INTRODUCTION
1. Title
In the Jewish canon the two books of Samuel were originally one. Like Kings and Chronicles, each of which is slightly longer than Samuel, the scroll of Samuel was too unwieldy to be handled with ease and so was divided into two parts in early MSS of the LXX. Not until the fifteenth century A.D. was the Hebrew text of Samuel separated into two books. It is understandable that the ancient Hebrew title of the book was “Samuel,” since the prophet Samuel is the dominant figure in the early chapters.
2. Authorship and Date
According to the Babylonian Talmud, the judge and prophet Samuel wrote the first twenty-four chapters of 1 Samuel (1Sa 25:1 reports his death), and the rest of the Samuel corpus was the work of Nathan and Gad (the latter theory is based on 1Ch 29:29). But we cannot say for certain that this is the case. The priests Ahimaaz (cf. 2Sa 15:27, 36; 17:17, 20; 18:19, 22–23, 27–29) and Zabud (cf. 1Ki 4:5), among others, have also been proposed as possible candidates. All arguments about authorship fail to convince. In sum, we must remain content to leave the authorship of Samuel in the realm of anonymity. Ultimately, of course, the Holy Spirit is the Author.
A statement in 1Sa 27:6 has often been referred to in discussions of authorship: “Ziklag . . . has belonged to the kings [pl.] of Judah ever since.” This verse suggests that Samuel was not written until after the division of the kingdom of Israel following the death of Solomon in 931 B.C. But we must reckon with the possibility of a modest number of later editorial updatings and/or modernizations of the original work. With respect to the date of the books of Samuel, all that can be said for certain is that since they report “the last words of David” (2Sa 23:1), the final chapters could not have been written earlier than the second quarter of the tenth century B.C. (David died c. 970).
3. Historical Context
After the conquest of Canaan by Joshua, the people of Israel experienced the normal range of problems that face colonizers of newly occupied territory. Exacerbating their situation, however, was not only the resilience of the conquered but also the failures—moral and spiritual as well as military—of the conquerors. Their rebellion against the covenant that God had established with them at Sinai brought divine retribution, and the restoration that resulted from their repentance lasted only until they rebelled again (cf. Jdg 2:10–19; Ne 9:24–29). By the end of Judges the situation in the land had become intolerable. Israel was in extremis, and anarchy reigned (Jdg 17:6; 21:25). More than three centuries of settlement (cf. Jdg 11:26) did not materially improve Israel’s position, and thoughtful people must have begun crying out for change.
If theocracy implemented through divine charisma was the hallmark of the period of the judges (cf. Jdg 8:28–29), theocracy mediated through divinely sanctioned monarchy would characterize the next phase in the history of the Israelites. In the days of the judges “Israel had no king” (Jdg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), and it was becoming increasingly apparent to many that she desperately needed one. Not until the accession of Saul did the people have a king in the truest sense of the word—and even then they expected him to “judge” them (cf. 1Sa 8:5–6, 20).
Historically, the division of the monarchy occurred in 931/30 B.C., following Solomon’s death. If we interpret the biblical figures literally, Solomon reigned from 970 to 931 (forty years, 1Ki 11:42), David from 1010 to 970 (forty years and six months, 2Sa 5:5), and Saul from 1052 to 1010 (forty-two years, 1Sa 13:1). Assuming that Samuel was about thirty years old when he anointed Saul as king of Israel, we arrive at the approximate dates of 1080 (the birth of Samuel) to 970 B.C. (the death of David) as the time span covered in the books of Samuel.
4. Purpose
In the books of Samuel, monarchy becomes a reality. Three figures dominate the book—Samuel the king-maker, Saul the abortive king, and David the ideal king. A major purpose of Samuel, then, is to define monarchy as a gracious gift of God to his chosen people. Their desire for a king (1Sa 8:5) was not in itself inappropriate, despite Samuel’s initial displeasure (v.6). Nor were they necessarily wrong in wanting a king like “all the other nations” had (vv.5, 20). Their sin was that they were asking for a king “to lead us and to go out before us and to fight our battles” (v.20). They were willing to exchange humble faith in the protection and power of “the LORD Almighty” (1Sa 1:3) for misguided reliance on the naked strength of “the fighting men of Israel” (2Sa 24:4).
