About the way of Salvation; if that is the affair the doubt is concerning, look up to the way-posts, look into the word of God, and read what that says; search the scriptures, for therein is the way of eternal life; life and immortality, or the way to an immortal life, is brought to light by the gospel. The scriptures, under a divine influence, and with a divine blessing, are able to make a man wise unto salvation, and they do point unto men the way of it: it is not the light of nature, nor the law of Moses, but the gospel-part of the scriptures which direct to this; there will shew you, that God saves and calls men with an holy calling, not according to their works, but according to his purpose and grace; that it is not by works of righteousness done by men, but according to the mercy of God, that men are saved; and that it is not by works, but by grace, lest men should boast (2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5: Eph. 2:8,9). That it is a vain thing for men to expect salvation this way; that it is a dangerous one: such who encompass themselves with sparks of their own kindling shall lie down in sorrow: and that it is a very wicked thing; such sacrifice to their own net, and burn incense to their own drag. These will inform you that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life; that he is the only true way to eternal life; that there is salvation in him, and in no other: the language of them is, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved: these words, Salvation alone by Christ, salvation alone by Christ, are written as with a sunbeam on them; just as the way-posts, set up in places where two or more ways met, to direct the manslayer when he was fleeing to one of the cities of refuge from the avenger of blood, had written on them in very legible characters, refuge, refuge.

John Gill (1697-1771)

(Note: The argument lately adduced by Valentiner in favour of the difference between these two names, viz., that “examples are not wanting of a person being described according to his original descent, although his dwelling-place had been already changed,” and the instance which he cites, viz., Jdg_19:16, show that he has overlooked the fact, that in the very passage which he quotes the temporary dwelling-place is actually mentioned along with the native town. In the case before us, on the contrary Ramathaim-Zophim is designated, by the use of the expression “from his city,” in 1Sa_1:3, as the place where Elkanah lived, and where “his house” (1Sa_1:19) was still standing.)

This Ramah (which is invariably written with the article, ha-Ramah), where Samuel was not only born (1Sa_1:19.), but lived, laboured, died (1Sa_7:17; 1Sa_15:34; 1Sa_16:13; 1Sa_19:18-19, 1Sa_19:22-23), and was buried (1Sa_25:1; 1Sa_28:3), is not a different place, as has been frequently assumed,(from the Ramah in Benjamin (Jos_18:25), and is not to be sought for in Ramleh near Joppa (v. Schubert, etc.), nor in Soba on the north-west of Jerusalem (Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 329), nor three-quarters of an hour to the north of Hebron (Wolcott, v. de Velde), nor anywhere else in the tribe of Ephraim, but is identical with Ramah of Benjamin, and was situated upon the site of the present village of er-Râm, two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, upon a conical mountain to the east of the Nablus road (see at Jos_18:25). This supposition is neither at variance with the account in 1 Samuel 9-10 (see the commentary upon these chapters), nor with the statement that Ramathaim-Zophim was upon the mountains of Ephraim, since the mountains of Ephraim extended into the tribe-territory of Benjamin, as is indisputably evident from Jdg_4:5, where Deborah the prophetess is said to have dwelt between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. The name Ramathaim-Zophim, i.e., “the two heights (of the) Zophites” appear to have been given to the town to distinguish it from other Ramah's, and to have been derived from the Levitical family of Zuph or Zophai (see 1Ch_6:26, 1Ch_6:35), which emigrated thither from the tribe of Ephraim, and from which Elkanah was descended. The full name, therefore, is given here, in the account of the descent of Samuel's father; whereas in the further history of Samuel, where there was no longer the same reason for giving it, the simple name Ramah is invariably used.

(Note: The fuller and more exact name, however, appears to have been still retained, and the use of it to have been revived after the captivity, in the Ῥαμαθέμ of 1 Macc. 11:34, for which the Codd. have Ῥαθαμεΐ́ν and Ῥαμαθαΐ́μ, and Josephus Ῥαμαθά, and in the Arimathaea of the gospel history (Mat_27:57). “For the opinion that this Ramathaim is a different place from the city of Samuel, and is to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Lydda, which Robinson advocates (Pal. iii. p. 41ff.), is a hasty conclusion, drawn from the association of Ramathaim with Lydda in 1 Macc. 11:34, - the very same conclusion which led the author of the Onomasticon to transfer the city of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Lydda” (Grimm on 1 Macc. 11:34).

The connection between Zophim and Zuph is confirmed by the fact that Elkanah's ancestor, Zuph, is called Zophai in 1Ch_6:26, and Zuph or Ziph in 1Ch_6:35. Zophim therefore signifies the descendants of Zuph or Zophai, from which the name “land of Zuph,” in 1Sa_9:5, was also derived (see the commentary on this passage). The tracing back of Elkanah's family through four generations to Zuph agrees with the family registers in 1 Chron 6, where the ancestors of Elkanah are mentioned twice, - first of all in the genealogy of the Kohathites (1Ch_6:26), and then in that of Heman, the leader of the singers, a grandson of Samuel (1Ch_6:33), - except that the name Elihu, Tohu, and Zuph, are given as Eliab, Nahath, and Zophai in the first instance, and Eliel, Toah, and Ziph (according to the Chethibh) in the second, - various readings, such as often occur in the different genealogies, and are to be explained partly from the use of different forms for the same name, and partly from their synonymous meanings. Tohu and Toah, which occur in Arabic, with the meaning to press or sink in, are related in meaning to nachath or nuach, to sink or settle down.

From these genealogies in the Chronicles, we learn that Samuel was descended from Kohath, the son of Levi, and therefore was a Levite. It is no valid objection to the correctness of this view, that his Levitical descent is never mentioned, or that Elkanah is called an Ephrathite. The former of these can very easily be explained from the fact, that Samuel's work as a reformer, which is described in this book, did not rest upon his Levitical descent, but simply upon the call which he had received from God, as the prophetic office was not confined to any particular class, like that of priest, but was founded exclusively upon the divine calling and endowment with the Spirit of God. And the difficulty which Nägelsbach expresses in Herzog's Cycl., viz., that “as it was stated of those two Levites (Jdg_17:7; Jdg_19:1), that they lived in Bethlehem and Ephraim, but only after they had been expressly described as Levites, we should have expected to find the same in the case of Samuel's father,” is removed by the simple fact, that in the case of both those Levites it was of great importance, so far as the accounts which are given of them are concerned, that their Levitical standing should be distinctly mentioned, as is clearly shown by Jdg_17:10, Jdg_17:13, and Jdg_19:18; whereas in the case of Samuel, as we have already observed, his Levitical descent had no bearing upon the call which he received from the Lord. The word Ephrathite does not belong, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, either to Zuph or Elkanah, but to “a certain man,” the subject of the principal clause, and signifies an Ephraimite, as in Jdg_12:5 and 1Ki_11:26, and not an inhabitant of Ephratah, i.e., a Bethlehemite, as in 1Sa_17:12 and Rth_1:2; for in both these passages the word is more precisely defined by the addition of the expression “of Bethlehem-Judah,” whereas in this verse the explanation is to be found in the expression “of Mount Ephraim.” Elkanah the Levite is called an Ephraimite, because, so far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, just as the Levite in Jdg_17:7 is described as belonging to the family of Judah. The Levites were reckoned as belonging to those tribes in the midst of which they lived, so that there were Judaean Levites, Ephraimitish Levites, and so on (see Hengstenberg, Diss. vol. ii. p. 50). It by no means follows, however, from the application of this term to Elkanah, that Ramathaim-Zophim formed part of the tribe-territory of Ephraim, but simply that Elkanah's family was incorporated in this tribe, and did not remove till afterwards to Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin. On the division of the land, dwelling-places were allotted to the Levites of the family of Kohath, in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh (Jos_21:5, Jos_21:21.). Still less is there anything at variance with the Levitical descent of Samuel, as Thenius maintains, in the fact that he was dedicated to the Lord by his mother's vow, for he was not dedicated to the service of Jehovah generally through this view, but was set apart to a lifelong service at the house of God as a Nazarite (1Sa_1:11, 1Sa_1:22); whereas other Levites were not required to serve till their twenty-fifth year, and even then had not to perform an uninterrupted service at the sanctuary. On the other hand, the Levitical descent of Samuel receives a very strong confirmation from his father's name. All the Elkanahs that we meet with in the Old Testament, with the exception of the one mentioned in 2Ch_28:7, whose genealogy is unknown, can be proved to have been Levites; and most of them belong to the family of Korah, from which Samuel was also descended (see Simonis, Onomast. p. 493). This is no doubt connected in some way with the meaning of the name Elkanah, the man whom God has bought or acquired; since such a name was peculiarly suitable to the Levites, whom the Lord had set apart for service at the sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of Israel, whom He had sanctified to himself when He smote the first-born of Egypt (Num_3:13., Num_3:44.; see Hengstenberg, ut sup.).

John Gill
1Sa 1:1 Now there was a man of Ramathaimzophim, of Mount Ephraim,.... Ramathaim is a word of the dual number, and signifies two Ramahs; the city consisted of two parts, being built perhaps on two hills, and were called Zophim; because, as the Rabbins say, they looked one to another; or rather, because situated on eminences, there were watchtowers in them, where watchmen were placed; or because they were inhabited by prophets, who were sometimes called watchmen, Eze_3:17 and here is thought to be a school of the prophets, see 1Sa_19:19 and which seems to be countenanced by the Targum, in which the words are paraphrased thus, "and there was one" man of Ramatha, of the disciples of the prophets; or, as others think, the sense is this, this man was one of the Ramathites, the inhabitants of Ramah, and of the family of Zuph, or the Zuphites, which gave the name to the land of Zuph, and the grand ancestor of Elkanah is in this verse called Zuph, see 1Sa_9:5. According to Jerom (e), this is the same with Arimathaea, of which Joseph was, Mat_27:57 for thus he writes,"Armatha Sophim, the city of Helcanah and Samuel, in the Thamnitic region near Diospolis (or Lydda), from whence was Joseph, who in the Gospels is said to be of Arimathaea;''but Reland (f) thinks it cannot be the same that was about Lydda, which was all a champaign country; whereas this was in the mountains of Ephraim, which must be sought to the north of Jerusalem, and not the west, and so it follows:

of Mount Ephraim: which is added to distinguish it from other Ramahs in several tribes, as in Benjamin, Naphtali, &c. though this may refer not to the situation of Ramathaim, but to the country of this man, who was originally of Mount Ephraim, as was the Levite in Jdg_19:1 who was the cause of much evil to Israel, as this was of great good, as Kimchi observes:

and his name was Elkanah; which signifies "God hath possessed"; that is, possessed him, or he was in possession of God; he had an ancestor of the same name, 1Ch_6:23. This man was a Levite, one of the Kohathites, and a descendant of Korah; so that the famous prophet Samuel was of the sons of Korah:

the son of Jeroham, the son of Elihu, the son of Tohu, the son of Zuph; the three last of these names are somewhat differently read in 1Ch_6:26, where they are Eliab, Nahath, Zophai; and in 1Ch_6:34. Eliel, Toah, Zuph:
an Ephrathite; which appellation is to be connected, according to Kimchi, not with Elkanah, but with Zuph; though neither of them were so called from Bethlehemjudah, the inhabitants of which were indeed called Ephrathites from Ephratah, another name of it; so Elimelech, and his sons Mahlon and Chilion, being of that city, were so called, Rth_1:2 not from their being of the tribe of Ephraim, as Jeroboam of that tribe is called an Ephrathite, 1Ki_11:26, see Jdg_12:5 for these were Levites, the descendants of Kohath, in the line of Korah; but because they sojourned in Mount Ephraim, or dwelt there, as Elkanah did; and it is well known that the Kohathites had cities given them in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos_21:5.
(e) De loc. Heb. fol. 88. K. (f) Palestin. Illustrat. tom. 2. p. 581.

John Gill
1Sa 1:2 And he had two wives,.... Which, though connived at in those times, was contrary to the original law of marriage; and for which, though a good man, he was chastised, and had a great deal of vexation and trouble, the two wives not agreeing with each other; perhaps not having children by the one so soon as he hoped and wished for, he took another:

the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah; the first name signifies "grace" or "gracious", and she was a woman who had the grace of God, and very probably was also very comely, beautiful, and acceptable, as she was in the sight of her husband; the other signifies a cornered gem, a precious stone or jewel, as the pearl, ruby, amethyst, &c. Very likely Hannah was his first wife, and having no children by her, he took Peninnah, who proved to be a rough diamond: and Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children; how many Peninnah had is not said, perhaps ten; see 1Sa_1:8 and that Hannah had none was not because she was naturally barren, but because the Lord had shut up her womb, or restrained her from bearing children, to put her upon praying for one, and that the birth of Samuel might be the more remarkable: see 1Sa_1:5.

