1:1 Was Elkanah an Ephraimite or a Levite? Genealogically he was a Levite, a descendant of Jacob's son Levi (1 Ch 6:33-38), coming from the family line passing through Kohath and Izhar. The names of Elkanah's forebears in the Chronicles genealogy agree with those found in this verse, despite differences in spelling (Elihu vs. Eliel, Tohu vs. Toah) that may be dialectic in origin. Elkanah's status as a member of the priestly tribe helps to explain why his son Samuel wore an Ephod (1 Sm 2:18), was permitted to sleep in the temple compound at Shiloh (3:1-15), and was authorized, later on, to perform ritual sacrifices before the Lord (7:9; 10:8).
Geographically Elkanah was an Ephraimite. The Lord did not allot regional territory to the Levites in the division of the promised land, but assigned them cities throughout the other tribes' regions (Nm 35:2-8). Even though Ramathaim-zophim was not listed among the 4 cities set aside within Ephraim for the Levites (Jos 21:20-22), it seems reasonable to assume that Levites settled there over time, or that it was a local name for one of the assigned cities.
Taken in combination with the Chronicles genealogy, this opening verse of 1 Sm creates another interpretive option. Elkanah's ancestor Zuph may have been an Ephraimite adopted into the family line of Levi. In this case, Elkanah would have genealogical links to both Levi and Ephraim.
1:2 Having more than one wife is permitted in the Bible (Ex 21:10), but represents a concession that departs from the divine ideal. God's original plan for the family—still His ideal—is to have one man married to one woman. Biblical evidence for this is found in the fact that God created one woman, Eve, as a uniquely suitable helper for one man, Adam (Gn 2:18-24; Mt 19:4-6). He did this before sin had entered the world and corrupted the divine plan, and this ideal has never changed. With Adam and Eve's sin, however, came death, disease and other distortions of God's original plan. Sometimes women, who through childbirth were supposed to enable a couple to be fruitful and multiply, were barren. In such cases, ancient western Asian custom permitted men to take a second wife for the purpose of producing an heir (Gn 16:1-3; 30:1-4).
Elkanah, like Abraham and Jacob, was a good man who made a troublesome choice to solve his family problem. By taking a second wife he introduced much unneeded conflict into the home (1 Sm 1:6). In the end his efforts made little difference, since God gave him many children through his once-barren wife Hannah (1:20; 2:21).
1:5 Did Elkanah give Hannah two portions of meat or only one? The Hebrew phrase translated "double portion" literally means "a portion of two nostrils," an obscure expression that forces translators to derive its meaning from the context. While most translators emphasize Elkanah's kindness—and therefore opt for "double portion"—others focus on the stigma of Hannah's childlessness and render the phrase "only one portion."
1:9 On whether Israel's worship center was located at Shiloh or Shechem, see note on 3:21.
1:11 Hannah's vow appears to be bargaining with God; was this appropriate? It is clear throughout Scripture that God wants people to have an authentic, personal relationship with Him—one that involves the expression of true feelings in a spirit of "give and take." If one can ask certain things of the Lord in faith (Mt 21:22) one can also promise Him something. Hannah was a pious woman who profoundly believed that God was powerful and good. She had suffered humiliation and insult for years due to her childlessness, and waspleading desperately with God to give her a child. Her offer was far superior to that of pagans in the region, who might offer to sacrifice a child as a macabre gift to their deity (2 Kg 17:17). Hannah offered to give the son she requested as a living sacrifice, dedicating his lifelong services to the Lord. The Lord was not obligated to respond to her vow, but He had the right to accept her offer. And accept it He did.
1:24 Two ancient textual traditions exist regarding the number of sacrificial bulls that Hannah brought to Shiloh as a gift to the Lord. The Hebrew text reads "three," while the Septuagint and Syriac (followed by HCSB) read "son of three," i.e. one bull three years old. (Age, in Hebrew, is expressed by the idiom "son [or daughter] of" whichever number.) The Hebrew reading may be preferable, since the accompanying gift of flour is the proper amount for three bull sacrifices (Nm 15:9). Though the leather bag (HCSB "jar") of wine contained an indeterminate amount of liquid, it was probably much more than the half gallon required for a single bull sacrifice (Nm 15:10).
2:1-10 How could Hannah speak of a king and messiah ("anointed," 2:10) before the days when Israel had a king? She could have been referring to the office of kingship mentioned in the law of Moses (see Gn 17:16; 35:11; 36:31; Dt 17:15) or local Israelite rulers (Jdg 9:6). In the larger scope of biblical history, however, one can see that Hannah was speaking prophetically of the day when Israel would have anointed kings—the first two, in fact, would be anointed as such by her son Samuel. Or her words can even extend to the coming of Jesus Christ. Hannah's prayer is a model for the Virgin Mary's expression of praise (Lk 1:46-55) after learning that both she and her formerly childless relative Elizabeth would bear a child. The circumstances were similar; it was the Lord, in each case, who had enabled the pregnancy despite unlikely human situations. If Hannah was speaking as a prophetess, she would join the ranks of other OT prophetesses, including Miriam (Ex 15:20), Deborah (Jdg 4:4), Huldah (2 Kg 22:14), and Isaiah's wife (Is 8:3).
2:23-24 Did Eli correct his sons or didn't he (3:13)? Although Eli did criticize his sons for their outrageous conduct while serving as priests (vv. 12-17, 22), 3:13 states that he made no serious efforts to put an end to their misbehavior. These two passages are complementary, not contradictory. A possible explanation for Eli's unwillingness to restrain his sons from taking unauthorized portions from the people's sacrifices is seen in 2:29 and 4:18. These verses suggest that Eli was benefiting from his sons offenses against the Lord: they took the meat and he ate it.
2:25 Did God prevent Hophni and Phinehas from repenting in order to do away with them? It was the wickedinclinations of these two sons of Eli that kept them from repenting. Their obstinacy required that the Lord, who hates and punishes sin, would bring fatal retribution upon them. The Hebrew phrase translated as "the Lord intended" literally means "the Lord was pleased." While the Lord takes no pleasure in the death of those who sin (see Ezk 18:32; 33:11; 2 Pt 3:9), at the same time He delights in bringing justice to the order of human society. Justice is a central trait in God's character (Ex 34:7; Ps 33:5), and its implementation brings satisfaction to him. Some of the same considerations that apply to the Lord's hardening of Pharaoh's heart (Ex 4:21) apply here.
3:21 Was Israel's worship center located at Shiloh or Shechem? The Bible indicates that both Shechem and Shiloh were used as places to worship the Lord in early Israelite history. In the days of Joshua a sanctuary had been built at Shechem (Jos 24:1,25). But Shiloh was considered an even more sacred site, since it was there the Israelites set up the tabernacle (see Jos 18:1). Only later, when the Lord chose Jerusalem as the only authorized worship center (see Dt 12:5-14; 1 Kg 8:29), would Israel be limited to one authorized place for worship.
4:1 The use of the name Ebenezer here is an anachronism, since it is only in 7:12 that Samuel gives a name to this location. But this should not be seen as a problem. Samuel, who is considered the author of this section of the Bible, simply used the site name which was most familiar to his audience when he recorded this event for his and future generations. The use of updated names is not an error, but an aid to communication.
