Poole on 1 Samuel 1:7: Hannah's Sorrow

Verse 7:[1] And as he did so year by year, when she went up (or, from the time that she, etc.; Heb. from her going up[2]) to the house of the LORD, so she provoked her; therefore she wept, and did not eat.


[And thus she was doing, etc.] A little further on it is, and she was provoking. A great many refer both expressions to Peninnah, so that by this repetition her jealousy might be expressed as sharper (Mendoza).



[וְכֵ֙ן יַעֲשֶׂ֜ה שָׁנָ֣ה בְשָׁנָ֗ה מִדֵּ֤י עֲלֹתָהּ֙ בְּבֵ֣ית יְהוָ֔ה כֵּ֖ן תַּכְעִסֶ֑נָּה] And thus he did a year in a year in the time of the going up unto the house of the sanctuary of the Lord; thus provoking her (Jonathan, similarly the Septuagint). And thus was he doing annually, even from which she was going up unto the house of Jehovah, etc. (Pagnine). Some translate this with some particles understood, and, when they had arrived there, from which she had gone up (Vatablus). And thus was Peninnah doing each year, at the time when she was going up…thus, I say, she was provoking, etc. (Syriac, similarly the Arabic). But this tautology is easily able to be avoided, if you taken the former part of Elkanah, and the latter of Peninnah (Mendoza). [Thus many translate it:] And, when he was thus doing year-by-year, and she also was going up to the house of the Lord (or, at the time in which she was going up [English, Dutch]), she was exasperating her (Munster, similarly Tigurinus, Vatablus, Junius and Tremellius, Piscator, Castalio, Dutch, English, Drusius, Malvenda, Mendoza). Thus was he, understanding, Elkanah, doing; thus yearly was he going up to the tabernacle of the Lord and sacrificing (Vatablus, Drusius). For the יַעֲשֶׂה, he did, requires a masculine subject (Malvenda, Mendoza); but the following verb, תַּכְעִסֶנָּה, she provoked her, is feminine and has regard to Peninnah (Mendoza). Moreover, at that time the occasion for reproach appears to have been twofold, 1. That Peninnah knew that Hannah was at that time asking fertility of the Lord. Therefore, she was upbraiding her that God, being angry with her, was not going to grant what she was asking. 2. That by occasion of the journey with their husband, Elkanah, they were compelled to be together almost always; a necessity of which sort they were not having at home, where, since they were dwelling in different chambers, Hannah was able more conveniently to avoid the reproaches of Peninnah (Menochius). 3. She irritated her over the business of the portions, since she and her children were receiving portions; but Hannah received only one portion, because she was childless (Drusius, similarly Tostatus). Nevertheless, it is probable that this quarrel persisted, not only when they went up to the temple, but continually in the house (Mendoza). The מִדֵּי a great many translate, from the moving her up, or while at any rate she was going up (Malvenda).


As he did so, that is, either as oft as he went and carried them with him to worship; or as Elkanah expressed peculiar kindness to Hannah, as was said, verse 5. Year by year, that is, every year, at the days or times mentioned, verse 3. When she went up to the house of the Lord. This circumstance is noted, first, As the occasion of the contention, because at such times they were forced to more society with one another by the way, and in their lodgings; whereas at home they had distinct apartments, where they might be asunder; and then her husband’s extraordinary love and kindness was showed to Hannah, whereby Peninnah was the more exasperated; then also Hannah prayed earnestly for a child, which hitherto she had done in vain; and this possibly she reproached her with. Secondly, As the aggravation of her sin, that when she came to worship God, and to offer sacrifices, when she should have been reconciled even to her enemies, Matthew 5:23, 24, she did quarrel with so near a relation.


[And she was not taking food] But it is said in verse 9, after she had eaten, etc. Responses: 1. She was taking nothing, that is, little of the food. A small amount is regarded as nothing (Lyra). 2. She was eating absolutely nothing because of sorrow (Drusius, Mendoza). Initially she was eating nothing, afterwards a little, by exhortation of her husband (Malvenda out of Serarius). 3. She was eating neither much nor with cheer; as it was the custom in Eucharistic feasts (Piscator on verse 9).


Did not eat; either little, or rather nothing at all, as being overwhelmed with grief, and therefore unfit to eat of that sacred food, according to Deuteronomy 12:7.

[1] Hebrew: וְכֵ֙ן יַעֲשֶׂ֜ה שָׁנָ֣ה בְשָׁנָ֗ה מִדֵּ֤י עֲלֹתָהּ֙ בְּבֵ֣ית יְהוָ֔ה כֵּ֖ן תַּכְעִסֶ֑נָּה וַתִּבְכֶּ֖ה וְלֹ֥א תֹאכַֽל׃


[2] Hebrew: מִדֵּ֤י עֲלֹתָהּ֙.

23 views1 comment
ABOUT US

Dr. Steven Dilday holds a BA in Religion and Philosophy from Campbell University, a Master of Arts in Religion from Westminster Theological Seminary (Philadelphia), and both a Master of Divinity and a  Ph.D. in Puritan History and Literature from Whitefield Theological Seminary.  He is also the translator of Matthew Poole's Synopsis of Biblical Interpreters and Bernardinus De Moor’s Didactico-Elenctic Theology.

ADDRESS

540-718-2554

 

426 Patterson St.

Central, SC  29630

 

dildaysc@aol.com

SUBSCRIBE FOR EMAILS

© 2020 by FROM REFORMATION TO REFORMATION MINISTRIES.