John Gill
1Sa 1:3 This man went up out of his city yearly,.... From year to year; or, as the Targum, from the time of the solemn appointed feast to the solemn appointed feast, from one to another; there were three of them in the year, at which all the males in Israel were to appear at the tabernacle; and being a Levite, this man was the more careful to observe this rule. He is said to "go up" out of his city, which was Ramathaim or Ramah; for though it was built on an eminence, from whence it had its name, yet Shiloh, whither he went, was higher; that being, as Adrichomius says (a), on the highest mountain of all round about Jerusalem, and the highest of all the mountains of the holy land. So that as he first went down the hill from Ramah, he went up an high ascent to Shiloh, which is the place he went up to as follows:

to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord of hosts in Shiloh; where the tabernacle was, the place of worship, and the altar of burnt offerings, on which sacrifices were offered. This place, according to Bunting (b), was twelve miles from Ramah, though others say it was not more than seven miles from it; hither he went to worship, or bow before the Lord; to pray unto him, as it is commonly interpreted; and being put before sacrifice, is said to be preferable to that, and more acceptable to God, and more eligible to be done in the tabernacle or temple than at home; see Luk_18:10 and though he is said to go up to sacrifice, it is not to be understood of his performing it himself, but by others, by the priest; for he himself was a Levite and could not offer sacrifices. This is the first time that mention is made of this title of Jehovah, Lord of hosts, of all the hosts and armies in heaven and in earth, the Lord of Sabaoth, as in Jam_5:4 from צבא, an "host", or army; and from hence the Heathens called some of their deities by the name of Sabazius, as Jupiter Sabazius (c); and the Phrygians and Thracians used to call Bacchus Sabazius, and other Grecians following them did the same (d):

and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas the priests of the Lord, were there; Eli was the next judge of Israel after Samson, and who also was the high priest, as is generally supposed; but when and how the high priesthood came into his family is nowhere said, who was a descendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, in whose line it continued to the time of Solomon; and Josephus (e) places three between Phinehas and Eli, who were all of the line of Eleazar, whom he calls Abiezer, Bouci, and Ozis; but their Scripture names are Abishua, Bukki, and Uzzi, 1Ch_6:50. And according to him, after Uzzi came Eli to be high priest, and therefore must be the first of the line of Ithamar that was in that office. His two sons are mentioned as officiating as priests in Shiloh, at the time Elkanah used to go yearly thither to worship and sacrifice; who were very wicked men, as appears by an after account of them; and it is generally thought that this is observed here, to show that the wickedness of these priests did not hinder this good man from doing his duty; nor did he make use of it as an excuse for not attending the worship of the sanctuary.
(a) Theatrum Terrae Sanct. p. 30. So Sandys's Travels, l. 3. p. 157. (b) Travels of the Patriarchs, &c. p. 122. (c) Valer. Maxim. l. 1. c. 3. Vid. D. Herbert de Cherbury de Relig. Gent. c. 3. p. 22. (d) Diodor. Sicul. Bibliothec. l. 3. p. 212. Harpocration in voce σαβοι, Lucian. Concil. deor. sect. 4. Cicero de legibus. l. 2. Aristophan vespae, v. 9, 10. Aves, 582. & Scholia in ib. Lysistrate, p. 860. & Scholia in ib. (e) Antiqu. l. 5. c. 11. sect. 5.

Keil and Delitzsch
1 Sam 1:3
“Jehovah Zebaoth” is an abbreviation of “Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth,” or הַצְּבָאֹות אֱלֹהֵי יְהֹוָה; and the connection of Zebaoth with Jehovah is not to be regarded as the construct state, nor is Zebaoth to be taken as a genitive dependent upon Jehovah. This is not only confirmed by the occurrence of such expressions as “Elohim Zebaoth” (Psa_59:6; Psa_80:5, Psa_80:8,Psa_80:15, 20; Psa_84:9) and “Adonai Zebaoth” (Isa_10:16), but also by the circumstance that Jehovah, as a proper name, cannot be construed with a genitive. The combination “Jehovah Zebaoth” is rather to be taken as an ellipsis, where the general term Elohe (God of), which is implied in the word Jehovah, is to be supplied in thought (see Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 375, English translation); for frequently as this expression occurs, especially in the case of the prophets, Zebaoth is never used alone in the Old Testament as one of the names of God. It is in the Septuagint that the word is first met with occasionally as a proper name (Σαβαώθ), viz., throughout the whole of the first book of Samuel, very frequently in Isaiah, and also in Zec_13:2. In other passages, the word is translated either κύριος, or θεὸς τῶν δυνάμεων, or παντοκράτωρ; whilst the other Greek versions use the more definite phrase κύριος στρατιῶν instead.

This expression, which was not used as a divine name until the age of Samuel, had its roots in Gen_2:1, although the title itself was unknown in the Mosaic period, and during the times of the judges. It represented Jehovah as ruler over the heavenly hosts (i.e., the angels, according to Gen_32:2, and the stars, according to Isa_40:26), who are called the “armies” of Jehovah in Psa_103:21; Psa_148:2; but we are not to understand it as implying that the stars were supposed to be inhabited by angels, as Gesenius (Thes. s. v.) maintains, since there is not the slightest trace of any such notion in the whole of the Old Testament. It is simply applied to Jehovah as the God of the universe, who governs all the powers of heaven, both visible and invisible, as He rules in heaven and on earth. It cannot even be proved that the epithet Lord, or God of Zebaoth, refers chiefly and generally to the sun, moon, and stars, on account of their being so peculiarly adapted, through their visible splendour, to keep alive the consciousness of the omnipotence and glory of God (Hengstenberg on Psa_24:10). For even though the expression צְבָאָם (their host), in Gen_2:1, refers to the heavens only, since it is only to the heavens (vid., Isa_40:26), and never to the earth, that a “host” is ascribed, and in this particular passage it is probably only the stars that are to be thought of, the creation of which had already been mentioned in Gen_1:14.; yet we find the idea of an army of angels introduced in the history of Jacob (Gen_32:2-3), where Jacob calls the angels of God who appeared to him the “camp of God,” and also in the blessing of Moses (Deu_33:2), where the “ten thousands of saints” (Kodesh) are not stars, but angels, or heavenly spirits; whereas the fighting of the stars against Sisera in the song of Deborah probably refers to a natural phenomenon, by which God had thrown the enemy into confusion, and smitten them before the Israelites (see at Jdg_5:20). We must also bear in mind, that whilst on the one hand the tribes of Israel, as they came out of Egypt, are called Zebaoth Jehovah, “the hosts of Jehovah” (Exo_7:4; Exo_12:41), on the other hand the angel of the Lord, when appearing in front of Jericho in the form of a warrior, made himself known to Joshua as “the prince of the army of Jehovah,” i.e., of the angelic hosts. And it is in this appearance of the heavenly leader of the people of God to the earthly leader of the hosts of Israel, as the prince of the angelic hosts, not only promising him the conquest of Jericho, but through the miraculous overthrow of the walls of this strong bulwark of the Canaanitish power, actually giving him at the same time a practical proof that the prince of the angelic hosts was fighting for Israel, that we have the material basis upon which the divine epithet “Jehovah God of hosts” was founded, even though it was not introduced immediately, but only at a later period, when the Lord began to form His people Israel into a kingdom, by which all the kingdoms of the heathen were to be overcome. It is certainly not without significance that this title is given to God for the first time in these books, which contain an account of the founding of the kingdom, and (as Auberlen has observed) that it was by Samuel's mother, the pious Hannah, when dedicating her son to the Lord, and prophesying of the king and anointed of the Lord in her song of praise (1Sa_2:10), that this name was employed for the first time, and that God was addressed in prayer as “Jehovah of hosts” (1Sa_1:11). Consequently, if this name of God goes hand in hand with the prophetic announcement and the actual establishment of the monarchy in Israel, its origin cannot be attributed to any antagonism to Sabaeism, or to the hostility of pious Israelites to the worship of the stars, which was gaining increasing ground in the age of David, as Hengstenberg (on Psa_24:10) and Strauss (on Zep_2:9) maintain; to say nothing of the fact, that there is no historical foundation for such an assumption at all. It is a much more natural supposition, that when the invisible sovereignty of Jehovah received a visible manifestation in the establishment of the earthly monarchy, the sovereignty of Jehovah, if it did possess and was to possess any reality at all, necessarily claimed to be recognised in its all-embracing power and glory, and that in the title “God of (the heavenly hosts” the fitting expression was formed for the universal government of the God-king of Israel, - a title which not only serves as a bulwark against any eclipsing of the invisible sovereignty of God by the earthly monarchy in Israel, but overthrew the vain delusion of the heathen, that the God of Israel was simply the national deity of that particular nation.

(Note: This name of God was therefore held up before the people of the Lord even in their war-songs and paeans of victory, but still more by the prophets, as a banner under which Israel was to fight and to conquer the world. Ezekiel is the only prophet who does not use it, simply because he follows the Pentateuch so strictly in his style. And it is not met with in the book of Job, just because the theocratic constitution of the Israelitish nation is never referred to in the problem of that book.)

The remark introduced in 1Sa_1:3, “and there were the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord,” i.e., performing the duties of the priesthood, serves as a preparation for what follows. This reason for the remark sufficiently explains why the sons of Eli only are mentioned here, and not Eli himself, since, although the latter still presided over the sanctuary as high priest, he was too old to perform the duties connected with the offering of sacrifice. The addition made by the lxx, Ἡλὶ καὶ, is an arbitrary interpolation, occasioned by a misapprehension of the reason for mentioning the sons of Eli.

John Gill
1Sa 1:4 And when the time was that Elkanah offered,.... That is, brought his offering to the priest, to offer it for him, which was at one of the three festivals. According to R. Joshua Ben Levi (f), this was at the time of Pentecost; but Abarbinel thinks it was at the time of the ingathering of the fruits of the earth, which was a time of rejoicing, even the feast of tabernacles, and which is most likely:

he gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions; parts of the offering, everyone a part, or portion; by which it appears, that this was a peace offering he offered, the greater part of which belonged to the owner, and which he made a feast of for his family and friends; see Deu_12:5. Jerom (g) interprets these portions of garments.
(f) Apud Kimchium in loc. (g) Trad. Heb. in lib. Reg. fol. 74. H.

Adam Clarke
1Sa 1:4
He gave - portions - The sacrifices which were made were probably peace-offerings, of which the blood was poured out at the foot of the altar; the fat was burnt on the fire; the breast and right shoulder were the portion of the priest, and the rest belonged to him who made the offering; on it he and his family feasted, each receiving his portion; and to these feasts God commands them to invite the Levite, the poor, the widow, and the orphan, Deu_16:11.

Adam Clarke
1Sa 1:5
Unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion - The Hebrew here is very obscure, יתן מנה אחת אפים yitten manah achath appayim; he gave her one portion of two faces; which the Syriac renders, he gave her one Double Part; and the Chaldee, he gave her one Chosen part; the Arabic is nearly the same; the Vulgate Annae autem dedit unam partem tristis, but to Anna he being sorrowful gave one part. As the shew-bread that was presented to the Lord was called לחם פנים lechem panim, the bread of faces, because it was placed before the face or appearances of the Lord; probably this was called מנה אפים manah appayim, because it was the portion that belonged to, or was placed before, the person who had offered the sacrifice. On this ground it might be said that Elkanah gave Hannah his own portion or a part of that which was placed before himself. Whatever it was, it was intended as a proof of his especial love to her; for, it is added, he loved Hannah.

John Gill
1Sa 1:5 But unto Hannah he gave a worthy portion,.... Or, one choice portion, as the Targum; the best part or portion in the peace offering, of what the priest had not; he had the breast and the right shoulder, the next best piece he gave to Hannah; and the word being of the dual number, some render it a double portion; others, "one part of two faces" (h); which Jerom interprets, which might be received with a cheerful countenance, it was so good and excellent in its kind; others interpret it that he gave it with a sorrowful (i) and displeased countenance, because of the reason following, that she had no children; but Ben Gersom understands it of a part or portion of meat that had two faces or appearances; that he gave her one of the pieces, one part of which was very fat, and the other had no fat on it, so that she might choose what she liked best:

for he loved Hannah; loved her best, and therefore did everything to please her, and make her comfortable under her affliction for want of children, and to express his tender affection for her:

but the Lord had shut up her womb; restrained her from conception, and bearing children; see Gen_20:18 or "though the Lord had shut up her womb" (k); this did not abate his love to her.
(h) מנה אחת אפים "unam portionem duarum facicrum", Sanctius Belgae. (i) Sic Stockins, p. 79. (k) ויהוה "quanquam Jehovah", Piscator.