5. Literary Form
Justifiable concern for the inspired truth and moral excellence of Scripture should not blind us to its consummate beauty. For the most part the books of Samuel are composed of prose narratives that serve well in presenting a continuous historical account of the advent, establishment, and consolidation of monarchy in Israel. It is possible to isolate various literary units within the larger whole—e.g., the Ark Narratives (1Sa 4:1b–7:17), the Rise of Saul (chs. 8–12), the Decline of Saul (chs. 13–15), the Rise of David (16:2–28:2), etc.—although debate is vigorous concerning their parameters.
In recent years various sections of the books of Samuel have been subjected to close reading in order to uncover aspects of Samuel’s exquisite literary structure. While manufacturing chiasms where there are none is a constant temptation that the exegete must avoid at all costs, the author of Samuel seems to have used the technique on numerous occasions. A clear example is the Epilogue, in which the Song of David (2Sa 22) and David’s Last Words (23:1–7) nestle between two warrior narratives (21:15–22; 23:8–39) that are framed in turn by reports of divine wrath against the people of God (21:1–14; 24).
Second Samuel 1–20 displays a four-part architectonic structure that is impressive indeed. David’s Accession to Kingship Over Judah (1:1–3:5) ends with a four-verse listing of the sons born to David in Hebron (3:2–5); David’s Accession to Kingship Over Israel (3:6–5:16) ends with a four-verse listing of the children born to him in Jerusalem (5:13–16); David’s Powerful Reign (5:17–8:18) and David’s Court History (chs. 9–20) each end with a four-verse roster of his officials (8:15–18; 20:23–26). A symmetrical literary edifice of such magnitude can hardly be accidental.
When poetry punctuates the corpus here and there, it does so in memorable and striking ways. For example, the Song of Hannah and the Song of David—the first near the beginning of the work (1Sa 2:1–11) and the second near its end (2Sa 22)—remind us that the two books were originally one by framing their main contents, by opening and closing in similar ways, and by highlighting the messianic horizons of the Davidic dynasty through initial promise (1Sa 2:10) and eternal fulfillment (2Sa 22:51).
6. Theological Values
In terms of the political scene, Israel at the beginning of 1 Samuel was a loosely organized federation of anemic tribal territories scarcely able to keep the Philistines and other enemies at bay. By the end of 2 Samuel, however, Israel under David had become the most powerful kingdom in the eastern Mediterranean region, strong at home and secure abroad. As far as the religious picture is concerned, the opening chapters of 1 Samuel find Israel worshiping at a nondescript shrine presided over by a corrupt priesthood. The last chapter of 2 Samuel, however, records David’s purchase of a site in Jerusalem on which the temple of Solomon would be built. Sweeping change, then, is a hallmark of the Samuel narratives—changes guided and energized by the Lord himself through humans like Samuel, Saul, and David.
Election is also important in the books of Samuel. The Lord’s elective purpose embraced Samuel (cf. 1Sa 1:19–20), Saul (cf. 10:20–24), and David (cf. 16:6–13). 2 Samuel 7 describes God’s choice of the dynasty of David as that through which future kings (including the Messiah) would come. In 2Sa7, kingship and covenant kiss each other.
Reversal of fortune as an index of divine sovereignty and grace is another significant theme. Hannah, a barren woman, becomes the mother of six children (cf. 1Sa 1–2). Men of privilege (such as Eli’s sons) die in shame (cf. 4:11). An unheralded donkey wrangler (cf. 9:2–3) and an obscure shepherd boy (cf. 16:11) are anointed as the first two rulers of Israel.
A key theme of the ark narratives is that God refuses to be manipulated. Carrying the ark into battle does not guarantee an Israelite victory (cf. 4:3–11), placing the ark in a Philistine temple does not ensure divine blessing (cf. 5:1–6:12), and looking into the ark brings death (cf. 6:19; 2Sa 6:6–7). The ark, with its tablets of the covenant, served as a continual reminder to the Israelites of God’s demands on their lives.
