Elkanah Knew Her

This is Part 6 of a 12-Part Series on Church Hurt

For the sake of simplicity, in this series, I am typically going to refer to any place of worship as a "church" and any type of leader as a "pastor" and/or "priest".

TRIGGER WARNING:

This post contains sexual content, including descriptions of rape, sexual assault, and violence, which may be triggering for survivors.

We have already addressed "church hurt" that results from an abuse of power and from an exclusive or judgmental church culture, but probably the most common source of "church hurt" stems from the misinterpretation and misapplication of Scripture.

When I first began studying Scripture, I was using a translation called The Living Bible (TLB); it is a very "loose" paraphrase, much like The Message (MSG). It didn't take long for me to realize that translation matters, especially when you are reading a paraphrase of a passage. So I switched to the New International Version (NIV), which is a more literal, word-for-word translation, and I later studied from the New Living Translation (NLT), which is more "thought for thought" as opposed to word-for-word. Most Christian leaders and most churches have a preferred translation, but with online Bibles, it is easier than ever to compare and study different ones.

There is no shortage of sex and drama in the Bible! It sometimes reads more like a reality TV show than how we might envision Holy Scripture. As I was preparing to write this series, I was reading from the NIV when I came across something in 1 Samuel 1:19 that I could not recall ever seeing before in Scripture:

"Elkanah made love to his wife Hannah"

... "Wait, what?"

I have been reading and studying Scripture for 40 years in multiple translations, and I can't ever recall coming across an instance of sex being referred to as "making love". *** Which got me to wondering: are there different words in the original Hebrew and Greek that are all being translated a certain way? And, if so, what makes this particular sexual encounter different from all of the others?

So, I embarked upon a very informal study of "sex" in the Bible ... and it was mind-blowing!

Frequently, in an honest attempt to keep the translation as accurate as possible, Scripture is translated as literally as possible. In addition, just as we might say "he slept with her" instead of "he had sex with her", the Hebrew and Greek would have used similar types of metaphors. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew words for sex all seem to stem from 4 root words:

"shakab" which means "to lie down, to sleep, to rest, to lie with (in a sexual sense)"

"bo" which means "to come (to), to go (to), to enter"

"qarab" which means "to come near, approach, draw near, join"

All of which have connotations related to physical proximity. But there is one other root word that is occasionally used to describe sex:

"yada" which means "to know, to perceive, to understand, to acknowledge"

In 1 Samuel 1:19, when Elkanah "makes love" to his wife Hannah, it is being translated from the Hebrew word "way·yê·ḏa". So I did a comparison to see how different Bible versions would translate the Hebrew word "way·yê·ḏa" in 1 Samuel 1:19.

Roughly half of all versions (33 of them) are translating it "knew" (as in "Elkanah knew Hannah") because they are striving for a more literal translation. Unfortunately, "knew" seems pretty vague to me; obviously, when reading it in context, the reader will probably come to the conclusion that they had sex, but it's not clearly stated.

Other translations are a bit more clear on the physical aspects, but don't necessarily address the more interpersonal nature of the encounter and include:

"lay with", "slept with", "had relations with", "had marital relations with", "had sexual relations with", "had sex with", "had intercourse with", "had intimate relations with", "was intimate with", "made love to"

And 1 translation - the Contemporary English Version (CEV) - determined that it wasn't even important enough to include it and made no mention of it at all! (1 Samuel 1:19 CEV)

Now, I have never taken an actual survey, but I don't think it would be too much of a stretch for me to say that if you were to ask a group of women whether or not there is a difference between "had marital relations with" (which sounds very "transactional" and implies fulfilling a contractual obligation or vow) and "made love to", I think an overwhelming majority would say that those two things are not even in the same ball park!

On the other end of the sexual "spectrum", we seem to be doing a better job when it comes to translating words for rape, but there is still plenty of room for improvement. There are only 2 instances in the entire Old Testament in which the Hebrew word "way·‘an·ne·hā" is used and both are clearly instances of rape. Fortunately, more than half of our current translations (40 of them) make it very clear what type of sexual encounter that is with translations such as:

"raped her", "raped her, humiliating her", "raped her and humiliated her", "sexually assaulted her", "forced her to have sexual relations with him", "forced her to have sexual relations with him [lay with her and humiliated/violated her]"

But other translations are pretty "vague", and they include:

"violated her", "lay with her by force", "slept with her and humiliated her", "humbled, defiled, and disgraced her", "[humbling and offending her]", "defiled her", "humiliated her", "she was put to shame", "humbled her" (or "humbleth her"), "ravishing the virgin", "had sex with her"

The fact that some versions of the Bible are translating rape as "humbled her" is downright frightening! Especially considering that in the New Testament, being "humbled" isn't necessarily considered a "bad" thing, and it seems to imply that she somehow did something that required "humbling" (i.e. - that she was somehow "at fault", "to blame", or "deserved it")! And I don't know about you, but to me, "ravishing the virgin" conjures up images of a Harlequin romance moreso than a violent rape. Fortunately, I don't know of any churches insisting their members read and study the EasyEnglish (EASY) translation because by saying he "had sex with her", they are apparently implying that, in an effort to keep things "EASY", "sex" is just "sex", whether it's consensual or nonconsensual, loving or impersonal, pleasurable or painful.

But back to Elkanah and Hannah and "way·yê·ḏa". There are only 3 occurences of this word in the Old Testament that refer to a sexual encounter - this one between Elkanah and Hannah, one between Adam and Eve, and one between Cain and his wife. So, again, I wanted to understand what made these 3 encounters different from all of the many others recorded throughout Scripture.