4:3 On the location of Israel's worship center during this period, see note on 3:21.
4:8 The Philistines, ignorant of the true details of Israel's history, spoke of "gods that slaughtered the Egyptians with all kinds of plagues in the wilderness." The biblical narrator simply quotes their error without affirming the accuracy of their words; the Philistines were far from divine truth.
5:6 How could the ark of the covenant's presence in a city cause an outbreak of tumors? The Bible does not tell us how God did this miracle, only that He did it. The Philistine diviners' mention of mice in 6:4-5, as well as the Septuagint's reading for this verse, implies that God may have brought this about by working through nature, using mice to spread a devastating plague at just the right time and location. Through the centuries rodents have often been responsible for the spread of disease among humans. The incident demonstrated the Lord's superiority over both the Philistines and their "god," and revealed that the Philistines' victory on the battlefield was not the result of the Lord's weakness. Instead, it was a judgment against Israel's disobedience to God. Ultimately it would result in His further glorification.
6:6 On God's hardening of Pharaoh's heart, see note on Ex 4:21.
6:19 Why should people have to die for just looking into the ark? The people died because they disobeyed a solemn command of the Lord that promised death to anyone who violated it (see Nm 4:15). Since most of the people who died were from Beth-shemesh, many of those who died were probably descendants of Israel's first high priest Aaron (see Jos 21:13-16), a family group in the priestly tribe of Levi responsible for overseeing all aspects of the Israelite religion (Nm 4:16). Very specific instructions had been given to the priests regarding the proper handling of the ark of the covenant; whenever it was outside of the tabernacle it was to be covered with three layers of cloth and leather; it was never to be seen or touched by anyone (Nm 4:5-6,15). For the priests, God's primary representatives on earth, to leave it uncovered and then permit the Israelites to look inside it represented a flagrant disregard for God's holiness which demanded immediate punishment. The sanctity of God's holy throne (see 2 Sm 6:2) must never be violated.
6:19 Did 70 men or 50,070 men die? English versions reflect a scholarly uncertainty regarding the correct number in this verse; KJV, NKJV and NASB use the larger number; many other versions accept the smaller one. The Masoretic (Hb) Text and Septuagint (Gk) both give the larger number; Josephus, a first-century Jewish historian, quoted the smaller number.
The fact that the biblical writer characterizes the deaths as "a great slaughter" suggests that the larger number is the one originally supplied. However, most modern versions prefer the smaller total and, in many cases, deal creatively with the Hebrew text at this point. Translations that opt for the smaller number probably do so because the larger one does not seem credible; archaeological evidence available at the present time suggests that nowhere near 50,000 men lived in the region of Beth-shemesh during the period of this narrative, some 3,000 years ago.
7:10 How could thunder confuse the Philistines and cause them to run away from Israel? When the Philistines heard the thunder, they interpreted it to mean that Israel's God was riding into battle on a storm cloud (see Ps 18:10-14), sending thunderbolts against them and their gods. They believed their army could not prevail against the Israelites unless their gods prevailed against the Israelites' God. When it became apparent that the Lord was aggressively advancing against their forces, and their gods as well, their only option was flight from the battlefield.
7:12 On the name Ebenezer, which means "stone of help," see note on 4:1.
7:13 During the period of Samuel's active tenure as a judge of Israel there are no more recorded conflicts between Israel and the Philistines. That is the context for this statement, although the Philistines and Israelites fought against each other many times after the days of Samuel (13:5; 14:11-14; 17:1; 23:1,27; 28:1; 31:1; 2 Sm 5:17-20; 2 Kg 18:8). There is no contradiction in the record on this point.
7:15 The phrase "throughout his life" (lit. "all the days of his life") means that Samuel served as Israel's judge during the rest of his career—that is, from this time in his life until his retirement in old age. He is not called a judge up to this point in the narrative; when he grew old he appointed his sons as judges (8:1), effectively transferring his responsibilities to the next generation. When the nation rejected Joel and Abijah as judges, the elderly statesmen helped Israel to eliminate the role of "judge" altogether, installing a king to lead Israel instead (12:2). It is worth noting that the term "judge" in the Bible carries a broad range of meanings. The earlier judges operated more as local military leaders or heroes; Samuel, on the other hand, functioned in a more magisterial capacity for Israel as a whole.
8:2 Was Samuel's firstborn son Joel or Vashni? According to the Hebrew text of 1 Ch 6:28 (KJV), Samuel's oldest son was named Vashni. Both names probably refer to the same person, since 1 Ch 6:33 states that Joel was Samuel's son. That second reference in 1 Ch 6 agrees with the current verse in 1 Sm. Calling a person by more than one name was common in the ancient Near East, corresponding somewhat to our culture's tendency to give people nicknames. (On individuals and places in the Bible having more than one name, see note on Ex 3:1; 19:11.) It is also possible that the Hebrew text in 1 Ch 6:28 has been damaged, and the original reading lost.
8:5-7 In the law of Moses, God had spoken of a time when the Israelites would have an earthly king (Dt 17:14-20), even though the Lord was already their King (Nm 23:21; Dt 33:5; Jdg 8:23) and would remain so in Israel's worship (e.g., Ps 47:2; 89:18; 95:3; 99:4; Is 33:22). The structure of Israel's covenant was that of a king making a treaty with subordinates. The Lord made provision for the earthly office of king in Israel, but this was a concession to human weakness and not His ideal for the nation. The instructions of Dt 17 set limits on Israel's kingship, and did not give it a blanket endorsement.
In this section of 1 Sm, the people were asking for the right to be "the same as all the other nations"—that is, like the pagans, who did not have the Lord as their King. They wanted to rely upon a strong military leader, and not on God and His leadership alone, for help in dealing with enemies. What was offensive to God, and to Samuel His spokesman, was the people's yearning to look for help in another direction.
8:21 God knows and hears everything, yet Samuel took pains to tell God what he had heard the people saying. The Bible makes it clear that God is all-knowing(1 Kg 8:39; 1 Ch 28:9; Jb 34:21; 36:4; 42:2; Ps 33:13-15; 139:1-24; 147:5; Pr 5:21; 15:3; 24:12; Is 46:10; 48:5; Ezk 11:5; Dn 2:22; Mt 6:8; 10:29; Ac 15:18; Heb 4:13; 1 Jn 3:20) and has no need that we tell Him anything. But He wants His people to communicate with Him about whatever is on our hearts (Ps 55:22; Php 4:6), as a loving parent enjoys talking with his child although he already knows what the child is telling him. Samuel was making use of the privilege of communicating in a natural way with his heavenly Father. It was a way in which Samuel could honor the Lord and express his loyalty to Him.
9:1 Was Kish the son of Abiel, or of Ner? This verse (see 14:51) appears to be contradicted by 1 Ch 8:33 and 9:39 where Ner is Kish's father. Abiel and Ner may simply be two names for the same person (see note on 8:2). Another possibility is that, since biblical genealogies sometimes skip over generations, either Abiel or Ner was not Kish's father but a grandfather or another ancestor. A third possibility is that a copying error by an ancient scribe is responsible for the discrepancy.