The Deuteronomic theme of blessing for obedience and curses for disobedience is furthered in the books of Samuel. To the extent that David understood that his role as human king was to implement the mandates of the Divine King (Israel’s true ruler), blessing would follow (cf. 2Sa 6:11–15, 17–19; 7:27–29). When he deliberately flouted God’s will, however, he could count equally on the fact that he would be under the curse (cf. 12:1–18). If the Davidic covenant was eternal in the sense that his line would continue forever (cf. 7:12–16, 25–29; Ps 89:27–29, 33–37), it was also conditional in that individual participants in it would be punished when they sinned (cf. 1Ki 2:4; 8:25; Pss 89:30–32; 132:12).
The offices of king and prophet arose simultaneously in Israel. Saul, the first king, was anointed by Samuel, who stands at the head of the prophetic line (cf. 1Sa 9:6–10, 19; Ac 3:24; 13:20) as promised to Moses (Dt 18:15–18). If the task of the king was to administer the covenant, that of the prophet was to interpret its demands. To the end of the monarchy, the prophets protected with holy zeal their divinely authorized claims over kingship.
EXPOSITION
I. Prelude to Monarchy in Israel (1:1–7:17)
First Samuel introduces us to Israel’s last two judges (Eli, a failure; Samuel, a success) and first two kings (Saul, a failure; David, a success). Appropriately the story of Israel’s monarchy begins with an account of the early life of Samuel: prophet, priest, judge, and, most significantly, king-maker. God chose Samuel to anoint Israel’s first two kings. Each was to be the “leader” over his people (10:1; 13:14; 16:13).
A. The Childhood of Samuel (1:1–4:1a)
1. The birth and dedication of Samuel (1:1–28)
1–2 “Ramathaim”—the town of Samuel’s birth, official residence, and burial—means “Two heights.” Elsewhere the town is called simply Ramah, “Height” (1:19; 2:11; 7:17; et al.).
Samuel’s father is called a “Zuphite” who lived in the area assigned to Ephraim. The Chronicles genealogies identify Samuel as a member of the Kohathite branch of the tribe of Levi and an ancestor of tabernacle and temple musicians (1Ch 6:16, 22, 31–33). Allotted no patrimony of their own, the Levites lived among the other tribes (see Jos 21:20–22). “Elkanah,” a popular name in ancient Israel, means “God has created [a son].” He is the only commoner in the books of Samuel and Kings specifically mentioned as having more than one wife. Although polygamy was not God’s intention (cf. Ge 2:24; Mal 2:15), having “two wives” accords with the polygamous culture of the ancient world.
Hannah (lit., “Grace”) initially has pride of place, probably because she was Elkanah’s favorite. Later, however, Peninnah (lit., “Ruby”) is mentioned first, no doubt because she was a prolific childbearer (cf. v.4). Barrenness was the ultimate tragedy for a married woman (cf. Ge 11:30; 15:2–4; 16:1–2; 25:5; et al.).
3–8 Three times a year all Israelite men were required to go to the central sanctuary to offer sacrifices at the main religious festivals (Ex 34:23; Dt 12:5–7; 16:16; cf. Lk 2:41). Shiloh (sixteen miles east of Ramah) had been the location of the tabernacle and the ark of the covenant (4:3–4; Jos 18:1; Jdg 18:31). Eli (“Exalted is [the Lord]”), the priest at Shiloh (v.9; 2:11) and a judge in Israel (4:18), was descended from Aaron’s son Ithamar (14:3; 22:20). Each of Eli’s two reprobate sons—unfortunately also priests—had an Egyptian name: Hophni (“Tadpole”) and Phinehas (“The Nubian”).
The festival in view here is probably the Feast of Tabernacles. Sacrifices were offered to the “the LORD Almighty” (or “the LORD of hosts”). Festival celebrations were times of rejoicing in God’s blessings, especially that of a bountiful harvest. Elkanah distributed portions of sacrificial meat (cf. Ex 29:26; Lev 7:33; 8:29) to Peninnah and her children, since family members shared in certain of the sacrificial offerings (cf. Dt 12:17–18; 16:13–14). Elkanah provided Hannah with a double portion because of his love for her. Hannah’s sterility likely prompted Elkanah to take Peninnah as his second wife, who thus became Hannah’s “rival.” She “kept provoking” Hannah to “grief” (v.16). The devout Hannah was content to allow the Lord to avenge the wrong committed against her (cf. 2Sa 3:39).
