The boy Samuel ministered to the Lord under Eli, and "the word of the Lord was rare in those days"; there were not many visions (a paraphrase of 1 Samuel 3:1).

A discussion among charismatics can lead to the argument that the Lord is the same yesterday, today, and forever — implying that there is no difference between how God operates today and how He operated in the past, so that just as God spoke to people then, He speaks now and will continue to do so. But there are plenty of stories of people speaking for God when God had not spoken, and of times when great things happened with no recorded word from God at all (as in Esther). And here we have a recorded period when the word of God was uncommon and visions were not the norm. To say that we now live in a time when the Spirit has been quiet in terms of words and visions is not unprecedented.

God is absolutely still orchestrating events and speaking to our hearts, shaping us and guiding our decisions. And to some He still comes and gives visions that lead to conversion. Perhaps, though, it is not like what we see in the Exodus or in the portions of Kings dealing with Elijah and Elisha; perhaps we live in a time more like the days of Eli, or Esther, or Nehemiah.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The observation that miraculous activity in Scripture comes in clusters is a well-recognized one. The great concentrations of signs occur around Moses and the Exodus, around Elijah and Elisha, and around Jesus and the apostles — with long stretches in between, like the period the comment points to, where God works quietly through ordinary providence. Esther is the clearest example: God's name never appears in the book, yet the story is full of timing that readers of every generation have seen as His hand.

It is worth noticing why the word was rare in Samuel's childhood. The preceding chapter describes Eli's sons abusing the priesthood and Eli failing to restrain them (1 Samuel 2:12–17, 22–25), and the chapter itself ends with the word of the Lord becoming common again through Samuel (3:19–21). The scarcity of revelation is presented less as a set dispensation than as connected to the spiritual condition of Israel's leadership — and God broke the silence by calling a child in the night.

Christians differ on how to apply this. Continuationists hold that the Spirit's gifts, including prophecy, continue in the church; cessationists hold that revelatory gifts ended with the apostolic era; and many in between hold, much as the comment does, that God still speaks and acts but that the pattern of the great sign-periods should not be expected as the norm. These are good-faith positions (see #1283, #1518), and the comment's instinct to test claims against Scripture is shared across them.

But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “I will not go up until the child is weaned; then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord and stay there forever" (1 Samuel 1:22).

A child was weaned when he was transitioned from his mother's milk to other foods. A casual search on the internet revealed that Hebrew boys were weaned at around two years of age. This could mean that Hannah gave up Samuel to Eli and the LORD's service from the age of two.

How hard it must have been for her to let her child, and at the time, her only child, go from her side. But she considered Samuel the answer to her prayers, and she had taken an oath to give him to the LORD (1 Samuel 1:11; 2:20).

Now, after this, we discover that God opened Hannah's womb to have other children. What is more, we learn,

And the boy Samuel grew before the LORD" (1 Samuel 2:21).

Again, in contrast to the unfaithful sons of Eli, we learn this about Samuel:

Now the boy Samuel was growing in stature and in favor both with the Lord and with men (1 Samuel 2:26).

And as Samuel continued to grow in stature, we get this witness about him:

Thus Samuel grew and the Lord was with him and let none of his words fail (1 Samuel 3:19).

Although we hear no more of Hannah beyond the record of her having other children after Samuel, I can't help but think of a mother's pride in knowing that her firstborn had such character and stature before the LORD and before the nation. Would this be your greatest joy for your child? That your child would be known for their faithfulness to the LORD and their integrity?

Friends, I encourage you to read my former comments (sharing from Yujin on April 5, 2012), where I touch on the true priority of Christian parenting. Today, I reiterate the point I made a year ago by asking, "What is your priority in raising your children?" As I have shared elsewhere, there is one overarching command that God gives to parents in the New Testament:

Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

As the expression "man" is often inclusive of men and women, the expression "fathers" is probably also inclusive of fathers and mothers and so may be simply translated as "parents". In this command there is something NOT to do and something TO DO.

