Gill and Henry on 1 Samuel 3:7 - Question

[WalthervonderVogelweide]

(1Sa 3:7) Now Samuel did not yet know the LORD, neither was the word of the LORD yet revealed unto him.

Now it's always seemed obvious to me that this verse refers to Samuel not yet being effectually called. As I was preparing for a study, I discovered that this isn't what Gill or Henry (my two favorite commentators) think, and I can't quite figure out why. Clearly the scripture says both that he hadn't yet known the Lord and he hadn't received the word of prophecy (because certainly he had seen the scriptures). Yet these two seem, in my mind, to miss the first part of the verse entirely.

Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord,.... He knew that Jehovah, the God of Israel, was the true God; he had spiritual knowledge of him, and knew somewhat of his word and worship, ways and ordinances, in which he had been instructed by Eli; wherefore, though the Targum is, "Samuel had not yet learned to know doctrine from the Lord;''it can only be understood, that he had not learnt it perfectly; somewhat he knew of it, but in an imperfect manner, being a child: but the sense of the word is, that as yet he was ignorant that God had used to speak with ordinary and familiar voice to men, as Maimonides says; he perhaps had never heard of any such thing, and much less was experimentally acquainted with it, that God ever did speak after such a manner to men, and could not distinguish between the voice of God and the voice of Eli:​

​

neither was the word of the Lord yet revealed unto him; what of the written word that was in being he had, and read, as the law of Moses; but the meaning is, that no word of prophecy of the Lord was revealed unto him, as the Targum; he never had prophesied as yet, and knew not the form and manner of prophecy, as the above writer observes, or what methods God took to reveal himself, his mind and will, to men, at least not this by an audible voice.​

​

- John Gill​

​

Samuel was still ignorant that it was the Lord that called him (1Sa 3:7): Samuel did not yet know the Lord. He knew the written word, and was acquainted with the mind of God in that, but he did not yet apprehend the way in which God reveals himself to his servants the prophets, especially by a still small voice; this was altogether new and strange to him. Perhaps he would have been sooner aware of a divine revelation had it come in a dream or a vision; but this was a way he had not only not known himself, but not heard of. Those that have the greatest knowledge of divine things must remember the time when they were as babes, unskilful in the word of righteousness. When I was a child I understood as a child. Yet let us not despise the day of small things. Thus did Samuel (so the margin reads it) before he knew the Lord, and before the word of the Lord was revealed unto him; thus he blundered one time after another, but afterwards he understood his duty better. The witness of the Spirit in the hearts of the faithful is often thus mistaken, by which means they lose the comfort of it; and the strivings of the Spirit with the consciences of sinners are likewise often mistaken, and so the benefit of their convictions is lost. God speaketh once, yea, twice, but man perceiveth it not, Job 33:14.​

​

- Matthew Henry​

​

I also find it strange that Gill seems to rely on the Targum in interpreting this verse. Surely the Mishnah is useful for context from time to time, but relying on the Targum for interpretation seems odd to say the least.

Is there something I'm missing?

​

 

[iainduguid]

The question is a good one. It's not uncommon to appeal to Rabbinic exegesis (of which the Targum is a forerunner) in the case of difficult passages, since the Rabbis have generally thought about the same issues for a long time. Those commentators who could access medieval Jewish exegesis, directly or indirectly, tend to be more solid that those who couldn't who often end up allegorizing.

In this case, the passage is challenging (as you can see from the Targum's interpretive translation) because there is evidence that points both ways. As you correctly note "not knowing the Lord" is normally a declaration of someone's unsaved status in the OT. Indeed, that is obviously its meaning just a few verses earlier, when said of Eli's sons in 1 Sam 2:12. So at face value, your reading of the text is most likely. However, there are a couple of things that hold many commentators back from that conclusion. For example, in 1 Sam 2:26, the boy Samuel is strongly contrasted with the two sons of Eli: Samuel "grew in favor with the Lord and with man." Can an unregenerate person grow in favor with the Lord? And if Samuel is unregenerate, in what ways is he already superior to Eli's sons - is mere outward obedience to be commended if it comes from a heart devoid of grace?

Second, the statement about Samuel's lack of knowledge of the Lord does not occur as a summary statement of his general condition, like 1 Sam 2:12. It occurs as an explanation of why he didn't recognize the Lord calling him from (above?) the ark (the irregularity of the situation in Shiloh where Samuel seems to be sleeping with the ark was also noted by the rabbis, who went to enormous lengths in their punctuation to try to avoid it, but should hardly surprise us given how unfaithful the rest of the worship at Shiloh was). The context thus suggests the possibility that it is simply God's way of revealing himself that Samuel doesn't yet know, not the Lord himself.

Third, the conjunction in the middle of 1 Sam 3:7 is much more flexible in Hebrew than in English. It may not simply be joining two separate ideas (Samuel didn't know the Lord and in addition the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him as a prophet); it could be epexegetical (Samuel didn't know the Lord - that is, the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him).

Both interpretations are, I think, defensible. But I hope this helps you see why Gill and Henry might have followed the other interpretation from you.

 

[WalthervonderVogelweide]

The question is a good one. It's not uncommon to appeal to Rabbinic exegesis (of which the Targum is a forerunner) in the case of difficult passages, since the Rabbis have generally thought about the same issues for a long time. Those commentators who could access medieval Jewish exegesis, directly or indirectly, tend to be more solid that those who couldn't who often end up allegorizing.

In this case, the passage is challenging (as you can see from the Targum's interpretive translation) because there is evidence that points both ways. As you correctly note "not knowing the Lord" is normally a declaration of someone's unsaved status in the OT. Indeed, that is obviously its meaning just a few verses earlier, when said of Eli's sons in 1 Sam 2:12. So at face value, your reading of the text is most likely. However, there are a couple of things that hold many commentators back from that conclusion. For example, in 1 Sam 2:26, the boy Samuel is strongly contrasted with the two sons of Eli: Samuel "grew in favor with the Lord and with man." Can an unregenerate person grow in favor with the Lord? And if Samuel is unregenerate, in what ways is he already superior to Eli's sons - is mere outward obedience to be commended if it comes from a heart devoid of grace?

Second, the statement about Samuel's lack of knowledge of the Lord does not occur as a summary statement of his general condition, like 1 Sam 2:12. It occurs as an explanation of why he didn't recognize the Lord calling him from (above?) the ark (the irregularity of the situation in Shiloh where Samuel seems to be sleeping with the ark was also noted by the rabbis, who went to enormous lengths in their punctuation to try to avoid it, but should hardly surprise us given how unfaithful the rest of the worship at Shiloh was). The context thus suggests the possibility that it is simply God's way of revealing himself that Samuel doesn't yet know, not the Lord himself.

Third, the conjunction in the middle of 1 Sam 3:7 is much more flexible in Hebrew than in English. It may not simply be joining two separate ideas (Samuel didn't know the Lord and in addition the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him as a prophet); it could be epexegetical (Samuel didn't know the Lord - that is, the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to him).

Both interpretations are, I think, defensible. But I hope this helps you see why Gill and Henry might have followed the other interpretation from you.

Excellent! Thank you very much.