The “house of the LORD” refers to the tabernacle but apparently also includes more permanent auxiliary structures that had doors (3:15) and therefore doorposts (v.9). These sacred buildings are called “the LORD’s temple” (cf. 3:3).
Elkanah, mindful of Hannah’s grief, asked her (lit.), “Why is your heart bad?” To do something “with a bad [GK 8317] heart” means to do it resentfully (cf. Dt 15:10). Apparently he thought she was angry or spiteful because she did not have children. Thus Elkanah was asking Hannah, “Why are you resentful? Don’t I [your husband, who loves you very much] mean more to you than ten sons?”
9–11 Hannah’s misery peaked at Shiloh during an annual pilgrimage. Her sadness and “bitterness of soul” led her to pray and make a vow to the Lord for herself and a son. The Nazirite vow (supposed here) included (1) abstaining from the use of grapes in any form, (2) not shaving the hair on one’s head, and (3) avoiding dead bodies (Nu 6:3–7). The Nazirite vow was not usually taken by proxy and was rarely lifelong.
Hannah humbly calls herself “your servant” (GK 563), a word that indicates her submissive in the presence of a superior (cf. v.16; 3:9–10), and requests that God “look upon [her] misery” (cf. Ge 29:32; cf. 2Sa 16:12). God’s remembrance is not a matter of recalling to mind but of paying special attention to or lavishing special care on someone (cf. Ps 8:4). Hannah recognizes that children are always a gift of God. If he will “give” (GK 5989) her a son, in gratitude she will “give” him back to the Lord (but cf. Ex 22:29).
12–18 Hannah’s prayer reveals her intimate relationship with God. She prayed “to” the Lord; she prayed “in her heart”; and she prayed silently. Eli misunderstood Hannah’s actions. Prayer in the ancient world was almost always audible (cf. Pss 3:4; 4:1; 6:9; Da 6:10–11), and drunkenness was not uncommon at festal occasions. He can hardly be excused for his spiritual insensitivity and should have realized that Hannah’s moving lips signified earnest prayer rather than intoxicated mumbling. He therefore mistakenly rebukes her.
Hannah justly protests that she has been “pouring out [her] soul to the LORD,” a vivid idiom for praying earnestly (cf. Pss 42:4; 62:8; La 2:19). She declares herself to be “deeply troubled” and does not want Eli to mistake her for a “wicked woman.”
Satisfied with Hannah’s explanation, Eli tells her to “go in peace” (cf. 25:35). Eli’s hope that God would grant Hannah’s request is soon fulfilled in the birth of Samuel (v.27; cf. 2:20). Being assured by Eli’s response, she breaks her self-imposed fast, and her face is “no longer downcast.”
19–20 The next day Elkanah’s family worshiped the Lord, which had special meaning for Hannah this time. After their return from Shiloh to Ramah, Elkanah “lay with” (lit., “knew”; cf. Ge 4:1, 17, 25) Hannah. The Lord “remembered [GK 2349] her” by enabling her to bear a son. Hannah called him Samuel (lit., “Name of God”) and then punned on the name by saying that she had “asked” the Lord for him (the Hebrew for “asked” is found in the word “Samuel”).
21–23 After Samuel was born, Elkanah continued taking his family to Shiloh to sacrifice to the Lord (1:3; 2:19). On at least one occasion he had the additional purpose of fulfilling a “vow,” perhaps in support of Hannah’s earlier vow (v.11). Hannah decided not to make the trip this time. She preferred to wait until Samuel was weaned. Then she could leave him there to serve the Lord for the rest of his life, as she had promised. After Samuel’s weaning, Hannah intended to “present him before the LORD.” Elkanah agreed with his wife’s desire to follow through with her vow.
