The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to the Lord the yearly sacrifice, and to pay his vow. But Hannah did not go up, for she said to her husband, “As soon as the child is weaned, I will bring him, that he may appear in the presence of the Lord, and remain there forever; I will offer him as a nazirite for all time.” 

Her husband Elkanah said to her, “Do what seems best to you, wait until you have weaned him; only—may the Lord establish his word.” 

So the woman remained and nursed her son, until she weaned him. When she had weaned him, she took him up with her, along with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of flour, and a skin of wine. She brought him to the house of the Lord at Shiloh; and the child was young. Then they slaughtered the bull, and they brought the child to Eli. And she said, “Oh, my lord! As you live, my lord, I am the woman who was standing here in your presence, praying to the Lord. For this child I prayed; and the Lord has granted me the petition that I made to him. Therefore I have lent him to the Lord; as long as he lives, he is given to the Lord.”

She left him there for the Lord.

What, then, was the advantage of Hannah having a son if she was going to leave him with Eli?

She could visit him and he could visit, but she would not have a daily mother-son relationship with him. She would not hear his first words or watch him paly or be there to bandage his wounds when he was injured.

She was bearing him to give him to God.

It has always seemed somewhat baffling from a merely human standpoint. Would it not have been just as well to go on through life baren? Would not the heartbreak of separation have been more troubling than being childless?

All cultural considerations and historical context aside, this account leaves any number of fill-in-the-blank gaps because it is not mere isolated history. Nor is it merely human. It is not just Hannah's story. It is not Eli's story ort Elkanah's. Nor is it merely Samuel's.

It is Israel's story and, by the way God tells that story through the centuries, it is God's story.

It is the story of one family giving what was most precious to them, to the LORD for the LORD's use and being instruments of God's purpose. It is about the formation of a man who would become a priest, a prophet, and a king-maker. It is about steps in a messianic strain of divine story, woven into a thematic tapestry that would continue to unfold through the centuries. It is about the line of David.

For Hannah, it was about being a part of the circle of human life and the forward progression of God's work. She was willing, as was Mary, to be an instrument of God's will.

That progression continues until it brings us to the eternal priesthood that the writer of Hebrews sought to explain as finding its completeness in Jesus the Christ. 

Now the main point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister in the sanctuary and the true tent that the Lord, and not any mortal, has set up. For every high priest is appointed to offer gifts and sacrifices; hence it is necessary for this priest also to have something to offer. 

 

Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are priests who offer gifts according to the law. They offer worship in a sanctuary that is a sketch and shadow of the heavenly one; for Moses, when he was about to erect the tent, was warned, “See that you make everything according to the pattern that was shown you on the mountain.” 

 

But Jesus has now obtained a more excellent ministry, and to that degree he is the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted through better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no need to look for a second one.