John Gill
1Sa 1:6 And her adversary also provoked her sore,.... That is, Peninnah, the other wife of Elkanah; for when a man had more wives, two or more, they were usually at enmity to one another, as the two wives of Socrates were, being always jealous lest one should have more love and respect than the other from the husband; and this woman provoked Hannah one time after another, and continually, by upbraiding her with her barrenness; and this was another reason why Elkanah did all he could to comfort her, not only because the Lord had restrained her from bearing children, but because also she that envied and emulated her sadly provoked her:

for to make her fret; and be uneasy, and murmur at and complain of her unhappy circumstances: some render it, "because she thundered" (l) against her; that is, Peninnah was exceeding loud and clamorous with her reproaches and scoffs, which were grievously provoking to Hannah. So said Socrates, when Xantippe first scolded at him, and then poured foul water on him: did not I say, says he, that Xantippe first thunders, and then rains (m)?

because the Lord had shut up her womb; it was this Peninnah upbraided her with, and at which Hannah fretted and grieved.
(l) בעבור הרעמה "propterea quod intonabat contra eam", Piscator. (m) Laert. in Vit. Socrat. p. 112.

John Gill
1Sa 1:7 And as he did so year by year,.... Elkanah went up every year to Shiloh, and offered sacrifices, taking his family with him, and gave to Peninnah and her children their portion, and to Hannah a double portion, or if but one yet the best:

when she went up to the house of the Lord; that is, Peninnah, along with her husband, with whom she went every year to the tabernacle at Shiloh:

so she provoked her; her rival Hannah, upbraiding her with her barrenness; to which she was stirred up by seeing her husband on these festivals take so much notice of her, and show so much love and respect for her, as always to give her the best portion. Abarbinel thinks that Peninnah and Hannah lived at two separate places, the one at Ramah and the other at Ramatha, which both together are called Ramathaim; and that they only met with and saw one another at these festivals, and then it was that the one was so very insulting and provoking to the other:

therefore she wept and did not eat; that is, Hannah wept at the insults, reproaches, and scoffs, cast at her by her antagonist; insomuch that she could not eat of the peace offerings, though her husband always gave her the best part and portion of them; but her grief took away her stomach and appetite, that she could not eat; see Psa_42:3.

John Gill
1Sa 1:8 Then said Elkanah her husband to her, Hannah, why weepest thou?.... Since it was a time of rejoicing, as every festival was, especially at the ingathering of the fruits of the earth:

and why eatest thou not? since they were at a feast, and she had the best part and portion of the provision:

and why is thy heart grieved? to such a degree that she could neither eat nor drink:

am not I better to thee than ten sons? which, as Jarchi says, Peninnah had borne to him; his meaning is, that the share she had in his love and affections ought to have been esteemed by her more than if she had ten or many children by him; and it suggests that Peninnah would have been glad to have such a share in his affections as Hannah had; and it would have been more eligible to her, than to have borne him so many children as she had.

John Gill
1Sa 1:9 So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drank,.... After dinner, after Elkanah and Peninnah, and their children, had eaten heartily, and drank freely, and made a comfortable meal, and even a feast of it, at the place where the tabernacle and altar were, and their peace offerings were offered up, part of which they had been regaling themselves with. The Targum is,"after she had eaten in Shiloh, and after she had drank;''for upon the entreaty of her husband, and to make him easy, she might be prevailed upon to eat somewhat, though it might be but little; and to drink, though it was but water; for as for wine and strong drink, she declares afterwards she had not drank, 1Sa_1:15.

now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the Lord; for so the tabernacle was called, and sometimes the temple is called a tabernacle, Jer_10:20. Now at the door posts and side of the threshold of the temple of the Lord, as the Targum; at the entrance of the great court of the Israelites, Eli had a seat placed, on which he sat; this must be at the gate of the court of the tabernacle, by the pillars of it; for in the court itself none afterwards might sit but kings of the family David (n); here Eli sat as an high priest and judge, give advice in difficult cases, and to try and judge all causes that were brought before him; some say (o) that he was on this day constituted an high priest, and others say (q) he was now made a judge; but no doubt he was both high priest and judge before this time.
(n) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Yoma, c. 7. sect. 1. (o) Shoched Tob apud Yalkut, par. 2. fol. 12. 4. (q) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 13. p. 37.

Adam Clarke
1Sa 1:9
Eli - sat upon a seat - על הכסא al hakkisse, upon the throne, i.e., of judgment; for he was then judge of Israel.

By a post of the temple of the Lord - I think this is the first place where היכל יהוה heychal Yehovah, “temple of Jehovah,” is mentioned. This gives room for a strong suspicion that the books of Samuel were not compiled till the first temple was built, or after the days of Solomon. After this the word temple is frequent in the books of Kings, Chronicles, and in the prophets. Perhaps those Psalms in which this word occurs were, like many others in the Psalms, not of David’s composition; some of them were evidently made long after his time.

John Gill
1Sa 1:11 And she vowed a vow,.... Which might be confirmed by her husband; otherwise the vow of a woman, if disapproved of by her husband, was not valid, Num_30:8 and Elkanah might make the same vow his wife did, and so it stood; for as this was a vow of Nazariteship, it is a tradition of the Jews (r), that a man may vow his son to be a Nazarite, but a woman may not; but as this instance contradicts the tradition, they endeavour to explain away this vow, as it may respect a Nazarite, as will be observed hereafter:

and said, O Lord of hosts; this is properly the first time this title was used by any that we know of; for though it is expressed in 1Sa_1:3 there it is used as the words of the writer of this history, and so long after this prayer was put up; See Gill on 1Sa_1:3; and it is an observation in the Talmud (s), that from the day God created the world, no man called him the Lord of hosts till Hannah came and called him so:

if thou wilt indeed look upon the affliction of thine handmaid the sorrow of heart she had, the reproach she met with, on account of her having no children:

and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid; which petitions are the same in other words, and are repeated to denote her vehemence and importunity in prayer, and may allude to usages among men, that will look upon a person in distress, and turn away and forget them, and never think of them more; which she deprecates may not be her case with God:

but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child; or, "a seed of men" (t); a son in the midst of men, as the Targum; such as is desirable by men, as a male child for the most part is; though some Jewish writers interpret it of the seed of righteous, wise, and understanding men, such as be fit to serve the Lord, which seems to be a sense foreign to the text; a man child she asks, because no other could serve the Lord in the temple; and that she meant by this phrase such an one is clear, because she vowed that a razor should not come on its head, which is never said of females, as Kimchi observes:

then will I give him unto the Lord all the days of his life; to serve him, and minister unto him in the sanctuary; being born a Levite, it was incumbent on him to serve the Lord, and he had a right to his service; but then a common Levite did not enter on it until twenty five or thirty years of age, and was not always serving, but was dismissed from it at fifty Num_8:24; but the child she vows, if the Lord would give her such an one, should be trained up in his service from his infancy, and continue it all the days of his life; and was to be also a perpetual Nazarite, as Samson was, as follows:

and there shall no razor come upon his head; as was not to come upon a Nazarite, during his Nazariteship, Num_6:5 and as such a vow made by a woman contradicts the tradition of the Jews before mentioned, they give another sense of this clause; as the Targum, which paraphrases it,"and the fear of man shall not be upon him;''but about this there is a division (u); but that Samuel was Nazarite, and a perpetual one, is the sense of their best interpreters.
(r) Misn. Sotah. c. 3. sect. 8. (s) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 31. 2. (t) זרע אנשים "semen virorum", Montanus. (u) Misn. Nazir, c. 9. sect. 5.

John Gill
1Sa 1:14 And Eli said unto her, how long wilt thou be drunken?.... What, every day drunk? what, continually in this wicked practice? when will it be stopped? for Eli might have observed on other days, and at other times, odd looks, and a strange behaviour in her, which he took for the effects of drinking too much wine: or how long will this drunken fit last? she had been a considerable time as he thought in it, and it was not gone off yet: the Targum is,"how long wilt thou behave like a fool, or a mad woman?''as drunken people generally do act, as if they were fools, or mad:

put away thy wine from thee; not as if she had any with her there to drink of, but he advises her, since it had such an effect upon her, to abstain from it, and wholly disuse it, and so break off such an habit and custom she had got into; or he would have her go home and sleep it out, and wait till she had digested it, and the strength of it was gone off, before she came to such a place of devotion and worship; from hence the Jews say (w) it may be learnt, that a drunken person ought not to pray.
(w) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 31. 1.

John Gill
1Sa 1:15 And Hannah answered and said, no, my lord,.... That is not my case, you have greatly mistaken it; she answered with great mildness and meekness, without falling into a passion at such a scandalous imputation upon her, and with great respect and reverence to Eli, suitable to his office; so in later times the high priest used to be addressed after this manner, particularly on the day of atonement, "Lord high priest", do so and so (x); indeed these words of Hannah are interpreted as not so very respectful, as if the sense was, not a lord art thou in this matter; nor does the Holy Ghost dwell upon thee (y); which thou hast sufficiently shown, or thou wouldest never have suspected me of drunkenness:

I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit: depressed with trouble and grief on account of afflictions; if she was drunk, it was not with wine, but with sorrow: or "a woman of a hard spirit" (z); which is sometimes taken in an ill sense, and, according to Abarbinel, is here denied by her, who connects this clause with the preceding thus; not, my lord, am I a woman of a hard spirit, or such a hardened wretch, and such an impudent woman, as I must be, were it so, to come drunk into the house of God, and pretend to pray unto him:

I have drank neither wine nor strong drink; not any sort of intoxicating liquors that day, neither wine new or old, as the Targum:

but have poured out my soul before the Lord: the affliction of it, as the same paraphrase; the grievances and distresses, the complaints of her soul, which were many, and which she had poured out before the Lord freely and plentifully, and which had taken up some time to do it; see Psa_42:8 where phrases similar to this are used, and which seem to be taken from hence.
(x) Misn. Yoma, c. 1. sect. 3, 5, 7. (y) T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 31. 2. Jarchi in loc. (z) קשת רוח "dura spiritu", Pagninus, Montanus.

John Gill 1Sa 1:16 Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial,.... A yokeless, a lawless, impudent, and abandoned creature; one of the most wicked, vilest, and most profligate wretches; as she must be to come drunk into the sanctuary of God; see 1Sa_25:17. Drunkenness in man is au abominable crime, but much more in a woman. The Romans (a) forbad wine to women, and drunkenness in them was a capital crime, as adultery, or any other; and indeed a drunken woman is liable to all manner of sin:

for out of the abundance of my complaint and grief have I spoken hitherto; out of the abundance of the heart the mouth will speak, whether it is matter of trouble or of joy; the heart of Hannah was full of grief, and her mouth full of complaints, on which she long dwelt, in order to give vent thereunto, and ease herself.
(a) Plin. Nat. Hist. l. 14. c. 13.

Adam Clarke
1Sa 1:16
Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial - אל תתן את אמתך לפני בת בליעל al titten eth amathecha liphney bath Beliyael; ‘Put not thy handmaiden before the faces of a daughter of Belial.” “If I am a drunkard, and strive by the most execrable hypocrisy (praying in the house of God) to cover my iniquity, then I am the chief of the daughters of Belial.” Or, “Give not thy handmaid (to reproach) before the faces of the daughters of Belial.” Several of these probably attended there for the purposes of prostitution and gain; for it is said, 1Sa_2:22, that Eli’s sons lay with the women at the door of the tabernacle, though this may refer to the women who kept the door.

Adam Clarke
1Sa 1:17
Grant thee thy petition - He was satisfied he had formed a wrong judgment, and by it had added to the distress of one already sufficiently distressed.

The fact that Eli supposed her to be drunken, and the other of the conduct of Eli’s sons already mentioned, prove that religion was at this time at a very low ebb in Shiloh; for it seems drunken women did come to the place, and lewd women were to be found there.

John Gill
1Sa 1:17 Then Eli answered and said, go in peace,.... He found he was mistaken in her, and that her discourse was not only sober and rational, but religious and spiritual; and therefore dismisses her in peace, and bids her not distress herself with what he had said to her, nor with anything she had met with from others, or from the Lord; but expect peace and prosperity, and particularly success in what she had been engaged, and had been solicitous for:

and the God of Israel grant thee thy petition that thou hast asked of him; which may be considered either as a prayer for her, he joining with her in a request to the Lord, that what she had asked might be granted; or as a prophecy that so it would be, it being revealed to him by the Holy Ghost, as the high priest of the Lord; or impressed by an impulse upon his spirit that the favour asked would be given; and therefore she might go home in peace, and with satisfaction of mind.