24–28 The big day finally arrived, and Hannah was ready. For the trip from Ramah to Shiloh, they took ample provisions. The three-year-old bull was doubtless meant to be sacrificed to the Lord. The purpose of the flour and wine remains obscure (cf. 28:24; Jdg 6:19). When the official slaughterers at the tabernacle had sacrificed the bull, Hannah and Elkanah brought Samuel before Eli the priest. In addressing Eli, Hannah used a common oath formula: “As surely as you live.” She thus solemnly affirms that she is indeed the same woman he first had met a few years earlier and that the boy, Samuel, given in answer to her prayers, is now to be given back to the Lord. Eli responded by worshiping the God whom they both served.
2. The Song of Hannah (2:1–11)
1–2 Verses 1–10 are commonly referred to as the “Song of Hannah” because of similarities to other ancient OT hymns (e.g., Ex 15:1–18, 21; Dt 32:1–43; Jdg 5; and esp. 2Sa 22). It may have originated as a song of triumph at the Shiloh sanctuary in connection with Israel’s victory over an enemy. Such songs would have been taught to worshipers, and this one perhaps became a personal favorite of Hannah. Therefore she sang it as a means of expressing her gratitude and praise to the Giver of life (cf. esp. v.5). Hannah’s song may have been the seedplot for Mary’s Magnificat (Lk 1:46–55; cf. also the Song of Zechariah in vv.68–79).
The song begins on a note of grateful exuberance: Her heart rejoices in the Lord—and in his “deliverance” (or “salvation”; GK 3802) as well (see Pss 9:14; 13:5; 35:9; Isa 25:9). The metaphor of one’s “horn” (GK 7967) being lifted high perhaps comes from the animal world, where members of the deer family use their antlers in playful or mortal combat. “Horn” thus symbolizes strength.
For Hannah, the Lord is holy, unique, and mighty. She therefore celebrates God’s holiness in righteous victory. She then connects his uniqueness with the metaphor of the Rock (cf. 2Sa 22:32; cf. also Ge 49:24; Dt 32:4; Isa 26:4; et al.)
3–8d After describing God’s majesty and power, Hannah warns all who would vaunt themselves in their pride (including Peninnah!). Arrogance is both foolish and futile (Pss 31:18; 75:4; 138:6). God judges the heart and weighs it rather than external appearances (cf. 16:7). The “broken” bows are echoed by the “shattered” opponents of v.10. Making the strong weak and the weak strong is what God does (cf. Heb 11:32–34).
The last half of v.5 had special meaning for Hannah, who had once been barren (cf. Jdg 13:2–3). “Seven” here means simply “many,” but at the same time also represents the ideal (cf. Job 1:2; 42:13). Just as she who has had many “pines away,” so the mother of seven will “grow faint.” The formerly barren Hannah eventually had a total of six children (v.21).
The Sovereign God ultimately blesses some and curses others (cf. vv.9c–10c). Verse 6a contrasts death with life; possibly the second half does too, though it may also refer to rescue from the brink of death after a serious illness (therefore contrasting sickness with health; cf. Ps 30:2–3).
The Lord can—and does—reverse the fortunes of poor and rich (Zec 9:3–4), of the humble and the proud (Job 5:11; Ps 75:7; and esp. 2Sa 22:28). He can lift a Baasha “from the dust” and later consume him (1Ki 16:2–3); he can ensconce a Job on an ash heap (Job 2:8) and later restore him (Job 42:10).
8e–10 The “foundations of the earth” (cf. 2Sa 22:16) refers pictorially to the firmness and stability of God’s creation—which is always under his sovereign control. How much more is he able to protect his people (Pr 3:26) and confound his (and their) enemies (Dt 32:35)!
The word often translated “saint” (GK 2883) means “one to whom the Lord has pledged his covenant love [GK 2876]” (cf. Pss 12:1, 8; 50:5, 16; 97:10; 145:10, 20). The final destiny of the ungodly, however, is the silence of Sheol, the “grave” (GK 8619; v.6), where all is darkness (Job 10:21–22; 17:13; 18:18; cf. also Mt 8:12).
Hannah learned that in the battles of life it is not physical strength that brings victory. Whether through human agency or directly, God always shatters the enemy (cf. Ex 15:6; Ps 2:9). Peninnah may have “thundered against” (1:6, lit.) Hannah, but Hannah knew full well that the Lord would ultimately “thunder against” Peninnah and all others who oppose him.