9:15-17 Why did the Lord choose Saul in the first place, if he would later regret the choice (15:11,35)? Matters of both divine will and human freedom need to be considered in addressing this question. God's intention, in making Saul king, was to use him to lead Israel to victory against the Philistines (10:1,24), which he did (14:31,47). But when it came to submitting his life wholeheartedly to the Lord's will, Saul was still free to make a choice. Sadly, in two key matters he gravely disappointed God by going his own way: he disobeyed direct military orders (15:18-24) and consulted a medium for guidance (1 Ch 10:13).
God knows the end from the beginning (Is 46:10), and was not surprised at Saul's actions. For reasons known only to God, He has chosen to work His divine will through sinful human beings. While the Lord's purposes can never be broken, His heart can be.
9:17–10:8 The narrative of 1 Sm includes three complementary accounts of Saul's being chosen first king of Israel. The first (9:17–10:8) describes a private meeting between Saul and the prophet Samuel on the outskirts of the village of Ramah. There Samuel first informed Saul of God's decision to make him Israel's leader, ceremonially anointing him and confirming his action with prophetic signs. This first meeting was preparatory, helping to ready Saul both psychologically and spiritually for the public event that would soon change his life so radically.
The second account (10:17-25) focuses on the public identification of Saul as the Lord's chosen. This event was primarily for the benefit of the people of Israel, confirming that God had fulfilled their request (8:5) for a king. The final account (11:14-15) describes Saul's formal public installation as king over the land, at Gilgal. These two public occasions are roughly equivalent to American political events: an election-night victory celebration followed by the official inauguration of a person into the office to which they have been elected. Gilgal, with Joshua's memorial stones, was the site where the Israelites had first encamped in their occupation of Canaan (Jos 4:19-20) and was a fitting backdrop for Saul's formal installation.
10:5 Was Saul supposed to go to Gibeath-elohim or the Hill of God? According to one version of the Bible, Saul was told to go to a village named Gibeath-elohim, yet other versions state that he was told to go to a hill. Isn't this a contradiction? No. "Gibeath-elohim" is actually the Hebrew phrase which means "Hill of God." Some scholars believe that Samuel was referring to an otherwise unknown village by that name, while others think he was merely referring to a geographical feature.
10:8 After anointing Saul, Samuel told him to wait seven days at Gilgal until the prophet would come to him. Their later meeting at Gilgal is recorded in 13:8-10.But the events recorded in 10:9–13:7 could not have occurred within a week's time. In that section Saul was publicly recognized as Israel's first king, mustered a fighting force of 330,000 men, led them to Jabesh-gilead, fought and defeated the Ammonites, returned to Gilgal to be publicly inaugurated as king, and prepared to fight the Philistines at Michmash. Based on the wording of 13:1, some interpreters posit a two-year gap between 10:8 and 13:1.
Perhaps the best explanation is to be found in the wording of verses 7-8: Saul was to do whatever was required to bring deliverance for Israel from the Ammonites. Then when that task was done—and it would probably take a long time—he was to go to Gilgal. The seven-day waiting period for Samuel would not begin until Saul arrived at Gilgal.
10:11 The narrative of 1 Sm relates two incidents that explain the origin of the saying, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" In the first incident, recorded here, Saul fell in with a group of prophets coming down from Gibeah and began to prophesy among them. This was the initial occasion for the popular saying. The second incident (19:23-24) recounts another surprising instance when Saul again prophesied among prophets, in this case "before Samuel." The second incident reinforced the old saying, and it passed into the Israelites' proverbial memory of their first king. The two accounts are complementary.
10:17-25 On why there are three accounts of Saul's being chosen king, see note on 9:17–10:8.
10:19 On why the Israelites were accused of rejecting the Lord by requesting a king, whereas God had already given instructions about the kingship, see note on8:5-7.
10:25 Did Samuel write on a scroll or in a book? Many versions of the Bible state that Samuel wrote words in a book, but others say he wrote on a scroll. This difference arises from word selection by translators. What we know as "books" were written on scrolls during the OT period; the codex, more like the modern book, was not yet in use. Therefore "scroll" is the most accurate rendering of the Hebrew sepher.
10:27 Some versions add an extra paragraph to the Bible at this point. An ancient partial manuscript of 1 Sm found at Qumran (4QSama), as well as the first-century historian Josephus (Antiquities 6.5.1), include this information in their accounts of Saul's war with the Ammonites. Some translators have chosen to place this material in the text in the belief that it was wrongly omitted from the MT and Septuagint. Since those standard texts omit it, this paragraph is most likely an explanatory note inserted by an ancient scribe. The material is irrelevant to the central purpose of the account, and may introduce a chronological problem into the narrative flow (see note on 10:8; 13:8-14).
11:8 Did Saul's fighting force in the battle against Nahash the Ammonite number a few thousand men, 330,000, or 670,000? Many recent scholars argue that Israel's population at the time was too small to support an army of more than a few thousand men. The Septuagint, the Greek version of the OT that dates to the pre-Christian era, states that a total of 670,000 men were mustered for the conflict. The Hebrew text provides the number 330,000. This is about half the total of men counted in the military census Moses had taken 400 years earlier (see Nm 1:46), and probably represents the one supplied by the original writer.
11:14 On why there are three accounts of Saul's being chosen king, see note on 9:17–10:8.
12:2 On the length of Samuel's tenure as judge, see note on 7:15.
12:11 Did the Lord send Barak or Bedan to deliver the Israelites from their enemies? The MT and many English versions have the name Bedan, mentioned nowhere else in the Bible although this name is included in a list of well-known leaders from the period of the judges. The Septuagint reads Barak (see Jdg 4:6-16) for Bedan, and most recent versions have followed its lead. Bedan could be a secondary name for Barak; alternatively, Bedan was an otherwise unknown ancient Israelite leader. The most likely explanation is a scribal error, substituting incorrect Hebrew letters; in the more usual Hebrew script "d" (daleth) resembles "r" (resh) and final "n" (nun) resembles final "k" (kaph). (The vowels involved are not written as letters in Hebrew.) The Masoretic scribes of the earlier centuries a.d. were strict about preserving the text as they found it, even where they may have suspected an errant reading.
12:17-18 How could a harvest-time thunderstorm convince the Israelites that they had done a great evil? The land of Israel has two seasons in its year, the rainyseason (October–March) and the dry season (April–September). Wheat harvest occurred during the dry season at a time when clouds, to say nothing of rain, were absent from the sky. Interruptions in the normal weather pattern, especially those that could seriously damage the nation's food supply, were taken as signs of divine anger (see Lv 26:20; Dt 28:18).
13:1 How old was Saul when he became king? The Hebrew text indicates that Saul was "one year old when he became king," clearly evidence of a damaged text. A few copies of the Septuagint supply the figure 30, while some copies omit the verse altogether. Since no other passages in the Bible provide definitive information on Saul's age at the time he assumed the kingship, it seems best to recognize that the original number dropped out of the text in the process of transmission, perhaps even before the Greek version was produced around 300 b.c.