John Gill
1Sa 1:19 And they rose up in the morning early,.... Partly for devotion, and partly for the sake of their journey:

and worshipped before the Lord; went up to the tabernacle, and prayed with their faces towards that part of it, the western part, where stood the ark of the Lord, the symbol of the divine Presence; and when they no doubt gave thanks for all the favours they had received there, and prayed for a safe and prosperous journey home, committing themselves to the care of divine Providence:

and returned, and came to their house to Ramah; or "Ramatha", the same with Ramathaim, 1Sa_1:1. Abarbinel thinks that Elkanah had two houses, one at Ramah for Peninnah, and another at Ramatha for Hannah; and that this was Hannah's house, to which they returned and came:

and Elkanah knew Hannah his wife: cohabited with her as a man with his wife; it is a modest expression of the conjugal act; see Gen_4:1 and is observed to show that the conception and birth of Samuel were not in a supernatural way, but in the ordinary way and manner of generation:

and the Lord remembered her; the prayer she had made to him, opened her womb, as he had before shut it, and gave her power to conceive.

John Gill
1Sa 1:20 Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about, after Hannah had conceived,.... Or, "at the revolutions of days" (b); at the end of a year, of a complete year, as Ben Melech, from their return from Shiloh; for it might be some time after their return that she conceived; or rather the sense is, that at nine months' end, the usual time of a woman's going with child from her conception, which is the date here given:

that she bare a son: was brought to bed of a son:

and called his name Samuel, saying, because I have asked him of the Lord; one would think rather his name should have been Saul, for the reason given; but, as Ben Gersom observes, givers of names are not always grammatically strict and critical in them, or in the etymology of them, as in the names of Reuben and Noah, in which he instances; and this may be the rather overlooked in a woman, than in a man of learning. According to Kimchi, it is as if it was Saulmeel; that is, "asked of God", and by contraction Samuel; but Hillerus (c) gives a better account of this name, and takes it to be composed of Saul-mul-el, "asked before God", "in the sight of God", "before the ark of God". This name Hannah gave her son (for sometimes the father, and sometimes the mother, gave the name) in memory of the wonderful favour and goodness of God in granting her request; and to impress her own mind with a sense of the obligation she lay under, to perform her vow, and to engage her son the more readily to give up himself to the service of God, when he reflected on his name, and the reason of it.
(b) לתקפות הימים "in revolutionibus dierum", Montanus; so Piscator. (c) Onomastic. Sacr. p. 418, 419, 487.

John Gill
1Sa 1:21 And the man Elkanah, and all his house,.... All his family, excepting Hannah, and her son Samuel; or all the men of his house, as the Targum; for only the males were obliged to appear at the three festivals:

went up to Shiloh; to the house of God there:

to offer unto the Lord the yearly sacrifice; either the passover, to which men commonly went up with their families: see Luk_2:41, or rather it may be what was offered at the feast of tabernacles, as Abarbinel thinks, the time of the ingathering the fruits of the earth, when men went up with their families to offer sacrifice, and express their joy on that account, Deu_16:10.

and his vow: which he had made between feast and feast; for whatever vows men made at home, on any account, they paid them at the yearly festivals; and this vow might be on the account of the birth of his son, by way of thanksgiving for that.

John Gill
1Sa 1:22 But Hannah went not up,.... For women, though they might go if they pleased to the yearly feasts, yet they were not obliged to it; whether she went up at the time for her purification, and for the presenting and redemption of the firstborn, is not certain; some say the Levites were not obliged by that law, the perquisites of it falling to them, and so did not go up; others that she did, though it is not expressed, the Scriptures not relating all facts that were done; though by what follows it looks as if she did not:

for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned: which, according to Jarchi, was at the end of twenty two months; but others say at the end of twenty four months, or two years, as Kimchi and Ben Melech; and sometimes a child was three years old before it was weaned, and sometimes longer, which very probably was the case here; See Gill on Gen_21:8. Comestor (d) observes, there was a three fold weaning of children in old times; the first from their mother's milk, when three years old; the second from their tender age, and care of a dry nurse, when seven years old; the third from childish manners, when at twelve years of age; and that it is this last and metaphorical weaning which is here meant, when Samuel was twelve years of age, and fit to serve in the temple; but the proper sense is best, since she is said to bring him when weaned: her reason for it seems to be this, because had she went up with her sucking child, she must have brought him back again, since he would not be fit to be left behind, and would be entirely incapable of any kind of service in the sanctuary; and according to the nature of her vow, she could not think of bringing him back again, after she had once entered him there:

and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord; and minister in the service of the sanctuary in what might be suitable to his age; there and then she would present him, and give him up to the Lord, as she had promised she would:

and there abide for ever; that is, as long as he lived; for her vow was that he should be a Nazarite all the days of his life, and be separated to the service of God as long as he had a being in the world.
(d) Apud Weemse's Observ. Nat. c. 18. p. 76.

Keil and Delitzsch
1 Sam 1:22 Weaning took place very late among the Israelites. According to 2 Macc. 7:28, the Hebrew mothers were in the habit of suckling their children for three years. When the weaning had taken place, Hannah would bring her son up to the sanctuary, to appear before the face of the Lord, and remain there for ever, i.e., his whole life long. The Levites generally were only required to perform service at the sanctuary from their twenty-fifth to their fiftieth year (Num_8:24-25); but Samuel was to be presented to the Lord immediately after his weaning had taken place, and to remain at the sanctuary for ever, i.e., to belong entirely to the Lord. To this end he was to receive his training at the sanctuary, that at the very earliest waking up of his spiritual susceptibilities he might receive the impressions of the sacred presence of God. There is no necessity, therefore, to understand the word גָּמַל (wean) as including what followed the weaning, namely, the training of the child up to his thirteenth year (Seb. Schmidt), on the ground that a child of three years old could only have been a burden to Eli: for the word never has this meaning, not even in 1Ki_11:20; and, as O. v. Gerlach has observed, his earliest training might have been superintended by one of the women who worshipped at the door of the tabernacle (1Sa_2:22).

Keil and Delitzsch
1Sa 1:23
Elkanah expressed his approval of Hannah's decision, and added, “only the Lord establish His word,” i.e., fulfil it. By “His word” we are not to understand some direct revelation from God respecting the birth and destination of Samuel, as the Rabbins suppose, but in all probability the word of Eli the high priest to Hannah, “The God of Israel grant thy petition” (1Sa_1:17), which might be regarded by the parents of Samuel after his birth as a promise from Jehovah himself, and therefore might naturally excite the wish and suggest the prayer that the Lord would graciously fulfil the further hopes, which the parents cherished in relation to the son whom they had dedicated to the Lord by a vow.

John Gill
1Sa 1:23 And Elkanah her husband said unto her, do what seemeth thee good,.... He spake like a kind and indulgent husband, knowing that she would not thereby break any law of God; and it might be more for her own health, and the health of the child, to stay longer:

tarry till thou have weaned him; when he would be more fit for the journey, and to be left behind:

only the Lord establish his word; which some understand of the prophecy of Eli that God would grant her request, which being delivered under the direction of the Spirit of God, is called his word; but this was already fulfilled, and established by Hannah's bearing a son: or the word "his" refers not to the Lord, but to Samuel, and so may respect the word which his mother spake concerning him; either when she made her vow, as Abendana, that he should be a perpetual Nazarite, and the Lord's as long as he lived: and so Elkanah wishes that he might have health and grow strong, and be fit for the service of the Lord, and live many years to perform it; or what she had just now said, as Abarbinel, that he should abide in the house of God for ever, or as long as he lived:
so the woman abode; at home, while Elkanah and his family went up to Shiloh:

and gave her son suck until she weaned him; did not put him out to a wet or dry nurse, but suckled him herself with what nature had provided for his nourishment, as becomes women to do, if their circumstances of health, and the provisions of nature, will admit of it.

Adam Clarke
1Sa 1:24
With three bullocks - The Septuagint, the Syriac, and the Arabic, read, a bullock of three years old; and this is probably correct, because we read, 1Sa_1:25, that they slew את הפר eth happar, The bullock. We hear of no more, and we know that a bullock or heifer of three years old was ordinarily used, see Gen_15:9.

One ephah of flour - Seven gallons and a half.

A bottle of wine - נבל יין nebel yayin, a skin full of wine. Their bottles for wine and fluids in general were made out of skins of goats, stripped off without being cut up; the places whence the legs were extracted sewed up, as also the lower part; and the top tied. She the notes on Gen_21:14, and Mat_9:17. These three things, the ox, the flour, and the wine, probably constituted the consecration-offering.

John Gill
1Sa 1:24 And when she had weaned him,.... At the usual time of weaning children; See Gill on 1Sa_1:23 some refer this not only to the milk of the breast, from which he was weaned, but to such food as was common to children, and so supposes him grown up to nine or ten years of age:

she took him up with her; to the tabernacle at Shiloh, at a yearly festival: with three bullocks; for three sorts of offerings, burnt offering, sin offering, and peace offering; or since one only is spoken of as slain, that is, for sacrifice, the other two might be for food to entertain her family and friends with while there; or as a present to the high priest, to whose care she committed her son:

and one ephah of flour; if the bullocks were all sacrificed, three tenth deals, or three tenth parts of the ephah, went for a meat offering to each bullock, which made nine parts out of ten, and the tenth part she had to dispose of at pleasure; see Num_15:9, though that seems to be restrained to a burnt offering only:

and a bottle of wine; part of which might be for the drink offering which always attended a meat offering, and the rest for her own use, and that of her friends:

and brought him unto the house of the Lord in Shiloh: the tabernacle there, and delivered him up to the care of the high priest, to be trained up in the service of God:

and the child was young; a very child, very young in years, a little infant; not a sucking child, as the Targum, because weaned, otherwise of a very tender age; though some think this expresses that he was a well grown lad, and was sharp and acute, and could well distinguish between good and evil.

John Gill
1Sa 1:25 And they slew a bullock,.... One of the three Hannah brought, unless the singular is put for the plural, and so all three were slain, some for sacrifice, and some for food perhaps; or if only one was slain, it might be offered as a sacrifice previous to the presentation of Samuel; or else was made a present of to Eli, at the introduction of Samuel to him, as follows:

and brought the child to Eli: to be under his care, to he instructed and trained up by him in the service of the tabernacle; from hence it appears that Elkanah the husband of Hannah came along with her at this time.

Keil and Delitzsch
1Sa 1:24-25
As soon as the boy was weaned, Hannah brought him, although still a נַעַר, i.e., a tender boy, to Shiloh, with a sacrifice of three oxen, an ephah of meal, and a pitcher of wine, and gave him up to Eli when the ox (bullock) had been slain, i.e., offered in sacrifice as a burnt-offering. The striking circumstance that, according to 1Sa_1:24, Samuel's parents brought three oxen with them to Shiloh, and yet in 1Sa_1:25 the ox (הַפָּר) alone is spoken of as being slain (or sacrificed), may be explained very simply on the supposition that in 1Sa_1:25 that particular sacrifice is referred to, which was associated with the presentation of the boy, that is to say, the burnt-offering by virtue of which the boy was consecrated to the Lord as a spiritual sacrifice for a lifelong service at His sanctuary, whereas the other two oxen served as the yearly festal offering, i.e., the burnt-offerings and thank-offerings which Elkanah presented year by year, and the presentation of which the writer did not think it needful to mention, simply because it followed partly from 1Sa_1:3 and partly from the Mosaic law.

(Note: The interpretation of שְׁלשָׁה בְּפָרִים by ἐν μόσχῳ τριετίζοντι (lxx), upon which Thenius would found an alteration of the text, is proved to be both arbitrary and wrong by the fact that the translators themselves afterwards mention the θυσία, which Elkanah brought year by year, and the μόσχος, and consequently represent him as offering at least two animals, in direct opposition to the μόσχῳ τριετίζοντι. This discrepancy cannot be removed by the assertion that in 1Sa_1:24 the sacrificial animal intended for the dedication of the boy is the only one mentioned; and the presentation of the regular festal sacrifice is taken for granted, for an ephah of meal would not be the proper quantity to be offered in connection with a single ox, since, according to the law in Num_15:8-9, only three-tenths of an ephah of meal were required when an ox was presented as a burnt-offering or slain offering. The presentation of an ephah of meal presupposes the offering of three oxen, and therefore shows that in 1Sa_1:24 the materials are mentioned for all the sacrifices that Elkanah was about to offer.)