The Song of Hannah ends as it began, by using the word “horn” in the sense of “strength.” Hannah voices the divine promise of strength to the coming “king”—initially David, who will found a dynasty with messianic implications. The king—the “anointed” one (GK 5431)—will rule by virtue of God’s command and will therefore belong to him body and soul. The king will be “his” (2Sa 22:51).
11 With Samuel’s dedication and Hannah’s song complete, the family returned to Ramah—except for Samuel, who began what was to be a continuing ministry.
3. The wicked sons of Eli (2:12–26)
12–17 The reference to Hophni and Phinehas as “wicked men” (GK 1175) contrasts them with Hannah, who did not consider herself a “wicked woman” (1:16). Furthermore, the sons of Eli “had no regard for the LORD”—unlike Samuel, who “did not yet know” (3:7) the Lord.
Not content with the priests’ portions of the sacrificial animals (cf. Lev 7:34), the servant of Eli’s sons “would take for [themselves] whatever the fork brought up.” And not only that, “even before the fat was burned” (Lev 7:31), Hophni and Phinehas demanded raw meat. On occasion they even preferred roasted meat to boiled—as if in mockery of the necessarily hasty method of preparing the first Passover feast (Ex 12:8–11). They wanted their unlawful portion before the Lord received what was rightfully his. Their rebellion, impatience, and impudence were great sins. These premonarchic priests treated the Lord’s offerings with contempt, which could only lead to disaster (cf. Nu 16:30–32).
18–26 As a young apprentice priest under Eli’s supervision, Samuel wore the “linen ephod,” a priest’s garment. Indeed, the little “robe” that Samuel’s mother made for him annually as he was growing up may well have been an example of the “robe of the ephod” (Ex 28:31). By providing Hannah with additional children, the Lord continued to be gracious to her (cf. Ge 21:1). Samuel’s continued growth in the Lord’s presence, in stature and in favor with God and people, anticipates Luke’s portrayal of Jesus’ youth (Lk 2:40, 52).
The hapless Eli, whose advanced age is stressed from this point on (4:15, 18), was unable to restrain the sinful conduct of his sons. To their earlier callous treatment of their fellow Israelites (vv.13–16), they added sexual promiscuity—and with the women who served at the tabernacle (cf. Ex 38:8)! Such ritual prostitution was specifically forbidden to the people of God (Nu 25:1–5; Dt 23:17; Am 2:7–8). Eli’s rebuke, justified in the light of widespread and public reports of his sons’ evil deeds, fell on deaf ears. His theological arguments, weak at best, were to no avail, especially since God had already determined to put Hophni and Phinehas to death. What is eminently clear is that God’s decision to end the lives of Eli’s sons was irrevocable. Hannah had already expressed her willingness to leave such decisions within the sphere of divine sovereignty (v.6)—and so must we!
4. The oracle against the house of Eli (2:27–36)
27–36 The chapter concludes by expanding on the Lord’s intention to put Eli’s sons to death (v.25). The prophetic oracle to (and against) Eli uses the messenger formula (“This is what the LORD says”) and mediates the divine word through an anonymous “man of God.” The term “man of God” occasionally refers to an angel (cf. Jdg 13:3, 6, 8–9) but is usually a synonym for “prophet” (cf. 1Sa 9:9–10). This man of God reminds Eli that God had revealed himself to his ancestor Levi’s house (in Aaron; see Ex 4:14–16) before the Exodus. Indeed, Aaron had been the object of special divine election to serve the Lord as the first in a long line of priests (Ex 28:1–4). Aaron would go up “to” the Lord’s altar and would wear the ephod in the course of his divinely ordained work (cf. Lev 8:7).
