² tn Heb “and it was by the fear of God.” The translation understands this to mean that God was the source or cause of the fear experienced by the Philistines. This seems to be the most straightforward reading of the sentence. It is possible, however, that the word “God” functions here simply to intensify the accompanying word “fear,” in which one might translate “a very great fear” (cf. NAB, NRSV). It is clear that on some occasions that the divine name carries such a superlative nuance. For examples see Joüon 2:525 §141.n.

¹ tn Heb “bearing.” Many English versions understand this verb to mean “wearing” (cf. KJV, NAB, NASB, NIV, NLT). The ephod could be used for consulting the Lord’s will (1 Sam 23:9-10; 30:7-8) and is not always worn (1 Sam 23:6). The significance in this context is probably not that Ahijah was dressed for sacrificial duties or to appear before God at the tabernacle, but rather that the ephod was available for consulting God, given the people’s ignorance about Jonathan’s activities. (Cf. the note at 1 Sam 2:28.)

² tn The MT has וַתִּטֹּשׁ (vattittosh), from the root נָטַשׁ (natash). This verb normally means “to leave,” “to forsake,” or “to permit,” but such an idea does not fit this context very well. Many scholars have suspected that the text originally read either וַתֵּט (vattet, “and it spread out”), from the root נָטָה (natah), or וַתִּקֶשׁ (vattiqesh, “and it grew fierce”), from the root קָשַׂה (qasah). The former suggestion is apparently supported by the LXX ἔκλινεν (eklinen, “it inclined”) and is adopted in the translation.

⁵ tc The MT says “all the increase of your house will die men.” The LXX and a Qumran ms, read “all…will die by the sword of men.” This reading (cf. ESV, NAB, NRSV, TEV, CEV, NLT) makes sense syntactically. Some translations take “men” adverbially, “die as men,” and then understand it to mean something like “all…will die in the prime of life” (cf. NASB, NIV, KJV). However, the proposed syntax is very odd and such an adverbial function for “men” is otherwise unattested.

¹ tc The MT has וְהִגַּדְתִּי לוֹ (v^ehiggadti lo). The verb is Hiphil perfect first person common singular, and apparently the conjunction should be understood as vav consecutive (“I will say to him”). But the future reference makes more sense if Samuel is the subject. This would require dropping the final י (yod) and reading the second person masculine singular וְהִגַּדְתָּ (v^ehiggadta). Although there is no external evidence to support it, this reading has been adopted in the present translation. The alternative is to understand the MT to mean “I said to him,” but for this we would expect the preterite with vav consecutive.

² tn The first three verbs are participles; the last is a preterite which is normally past consecutive. It is rare, even in poetry, for a preterite verb to follow a participle. The English translations all render the last verb as a participle. They either reason that the preterite continues the force of the participle or assume that it should be repointed as a simple vav plus imperfect (which can be habitual present). If the participles are understood as substantival, then the latter half might mean “the Lord…is one who brings down to [the point of] the grave and then raised up.”

⁴ tn The term הֵיכָל (hekhal) often refers to the temple (so ASV, KJV, ESV, NASB, NIV84), however, this story happens well before Solomon built the temple. The Sumerian word “E.GAL” means “big house” and came into Akkadian as “ekallu” referring to a “palace,” “temple” (the god’s palace), or the main room of a private house (CAD E, 52). The term later came into Hebrew as “palace” or “temple.” Considering it’s origin, it is appropriate for the tabernacle which is pictured as God’s dwelling. “Sanctuary” is preferred over “temple” to avoid confusion with Solomon’s temple.

² tn Heb “and weeping, she was weeping.” A paronomastic infinitive absolute (from the same root as the verb it precedes) highlights the modality of the main verb. In this case the indicative mood is emphasized because this weeping was unexpected at the religious festival (see Brian L. Webster, The Cambridge Introduction to Biblical Hebrew, 288). Another view is that for indicative verbs the infinitive absolute emphasizes the lexical meaning of the verb, such as “weeping greatly.” The imperfect verbal form emphasizes the continuation of the action in past time.

¹ tc The MT has a Qal masculine imperfect form of the verb here (יַעֲשֶׂה; yaʿaseh) “thus he used to do.” The imperfect form gives past habitual meaning and is modified by כֵּן (ken, “thus, so”). The subject would presumably be Elkanah, but this is an abrupt change of subject during a description of how Peninnah would aggravate Hannah. One approach is emend the first consonant and read the feminine form (תַּעֲשֶׂה; taʿaseh) “she used to do so.” The approach taken here is to retain the consonants and revocalize as a Niphal (i.e., יֵעָשֶׂה, yeʿaseh) “thus it would be done.” Cf. Gen 29:26.

¹ tn Again the precise meaning of the Hebrew word, used only here in the OT, is uncertain. Since it is preceded by the verb “went out” and the next clause refers to Ehud closing doors, the noun is probably an architectural term referring to the room (perhaps a vestibule; see HALOT 604 s.v. מִסְדְּרוֹן) immediately outside the king’s upper chamber. As v. 24 indicates, this vestibule separated the upper room from an outer room where the king’s servants were waiting.