John Gill
1Sa 1:26 And she said, O my lord,.... According to the Targum, it is a supplication or request, I beseech thee, my lord; that is, to look upon her son, and take him under his care as his disciple or scholar, to instruct him in the law of God, and enter him into his service; to which Eli might be very backward and indifferent, and even treat it with some degree of contempt, that such a young Levite should be brought to him, when the soonest the Levites were admitted was at twenty five years of age:

as thy soul liveth, my lord; which Ben Gersom takes for the form of an oath, as if she swore to the truth of what follows by the life of the high priest; but as it was forbidden to swear by any but by the living God, by his life, it cannot be thought so good a woman as Hannah would be guilty of such a sinful and Heathenish practice; this rather is a wish or prayer for his life and health, and the continuance thereof, to bring up her son in the exercise of true religion:

I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying unto the Lord: by which it appears that Eli was now at the tabernacle, and in the same place he was, 1Sa_1:9 when she was some years ago praying near him, at the distance of four cubits, as the Jews say: she takes no notice of his mistaking her for a drunken woman, nor of his censure on her, and the reproof he gave her; but puts him in mind only of her praying to the Lord standing near to him, which made him take the more notice of her; standing is a prayer posture; the Jews say there is no standing but what is prayer, or prayer is meant by it; See Gill on Mat_6:5.

John Gill
1Sa 1:28 Therefore also I have lent him to the Lord,.... To be employed in his service, not for a few days, months, or years, but for his whole life. The Targum is,"I have delivered him, that he may minister before the Lord;''as she had received him front him as an answer of prayer, she gave him up to him again according to her vow: as long as he liveth he shall be lent unto the Lord, or as the Targum,"all the days that he lives he shall be ministering before the Lord;''

or "all the days he shall be asked" (or "required") by or for the Lord (e); that is, he shall be lent unto him, and serve him as long as it is desired:

and he worshipped the Lord there; in the tabernacle at the same time; either Elkanah, who with Hannah brought the child to Eli, and now gave thanks to God for giving them the child, and prayed unto him that he might be received into the service of the sanctuary; or else Eli, to whom the child was brought for admittance, who when he heard that Hannah's request was granted, which he had entreated also might be or had declared it would be, bowed his head, and gave thanks to God for it; or rather the child Samuel, as he was taught and trained up, bowed himself before the Lord, and worshipped him in the tabernacle as soon as he was brought into it, though a child; for he only is spoken of in this and the preceding verse; and by some interpreters (f) the name Samuel is supplied; the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Arabic versions, read in the plural number, "and they worshipped the Lord there": that is, Elkanah and his wife; so Mr. Weemse (g) translates and interprets it.

(e) "Quamdiu" שאול, h. e. "expetitus aut requisitur", Peter Martyr; "quoties a Jehova postulatur", Piscator. (f) Junius & Tremellius, Piscator. (g) Observat. Nat. c. 18. p. 77.

"Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

And to the church in Thessalonica in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,

"For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. Wherefore comfort one another with these words."

The mystery being spoken of here is a truth that had not previously been revealed in the Old Testament but is now being revealed in the New Testament. Although the idea of the resurrection is clearly taught in the Old Testament, the teaching of the Rapture is not. This is the first mention of the Rapture of the Church.

The context of what Paul is talking about is the resurrection and the order of the events taking place at the time of the resurrection. Paul says that before the Rapture, the dead in Christ will rise first. These are those who have died from the time after the death and resurrection of Jesus until today. And then, we who are still alive at the time of the rapture will be caught up together to meet the Lord in the air. And in that moment our mortal bodies will be changed in the twinkling of an eye and we will receive our new glorified bodies.

Paul makes this very clear. Corruption putting on incorruption is a reference to the saints who have died and decaying and that their bodies are corrupt. Then the mortal putting on immortality is referring to those alive when He comes.

Now, look at the immanency of Christ's return. Notice how Paul expects to see the Lord in his lifetime. Verse 52 shows the immanency. Notice how he uses the word "we". He was including himself in the event of the Rapture. He lived his life in the light that Jesus could return and rapture the church at any moment. Paul’s take on it shows that the Rapture was of course a Pre-Tribulation rapture because he felt that it was so immanent.

Now listen to what Jesus tells his disciples in Luke 17:26-30.

"And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man. They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all. Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded; But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all. Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed."

Jesus is making a reference to the Rapture. He is telling the disciples that it will happen much as the days of Noah and Lot were. Taking place as it was in the days of Noah, how they were caught surprised. They were going about their normal day to day business. Then when Noah and his family stepped onto the ark, then the flood came. As with Lot, the people of Sodom and Gomorrah were going about their own sinful ways as well and when Lot and his family were removed from the city, then God's judgment came down upon the cities. Likewise will it be with the Rapture. Once the Lord removes His Church from the sinful world, then the Tribulation will begin.

He mentions that He will come as a thief in the night indicating that he will not be seen by everyone. But when talking about the Second Coming, He says that every eye will see Him. Notice some are sleeping and some are working indicating that it will be night some places and daytime in others. No one will see Jesus at that time except for those who meet Him in the air. Carrying on with life as usual until the Lord comes and disrupts their scene.

God has not appointed His church to wrath. The wrath of God is the Tribulation period. The Bible tells us that we have tribulation now but that comes from the world and Satan. The Tribulation period is the wrath of God, and God is not going to punish His bride.

You'll notice that the Rapture takes place at the sound of a trumpet. The trumpet sounding is what signals the Rapture. Notice also that it is called the LAST trumpet. Now having said that we know that there are 7 angels that are given 7 trumpets to sound and when they do sound there are 7 judgments that come upon the earth. There are those that say that the last trumpet is the 7th trumpet being spoken of in 1 Corinthians 15:52. That would mean that the Rapture does not take place until the middle of the Tribulation. So in order for the church to hear the last trumpet the church must go through the first half of the Tribulation.

This is just simply not true.

Without a doubt, these are not the same trumpets. First of all the trumpets sounded are sounded by angels. The trumpet that will sound when the Rapture takes place is the trumpet of God. God will blow his trumpet.

This trumpet signals great joy! Only believers will hear this. The 7th trumpet in Revelation is considered a woe. Woe, woe, woe it is said of the last 3 trumpets. The trumpet of God is not a trumpet of judgment but of rejoicing. We are to comfort one another with these words. If the trumpet that sounds at the Rapture is the 7th, then this doesn’t seem like a comforting doctrine to me. We’re going to go through hell on earth before the Rapture even takes place. We’ll go into the Tribulation and there will be suffering and persecution. This is not a comforting doctrine to me. Is this was Paul was speaking of? No, of course not. The Rapture becomes comforting to me when I know that this event removes me from the Tribulation to come.

The church is not going through the Tribulation. Why would God the Father want to punish His bride? The Tribulation is referred to as a time of Jacob’s trouble. It has to do with the Jews. It’s at that time that God wakes up the Jewish people and brings them to salvation. When will the rapture take place? When will the trumpet sound? At the end of the church age. When the last person who needs to get saved, gets saved.

Revelation 2-3 is an overview of church history. Even though they were written to 7 churches existing at that time. Each of these has a secondary application as often does in Scripture, especially prophecy. They actually are a reference to the 7 different stages of church history as God sees them from beginning to end.

Then John says in Revelation 4:1, once he is finished writing about the churches,

"After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter."

After these things (pertaining to the church), after the church ages are over, a door in heaven was opened and a voice that sounded like a trumpet saying come up hither and I will show you things AFTER this. After the church age. I believe this is the Rapture right here.

Does this ring a bell?

When the church ministry on earth is complete a door will open and a trumpet will sound and the church will be caught up. Paul wrote in Romans 11:25,

"For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in."

Until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Since the Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah, God is now working among the Gentile nations to bring a bride unto Himself. Once that last Gentile who needs to be saved comes to salvation, God will focus His energy on Israel.

Many claim that the whole concept of a Pre-Tribulation rapture was never even heard of until 1828 when John Darby first began teaching it. Well, these people are wrong who believe this because there is evidence of the Church teaching the Rapture 1100 years before John Darby.

One of the most important evidences for this is an apocalyptic sermon from the 4th century titled "Sermon on the End of the World". It is said to be from a man named Ephrem the Syrian who lived from 306-373 A.D. He was a Syriac deacon, theologian, and hymnographer of the 4th century. He wrote many hymns, poems, homilies and biblical commentaries. Some suggest it may not have been written until a later date between 565-627 A.D., but for our purposed, the exact date doesn't matter, allowing the sermon's composition as late as the 7th century. This is still 1100 years prior to John Darby.

The ancient author wrote this:

"Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time. Or do you not believe unless you see with your eyes? See to it that this sentence be not fulfilled among you of the prophet who declares: "Woe to those who desire to see the day of the Lord!" For all the saints and elect of God are gathered, prior to the tribulation that is to come, and are taken to the Lord lest they see the confusion that is to overwhelm the world because of our sins."

There is no mistaking that the author was speaking of the saints being gathered together before the Tribulation.

There were many others who believed this long before John Darby.

In 150 AD, the Rapture idea was preached by the Shepherd of Hermas.
In 270 AD, Victorinus, the Bishop of Pettau, a Catholic ecclesiastical writer preached it.
In 400 AD, Jerome in the Latin vulgate (in the Catholic Bible)

Why then has the Pre-Tribulation doctrine emerged so prominently over the past 200 years?

The Bible, prior to 200 years ago was kept out of the hands of the common people. The bible was effectively locked in museums and monasteries for 1000 years during the period known as the Dark Ages. It wasn't until the Bible was translated into the language of the common people and that then the hope of the pre-millennial return of Christ was once again established in the Church, the Rapture. Once the Scriptures were made available to everybody the ancient truth of the Rapture before the Tribulation period was once again discovered.

Here are some other teachers of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture beginning around the ending of the Dark Ages.

In 1304 AD, Reverend Dolcino proclaimed the Pre-Tribulation Rapture.
In 1400 AD, Bible translations in the native tongues led to a new propagation of the Pre-trib Rapture.
In 1627 AD, Joseph Mede
1627 AD Increase Mather
1687 AD, Peter Jurieu
1700 AD, John Asgill
1738 AD, Philip Doddridge
1748 AD, John Gill
1763 AD, James McKnight
1744 AD, Morgan Edwards
1792 AD, Thomas Scott
And then in 1830 AD, John Darby.

So you'll see, John Darby was not the originator of this doctrine.

*For more information on the Bible and the Dark Ages, look for an upcoming post titled History of the Bible.*

Not knowing (mē eidōs). Second perfect active participle of oida with mē.

That shall befall me (ta sunantēsonta emoi). Articular future active participle of sunantaō, to meet with (Act_10:25), to befall (with associative instrumental case) and compare with sumbantōn (befell) in Act_20:19. One of the rare instances of the future participle in the N.T.

John Gill
Act 20:22 And now behold, I go bound in the spirit unto Jerusalem,.... Not in his own spirit, though the Ethiopic version reads, "in my spirit"; as if he was pressed and straitened, and troubled within himself, at what afflictions and bonds he was to endure at Jerusalem; for this is not consistent with what he says in Act_20:24 nor is the sense, that he was bound in conscience and duty to go to Jerusalem, to carry the collections of the churches made for the poor saints there, which the Gentile churches importuned him to take upon him, and which he undertook, and promised to perform, and so was under obligation to do it; but rather that he was resolved and determined in his own mind, within himself, or he purposed in his spirit, as in Act_19:21 to go to Jerusalem: but it is best to understand it of the Spirit of God; as that either the apostle, by the revelation of the Spirit of God, knew that when he came to Jerusalem he should be laid in bonds, and under a deep impression of that upon his mind, he went thither, as though he was bound already; or rather that he was under such a strong impulse of the Spirit of God, by which he was moved to such a vehement desire to go thither, that the bonds and afflictions he saw waited for him there, could not deter him, and all the entreaties of his friends could not dissuade him from it:

not knowing the things that shall befall me there; that is, the particular things he should suffer there, nor how they would issue with respect to life or death; and if the latter, whether he should suffer death, there or elsewhere; these things were not as yet revealed to him; he only in general knew, that bonds and afflictions would be his lot and portion, and which therefore he excepts in the next verse: after this it was revealed to him by Agabus a prophet, in the name, and under the influence of the Holy Ghost, that he should be apprehended at Jerusalem, and should be bound and delivered to the Gentiles; which was signified by the prophet's taking his girdle and binding his hands and feet with it, but still he knew not whether he should die there or not, though he was ready for it, Act_21:10 afterwards when he was come to Jerusalem, and had been bound, and was in prison, the Lord himself appeared to him, and told him that he must bear witness at Rome, as he had testified of him at Jerusalem, Act_23:11 so that he was not to suffer death there, only bonds and imprisonment.