13:1 How long did Saul serve as Israel's king? According to the MT he reigned for two years (lit. "and two years"). In Ac 13:21, however, the Apostle Paul states that Saul ruled for 40 years. In view of Saul's achievements in battling Israel's enemies, the number in Ac is either the correct one or a rounding from 42. Apparently a copyist's error caused the original figure to drop out of this verse.
13:5 Ancient manuscripts provide different figures as to the number of chariots the Philistines brought to the battlefield. Most translations follow the Hebrew text and the majority of Septuagint (Gk) texts, which give the number as 30,000. The Syriac (Aramaic) version and one Greek tradition read 3,000, a figure accepted by some recent translations because it seems more credible. Elsewhere in Scripture the largest number of chariots used in a war was 1,700 (see 2 Sm 8:4), and even Solomon possessed only 1,400 (1 Kg 10:26). An ancient copyist error may be responsible for the confusion. Another way to approach the issue is to take "thousand" as a term for a military unit; in that case, the Philistines brought 30 chariot units, of indeterminate strength, to the battlefield.
13:8-14 Why was Samuel angry with Saul, since it was Samuel who missed the appointment? Samuel did not miss his appointment; he was supposed to arrive on the seventh day, and he did. Saul apparently panicked because Samuel did not appear at sunrise, when the morning sacrifice could be offered, but a short time later. By this time the impatient king had offered the sacrifices on his own, doing the work reserved for priests. Samuel, a priest as well as a prophet, was understandably angry about this. Saul's impetuous behavior, and his reckless disregard for God's order that separated kingship (military leadership) from priesthood (service at the altar), were among the reasons why the rule of Israel passed into the hands of another family, that of David.
13:13-14 In Gn 49:10, Jacob prophesied that a member of the tribe of Judah would rule over Israel; yet Samuel suggests that Saul—a member of the tribe of Benjamin—might have seen his family "permanently established" in the monarchy had he not been disobedient. Some have suggested that Samuel was lying to Saul, but this need not be the case. The territories of Judah and Benjamin were sometimes treated as the land of one tribe (1 Kg 11:36), so that promises made to Judah were applicable to Benjamin as well. Alternatively, God foresaw that in a later era Israel would have two kings, one in the north (Israel proper) and one in the south (Judah). During that time both the house of David and the house of Saul could have had enduring dynasties. In either case, Samuel was truthful with Saul, especially in confronting his foolishness.
14:3 On who was high priest at this time, see note on 21:1.
14:15 English versions of the Bible differ on the translation of this verse; did a terror from God spread, or was there a very great trembling of the earth? The issue is how to fit an ambiguous Hebrew sentence—"And she/it was to fear/trembling of God"—into the narrative flow. Some translators connect it with the Philistines' terror mentioned at the beginning of the verse, while others associate it with the shaking of the earth mentioned in the previous sentence. Both are reasonable possibilities. The Hebrew word elohim is usually translated "god," but has the basic meaning of "strength, might"; the phrase "quaking of god" could be translated "a powerful trembling."
14:49 How many sons did Saul have, and who were they? The three sons listed in this verse are not the same as those in 31:2, which omits Ishvi but adds Abinadab. Also, there is the question of Ish-bosheth (2 Sm 2:8,10,12)—was he a fifth son? The genealogical information in1 Ch 8:33 and 9:39 does much to clear up these matters. The writer indicates that Saul had four sons, but substitutes the name Esh-baal for Ishvi. Scholars understand Ish-bosheth to be an alternate form of Esh-baal, substituted in order to avoid pronouncing the title of a pagan god as part of the name. Thus Ishvi was known by two other names in the OT, Esh-baal and Ish-bosheth.
14:51 On the ancestry of Kish, see note on 9:1.
15:3 Why were the Israelites supposed to kill the Amalekites' women, children, and infants? This passage is one of a handful in the OT where God explicitly ordered the Israelites to eliminate an entire population (see also Dt 7:2; 13:15; 20:16-17; 25:19). For many people today these passages are the most troubling ones in the Bible. How could a loving God order His people to slaughter women and babies? The answer lies in the nature of God and His plans to rescue humanity. Being a perfectly just God, the Lord cannot let sin go unpunished. Individuals who sin will die for their sins (see Ezk 18:4; Rm 6:23), though that death need not come about immediately following a sinful act, and may be averted altogether if the sinner turn from sin in time (Ezk 18:20-21). What is true of individuals is also true of groups that commit sinful acts (see Jnh 3:9-10; Jl 2:13-14). The problem with the few groups of individuals whom God ordered to be completely destroyed was that they had incorporated grave sins into the very fabric of their society and continued in their sins over a considerable period of time. The Amalekites, for example, had created a culture that had no qualms about killing frail Israelites and kidnapping children for the sake of material gain (Dt 25:17-18; see also Jdg 6:3-6; 1 Sm 14:48; 30:1-3). Likewise, to be a Canaanite entailed being a supporter of a polytheistic religion that practiced child sacrifice, prostitution, bestiality, and homosexuality. These cultures had become spiritually gangrenous and had been that way for hundreds of years (see Gn 15:16; Dt 25:17-18). Since they refused to change, the only way to keep their deadly influences from spreading to other societies was through the complete elimination of every object (Ex 23:24; 34:13; Dt 7:5; 12:3; Jdg 2:2) and person (Dt 7:2; Dt 13:15; 20:16-17) associated with them.
In summary, God ordered the violent elimination of the Amalekites and certain other social groups for two main reasons: as punishment for the accumulated sins of those societies (see Gn 15:16; Lv 18:24-25; Dt 9:5; 12:31) and the elimination of their influence on other societies (Ex 23:33; Dt 7:4; 12:30-31; 20:17-18).
For a discussion of God ordering the Israelites to go to war see the article, "Does the Bible Support a Just War?" (p. 995).
15:3 Why were the Israelites to kill the Amalekites' animals? In a land without money or banks (these did not exist during the days of Saul), livestock—oxen, sheep, goats, camels, and donkeys—was a major form of wealth. But God did not want the Israelites to go to war in order to enrich themselves at their enemies' expense. This solemn task was to be done to carry out a divine death sentence, not for personal gain.
15:7-8 If Saul destroyed all of the Amalekites (except Agag), why did Israel have to fight them later on (see 27:8; 30:1,16-17; 2 Sm 1:8,13; 1 Ch 4:43)? In the context of Israelite history as a whole, it is clear that Saul killed all the Amalekites he found, not all those that existed. Many Amalekites would have abandoned their homes and become temporary war refugees in surrounding regions. Those who escaped prior to the battle lived to fight another day. David later did the same thing, going into temporary exile (1 Sm 21:10) to avoid Saul's army.
15:8 An oracle uttered by Balaam in Nm 24:7 indicated that Israel's king would be "greater than Agag"; in the present passage Saul captured Agag, apparently fulfilling this prophecy. The term Agag could either be a personal name or a title (compare with the Bible's use of "Pharaoh"). If Agag is a person, Balaam foresaw his defeat at the hands of Saul; Agag did not live during the time of Moses. If Agag is a title, Balaam spoke of the superiority of Israel's kings to Amalekite kings.