⁶ tn Heb “the watered with the parched.” The word “ground” is implied. The exact meaning of the phrase is uncertain although it appears to be figurative. This appears to be a proverbial observation employing a figure of speech (a merism) suggesting totality. That is, the Israelite who violates the letter and even spirit of the covenant will harm not only himself but everything he touches—“the watered and the parched.” Cf. CEV “you will cause the rest of Israel to be punished along with you.”

¹ tn The Hebrew phrase חַג הַסֻּכֹּת (khag hassukkot, “Feast of Shelters” or “Feast of Huts”) is traditionally known as the Feast of Tabernacles. The rendering “booths” (cf. NAB, NASB, NRSV) is now preferable to the traditional “tabernacles” (KJV, ASV, NIV) in light of the meaning of the term סֻכָּה (sukkah, “hut; booth”), but “booths” are frequently associated with trade shows and craft fairs in contemporary American English. Clearer is the English term “shelters” (so NCV, TEV, CEV, NLT). This feast was a commemoration of the wanderings of the Israelites after they left Egypt, in which they dwelt in temporary shelters.

² tn The expression אוֹת אוֹ מוֹפֵת (ʾot ʾo mofet) became a formulaic way of speaking of ways of authenticating prophetic messages or other works of God (cf. Deut 28:46; Isa 20:3). The NT equivalent is the Greek term σημεῖον (sēmeion), a sign performed (used frequently in the Gospel of John, cf. 2:11, 18; 20:30-31). They could, however, be counterfeited or (as here) permitted by the Lord to false prophets as a means of testing his people.

⁴ sn Rabbath. This place name (usually occurring as Rabbah; 2 Sam 11:11; 12:27; Jer 49:3) refers to the ancient capital of the Ammonite kingdom, now the modern city of Amman, Jordan. The word means “great [one],” probably because of its political importance. The fact that the sarcophagus “still remain[ed]” there suggests this part of the verse is post-Mosaic, having been added as a matter of explanation for the existence of the artifact and also to verify the claim as to its size.

² sn The atonement that he made in this passage refers to the killing of the two obviously blatant sinners. By doing this he dispensed with any animal sacrifice, for the sinners themselves died. In Leviticus it was the life of the substitutionary animal that was taken in place of the sinners that made atonement. The point is that sin was punished by death, and so God was free to end the plague and pardon the people. God’s holiness and righteousness have always been every bit as important as God’s mercy and compassion, for without righteousness and holiness mercy and compassion mean nothing.

⁴ sn Many commentators see this as a reference to Agag of 1 Sam 15:32-33, the Amalekite king slain by Samuel, for that is the one we know. But that is by no means clear, for this text does not identify this Agag. If it is that king, then this poem, or this line in this poem, would have to be later, unless one were to try to argue for a specific prophecy. Whoever this Agag is, he is a symbol of power.

² tn The expression לְמֵי נִדָּה (l^eme niddah) is “for waters of impurity.” The genitive must designate the purpose of the waters—they are for cases of impurity, and so serve for cleansing or purifying, thus “water of purification.” The word “impurity” can also mean “abhorrent” because it refers to so many kinds of impurities. It is also called a purification offering; Milgrom notes that this is fitting because the sacrificial ritual involved transfers impurity from the purified to the purifier (pp. 62-72).

³ tn The verb הִשְׂתָּרֵר (histarer) is the Hitpael infinitive absolute that emphasizes the preceding תִשְׂתָּרֵר (tistarer), the Hitpael imperfect tense (both forms having metathesis). The verb means “to rule; to act like a prince; to make oneself a prince.” This is the only occurrence of the reflexive for this verb. The exact nuance is difficult to translate into English. But they are accusing Moses of seizing princely power for himself, perhaps making a sarcastic reference to his former status in Egypt. The rebels here are telling Moses that they had discerned his scheme, and so he could not “hoodwink” them (cf. NEB).

² tn The sin is described literally as acting “with a high hand”—בְּיָד רָמָה (b^eyad ramah). The expression means that someone would do something with deliberate defiance, with an arrogance in spite of what the Lord said. It is as if the sinner was about to attack God, or at least lifting his hand against God. The implication of the expression is that it was done in full knowledge of the Law (especially since this contrasts throughout with the sins of ignorance). Blatant defiance of the word of the Lord is dealt with differently. For similar expressions, see Exod 14:8 and Num 33:3.

⁴ tn The Hebrew text uses a verbal hendiadys here, one word serving as an adverb for the other. It literally reads “and they returned and they wept,” which means they wept again. Here the weeping is put for the complaint, showing how emotionally stirred up the people had become by the craving. The words throughout here are metonymies. The craving is a metonymy of cause, for it would have then led to expressions (otherwise the desires would not have been known). And the weeping is either a metonymy of effect, or of adjunct, for the actual complaints follow.