George Haycock
Act 20:22 Bound in the spirit, lead by inspiration of the Holy Ghost. (Witham) --- Chained, and forced, as it were, by the Holy Spirit, who offers me a sweet violence; or I am so strongly persuaded of the chains, which await me at Jerusalem, that I already feel myself bound in idea. (Calmet) --- I no go to Jerusalem for the fourth time, attracted by the Holy Ghost, who is the author and governor of all my actions, that where I have shown myself the greatest enemy of the Church, there I may suffer tribulations in defence of the same Church, and for Christ, her divine spouse. (Tirinus)

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Act 20:23
Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city, etc. — by prophetic utterances from city to city, as in Act_11:4; Act_21:10, Act_21:11. Analogous premonitions of coming events are not unknown to the general method of God’s providence. They would tend to season the apostle’s spirit.

John Gill
Act 20:23 Save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city,.... As he passed along, where there was a church, or any number of saints: in the churches of those times there were prophets who foretold things to come, and by these the Holy Ghost testified to the apostle, as he travelled along, and called upon the churches in every city, what would befall him when he came to Jerusalem; this sense the natural order of the words requires, unless there should be a transposition of them, thus, "save that the Holy Ghost witnesseth, saying, that bonds and afflictions abide me, or wait for me in every city"; that is, this in general was only made known to him by the Spirit of God, that wherever he came, affliction and persecution would attend him, and he must expect bonds and imprisonment; these were ready for him, and be must prepare for them, as he did: and therefore, whenever they came, he was not surprised at them, they were no other than what he looked for; but the other sense seems best, for such a transposition is not very easy, and, besides, can by no means be admitted, if the sense is, as the words are read in Beza's ancient copy, and in others, and in the Vulgate Latin version, "that bonds and afflictions abide me at Jerusalem"; however, since the Holy Ghost testified before hand of the afflictions and bonds of the apostle, whether in every city or in Jerusalem, or both; it is no inconsiderable proof of the proper deity of the Spirit of God, and is an instance of his affectionate regard to the apostle, to give him previous notice of these things.

Adam Clarke
Act 20:24
None of these things move me - Ουδενος λογον ποιουμαι; I consider them as nothing; I value them not a straw; they weigh not with me.

Neither count I my life dear - I am not my own; my life and being are the Lord’s; he requires me to employ them in his service; I act under his direction, and am not anxious about the issue.

Finish my course with joy - Τον δρομον μου, My ministerial function. We have already met with this word in application to the same subject, Act_13:25, where see the note. And the apostle here adds, by way of explanation, και την διακονιαν, even that ministry which I have received of the Lord. The words μετα χαρας, with joy, are omitted by ABD, some others; the Syriac, Erpen, Coptic, Sahidic, Ethiopic, Vulgate, and some of the fathers. If we consider them as genuine they may imply thus much: that the apostle wished to fulfill his ministry in such a way as might meet with the Divine approbation; for nothing could give him joy that did not please and glorify God.

To testify - Διαμαρτυρασθαι, Earnestly, solemnly, and strenuously to assert, vindicate, and prove the Gospel of the grace of God, not only to be in itself what it professes to be, but to be also the power of God for salvation to every one that believes.

Albert Barnes
Act 20:24
Move me - Alarm me, or deter me from my purpose. Greek: “I make an account of none of them.” I do not regard them as of any moment, or as worth consideration in the great purpose to which I have devoted my life.

Neither count I my life - I do not consider my life as so valuable as to be retained by turning away from bonds and persecutions. I am certain of bonds and afflictions; I am willing also, if it be necessary, to lay down my life in the prosecution of the same purpose.

Dear unto myself - So precious or valuable as to be retained at the sacrifice of duty. I am willing to sacrifice it if it be necessary. This was the spirit of the Saviour, and of all the early Christians. Duty is of more importance than life; and when either duty or life is to be sacrificed, life is to be cheerfully surrendered.

So that - This is my main object, to finish my course with joy. It is implied here:
(1) That this was the great purpose which Paul had in view.
(2) That if he should even lay down his life in this cause, it would be a finishing his course with joy. In the faithful discharge of duty, he had nothing to fear. Life would be ended with peace whenever God should require him to finish his course.

Finish my course - Close my career as an apostle and a Christian. Life is thus represented as a course, or race that is to be run, 2Ti_4:7; Heb_12:1; 1Co_9:24; Act_13:25. With joy - With the approbation of conscience and of God, with peace in the recollection of the past. Man should strive so to live that he will have nothing to regret when he lies on a bed of death. It is a glorious privilege to finish life with joy. It is most sad when the last hours are embittered with the reflection that life has been wasted. The only way in which life may be finished with joy is by meeting faithfully every duty, and encountering, as Paul did, every trial, with a constant desire to glorify God.

And the ministry - That I may fully discharge the duty of the apostolic office, the preaching of the gospel. In 2Ti_4:5, he charges Timothy to make full proof of his ministry. He here shows that this was the ruling principle of his own life.

Which I have received of the Lord Jesus - Which the Lord Jesus has committed to me, Act_9:15-17. Paul regarded his ministry as an office entrusted to him by the Lord Jesus himself. On this account he deemed it to be especially sacred, and of high authority, Gal_1:12. Every minister has been entrusted with an office by the Lord Jesus. He is not his own; and his great aim should be to discharge fully and entirely the duties of that office.

To testify the gospel - To bear witness to the good news of the favor of God. This is the great design of the ministry. It is to bear witness to a dying world of the good news that God is merciful, and that his favor may be made manifest to sinners. From this verse we may learn:
(1) That we all have a course to run, a duty to perform. Ministers have an allotted duty; and so have men in all ranks and professions.
(2) We should not be deterred by danger, or the fear of death, from the discharge of that duty. We are safe only when we are doing the will of God. We are really in danger only when we neglect our duty, and make the great God our enemy.
(3) We should so live as that the end of our course may be joy. It is, at best, a solemn thing to die; but death may be a scene of triumph and of joy.
(4) It matters little when, or where, or how we die if we die in the discharge of our duty to God. He will order the circumstances of our departure, and He can sustain us in the last conflict. Happy is that life which is spent in doing the will of God, and peaceful that death which closes a life of toil and trial in the service of the Lord Jesus.

A.T. Robertson
Act 20:25
And now, behold (kai nun, idou). Second time and solemn reminder as in Act_20:22.

I know (egō oida). Emphasis on egō which is expressed.

Ye all (humeis pantes). In very emphatic position after the verb opsesthe (shall see) and the object (my face). Twice Paul will write from Rome (Phi_2:24; Phm_1:22) the hope of coming east again; but that is in the future, and here Paul is expressing his personal conviction and his fears. The Pastoral Epistles show Paul did come to Ephesus again (1Ti_1:3; 1Ti_3:14; 1Ti_4:13) and Troas (2Ti_4:13) and Miletus (2Ti_4:20). There need be no surprise that Paul’s fears turned out otherwise. He had reason enough for them.
Among whom I went about (en hois diēlthon). Apparently Paul here has in mind others beside the ministers. They represented the church in Ephesus and the whole region where Paul laboured.

Albert Barnes
Act 20:25
I know that ye all - Perhaps this means simply, “I have no expectation of seeing you again; I have every reason to suppose that this is my final interview with you.” He expected to visit Ephesus no more. The journey to Jerusalem was dangerous. Trials and persecutions he knew awaited him. Besides, it is evident that he designed to turn his attention to other countries, and to visit Rome; and probably he had already formed the purpose of going into Spain. See Act_19:21; compare Rom_15:23-28. From all these considerations it is evident that he had no expectation of being again at Ephesus. It is probable, however, that he did again return to that city. See the notes on Act_28:31.

Among whom I have gone preaching - Among whom I have preached. The parting of a minister and people is among the most tender and affecting of the separations that occur on earth.

The kingdom of God - Making known the nature of the reign of God on earth by the Messiah. See the notes on Mat_3:2.

John Gill
Act 21:17 And when we were come to Jerusalem,.... That is, Paul and his companions, attended with the disciples of Caesarea, and Mnason the old disciple with them:

the brethren received us gladly; readily, willingly, and cheerfully; they did not treat them with an air of coldness and indifference, or look shy on them, or show any resentment to them, notwithstanding the various reports which had been brought them, concerning the ministry of the apostle among the Gentiles.

A.T. Robertson Act 21:18
The day following (tēi epiousēi). As in Act_20:15 which see.

Went in (eisēiei). Imperfect active of eiseimi, old classic verb used only four times in the N.T. (Act_3:3; Act_21:18, Act_21:26; Heb_9:6), a mark of the literary style rather than the colloquial Koiné[28928]š use of eiserchomai. Together with us to James (sun hēmin pros Iakōbon). So then Luke is present. The next use of “we” is in Act_27:1 when they leave Caesarea for Rome, but it is not likely that Luke was away from Paul in Jerusalem and Caesarea. The reports of what was done and said in both places is so full and minute that it seems reasonable that Luke got first hand information here whatever his motive was for so full an account of these legal proceedings to be discussed later. There are many details that read like an eye witness’s story (Act_21:30, Act_21:35, Act_21:40; Act_22:2, Act_22:3; Act_23:12, etc.). It was probably the house of James (pros and para so used often).

And all the elders were present (pantes te paregenonto hoi presbuteroi). Clearly James is the leading elder and the others are his guests in a formal reception to Paul. It is noticeable that the apostles are not mentioned, though both elders and apostles are named at the Conference in Acts chapter 15. It would seem that the apostles are away on preaching tours. The whole church was not called together probably because of the known prejudice against Paul created by the Judaizers.

John Gill
Act 21:18 And the day following,.... After they were come into Jerusalem:

Paul went in with us to James; not the son of Zebedee and brother of John, for he was killed by Herod some years ago; but James the son of Alphaeus, and brother of our Lord, who presided over this church; it seems there were no other apostles now at Jerusalem, but they were all dispersed abroad that were living, preaching the Gospel in the several parts of the world: Paul took the first opportunity Of paying a visit to James, very likely at his own house, to give him an account of his success among the Gentiles, and to know the state of the church at Jerusalem, and confer with him about what might be most proper and serviceable to promote the interest of Christ; and he took with him those who had been companions with him in his travels, partly to show respect to James, and partly to be witnesses of what he should relate unto him:

and all the elders were present: by whom are meant, not the ancient private members of the church, but the ministers of the word in this church: who hearing of the coming of the apostle, and of his visit to James, assembled together to see him, and converse with him.

John Gill
Act 21:19 And when he had saluted them,.... James and the elders with him; which was either done by a kiss, as the Arabic version adds; or by asking of their health, and wishing a continuance of it, and all prosperity to attend them: the Ethiopic version reads,

they saluted him; and no doubt the salutations were reciprocal:

he declared particularly what things God had wrought among the Gentiles by his ministry; it is very likely that this account begins where that ends, which he had delivered in the presence of James, and others, some years ago, Act_15:12 and takes in all his travels and ministry, and the success of it; not only in Syria, Cilicia, and Lycaonia, after he had set out from Antioch again, but in Macedonia, Achaia, and Asia; as at Philippi, Thessalonica, Berea, Athens, Corinth, Ephesus, and elsewhere: he declared, what multitudes of souls were converted, and what numbers of churches were planted; and this he ascribes not to himself, but to the power and grace of God, which had attended his ministry; he was only an instrument, God was the efficient, and ought to have the glory.

Act 21:20
Glorified (edoxazon). Inchoative imperfect, began to glorify God, though without special praise of Paul.

How many thousands (posai muriades). Old word for ten thousand (Act_19:19) and then an indefinite number like our “myriads” (this very word) as Luk_12:1; Act_21:20; Jud_1:14; Rev_5:11; Rev_9:16. But it is a surprising statement even with allowable hyperbole, but one may recall Act_4:4 (number of the men--not women--about five thousand); Act_5:14 (multitudes both of men and women); Act_6:7. There were undoubtedly a great many thousands of believers in Jerusalem and all Jewish Christians, some, alas, Judaizers (Act_11:2; Act_15:1, Act_15:5). This list may include the Christians from neighbouring towns in Palestine and even some from foreign countries here at the Feast of Pentecost, for it is probable that Paul arrived in time for it as he had hoped. But we do not have to count the hostile Jews from Asia (Act_21:27) who were clearly not Christians at all.

