B. The Ark of God—the Word of Samuel (chs. 4-7)

Virtually without exception, commentators agree that 4:1a concludes ch. 3, and 4:1b begins ch. 4. This is because 4:1a—“And Samuel’s word came to all Israel”—seems a fitting conclusion to Samuel’s establishment as a prophet (cf. 3:19-21) and makes little sense as the beginning of the ark story in chs. 4-6, where Samuel not only says nothing but does not even appear! Samuel’s word, announced in 4:1a, is not uttered until 7:3. This has led most critics to view the intervening material as having had an independent source of origin and development, only later being inserted into the present narrative (McCarter, I Samuel, 23-26; Miller and Roberts, 18-26).

But even if correct, that assessment ignores the final literary and canonical form of the text. As presently shaped, the text emphasizes that God’s newly appointed prophet was disregarded. Since the ark story centers on Israel’s attempt to ascertain God’s will (4:3) and to ensure God’s presence in battle, and since when Samuel eventually spoke he called for repentance, the present literary shaping highlights Israel’s neglect of prophetic ministry.

Initially, it is unclear why Israel has been defeated (4:2-3). It is also unknown whether being accompanied by the ark will make a difference (cf. 3:3; 4:3-4). Granted, the Philistines and Israelites obviously believed the ark mattered (4:5-9). But the notation that Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phineas, were with the ark makes one wonder whether their predicted fate was imminent (cf. 2:25, 34; 3:11-14; 4:4).

In fact, Hophni and Phineas were killed. Further, instead of being benefited by the ark, Israel suffered more than seven times the casualties of the first battle (4:10-11; cf. v.2). One might conclude at this point that the ark was a meaningless relic of Israel’s condemned priesthood. Indeed, did not the ark’s capture illustrate that this sacerdotal symbol had no efficacy, while the death of Eli’s sons demonstrated the power of God’s prophetic word that had been spoken by the man of God and Samuel?

Was not the response to the ark’s capture therefore all the more pitiful? In language reminiscent of Jdg, the Shilonites cried out (z'q) when they heard the news (4:12-13). Eli maintained his composure when he learned of Israel’s devastating defeat and even the death of his two sons, but when he heard about the ark, he collapsed, breaking his neck, and died (v.18). Phineas’s pregnant wife went into premature labor when she heard the news of the ark and of Eli’s and her husband’s deaths. Just before she died, she named her baby Ichabod: “[There is] No Glory” (kbd, “glory,” may be an epithet for God). From her point of view, God/The Glory (kbd) had left Israel with the captured ark (vv.19-22).

But a curious ambiguity remains. We have already seen that Eli was not completely reprobate (cf. 1:17; 2:20, 23-25; 3:8-9, 17-18). Here, too, though one is reminded of his poor eyesight, with its hint of spiritual dimness (4:15), the priest’s inordinate concern for the ark seemed laudatory (vv.3, 18). His daughter-in-law’s reaction, though possibly based on a false theological premise, also seemed genuine (vv.19-22). More significantly, the very next episode (chs. 5-6) cautions against drawing premature conclusions.

When the ark was captured, the Israelites and Philistines both appeared to have concluded mistakenly that God was “in the box.” No deity who had done what Yahweh had done to the Egyptians (4.8) could ever be taken prisoner. But the narrator quickly lets us know that the Philistines immediately and the Israelites later would realize their error.

First, the Ashdodites discovered that, after the ark had been placed in Dagon’s temple, he fell down. After being stood up, Dagon fell again, this time losing head and hands in the process. This led to a practice that constantly reminded the Philistines of their god’s humiliation (5:1-5).

But Dagon did not suffer alone, for Yahweh’s hand harassed the Philistines, too (5:6-7, 9, 11). They even contributed to their misery by circulating the ark (vv.6-12), in spite of associating (correctly?) God’s hand with it. Ironically, as Israel had “cried out” (z'q; 4:13) in response to the ark’s absence, the Philistines cried out (5:10; z'q; cf. v.12) in response to its presence and concluded that they had to get rid of it (v.11).

It is also ironic that the Philistine “clergy” seemed as (more?) informed about the ark as the Israelites (ch. 6). They understood that proper ritual—returning the ark with golden models of tumors and mice—had to accompany recognition of Yahweh’s power (6:3-12). They surmised that just as Pharaoh had to release the Israelite slaves or suffer dire consequences, so they had to respond in kind. The priests and diviners were also aware that the ritual only opened up the possibility that Yahweh would relent (vv.5-6; cf. v.3b). Thus they established a test to determine whether the events were coincidental. If two untrained and nursing cows, separated from their calves, pulled the cart straight to Beth Shemesh, then Yahweh had to be responsible (vv.7-12).

Does this episode criticize the priestly house of Eli? for not knowing any more about Yahweh and the ark than pagans? Or does it intimate that God cannot be manipulated though a sacerdotal object? Curiously, though Israel used proper rites and personnel when they recovered the ark (6:13-15), an awesome and unpredictable power was still unleashed when some acted disrespectfully (6:19-20). Whether God had ever been “in the box,” the Deity simply would not be controlled (6:21-7:1).

Twenty years passed since Samuel was first poised to speak (4:1; 7:2)! All that time the ark remained at Kiriath-Jearim with Eleazar (7:1). During the same period Israel lamented, though they had rejoiced initially (6:13; 7:2). When Samuel finally spoke, he summoned Israel to repent of idolatry as a precondition for future military success. Either Israel’s idolatry during the period of the Judges (cf. Jdg 2:10-13, 17-19; 3:7; 6:10, 25-32; 8:23-27, 33-34; 9:4; 10:6, 10, 13-14, 16; 17-18) or some unspecified act of idolatry was in view. In any case, Israel repented (7:3-4).

The efficacy of this became immediately evident, for the Philistines approached again while Samuel interceded (7:5-6). Israel reacted this time (cf. 4:1-3) by imploring Samuel to continue crying out (z'q) (v.8) to God on their behalf. Samuel complied and offered a sacrifice (v.9), whereupon God panicked the encroaching army (v.10; cf. 2:10), allowing the Israelites to finish the operation (vv.7-11). This pattern of crying out and God’s answering accords with that in Jdg, a point underscored by the remark that Samuel had judged (v.6; NIV “leader”) at Mizpah.

The “judges” model, as opposed to the “ark” model, spelled victory. Indeed, Samuel and the “judgeship” he represented are affirmed by the comment that throughout his lifetime the Lord’s hand was against the Philistines, that captured territory was regained, and that there was even peace with the Amorites (7:13-14). First as prophet (3:19-21) and later as “judge” (7:15-17), Samuel succeeded where Israel with the ark failed.

But Samuel also built an altar (7:17; cf. vv.9-10), perhaps to show that he was capable of priestly functions as well. Still, the actual “hero” of the story is Yahweh, a fact commemorated by Samuel’s naming the site Ebenezer (=“stone of help”; 7:12; cf. 4:1).