Parents are NOT to exasperate their children. Some translations interpret this as "do not provoke your children to anger." The word for "exasperate" or "provoke to anger" is used in Ephesians 6:4 and Romans 10:19, so its exact force should be considered in context; however, the immediate context suggests that the meaning is closer to "exasperate," with the connotation of "frustrate" or "overburden" as it stands in contrast to the positive instruction to "bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord." This is very parallel to a similar instruction in the Old Testament (cf. Deuteronomy 6:4–9), where parents are instructed to guide their children in a singular and exclusive devotion to God and an immersive training in the Word of God.

Today, as I see parents trying to get their children exposed to this or that sport, instrument, or other extracurricular activity, they may be exasperating their children. This would be particularly true if there is not an equal or greater attention given to their spiritual and moral instruction. Now, if your child is very young, it is understandable that such instruction may be difficult; however, if they are older and can comprehend these things, then the emphasis for them should be on these spiritual and moral principles rather than on worldly education and pursuits.

The command for Christian parents is not to neglect other training and education for their children but to FOCUS their time, energy, and attention on the training and instruction of the Lord. In other words, if your children are too busy with other things, so that they do not have time to learn God's Word, then they are too busy. You may be guilty of "exasperating" them with secondary things when only one thing is really important.

I know that when parents load their kids with lots of school and extra-curricular activities, they do so because they want what's best for their kids, but I believe this arises out of an ignorance of what God has said in His Word.

If we only take a moment to reflect on our own lives, we might see how we are simply projecting our own busy and exasperated lives onto our children. We complain again and again of not being focused on the Lord, of how we need to spend more time in His Word, of how we need to seek Him above all things and to not worry about things. Yet, here we are, filling our kids' lives with the very same attitude and experiences that take God and His Word and His mission out of focus.

Friends, join me in beginning to change this self-destructive pattern in our generation. Let us obey God's command and make as our focus for our children to raise them in the training and instruction of the Lord.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Hannah's decision to bring Samuel to the sanctuary expresses the seriousness of the vow she made in prayer. The child is received as a gift and then entrusted to the service she had promised. First Samuel also records her continuing care through the robe she brings him each year. Dedication does not mean emotional indifference or the disappearance of maternal love. The narrative holds costly commitment and sustained affection together.

Samuel's exact age is not given. The reference to weaning establishes a stage of childhood, but a casual estimate of ancient practice cannot make two years a certain date. Nor is Hannah's particular arrangement a general command that parents surrender young children to religious institutions. Her vow belongs to this distinctive story. The transferable concern is the willingness to place a child's relationship with God above parental ambitions while continuing to provide responsible care.

The repeated notices about Samuel's growth contrast with the abuse practiced by Eli's sons. The sanctuary is not automatically a morally safe setting simply because sacred duties occur there. Samuel grows before the Lord within an environment that also contains serious corruption. His story should therefore encourage trust in God's work without making parents careless about the conduct of religious leaders. Entrusting a child to spiritual instruction still requires attention to truthfulness, accountability, and protection.

The linguistic argument concerning Ephesians 6:4 needs precision. “Fathers” is the natural rendering of the word in this household context, though the responsibilities of nurture have implications for mothers as well. It is not necessary to erase the specific address to fathers in order to recognize shared parental care. The verb for provoking to anger also occurs in Romans 10:19, so its meaning is not based on a single occurrence. The Greek entry for parorgizo confirms that wider usage. Context and related passages, especially Colossians 3:21, support a warning against treatment that breeds anger and discouragement.

An overloaded schedule may contribute to such frustration, as the original suggests, but it is not the only or required meaning of Paul's command. Humiliation, favoritism, harshness, inconsistency, and impossible expectations can also undermine a child's growth. Religious activities themselves can become burdensome when imposed without understanding or affection. A parent could reduce sports and music while still provoking a child through the manner in which Bible instruction is conducted.

The constructive alternative is integrated nurture. Education, play, physical care, friendship, and spiritual teaching need not compete as though only one had value before God. Parents can assess whether the pattern of family life leaves room for rest, conversation, worship, and service, and whether the child's particular abilities and limits are being heard. The goal is not to produce a schedule that looks spiritually impressive, but to cultivate wisdom and faith within a relationship of dependable love.