All zealous for the law (pantes zēlōtai tou nomou). Zealots (substantive) rather than zealous (adjective) with objective genitive (tou nomou). The word zealot is from zēloō, to burn with zeal, to boil. The Greek used zēlōtēs for an imitator or admirer. There was a party of Zealots (developed from the Pharisees), a group of what would be called “hot-heads,” who brought on the war with Rome. One of this party, Simon Zelotes (Act_1:13), was in the number of the twelve apostles. It is important to understand the issues in Jerusalem. It was settled at the Jerusalem Conference (Acts 15; Galatians 2) that the Mosaic ceremonial law was not to be imposed upon Gentile Christians. Paul won freedom for them, but it was not said that it was wrong for Jewish Christians to go on observing it if they wished. We have seen Paul observing the passover in Philippi (Act_20:6) and planning to reach Jerusalem for Pentecost (Act_20:16). The Judaizers rankled under Paul’s victory and power in spreading the gospel among the Gentiles and gave him great trouble in Galatia and Corinth. They were busy against him in Jerusalem also and it was to undo the harm done by them in Jerusalem that Paul gathered the great collection from the Gentile Christians and brought it with him and the delegates from the churches. Clearly then Paul had real ground for his apprehension of trouble in Jerusalem while still in Corinth (Rom_15:25) when he asked for the prayers of the Roman Christians (Rom_15:30-32). The repeated warnings along the way were amply justified.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:20
They glorified the Lord - They gave praise to the Lord for what he had done. They saw new proofs of his goodness and mercy, and they rendered him thanks for all that had been accomplished. There was no jealousy that it had been done by the instrumentality of Paul. True piety will rejoice in the spread of the gospel, and in the conversion of sinners, by whatever instrumentality it may be effected.

Thou seest, brother - The language of tenderness in this address, recognizing Paul as a fellow-laborer and fellow-Christian, implies a wish that Paul would do all that could be done to avoid giving offence, and to conciliate the favor of his countrymen.

How many thousands - The number of converts at this time must have been very great. Twenty-five years before this, 3,000 had been converted at one time Acts 2, and afterward the number had swelled to some more thousands, Act_4:4. The assertion that there were then “many thousands,” implies that the work so signally begun on the day of Pentecost in Jerusalem had not ceased, and that many more had been converted to the Christian faith.

Which believe - Who are Christians. They are spoken of as believers, or as having faith in Christ, in contradistinction from those who rejected him, and whose characteristic trait it was that they were unbelievers.

And they are all zealous of the law - They still observe the Law of Moses. The reference here is to the law respecting circumcision, sacrifices, distinctions of meats and days, festivals, etc. It may seem remarkable that they should still continue to observe those rites, since it was the manifest design of Christianity to abolish them. But we are to remember:
(1) That those rites had been appointed by God, and that they were trained to their observance.
(2) That the apostles conformed to them while they remained at Jerusalem, and did not deem it best to set themselves violently against them, Act_3:1; Luk_24:53.
(3) That the question about their observance had never been agitated at Jerusalem. It was only among the Gentile converts that the question had risen, and there it must arise, for if they were to be observed, they must have been imposed upon them by authority.
(4) The decision of the council Acts 15 related only to the Gentile converts. It did not touch the question whether those rites were to be observed by the Jewish converts.
(5) It was to be presumed that as the Christian religion became better understood - that as its large, free, and catholic nature became more and more developed, the special institutions of Moses would be laid aside of course, without agitation and without tumult. Had the question been agitated at Jerusalem, it would have excited tenfold opposition to Christianity, and would have rent the Christian church into factions, and greatly retarded the advance of the Christian doctrine. We are to remember also:
(6) That, in the arrangement of Divine Providence, the time was drawing near which was to destroy the temple, the city, and the nation, which was to put an end to sacrifices, and effectually to close forever the observance of the Mosaic rites. As this destruction was so near, and as it would be so effectual an argument against the observance of the Mosaic rites, the Great Head of the church did not suffer the question of their obligation to be needlessly agitated among the disciples at Jerusalem.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:21
They have been informed concerning thee (katēchēthēsan peri sou). First aorist passive indicative of katēcheō. A word in the ancient Greek, but a few examples survive in the papyri. It means to sound (echo, from ēchō, our word) down (kata), to resound, re-echo, to teach orally. Oriental students today (Arabs learning the Koran) often study aloud. In the N.T. only in Luk_1:4 which see; Act_18:25; Act_21:21; 1Co_14:19; Gal_6:6; Rom_2:18. This oral teaching about Paul was done diligently by the Judaizers who had raised trouble against Peter (Act_11:2) and Paul (Act_15:1, Act_15:5). They had failed in their attacks on Paul’s world campaigns. Now they try to undermine him at home. In Paul’s long absence from Jerusalem, since Act_18:22, they have had a free hand, save what opposition James would give, and have had great success in prejudicing the Jerusalem Christians against Paul. So James, in the presence of the other elders and probably at their suggestion, feels called upon to tell Paul the actual situation.

That thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses (hoti apostasian didaskeis apo Mōuseōs tous kata ta ethnē pantas Ioudaious). Two accusatives with didaskeis (verb of teaching) according to rule. Literally, “That thou art teaching all the Jews among (kata) the Gentiles (the Jews of the dispersion as in Act_2:9) apostasy from Moses.” That is the point, the dreadful word apostasian (our apostasy), a late form (I Macc. Jam_2:15) for the earlier apostasis (cf. 2Th_2:3 for apostasia). “In the eyes of the church at Jerusalem this was a far more serious matter than the previous question at the Conference about the status of Gentile converts” (Furneaux). Paul had brought that issue to the Jerusalem Conference because of the contention of the Judaizers. But here it is not the Judaizers, but the elders of the church with James as their spokesman on behalf of the church as a whole. They do not believe this false charge, but they wish Paul to set it straight. Paul had made his position clear in his Epistles (I Corinthians, Galatians, Romans) for all who cared to know.

Telling them not to circumcise their children (legōn mē peritemnein autous ta tekna). The participle legōn agrees with “thou” (Paul), the subject of didaskeis. This is not indirect assertion, but indirect command, hence the negative mē instead of ou with the infinitive (Robertson, Grammar, p.1046). The point is not that Paul stated what the Jewish Christians in the dispersion do, but that he says that they (autous accusative of general reference) are not to go on circumcising (peritemnein, present active infinitive) their children. Paul taught the very opposite (1Co_7:18 ) and had Timothy circumcised (Act_16:3) because he was half Jew and half Greek. His own practice is stated in 1Co_9:19 (“to the Jews as a Jew”).

Neither to walk after the customs (mēde tois ethesin peripatein). Locative case with infinitive peripatein. The charge was here enlarged to cover it all and to make Paul out an enemy of Jewish life and teachings. That same charge had been made against Stephen when young Saul (Paul) was the leader (Act_6:14): “Will change the customs (ethē the very word used here) which Moses delivered unto us.” It actually seemed that some of the Jews cared more for Moses than for God (Act_6:11). So much for the charge of the Judaizers.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:21
And they are informed of thee - Reports respecting the conduct of Paul would be likely to be in circulation among all at Jerusalem. His remarkable conversion, his distinguished zeal, his success among the Gentiles, would make his conduct a subject of special interest. Evil-minded men among the Jews, who came up to Jerusalem from different places where he had been, would be likely to represent him as the decided enemy of the laws of Moses, and these reports would be likely to reach the ears of the Jewish converts. The reports, as they gained ground, would be greatly magnified, until suspicion might be excited among the Christians at Jerusalem that he was, as he was reputed to be, the settled foe of the Jewish rites and customs.

That thou teachest all the Jews ... - From all the evidence which we have of his conduct, this report was incorrect and slanderous. The truth appears to have been, that he did not enjoin the observance of those laws on the Gentile converts; that the effect of his ministry on them was to lead them to suppose that their observance was not necessary - contrary to the doctrines of the Judaizing teachers (see Acts 15); and that he argued with the Jews themselves, where it could be done, against the obligation of those laws and customs since the Messiah had come. The Jews depended on their observance for justification and salvation. This Paul strenuously opposed; and this view he defended at length in the Epistles which he wrote. See the Epistles to the Romans, the Galatians, and the Hebrews. Yet these facts might be easily misunderstood and perverted, so as to give rise to the slanderous report that he was the enemy of Moses and the Law.

Which are among the Gentiles - Who live in pagan countries. The Jews were extensively scattered and settled in all the large towns and cities of the Roman empire.

To forsake Moses - The Law and the authority of Moses. That is, to regard his laws as no longer binding.

To walk after the customs - To observe the institutions of the Mosaic ritual. See the notes on Act_6:14. The word “customs” denotes “the rites of the Mosaic economy the offering of sacrifices, incense, the oblations, anointings, festivals, etc., which the Law of Moses prescribed.”

Albert Barnes
Act 21:22
What is it therefore? - What is to be done? What is it proper to do to avoid the effects of the evil report which has been circulated? What they deemed it proper to do is suggested in the following verses.

The multitude - The multitude of Jews.

Must needs come together - There will be inevitably a tumultuous assemblage. It will be impossible to prevent that. The reasons were, because the minds of the Jews were exceedingly agitated that one of their own countrymen had, as they understood, been advising apostasy from the religion of their fathers; because this had been extensively done in many parts of the world, and with great success; and because Paul, having, as they believed, himself apostatized from the national religion, had become very conspicuous, and his very presence in Jerusalem, as in other places, would be likely to excite a tumult. It was, therefore, the part of friendship to him and to the cause to devise some proper plan to prevent, if possible, the anticipated excitement.

Adam Clarke
Act 21:23
We have four men which have a vow - From the shaving of the head, mentioned immediately after, it is evident that the four men in question were under the vow of Nazariteship; and that the days of their vow were nearly at an end, as they were about to shave their heads; for, during the time of the Nazariteship, the hair was permitted to grow, and only shaven off at the termination of the vow. Among the Jews, it was common to make vows to God on extraordinary occasions; and that of the Nazarite appears to have been one of the most common; and it was permitted by their law for any person to perform this vow by proxy. See the law produced in my note on Num_6:21 (note). “It was also customary for the richer sort to bestow their charity on the poorer sort for this purpose; for Josephus, Ant. lib. xix. cap. 6, sec. 1, observes that Agrippa, on his being advanced from a prison to a throne, by the Emperor Claudius, came to Jerusalem; and there, among other instances of his religious thankfulness shown in the temple, Ναζαραιων ξυρασθαι διεταξε μαλα συχνους, he ordered very many Nazarites to be shaven, he furnishing them with money for the expenses of that, and of the sacrifices necessarily attending it.” See Bp. Pearce.

John Gill
Act 21:24 Them take, and purify, thyself with them,.... That is, join thyself to them, make one of their number, and attend to the rules prescribed to a Nazarite, who is to be holy to the Lord; and in case of any ceremonial uncleanness, is to be cleansed, or purified in the manner directed, Num_6:5.

And be at charges with them; join with them in the expense, for the offerings to be made at the end of the vows, or when the days of separation are fulfilled, Num_6:13.

That they may shave their heads; according to the law in Num_6:18. This was done in לשכת הנזירים, the chamber of the Nazarites (r); for there the Nazarites boiled their peace offerings, and shaved their hair, and put it under the pot, in the fire that was under it: Maimonides says (s),

"if he shaved in the city it was excusable; but whether he shaved in the city or in the sanctuary, under the pot his hair must be cast; and he did not shave until the door of the court was opened, as it is said, "at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation", Num_6:18 not that he shaved over against the door, for that would be a contempt of the sanctuary.''

Moreover, it may be observed, that a person who had not made a vow, or fulfilled a Nazariteship himself, which was the apostle's case, yet he might join in bearing the expenses of others, at the time of their shaving and cleansing: for so run the Jewish canons (t);

"he that says, upon me be the shaving of a Nazarite, he is bound to bring the offerings of shaving for purification, and he may offer them by the hand of what Nazarite he pleases; he that says, upon me be half the offerings of a Nazarite, or if he says, upon me be half the shaving of a Nazarite, he brings half the offerings by what Nazarite he will, and that Nazarite perfects his offerings out of that which is his.''

That all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing; that there is no truth in them; that they are mere lies and calumnies; as they will easily judge by this single instance, in complying with the law concerning a Nazarite's vow:

but that thou thyself walkest orderly, and keepest the law; and therefore can never be thought to teach others to walk disorderly, or to neglect the law, the rites and customs of it.

