn from this revelation is that Eli comes off very impressively when first meeting him, but upon closer inspection, we learn that he is not like anything he appears to be. Eli, Mr. Exalted, may project an image of royalty and law-keeping, but upon closer inspection, he is nothing but a blind and fat old man. Eli’s example contrasts strongly with Hannah’s. Hannah is not concerned with image or putting up a false front. She is real and authentic. It may not be a pretty picture, but she is honest before God. As a result, God is able to do a great work in her life. Unfortunately, Eli keeps the pretense up until the very end, and as a result, he meets a tragic end. God literally knocks Eli off of his throne (the same word as in 1 Sam. 1:9) when he dies (1 Sam. 4:18). The lesson is simple, but harder to live out. God’s people are not to put up false fronts and pretend to be someone that they are not. God desires honesty. He’s not worried about how messy we might look. When we are real and truthful, God can and will do a great work in our lives.

Looks Can Be Deceiving: David vs. Goliath and Walking By Faith

David did not fall into the "looks can be deceiving" trap when he faced Goliath. — David did not fall into the “looks can be deceiving” trap when he faced Goliath.

Our final example takes us to 1 Samuel 17, the famous story of David’s defeat of Goliath. Although we did see a short physical description of Eli in our last example, it is very rare that the Bible gives a detailed description of anyone. Think about it. Wouldn’t you love to have a chapter, or even 5-10 verses dedicated to a physical description of David, Paul, or Jesus? That’s why the lengthy description of Goliath found in 1 Samuel 17:4-7 is so unusual. Why such a lengthy and detailed description of one of Israel’s enemies? Part of the answer lies in the fact that the author wants us to experience the same fear and intimidation factor that Saul and the Israelites experienced. With our gaze fully focused on this gigantic, intimidating bully, we are left to wonder who could possibly defeat such a well-equipped physical specimen? While everyone in Israel, including Saul, cowers on their side of the battlefield, we are reintroduced to the shepherd boy David (1 Sam. 17:12-22), who upon hearing the taunts of this giant Philistine, completely overlooks his intimidating looks and only sees an enemy to be killed because he has defied “the armies of the living God” (1 Sam. 17:23-26). As he confronts Goliath, David not only believes that God will overcome his foe, but that there will be a lesson in this victory for all. In his speech before killing Goliath, David says, “Then all this assembly shall know that the Lord does not save with sword or spear; for the battle is the Lord’s, and He will give you into our hands” (1 Sam. 17:47–emphasis mine). This statement makes clear that David is not looking at the physical, but rather at spiritual realities. As Paul would later encourage believers to do, David “walks by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7). Once again we are confronted with the theme “looks can be deceiving.” This time, however, the theme exhorts God’s people not to fear intimidating circumstances, but to trust the outcome to the Lord.

Walking by faith will keep us from falling into the "looks can be deceiving" trap. — Walking by faith will keep us from falling into the “looks can be deceiving” trap.

Fear easily overcomes us when the physical obstacle in front of us looms large. It could be a lost job, a divorce, or a diagnosis of cancer. The natural response is one of fear, anxiety, and depression, but the message of God’s Word is to trust in him and not allow whatever enemy we are facing to intimidate us into losing our faith. Looks can be deceiving! This was an important enough message that God wrote it across the pages of 1 and 2 Samuel. We have only looked at 3 examples, but there are many more. So important was this theme, in fact, that God spoke it out clearly to Samuel when he began to fall prey to the trap of “looks can be deceiving.” When God called Samuel to go anoint a new king among the sons of Jesse (1 Sam. 16:1), Samuel quickly concluded upon seeing Eliab, Jesse’s firstborn, that he was “surely the Lord’s anointed” (1 Sam. 16:6). God quickly rebuked Samuel with the familiar words, “Do not look at his appearance or at his physical stature, because I have refused him. For the Lord does not see as man sees; for man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Sam. 16:7). In other words Samuel, “looks can be deceiving!”

This article was inspired by my book Family Portraits: Character Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel.

If you have not bought a copy of Family Portraits it is available in hardback, paperback or ebook at Amazon USA / UK, WestBow Press, and other internet outlets. For Logos users it is also available on prepub at Logos.com

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.

Family Portraits is available in various formats at the following sites:

Amazon USA / UK (hardback or softcover)

WestBow Press (hardback, softcover, or ebook)

Helpful Suggestions for Bible Study

Typology: A Key to Interpreting the Bible

June 30, 2014 randymccracken 1 Comment

Typology: A Key to Interpreting the Bible

In this article we will talk about the importance of typology and what it means

Did you know that one way in which the biblical authors sought to communicate God’s truth was by comparing and contrasting various characters and situations? This may seem obvious to a regular Bible-reader, but people are often surprised how frequently this occurs in Scripture and how helpful it can be in interpreting the Bible. This practice has come to be known as “typology” from the Greek word typos.