Hannah's story invites parents to receive their children as entrusted persons rather than extensions of their own reputation. We can desire faithfulness and integrity more than prestige while acknowledging that another person's response cannot be controlled. Patient teaching, truthful example, ready repentance, and continuing affection give substance to the call to raise children in the Lord. The child's good, rather than the parent's image of success, remains at the center of that service.

I have just recently started making time to read and study the Bible and the readings posted here. This is an example of God knowing what is on your mind and what you are struggling with. Daily I struggle with putting God first and my family second.

I grew up in a Missionary Baptist home, always watching my grandmother read the Bible and often listening to her read to me from it. But as I grew and had children of my own, I have lost some of that knowledge.

To me this lesson is not only about putting God first but also about discipline, and how our lack of discipline with our children can affect the parents, the child, and our relationship with God. Eli did talk to his sons and told them they were sinning against God — he even told them to stop. Did Eli not teach them while they were young to respect God and keep His commandments? Did he fail to discipline them?

This makes me reflect on my own children. Do I teach them enough about God? Do I show them every day that I put God first? Do I set a good example? Will my children learn from my mistakes, or will my mistakes hinder them? The Bible brings my faults to light and lets me know what I need to work on, within myself and with my children.

AI-Expanded Reflection

The honesty here is worth receiving as it is offered, and one thing in it deserves a direct answer. The question about whether one's mistakes will hinder one's children is asked by nearly every parent who takes the responsibility seriously, and Scripture's answer is more generous than the anxiety usually allows.

Eli's case is unusual rather than typical. His sons were grown men holding priestly office, and what God names is his refusal to restrain them in that role — not a failure of early instruction, which the text does not address. And Scripture is explicit that children are not finally determined by their parents' failures: Ezekiel 18 devotes a whole chapter to overturning the proverb about parents eating sour grapes and children's teeth being set on edge, insisting that each person answers for himself. Hezekiah had Ahaz for a father; Josiah had Amon. The line does not run automatically in either direction.

What this comment describes doing — returning to Scripture, reflecting honestly, asking whether the example is good — is the substance of what Deuteronomy 6 asks of a parent: these words on your heart, spoken about at home and along the road. Not a record without mistakes, but a life in which God's Word is visibly present. Someone who grew up watching a grandmother read the Bible knows better than most what that transmits, and the noticing is not evidence of failure.

Eli was very old but aware of what his sons were doing. He told them he had been hearing reports of the wicked things they were doing and asked why they kept sinning, telling them they must stop. But his sons would not listen (a reference to 1 Samuel 2:22–25).

Eli was aware of his sons' wickedness and warned them, but he did not act. Consider God's assessment: why do you scorn my sacrifices and offerings, and why do you honor your sons more than me (a paraphrase of 1 Samuel 2:29)? The LORD says Eli gave his sons greater honor than he gave the LORD. His verbal rebuke was both late and insufficient.

What should Eli have done? He was old, his sons were grown, and he had no others. Certainly more than he did.

I raise this because it prompts a question worth asking. Are we honoring our children more than we are honoring God? This is not a uniquely Old Testament principle — Jesus teaches us to seek first God's kingdom and righteousness (Matthew 6:33), and speaks of a discipleship in which loyalty to Him exceeds even the closest family ties (see Luke 14:26). The principle in both Testaments is that nothing should compete with our love for God. When our focus is entirely on grooming our children for worldly success, something has gone out of order.

AI-Expanded Reflection

Two clarifications are worth making before the application lands.

First, on Luke 14:26: the word rendered "hate" is a Semitic construction for comparative preference, the same idiom behind Malachi's "Jacob I loved, Esau I hated." Matthew's parallel renders the same teaching as loving father or mother more than Christ (Matthew 10:37), which is what Jesus is claiming. The passage establishes an order of loyalties, not hostility toward family — and the same Jesus condemned people who used religious dedication to avoid supporting their parents (Mark 7:9–13).