(r) T. Bab. Yoma, fol. 16. 1. (s) Hilchot Nezirut, c. 8. sect. 3. (t) Hilchot Nezirut, c. 8. sect. 18.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:25
We wrote (epesteilamen). First aorist active of epistellō, to send to and so to write like our epistle (epistolē). Old verb, but in the N.T. only here and Act_15:20; Heb_13:22. It is the very word used by James in this “judgment” at the Conference (Act_15:20, episteilai). B D here read apesteilamen from apostellō, to send away, to give orders. Wendt and Schuerer object to this as a gloss. Rather is it an explanation by James that he does not refer to the Gentile Christians whose freedom from the Mosaic ceremonial law was guaranteed at the Jerusalem Conference. James himself presided at that Conference and offered the resolution that was unanimously adopted. James stands by that agreement and repeats the main items (four: anything sacrificed to idols, blood, anything strangled, fornication, for discussion see note on Acts 15) from which they are to keep themselves (direct middle phulassesthai of phulass, indirect command after krinantes with accusative, autous, of general reference). James has thus again cleared the air about the Gentiles who have believed (pepisteukotōn, perfect active participle genitive plural of pisteuō). He asks that Paul will stand by the right of Jewish Christians to keep on observing the Mosaic law. He has put the case squarely and fairly.

John Gill
Act 21:25 As touching the Gentiles which believe,.... This is said, to show that the Jews were not offended with Paul, for not insisting upon the circumcision of the believing Gentiles, and their conformity to the ceremonial law; and to remove an objection that Paul might make, that should he comply with this advice, and the believing Gentiles should hear of it, it might be a stumblingblock and a snare to them; who by his example, might think themselves obliged to regard the law: Beza's ancient copy adds, "they have nothing to say to thee"; for as it follows,

we have written and concluded; some years ago, at a meeting of the apostles, elders, and brethren at Jerusalem, when Paul was present; and of which he reminds him, to prevent any objection of this kind; where it was unanimously agreed on and determined,

that they observe no such things; as circumcision, and other rites and customs of the law, and particularly the vow of the Nazarite, which Gentiles are free from: hence it is said (u),

"Gentiles have no Nazariteship;''

upon which one of the commentators says (w), if a Gentile vows Nazariteship, the law of the Nazarite does not fall upon him, he is not obliged to it:

save only that they keep themselves from things offered to idols, &c. see Act_15:19.

(u) Misna Nazir, c. 9. sect. 1. (w) Bartenora in Misn. Nazir, c. 9. sect. 1.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:25
As touching the Gentiles - In regard to the Gentile converts. It might be expedient for Paul to do what could not be enjoined on the Gentiles. They could not command the Gentile converts to observe those ceremonies, while yet it might be proper, for the sake of peace, that the converts to Christianity from among the Jews should regard them. The conduct of the Christians at Jerusalem in giving this advice, and of Paul in following it, may be easily vindicated. If it be objected, as it has been by infidels, that it looks like double-dealing; that it was designed to deceive the Jews in Jerusalem, and to make them believe that Paul actually conformed to the ceremonial law, when his conduct among the Gentiles showed that he did not, we may reply:
(1) That the observance of that law was not necessary in order to salvation;
(2) That it would have been improper to have enjoined its observance on the Gentile converts as necessary, and therefore it was never done;
(3) That when the Jews urged its observance as necessary to justification and salvation, Paul strenuously opposed this view of it everywhere;
(4) Yet that, as a matter of expediency, he did not oppose its being observed either by the Jews, or by the converts made among the Jews.

In fact, there is other evidence besides the case before us that Paul himself continued to observe some, at least, of the Jewish rites, and his conduct in public at Jerusalem was in strict accordance with his conduct in other places. See Act_18:18. The sum of the whole matter is this, that when the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law was urged as necessary to justification and acceptance with God, Paul resisted it; when it was demanded that its observance should be enjoined on the Gentiles, he opposed it; in all other cases he made no opposition to it, and was ready himself to comply with it, and willing that others should also.

We have written - Act_15:20, Act_15:29.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:26
Took the men (paralabōn tous andras). The very phrase used in Act_21:24to Paul.

The next day (tēi echomenēi). One of the phrases in Act_20:15 for the coming day. Locative case of time.

Purifying himself with them (sun autois hagnistheis, first aorist passive participle of hagnizō). The precise language again of the recommendation in Act_21:24. Paul was conforming to the letter.

Went into the temple (eisēiei eis to hieron). Imperfect active of eiseimi as in Act_21:18which see. Went on into the temple, descriptive imperfect. Paul joined the four men in their vow of separation.

Declaring (diaggellōn). To the priests what day he would report the fulfilment of the vow. The priests would desire notice of the sacrifice. This verb only used by Luke in N.T. except Rom_11:17 (quotation from the lxx). It is not necessary to assume that the vows of each of the five expired on the same day (Rackham).

Until the offering was offered for every one of them (heōs hou prosēnechthē huper henos hekastou autōn hē prosphora). This use of heōs hou (like heōs, alone) with the first aorist passive indicative prosēnechthē of prospherō, to offer, contemplates the final result (Robertson, Grammar, pp. 974f.) and is probably the statement of Luke added to Paul’s announcement. He probably went into the temple one day for each of the brethren and one for himself. The question arises whether Paul acted wisely or unwisely in agreeing to the suggestion of James. What he did was in perfect harmony with his principle of accommodation in 1Co_9:20 when no principle was involved. It is charged that here on this occasion Paul was unduly influenced by considerations of expediency and was willing for the Jewish Christians to believe him more of a Jew than was true in order to placate the situation in Jerusalem. Furneaux calls it a compromise and a failure. I do not so see it. To say that is to obscure the whole complex situation. What Paul did was not for the purpose of conciliating his opponents, the Judaizers, who had diligently spread falsehoods about him in Jerusalem as in Corinth. It was solely to break the power of these “false apostles” over the thousands in Jerusalem who have been deluded by Paul’s accusers. So far as the evidence goes that thing was accomplished. In the trouble that comes in Jerusalem and Caesarea the Judaizers cut no figure at all. The Jewish Christians do not appear in Paul’s behalf, but there was no opportunity for them to do so. The explosion that came on the last day of Paul’s appearance in the temple was wholly disconnected from his offerings for the four brethren and himself. It must be remembered that Paul had many kinds of enemies. The attack on him by these Jews from Asia had no connexion whatever with the slanders of the Judaizers about Paul’s alleged teachings that Jewish Christians in the dispersion should depart from the Mosaic law. That slander was put to rest forever by his following the advice of James and justifies the wisdom of that advice and Paul’s conduct about it.

Albert Barnes
Act 21:26
Then Paul took the men - Took them to himself; united with them in observing the ceremonies connected with their vow. To transactions like this he refers in 1Co_9:20; “And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the Law, as under the Law, that I might gain them that are under the Law.” Thus, it has always been found necessary, in propagating the gospel among the pagan, not to offend them needlessly, but to conform to their innocent customs in regard to dress, language, modes of traveling, sitting, eating, etc. Paul did nothing more than this. He violated none of the dictates of honesty and truth.

Purifying himself with them - Observing the ceremonies connected with the rite of purification. See the notes on Act_21:24. This means evidently that he entered on the ceremonies of the separation according to the law of the Nazarite.

To signify - Greek: signifying or making known. That is, he announced to the priests in the temple his purpose of observing this vow with the four men, according to the law respecting the Nazarite. It was proper that such an announcement should be made beforehand, in order that the priests might know that all the ceremonies required had been observed.

The accomplishment ... - The fulfilling, the completion. That is, he announced to them his purpose to observe all the days and all the rites of purification required in the Law, in order that an offering might be properly made. It does not mean that the days had been accomplished, but that it was his intention to observe them, so that it would be proper to offer the usual sacrifice. Paul had not, indeed, engaged with them in the beginning of their vow of separation, but he might come in with hearty intention to share with them. It cannot be objected that he meant to impose on the priests, and to make them believe that he had observed the whole vow with them, for it appears from their own writings (Bereshith Rabba, 90, and Koheleth Rabba, 7) that in those instances where the Nazarites had not sufficient property to enable them to meet the whole expense of the offerings, other persons, who possessed more, might become sharers of it, and thus be made parties to the vow. See Jahn’s Archaeology, §395. This circumstance will vindicate Paul from any intention to take an improper advantage, or to impose on the priests or the Jews. All that he announced was his intention to share with the four men in the offering which they were required to make, and thus to show his approval of the thing, and his accordance with the law which made such a vow proper.

Until that an offering ... - The sacrifices required of all those who had observed this vow. See the notes on Act_21:24. Compare Num_6:13. It is a complete vindication of Paul in this case that he did no more here than he had done in a voluntary manner Act_18:18, and as appears then in a secret manner, showing that he was still in the practice of observing this rite of the Mosaic institution. Nor can it be proved that Paul ever, in any way, or at any time, spoke against the vow of the Nazarite, or that a vow of a similar kind in spirit would be improper for a Christian in any circumstances.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:27
The seven days (hai hepta hēmerai). For which Paul had taken the vow, though there may be an allusion to the pentecostal week for which Paul had desired to be present (Act_20:16). There is no necessary connexion with the vow in Act_18:15. In Act_24:17 Paul makes a general reference to his purpose in coming to Jerusalem to bring alms and offerings (prosphoras, sacrifices). Paul spent seven days in Troas (Act_20:6), Tyre (Act_21:4), and had planned for seven here if not more. It was on the last of the seven days when Paul was completing his offerings about the vows on all five that the incident occurred that was to make him a prisoner for five years.

When they saw him in the temple (theasamenoi auton en tōi hierōi). First aorist middle participle of theaomai (from thea, a view, cf. theatre) to behold. In the very act of honouring the temple these Jews from Asia raise a hue and cry that he is dishonouring it. Paul was not known by face now to many of the Jerusalem Jews, though once the leader of the persecution after the death of Stephen and the outstanding young Jew of the day. But the Jews in Ephesus knew him only too well, some of whom are here at the pentecostal feast. They had plotted against him in Ephesus to no purpose (Acts 19:23-41; Act_20:19), but now a new opportunity had come. It is possible that the cry was led by Alexander put forward by the Jews in Ephesus (Act_19:33) who may be the same as Alexander the coppersmith who did Paul so much harm (2Ti_4:14). Paul was not in the inner sanctuary (ho naos), but only in the outer courts (to hieron).

Stirred up all the multitude (sunecheon panta ton ochlon). Imperfect (kept on) active of suncheō or sunchunō (̇unnō), to pour together, to confuse as in Act_2:6; Act_9:22; Act_19:31, Act_19:32; Act_21:31 and here to stir up by the same sort of confusion created by Demetrius in Ephesus where the same word is used twice (Act_19:31, Act_19:32). The Jews from Ephesus had learned it from Demetrius the silversmith.

Laid hands on him (epebalan ep' auton tas cheiras). Second aorist (ingressive, with endings of the first aorist, ̇an) active indicative of epiballō, old verb to lay upon, to attack (note repetition of epi). They attacked and seized Paul before the charge was made.

A.T. Robertson
Act 21:28
Help (boētheite). Present active imperative of boētheō, to run (theō) at a cry (boē), as if an outrage had been committed like murder or assault.

All men everywhere (panta pantachēi). Alliterative. Pantachēi is a variation in MSS., often pantachou, and here only in the N.T. The charges against Paul remind one of those against Stephen (Act_6:13) in which Paul had participated according to his confession (Act_22:20). Like the charges against Stephen and Jesus before him truth and falsehood are mixed. Paul had said that being a Jew would not save a man. He had taught the law of Moses was not binding on Gentiles. He did hold, like Jesus and Stephen, that the temple was not the only place to worship God. But Paul gloried himself in being a Jew, considered the Mosaic law righteous for Jews, and was honouring the temple at this very moment.

And moreover also he brought Greeks also into the temple (eti te kai Hellēnas eisēgagen eis to hieron). Note the three particles (eti te kai), and (te) still more (eti) also or even (kai). Worse than his teaching (didaskōn) is his dreadful deed: he actually brought (eisēgagen, second aorist active indicative of eisagō). This he had a right to do if they only went into the court of the Gentiles. But these Jews mean to imply that Paul had brought Greeks beyond this court into the court of Israel. An inscription was found by Clermont-Ganneau in Greek built into the walls of a mosque on the Via Dolorosa that was on the wall dividing the court of Israel from the court of the Gentiles. Death was the penalty to any Gentile who crossed over into the Court of Israel (The Athenaeum, July, 1871).

Hath defiled this holy place (keKoinōken ton hagion topon touton). Present perfect active of Koinoō, to make common (See note on Act_10:14). Note vivid change of tense, the defilement lasts (state of completion). All this is the substance of the call of these shrewd conspirators from Ephesus, Jews (not Jewish Christians, not even Judaizers) who hated him for his work there and who probably “spoke evil of the Way before the multitude” there so that Paul had to separate the disciples from the synagogue and go to the School of Tyrannus (Act_19:9.). These enemies of Paul had now raised the cry of “fire” and vanish from the scene completely (Act_24:19). This charge was absolutely false as we shall see, made out of inferences of hate and suspicion.

John Gill
Act 21:28 Crying out, men of Israel, help,.... The Ar