Jesus' use of typology — Jesus’ use of typology

“Typology means that earlier characters and events are understood as figures of later characters and events, and the text is written in a way that brings out the connection” (Peter Leithart, “A Son to Me: An Exposition of 1&2 Samuel,” p. 13).

Where Does the Practice of Typology Come From?

Peter uses typology when he compares Noah's flood to baptism — Peter uses typology when he compares Noah’s flood to baptism

The Greek word means “pattern” or “example.” It is used 14 times in the New Testament (e.g., Acts 7:44; Phil. 3:17; 1 Tim. 4:12; Heb. 8:5). Most important for our purpose is that Paul and Peter use examples from the past as a way of paralleling or contrasting current situations of their day. In 1 Corinthians 10:6 Paul uses the word typos to warn the Corinthian believers not to imitate the Israelites in the wilderness (see also 1 Cor. 10:11). 1 Peter 3:20-21 calls baptism an “antitype,” corresponding to the waters which saved Noah and his family. These passages form the basis for what has become known as a “typological” approach or interpretation.

Old Testament authors often employed a similar approach to that of Paul and Peter although the word typos (or its Hebrew equivalent) was not used. In fact, there can be little doubt that Paul and Peter learned this method from their Old Testament counterparts. Have you ever read a story in the Old Testament and thought, “That reminds me of another story I read in the Bible”? There is a reason for that! Biblical authors intentionally recall earlier stories, characters, and events as a way of commenting on the story, character, or event they are relating. The student of the Bible is being invited to compare the stories or characters in order to notice these similarities and differences. Through this comparison, the reader gains insight into what the biblical author is communicating. This is especially helpful when one is trying to understand a particular biblical character. The reader should not only look to the immediate context to understand a character (or event), but also the wider context of Scripture where echos of the present story occur.

Typology in the Story of Abigail

The author(s) of 1&2 Samuel was a master of this technique, and as a way of illustrating my point I am using a small excerpt from my book “Family Portraits (USA link).” Abigail is introduced to the reader in 1 Samuel 25. Although the story provides a lot of information in forming a character portrait of Abigail, typology is also very helpful. In fact, it’s amazing how many characters in the Old Testament can be called upon to help us in constructing a portrait of Abigail. However, I will only focus on one example. One way in which the character of Abigail is enhanced is by noting the similarities she shares with Hannah (and vice versa).

The following is an excerpt from my book “Family Portraits (UK link)” in the chapter entitled, “Abigail: The Peacemaker” (pp. 226-227):

One of the greatest connections, as far as the books of Samuel are concerned, is between Abigail and Hannah….First, both Hannah and Abigail find themselves in desperate situations. Although these situations are different, the future of a household is at stake in each case. Second, both women make supplication to a superior, using the term “maidservant” to describe themselves (1 Sam. 1:11; 25:24ff.). Third, in making their supplications both ask to be “remembered” (1 Sam. 1:11; 25:31). Fourth, Hannah makes a vow (1 Sam. 1:11), while Abigail swears an oath (1 Sam. 25:26). Fifth, the Lord causes Hannah’s face to be sad no longer (1 Sam. 1:18), while David lifts up Abigail’s face (1 Sam. 25:35). Sixth, both share the theme of “strength through weakness” because of their dependence on the Lord. Seventh, words from Hannah’s prayer are reflected in the story of Abigail and Nabal. Abigail assumes a lowly position and is lifted up (1 Sam. 2:7; 25:23–24, 35), while arrogance proceeds from Nabal’s mouth (1 Sam. 2:3; 25:10–11) resulting in the Lord striking him (1 Sam. 2:6; 25:38). Eighth, and perhaps most important, both adopt a prophetic role that has significance for the future kingship (1 Sam. 2:1–10; 25:26, 28–31). It was Hannah who first proclaimed, “He will give strength to His king and exalt the horn of His anointed” (2:10); and it was Abigail who first announced the “sure house” that the Lord would give to David. The books of Samuel testify that these women were the first to foresee and utter these great truths, which would change the course of Israel’s history. The stories of Hannah and Abigail thus highlight the important role that women played in inaugurating the monarchy. Although Israel, like the nations around it, was a patriarchal society, clearly Israel’s God “shows no partiality” (Acts 11:34).

Typology: Letting Scripture Interpret Scripture

Typology allows Scripture to interpret Scripture

Hopefully this brief example demonstrates the value of comparing biblical stories with similar themes or characters. By comparing Hannah and Abigail, we come to know them both better and we see the common themes being emphasized in their stories. This, in turn, helps us to better understand the message of 1&2 Samuel. The use of typology also allows us to interpret Scripture with Scripture. Although we always approach the text with a certain amount of subjectivity (our background, presuppositions, church tradition, etc.), the similarities (or contrasts) made between Bible characters or events through the use of typology, helps us to better hear the message(s) that the inspired author intended us to hear.