Since there is such an emphasis on purity before marriage within the Church, you might think it has to do with marital status, but there are plenty of instances of husbands and wives having sex within marriage (including other sexual encounters between these couples), and it is not referred to as "way·yê·ḏa". My next thought was that because this was an infertile couple who had conceived as a result of this sexual encounter, perhaps it had to do with conception, but that is not the case either; there are other instances of marital sex that resulted in conception (including between these couples) that are not referred to as "way·yê·ḏa".

So I considered the circumstances surrounding these 3 encounters, and 2 of the 3 have something very significant in common, which can give us some very important insight into the full meaning behind this word. In the case of Adam and Eve, their son, Abel, had just been brutally murdered, and sadly, he had been brutally murdered by their other son, Cain. Nothing has the potential to draw people closer together (or pull them further apart) than shared trauma and grief (You can read more on that in "He Tore His Robe in Grief"). Someone who has experienced something traumatic with you understands the situation - and possibly your feelings or perspective about it - in a way that no one else can. And it would appear that after experiencing this level of shared trauma and grief, Adam and Eve "knew" each other at a whole different level; a way in which they had never experienced "knowing" each other before.

In contrast, while Elkanah loved Hannah very much and was deeply concerned over her grief at not being able to have children, it was not a shared grief, and at the beginning of our story, he was struggling to understand why it was so upsetting to her; why she couldn't just focus on the positives in her life. He may have loved her deeply, but he didn't quite "get" her.

But after her very public display of desperation, when she cried out to God and was finally ackowledged and affirmed by the priest, something had changed. The implication is that, at some level, Elkanah had a new understanding of Hannah's pain and her grief, and he was able to acknowledge it in a way that he had never been able to before.

Elkanah finally "got" it. And he "got" her. ... And as a result, he "made love" to her in a way that he never had before.

I'm not sure "making love" really even captures the level of inimacy that's implied here. Unlike the Christian community, which has a tendency to categorize sex strictly by marital status (pre-marital, marital, or extramarital), and unlike the secular culture, which has a tendency to categorize sex strictly by whether it's consensual or non-consensual, God appears to understand that there is far more to it than any of those labels. And, sadly, in an effort to keep things literal and accurate, we are missing out on some of the most beautiful nuances of that.

The startling conclusion that I came to is that "sex" is never just "sex" in the Bible ... and that not all sex is created equally - even between married, consenting adults! And it goes way beyond legal or biblical committment, physical pleasure, reproduction, or even emotional connection. The very best, most intimate sex, involves deeply knowing and understanding someone, and deeply respecting who they are as a person and what experiences they have had.

This also affirmed for me what I already knew to be true: translation matters! - whether written translation or oral interpretation. And churches or pastors who insist upon reading and using only one translation are attempting to control the narrative. While it may be unintentional, keeping the translation as literal as possible - to the point that the word has a completely different meaning or connotation than what was originally intended - can, at the very least, cause us to miss the breadth and depth of God's Heart. And sadly, in worst case scenarios, without taking things like written translation, oral interpretation, and context into account, Scripture can very easily be used as a weapon.

© I Lift My Voice, 2025

---

*** As I mentioned, I have been reading and studying Scripture for a very long time - including the NIV - and had read these passages in 1 Samuel many times before and had never seen the term "made love" used to describe sex, so I checked my original hard copy NIV Bible, which was published in 1996, and it had translated "way·yê·ḏa" as "Elkanah lay with Hannah his wife". The NIV was later updated in 2011 to read "made love to", and based upon my very brief and informal review, it looks as if it is one of only 4 translations to do so.

FOOTNOTE: In 1 Samuel 2:22, when Scripture is telling us about Eli's 2 sons and their interactions with women, the Hebrew word "yiš·kə·ḇūn" (which comes from the root word "shakab", which means "to lie down") is used to describe sex. It is the only occurrence of this word anywhere in Scripture! The NIV translates it as his sons "slept with" the women, while the NLT translates it as his sons "were seducing" the women. These are completely different implications; there is a big difference between "slept with" and "seducing"! Personally, I believe that the fact that this word appears only once anywhere in Scripture, is an indication of the severity of the offense. I'm not even sure "seducing" really captures the essence of the word. "Seduce" means to "entice" or "attract powerfully" someone into "a course of action that is inadvisable or foolhardy". But there are other situations in Scripture where "seduce" might be an accurate translation and this Hebrew word is not being used. Why is this situation different?

Because this wasn't just a man or a woman "seducing" someone else; these were priests, who were supposed to be spiritually shepherding these women, and they were using their position as priests to entice or manipulate women into having sex with them. It is an entirely different breach of trust, which, to me, is why you won't see this word used anywhere else in Scripture. In 1 Samuel 2:25, Eli acknowledges that this is a different level of sin; it was considered not just a sin directly against the women and their families, and indirectly against those in their "congregation", but it was also considered to be a sin directly against God, Himself, because the church leaders were supposed to be representing God to other people. When Eli confronts his two sons, he warns them: "If one person sins against another, God may mediate for the offender; but if anyone sins against the Lord, who will intercede for them?” - 1 Samuel 2:25. And later, the Lord says to Samuel: " ... 'The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.'" (1 Samuel 3:14) Meaning there is absolutely nothing Eli and his two sons could personally do to make up for it.

Click Here to Read Part 7 in This 12-Part Series on Church Hurt