15:11 God chose Saul to be Israel's king (9:15-16), then according to this verse regretted His action, and afterward chose David in his place (15:28; 16:12). Yet the prophet Samuel told Saul that God does not change His mind (15:29). While this may appear contradictory, Scripture elsewhere supports Samuel's statement (Ps 15:4; Mal 3:6; Jms 1:17). God's will and purpose remain the same, but the free response of people to His commands may lead to a modification of His actions on the human scene (see Jr 18:8; Ezk 18:24; Jnh 3:10). At least from the human perspective, His relationships with people are authentic and personal, not pre-programmed.
15:18 On why God would order the killing of women, children, and infants, see first note on 15:3.
15:22 God gladly accepted the sacrifices of His worshipers during the OT era, as long as their gifts were accompanied by a proper attitude of the heart. People had offered sacrifices since the days of Cain and Abel, and God received them (Gn 4:3-4). In the law given at Mount Sinai, the Lord required the Israelites to bring burnt offerings and a variety of sacrifices to Him as part of their regular worship. But, as Cain learned (Gn 4:5-6), a sacrifice that was not matched with a life in submission to God was not acceptable (see Is 1:11-17; Ps 51:16-17; Pr 21:27; Jr 6:19-20; Am 5:21-24; Mc 6:6-8). Samuel, in the present verse, gives voice to that truth.
15:29 Does God lie, or not? Samuel's statement that God does not lie seems to contradict the account in 1 Kg 22:19-23, where God put a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's false prophets (see also Jr 4:10; Ezk 14:2-11; 2 Th 2:11). The Bible teaches that God is the ultimate truth and speaks only the truth (Ps 119:160; Jn 1:14; 17:17). Jesus, the incarnate second person of the trinity, spoke the truth even when it produced personal pain and suffering (Mt 26:63-66; Jn 8:40-59). On three occasions in Scripture the Holy Spirit is called the Spirit of truth (Jn 14:17; 15:26; 16:13). King Ahab had hired so-called prophets to spread lies that supported his personal ambitions; these men creatively proclaimed messages in the Lord's name that agreed with the king's hopes. The Lord put a lying spirit in the mouths of Ahab's prophets in the sense that He gave these professional liars the energy and opportunity to do what they were determined to do, to provide the king with the lie he wanted to hear.
15:35 Didn't Samuel see Saul again before he died? In the Hebrew text and some English versions of the Bible an apparent contradiction exists between this verse and 19:24, where Saul went to Samuel and spent the day prophesying before him. The HCSB translation, however, preserves the intent of the Hebrew phrase, which states literally "Samuel did not again to see." Samuel never again sought out Saul, though Saul would go to see him.
16:2 If God hates lying, why did He tell Samuel to lie? God is truthful (15:29), hates lying (Pr 6:16-17; Zch 8:16-17), and expects people to tell the truth (Ex 20:16; Lv 19:11; Eph 4:25; Col 3:9; Rv 22:15). He commanded Samuel to offer a sacrifice, and the prophet was to tell that to anyone who asked without revealing the Lord's fuller intentions. To disclose them would only help Saul and his supporters carry out their murderous plans against an innocent man. They were not owed the full truth, and they did not get it.
16:6-11 How many sons did Jesse have? In 1 Sm, Jesse had eight sons (see also 17:12); however, in 1 Ch 2:13-15 only seven are mentioned. It is possible that one of David's older brothers died early in life and was therefore not counted in the writer's reckoning. Differences in the Bible regarding the names of Jesse's sons amount to normal variations, roughly equivalent to nicknames today—Eliab = Elihu (1 Ch 27:18); Shammah = Shimea (1 Ch 2:13). These could be dialectical variants, as well.
16:14 Scripture passages such as this seem to indicate that God sometimes behaves in demonic or evil ways (Jdg 9:23; 1 Kg 22:23; Jb 12:16; Ps 18:26; Is 45:7; Ezk 14:9; Mt 6:13; Lk 11:4; 2 Th 2:11). Such passages must be understood within the overall framework of the Bible's teachings about God. Scripture affirms that God is completely righteous (Jdg 5:11; Ezr 9:15; Ps 7:9; 48:10; 71:19; 111:3; 112:4; 116:5; 119:137,142; 145:17; Is 51:8; Jr 9:24; Dn 9:7; Hs 14:9; Jn 17:25; Rm 1:17; Rv 16:5), hates evil (Zch 8:17), and never does anything unjust (Rm 9:14). At the same time, God created a universe with built-in rewards and punishments that reinforce divine moral law. For example, when people disregard His moral order and abuse theirbodies through the misuse of food, alcohol or sex, they will predictably experience health problems. Such problems can be interpreted as warning signs motivating us to give up bad behavior and do what is right.
Saul had lived a life of chronic disobedience to God, and therefore had opened himself to demonic oppression. While it was a form of punishment, because of Saul's disregard for God's moral order, it was also intended to drive him to repent and turn back to the Lord. God, Who is Master of all the created order, will use even demons, against their will, for redemptive purposes.
16:21-23 On whether Saul knew David well before David killed Goliath, see note on 17:55-58.
16:23 How could David's harp playing drive away an evil spirit from Saul? The Bible does not indicate how it happened, although the general effect of music on the emotions is well known. David was considered Israel's favorite singer (2 Sm 23:1) and in the OT was credited with writing 73 psalms. David's music combined with the Word of God in the presence of the demon drove it away (see Ps 119:50; Heb 4:12).
17:4 How tall was Goliath? The ancient texts disagree on this matter: the Hebrew text states that Goliath was "six cubits and a span" (= 9 ft. 9 in.) in height, while the Septuagint, a Qumran manuscript, and Josephus indicate he was "four cubits and a span" (= 6 ft. 9 in.). The tallest known human being in modern times was Robert Wadlow, who attained a height of 8 feet, 11.1 inches before his death in 1940. In view of the excessive weight of Goliath's armor and weapons, the biblical author evidently understood the Philistine to be awesome in size; the MT's figure is therefore probably the original. The Bible does not state whether Goliath's height included his shoes and helmet, though it would not be improper to have included these in the overall figure.
17:12 On how many sons Jesse had, see note on 16:6-11.
17:50 Who killed Goliath, David or Elhanan? This dramatic account of David's killing of Goliath seems to be contradicted by 2 Sm 21:19, where Elhanan is said to have performed the deed. The issue is complicated by the fact that 1 Ch 20:5 mentions that Elhanan killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath—not Goliath himself.
Attempting to resolve these discrepancies, some scholars suggest that a pre-Christian-era copyist introduced an error into 2 Sm 21:19 that created the mistaken impression that Elhanan killed Goliath; the correct reading of the original, in this case, would be preserved in 1 Ch 20:5. Another approach suggests that the contradiction between 1 Sm 17:50 and 2 Sm 21:19 is only apparent. Ancient rabbis suggested that Elhanan is another name for David (which in Hb means "beloved one" and could be a nickname). "Goliath" could be a title and not a name, so there may have been two fighters from Gath named Goliath.