Second, on what Eli's sons were actually doing. The text specifies two things: seizing sacrificial meat by force before it was offered, and sleeping with the women who served at the tent of meeting (1 Samuel 2:12–17, 22). The second is an abuse of position against women under their authority, not merely immorality. Eli's failure was not insufficient family discipline in a general sense; it was a priest declining to remove predators from office because they were his sons. That is a narrower and more serious charge, and it is closer to a question about institutional accountability than about parenting style.

The question the comment poses to parents is a fair one, but it should not be heard as an accusation against ordinary care for one's children — Scripture commands that, and Paul says whoever does not provide for his household has denied the faith (1 Timothy 5:8). The disorder in view is a specific one: protecting a child from consequences that others are bearing the cost of.

There was a spiritual famine in the land — in those days, the word of the LORD was rare, with few visions (a paraphrase of 1 Samuel 3:1). I'd previously assumed God's glory left Israel only when the Philistines captured the Ark (1 Samuel 4), but this section suggests His presence had already grown distant from the Tabernacle well before that, since Samuel, who'd spent most of his life there, doesn't even recognize God's presence or calling at first.

Samuel is said not to yet know the LORD, since the word of the LORD hadn't yet been revealed to him (a paraphrase of 1 Samuel 3:7). What this actually means is unclear — one view holds Samuel already knew God through Moses's writings, functioning as a priest, but hadn't yet received direct personal revelation; another holds he was genuinely ignorant even of what Moses had written, since Eli apparently failed to teach him (as he'd apparently failed to teach his own sons too). Since "the word of the LORD" in verse 1 clearly means direct revelation, the first reading seems to fit the chapter's context better. Whatever Samuel's exact spiritual state beforehand, this marks the moment he receives his direct calling as the LORD's prophet.

After his third calling, Samuel receives a prophetic message about Eli's coming judgment (1 Samuel 3:11–14), fulfilled in the next chapter when Eli and both his sons die. This is Samuel's first prophetic message. Deuteronomy 18 gives one test of a false prophet — if what's proclaimed in the LORD's name doesn't come true, the LORD never spoke it (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 18:22). Deuteronomy 13 adds a second test — even if a sign does come true, if the prophet then leads people toward other gods, they mustn't be followed (a paraphrase of Deuteronomy 13:1–3). Two tests, then: accuracy, and faithfulness to the true God. The LORD establishes Samuel as a genuine prophet by letting none of his words fail (a paraphrase of 1 Samuel 3:19) — every prophetic message he gave came true. He also led Israel back to the LORD, away from false gods, urging them to rid themselves of foreign idols and serve the LORD alone if they truly wanted deliverance from the Philistines (a paraphrase of 1 Samuel 7:2–4).

We should examine every prophetic message against these same tests, so we're not led astray by false prophets offering false hope from their own imagination rather than God's actual word — exactly the warning God gives through Jeremiah, condemning prophets who fill people with false hope, speaking their own visions rather than His, telling those who despise Him that all is well regardless (a paraphrase of Jeremiah 23:16–17).

Thank the Lord that in times of spiritual famine, He sends messengers like Samuel to reveal His word to us — words now recorded in Scripture for every generation. Since we now have all we need to know God's will, through both creation and His revealed Word, we're without excuse. Let's press on toward the goal, the prize of God's heavenward call in Christ Jesus (a paraphrase of Philippians 3:14).

AI-Expanded Reflection

The two prophetic tests this comment identifies from Deuteronomy — accuracy and doctrinal faithfulness — are worth noting for how they work together rather than independently, since either test alone would be insufficient. Accuracy alone could describe a demonic source capable of real prediction; faithfulness to correct doctrine alone couldn't distinguish a genuine prophet from a sincere but mistaken one. Only together do the two tests actually filter reliably, which may explain why Deuteronomy gives both rather than settling for either one on its own — genuine prophecy needed to pass a test no counterfeit, however impressive on one dimension, could fully satisfy on both.