17:54 Jerusalem was not under Israelite control at the time of this incident, but it was a city of great military interest to David's tribe of Judah. The tribe had fought against the city (Jos 15:63) and had taken a war trophy there previously after temporarily conquering it (Jdg 1:8). Jerusalem was a city of great interest to David as well, the first city he set out to conquer when he became king of all Israel (2 Sm 5:6-9). Perhaps David took Goliath's head there to intimidate Jerusalem's Jebusite residents, letting them know that Israel was a nation to be feared. Alternatively, this verse may refer to an event that took place a few years later, after David had conquered the city.
17:55-58 This passage seems to contradict 16:19-23, which shows Saul not only inviting David to come and work for him (16:19), but declares that he loved him greatly. However, this text does not indicate that Saul did not know who David was, only that he did not know the name of his father (see vv. 55-58). Saul's was seeking the information he needed to issue the decree of tax exemption promised for David's family (see v. 25).
18:1-4 The Bible indicates that Jonathan and David loved each other deeply (19:1; 20:17; 2 Sm 1:26) and made a covenant with each other (1 Sm 20:8,16; 22:8; 23:18), but there is no indication of their having a homosexual relationship. Scripture teaches that God disapproves of homosexual activity (Lv 18:22; 20:13; Rm 1:24-27; Jd 7; see also the article "What Does the Bible Teach about Homosexuality?" p. 1716). Jonathan and David were men who were careful to obey God in all matters (1 Sm 23:16; 1 Kg 11:4), with the notable exception of David's sin with Bathsheba. It is reasonable to conclude that these two men obeyed God in this matter as well.
In the ancient Near East, as in conservative Islamic societies today, adult men and women were not permitted to have friendships, casual or otherwise, with one another. Because social roles assigned to males and females differed greatly, men could not usually have close friendships, based on mutual interests, even with their wives. Women were excluded from many activities common to men; they could not take part in military affairs, and were generally excluded from religious rites as well. Men, in like fashion, were not expected to engage in most activities associated with women. Men had to cultivate their friendships with other men, while reserving sexual activity for their wives (or prostitutes). Sometimes such friendships could be intense, but they did not have a sexual component. Jonathan and David were great friends, fellow soldiers, brothers-in-law, and brothers in the faith, but they were not homosexual "lovers."
18:10 On God's sending an evil spirit to torment Saul, see note on 16:14.
18:10 Did Saul prophesy, or rave like a madman? Some English versions of the Bible state that Saul was prophesying here, but others say that he was raving. The difference arises from how translators choose to render the same Hebrew word. What was regarded as "prophesying," in the ancient Near East, could take the form of frenzied and even self-destructive activity (cp the prophets of Baal, 1 Kg 18:28-29). Pagan cultures often regarded such bizarre behavior as proof that a god had come upon someone, and even associated prophetic activity with altered states of consciousness, insanity, or even epilepsy. This differed from the usual Israelite expression of prophetic activity, which involved a prophet's speaking or chanting (1 Ch 25:1-3) coherently to an individual or group in the name of the Lord.
Because Saul's act of "prophesying" was connected with an irrational attempt to murder David, his most valuable soldier and assistant, he was behaving more like a pagan prophet than an Israelite prophet. Accordingly, many Bible versions translate Saul's activity as "raving."
18:12 Once God the Father gives the Holy Spirit to a person, does the Spirit remain with that person or can He depart? At least three other OT passages in addition to the present verse suggest that the Holy Spirit could be taken away from people who persisted in living in disobedience toward God (Jdg 16:20; 1 Sm 28:15; Ps 51:11). On the other hand, Jn 14:16 indicates the Holy Spirit will abide forever with people who receive Him.
The NT teaches that the death and resurrection of Jesus fundamentally changed certain aspects of humanity's relationship with God. The old covenant at Sinai was replaced with the covenant of Christ's body and blood (1 Co 11:25; Heb 8:13), and with this change the Holy Spirit began operating differently in the lives of God's people. The NT speaks of the Holy Spirit as a gift to believers in Jesus Christ (Ac 2:38; 10:45) and a seal on their hearts, a guarantee of eternal life (2 Co 1:22; Eph 1:13). Besides being given to women and Gentiles (there are no examples of either of these receiving the Spirit in the OT), the Holy Spirit is a permanently indwelling presence in the lives of all Christians. The NT provides no instance of the Holy Spirit departing from a Christian; this suggests that what happened to Saul cannot happen to a believer in Christ.
18:19 On who was married to Adriel the Meholathite, see note on 25:44.
18:27 How many Philistines did David kill to gain the right to marry Saul's daughter Michal? The ancient texts disagree: the Hebrew text gives 200 but the Septuagint only 100. Even though Saul had only required David to kill 100, the larger number is probably correct. David was a zealous fighter for the Lord (v. 17) and his king (vv. 25-26), and this figure convincingly reflects David's high level of commitment to both.
19:1 On whether Jonathan and David had a homosexual relationship, see note on 18:1-4.
19:9 On God's sending an evil spirit to torment Saul, see note on 16:14.
19:13-17 Was Michal right to deceive and lie? God hates lying (Pr 6:16-17; Zch 8:16-17) and expects people to tell the truth (Ex 20:16; Lv 19:11; Eph 4:25; Col 3:9; Rv 22:15). On the other hand, Saul's intentions were to kill an innocent man; Michal was not obligated to give him information that would help him carry out this wicked act. If Michal did not hide David's escape and then lie about her cover-up, both she and David would probably have died.
Michal's example does not give Christians, or anyone else, permission to lie for the sake of personal convenience, or to hide wrongdoing. But Michal's actions demonstrate that, within an environment where human sin abounds, it is not always possible to choose between pure good and pure evil (see note on Ex 1:19).
19:19-24 On Saul's prophetic activity, see note on 18:10.
19:23-24 On why there are two different accounts of the origin of this saying, see note on 10:11.
19:24 On whether this contradicts Samuel's previous statement that he would never again see Saul, see note on 15:35.
20:6 David's actions—skipping a required engagement and asking Jonathan to lie about the reason—seem to have violated God's command to tell the truth (see Ex 20:16; Eph 4:25), as well as his duty to the king. Normally his actions would have been wrong, but in these circumstances they were justifiable. David had good reason to believe that Saul intended to kill him, though he had done nothing worthy of death (see 1 Sm 18:11,17,25; 19:1,10-11,15,20-21,23-24). David had the right to protect himself. His plan prevented the king from committing a crime, and preserved an innocent human life. Furthermore, it did not involve the use of physical force against someone, or the destruction of property, see 19:13-17.
20:17 On whether Jonathan and David had a homosexual relationship, see note on 18:1-4.
20:28-29 For a discussion of whether it was right for Jonathan to lie to his father, see note on 20:6.
21:1 Who was the high priest at this time—Ahimelech, Ahijah, Abiathar, or Abimelech? In the present verse Ahimelech is seemingly the highest-ranking priest, since he had the authority to give David access to Goliath's sword and to give him some of the food normally reserved for priests. Interestingly, when Jesus referred to this same event during a discussion with some Pharisees (Mk 2:26), He declared that Abiathar, not Ahimelech, was the high priest who supplied David with food.
The situation becomes even more complicated when one considers 1 Sm 14:3. There Ahijah was the priest who wore an ephod, a linen garment reserved for officiating priests (see Ex 29:5; Lv 8:7). Being with the king at that time, he was presumably the highest-ranking priest. Furthermore, 1 Ch 18:16 lists Abimelech as the son of Abiathar as priest, though its parallel passage in 2 Sm 8:17 gives his name as Ahimelech.
In attempting to harmonize these passages, it is worth noting that there is no evidence that the Pharisees accused Jesus of error when he named Abiathar as the high priest that helped David, a circumstance lending tacit support to the identification. Further, Abiathar was the name of both Ahimelech's father(2 Sm 8:17; 1 Ch 24:6), though Abiathar was also known as Ahitub (1 Sm 22:20), and his son (1 Sm 22:20; 23:6). The Abiathar to whom Jesus referred could have been Ahimelech's still-living father, who because of his seniority would have been considered the high priest (cp. the joint priestly roles of Caiaphas and his father-in-law Annas during the arrest and trial of Jesus, e.g., Jn 18:13). Alternatively, Jesus could have referred to Ahimelech's son Abiathar, who became high priest after the death of 85 priests at Nob (1 Sm 22:18).
Another possibility is that Ahijah, Ahimelech, Abiathar and Abimelech are different names for the same person. Finally, though textual evidence is lacking, a careless copyist might have substituted the name Abiathar for Ahimelech in the Mark manuscript, creating a conflict that did not exist in the original text. Or the name Abimelech for Ahimelech in 1 Ch 18:16 could be a pre-Christian scribal error; both 'ahi- and 'abi- were common elements in Hebrew names.
21:2 Did David lie to Ahimelech in order to obtain food? David stated that "the king" had given him a mission that required secrecy. Ahimelech did not ask the identity of the king, and David did not clarify to whom he was referring (see also v. 8). Since God is King (Nm 23:21; Ps 10:16; 47:2; 98:6; 1 Tm 1:17) and David was arguably following God's orders in this matter, he was telling the truth.
If David's words to Ahimelech still seem misleading, it should be borne in mind that he was attempting to defend himself against a man who would wrongly take his life. He told the truth in a guarded fashion; to have told Ahimelech more would have brought the priest into the deadly struggle between David and the king. Sadly, David's best efforts failed (1 Sm 22:17) and this occurred anyway, due to the presence of a treacherous observer (1 Sm 21:7).
21:12-15 The narrative of 1 Sm presents two differing pictures of Achish's relationship with David (cp. 29:6-9).Here David is afraid of Achish, who considers him a madman. In the later passage, David is Achish's trusted ally and bodyguard (27:12; 28:2; 29:6-9).
These accounts are not at odds with one another; evidently Achish changed his opinion of David over time. During David's earlier career, Achish knew him only as a dangerous enemy of the Philistines and loyal servant of Saul. Later he learned that David had become Saul's most feared enemy, which made him potentially a valued partner with the Philistines. Achish gladly modified his stance toward David, and accepted him as a comrade-in-arms.
22:18 How many priests did Doeg kill? Ancient authorities provide three figures for the death toll in the slaughter at Nob: the Hebrew text gives 85, the Septuagint 305, and Josephus 385. The differences suggest that a scribal error affected one or more ancient textual traditions. The weight of tradition stands in favor of the Hebrew reading in the MTs.
22:20 Was Abiathar the son of Ahimelech, or Ahimelech the son of Abiathar (see 2 Sm 8:17)? Both are true: Ahimelech's father was named Abiathar, and Ahimelech named his son Abiathar. As in many American families today, families in Bible cultures sometimes reused the names of respected elders from previous generations (see Jesus' genealogy, Mt 1:1-16).
23:1 On whether this verse contradicts an earlier statement regarding the Philistines fighting against Israel, see note on 7:13.
23:13 According to 22:2, David had 400 men in his militia, but this verse states he had 600. These numbers reflect changing circumstances in the nation of Israel; no contradiction is involved. Saul's unpopular actions in slaying the priestly families at Nob (22:18-19), combined with David's military success at Keilah (23:5), had brought hundreds of men over to David's side in hopes of bringing about a change in Israel's leadership.
24:5 David was upset after he cut the corner off of Saul's robe. Though he had not physically injured the king, he had sinned. Saul was still God's chosen and anointed leader for Israel, and the king's robe was a symbol of his divinely appointed office. David's act could be taken as rebellion against God Himself. Furthermore, the law of Moses required all robes to have tassels at their corners to remind people of God's laws (Nm 15:37-40). For David to remove this reminder from Saul's clothing was to hinder the king's relationship with the Lord. Any act that makes it harder for another to serve God is sinful (cp. Lk 17:1-2).
24:21-22 If David took an oath not to cut off Saul's descendants, why did he later allow the Gibeonites to kill seven of them? David's agreement was that he would not wipe out Saul's descendants as a way of "cleaning house" when he took over the kingship of Israel. That was the normal practice in the ancient Near East when a ruler established a new dynasty (that is, a ruler of a different family line from the previous king); it was done to eliminate other potential claimants to the throne (see 1 Kg 15:29; 16:11; 2 Kg 11:1; 25:7). David not only kept his agreement, he invited a member of Saul's family line to eat at the royal table and restored a generous inheritance to him (2 Sm 9:1-13).
Saul, in attempting to exterminate the Gibeonites, had brought great guilt on himself by violating the centuries-old agreement in which the Israelites had allowed them to live in the land (Jos 9:3-15; 2 Sm 21:2). Because Saul, as leader, represented all Israel (for discussions on corporate solidarity, see notes on Dt 2:30; 5:9; 19:6), his guilt led to the spread of famine (2 Sm 21:1). To bring an end to God's judgment, David agreed to let the Gibeonites take limited revenge on the house of Saul. As a remedy for Saul's homicidal actions, this "life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth" principle (Dt 19:21; cp. Ex 21:24; Lv 24:20) was effective; God lifted His punishment from Israel (2 Sm 21:14).
25:1 Did David go to the Wilderness of Paran or the Wilderness of Maon to avoid Saul? Modern Bible translations disagree, reflecting variant readings in ancient manuscripts. The NIV and NLT follow the Greek tradition, while the HCSB and other versions accept the Hebrew text. There is no compelling reason to depart from the Hebrew tradition, as the Greek reading may be due to a copyist's error.
25:37-38 How did Nabal die? English Bible versions differ based on the translators' decisions about how far to pursue a medical diagnosis based on the Hebrew description. The MT in verse 37 reads, lit., "His heart died in his midst, and he became stone." This could be taken to mean that Nabal experienced a heart attack, became dispirited, had a seizure, or suffered a stroke. Temporary loss of consciousness, paralysis or coma could have followed. Since the Hebrew provides only a description of symptoms, not a diagnosis, most modern versions opt for a reading that closely follows the Masoretic Text.
25:43 Throughout his lifetime David acquired at least eight wives (2 Sm 3:2-5,14-16; 1 Ch 3:1-5) and 10 concubines (2 Sm 15:16), in addition to Saul's harem (2 Sm 12:8). The Lord did not approve of David's departure from His plan for marriage. It would have destructive consequences later, when deadly rivalries developed between the women (see 1 Kg 1:1-4; 2:17-25) and families (2 Sm 13:1-32; 1 Kg 2:24-25) within David's harem. God's ideal plan for people from the beginning was for one man to marry one woman, and for the couple to remain in an exclusive sexual relationship for as long as both partners were alive. (On the Bible's view of polygamy, see notes on Ex 21:10; Jdg 8:30-31.)
25:44 Who became Michal's next husband after David? The text here states that Saul gave Michal to Palti (also known as Paltiel, 2 Sm 3:15); however, in 2 Sm 21:8 many English versions state that Michal's husband was Adriel. This textual tension apparently arises from an ancient scribal error in 2 Sm 21:8, where the MT links Michal with Adriel. On the other hand, the Septuagint, Syriac, and even some Hebrew manuscripts state in that same verse that Merab, not Michal, was Adriel's wife. Especially in the light of 1 Sm 18:19 and 2 Sm 6:23, it seems the Septuagint and Syriac preserve the correct reading.
27:7 Ancient manuscripts disagree as to how long Da-vid was in Philistine territory. The MT states that David was among the Philistines a year and four months, while the Septuagint indicates that the time was only four months. Especially in light of Achish's statement in 1 Sm 29:3, the Hebrew reading should be accepted.
27:8 On whether this reference to the Amalekites contradicts an earlier passage in 1 Sm, see note on 15:7-8.
27:9 David took even the women's lives when he attacked the Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites. David's actions described here were aimed at finishing the work that Joshua and later generations of Israelites had left undone, that of ridding Canaan of its pagan cultures. (For further discussion of this question, see notes on Nm 31:13-24; Dt 1:30; 2:21; 7:16; 1 Sm 15:3.) The people groups against which David fought were residual populations that had not yet been dealt with.
27:10 Was it right for David to deceive Achish? In response to the pagan king's inquiry David gave a direct and geographically accurate answer, though not the entire truth. He did not tell which people groups he had been fighting, for to do so was to risk forcing more than 1,000 Israelites—David, his men, and their families—back into a deadly confrontation with Saul. Needless bloodshed would have ensued. (For further discussion of lying, see notes on Ex 1:19; 1 Sm 19:13-17.)
27:12 On whether Achish's relationship with David in this passage contradicts the earlier description of their relationship in 1 Sm, see note on 21:12-15.
28:1 On whether this verse contradicts an earlier statement regarding the Philistines fighting against Israel, see note on 7:13.
28:6 Why didn't the Lord answer Saul's plea for help? The Bible teaches that people who consistently reject God's leadership in their lives, and refuse to follow the guidance He has already provided, should not expect Him to deliver them from trouble resulting from their poor choices (Jb 27:9; 35:12; Pr 1:23-28; Is 1:15; Jr 11:11; 14:12; Ezk 8:18; Mc 3:4; Zch 7:13; Jms 4:3). Saul had consistently disobeyed God (1 Sm 13:13-14; 15:11-23),even going so far as to kill the Lord's priests (22:17-19).He had created vast problems for himself and his nation. The Lord was not going to promise the king supernatural deliverance from those problems, even though Saul earnestly sought His help. Instead, God would use the Philistines as the instrument of judgment against Saul.
28:6 This passage says that Saul inquired of the Lord, while 1 Ch 10:14 says he did not. The contradiction is apparent only in English translations. In this verse Saul "asked" (Hb da-raš; "inquired of") the Lord to provide guidance, but the Lord did not answer him. In1 Ch 10:13-14 Saul "asked" (Hb da-raš; "consulted") a medium for guidance but did not "seek" (Hb darash; "inquire of") the Lord. The point is that Saul died because he committed a capital offense in consulting a medium (see Lv 20:27) rather than seeking to obey God.
28:8-22 Did the medium of Endor really conjure up the dead prophet Samuel? Though scholars disagree on this question, the Bible suggests that she did. The law of Moses sternly forbids consultation of mediums (Lv 20:27; Dt 18:10-12) but never says that communicating with dead people is impossible. Saul was seemingly able to speak with a figure that not only accurately repeated key themes from Samuel's previous private conversations with Saul, but also correctly predicted the deaths of Saul and his sons. This suggests that the king was indeed speaking with Samuel.
28:19 Does this passage suggest that all people go to the same place at death, whereas Lk 16:23 and Ac 1:25 indicate that they go to different places? Along with other passages (see Ec 3:20-21; Dn 12:2,13), this verse refers to an intermediate state between physical death and one's final destiny (Samuel had died only recently, 25:1). Samuel's words to Saul here merely indicate that within a day's time Saul and three of his sons would be dead.
29:6-9 On whether Achish's relationship with David in this passage contradicts the earlier description of their relationship in 1 Sm, see note on 21:12-15.
31:3-5 The Bible provides three complementary accounts of Saul's receiving mortal wounds leading to his death. According to verse 3, Saul was severely wounded by a Philistine arrow. Then, to avoid being sadistically executed by the vengeance-seeking Philistines (17:51; 18:27), Saul fell on his own sword (v. 4), receiving a second grave wound that in time would have killed him (2 Sm 1:9). His armor-bearer, seeing that the king was now dead, then fell upon his sword and perished, as well (1 Sm 31:5). Later, an Amalekite—probably on the battlefield to steal personal possessions from the corpses—tried to take credit for dealing Saul's final death blow (2 Sam 1:6-10); whether or not he was telling the truth, it was a foolish move on his part. Though this sequence of events as the Bible relates it is complicated, it is certainly plausible.
31:4-5 Suicide involves the unauthorized taking of a human life, and as such violates the sixth commandment (Ex 20:13); God does not sanction it. The Apostle Paul prevented the Philippian jailer from taking his own life (Ac 16:27-28). But, as with all other sins (with the exception of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, Mt 12:31), suicide is not a sin that automatically excludes a person from heaven.
The biblical narrative records examples of several individuals who took their own lives. In each case the circumstances of the suicide were inglorious and regrettable. Samson, tortured and humiliated by the Philistines, took his own life with theirs after a ruinous career of disregard for the Lord (Jdg 16:30). Ahithophel committed suicide after being publicly humiliated by having his advice rejected, and in order to avoid being executed for treason (2 Sm 17:23). Zimri, after murdering an Israelite king, ended his life to avoid being killed by his pursuers (1 Kg 16:18). Judas committed suicide after his betrayal of Jesus (Mt 27:5). Saul's attempted suicide was carried out to avoid the humiliation and torture the approaching Philistines would certainly have inflicted on him. There are no biblical examples of honorable suicide. An examination of the Bible's accounts of these lives and deaths suggest two primary scriptural observations about suicide: first, it is an option that some deeply troubled people will choose when facing desperate circumstances; and second, it is a pathetic and tragic end to a human life.