Recipients of such privilege, Eli and his sons nevertheless “scorn” (GK 1246) the Lord’s prescribed sacrifices. Literally, the verb means “to kick” and is found only once elsewhere in the OT (Dt 32:15). Although the Hebrew words for “fat” and “heavy” are different there than the word for “fattening” here, the parallel is striking: Like Israel centuries earlier, the house of Eli has “kicked at” the Lord’s offerings by gorging themselves on the best parts of the sacrifices (vv.13–17). By condoning the sin of Hophni and Phinehas, Eli has demonstrated that he loves his sons more than he loves God and that he is therefore unworthy of the Lord’s continued blessing (see Mt 10:37).
The Lord had promised that Aaron’s descendants would always be priests (cf. Ex 29:9), and he had confirmed that promise on covenant oath (Nu 25:13). They would “minister [GK 2143] before” the Lord forever. But because of flagrant disobedience, the house of Eli would be judged by God. Although the Aaronic priesthood was perpetual, individual priests who sinned could thereby forfeit covenant blessing. The description of divine judgment, when translated literally, is vivid: “I will chop off your arm and the arm of your father’s house.” Furthermore, Eli would be the last “old man” in his family line, because God’s execution of his death sentence would be swift and sure (4:11, 18; 22:17–20; 1Ki 2:26–27).
Examples of the predicted distress in God’s “dwelling” (GK 5061; the tabernacle is meant) are the capture of the ark by the Philistines (4:11) and the destruction of Shiloh (cf. Jer 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9). Although in Eli’s line there would “never” be an old man, in the line that would replace his there would “always” be a faithful priest. The only member of Eli’s line to “be spared” was Abiathar, and he was later removed from the priesthood (1Ki 2:26–27).
Hophni and Phinehas would die “on the same day” (4:11), a prophetic sign to Eli not only of his own impending death but also of the fulfillment of the other components in the oracle of the man of God. The Lord would bring a “faithful” priest on the scene, who would be privy to the very thoughts of God and obedient to him.
“Faithful” (GK 586) contrasts strongly with the rebellion of Eli’s sons and plays an important role in the succeeding context, both near and remote. In this same verse the Lord says, “I will firmly [GK 586] establish his house”—lit., “I will build for him a faithful house” (cf. 2Sa 7:27). In the present context the faithful priest whose house the Lord would establish refers initially to Samuel (3:1; 7:9; 9:12–13; cf. esp. 3:20). Later, however, the line of Zadok would replace that of Abiathar, Eli’s descendant (2Sa 8:17; 15:24–29; 1Ki 2:35)—a replacement that would constitute a greater fulfillment of the oracle of the man of God. Zadok and his descendants would thus “always” minister before the Lord’s “anointed one”—David’s son Solomon (1Ki 2:27, 35) and his descendants. Ultimate fulfillment would come only in Jesus the Christ, the supremely Anointed One, “designated by God to be high priest” (Heb 5:10) “forever, in the order of Melchizedek” (6:20).
As for the members of Eli’s house, once fattened on priestly perquisites, soon not even the least benefit of priestly office would be theirs.
5. The call of Samuel (3:1–4:1a)
1 Special revelation was rare in the days of the judges. The few visions that did exist were not widely known (cf. Am 8:11–12). The word “vision” (GK 2606) means “divine revelation mediated through a seer.”
2 Eli’s aging eyes were so “weak” (cf. Dt 34:7) that he could barely “see” (he would eventually go completely blind; cf. 4:15). How different from Samuel, whose eyes saw clearly in a physical and a spiritual sense (v.15)!
3 The lamps on the seven-branched lampstand (Ex 25:31–37) were filled with olive oil, lit at twilight (30:8), and kept burning “before the LORD from evening till morning” (27:20–21; cf. Lev 24:2–4; 2Ch 13:11). Thus Samuel’s encounter with the Lord on his bed in the tabernacle compound took place during the night, since the “lamp of God had not yet gone out.”
4–10 Although Samuel did not yet know that it was the Lord who was speaking to him, his answer was typical of the servant who hears and obeys the divine call (Ge 22:1, 11; Ex 3:4; Isa 6:8). Samuel’s openness to serving God would soon enable him to know the Lord in a way that Eli’s sons never did (2:12). Although the word of the Lord had not yet been revealed to Samuel, that would soon take place (v.11); and as God continued to speak to Samuel through the years (v.21), the Lord’s word would so captivate him that it would be virtually indistinguishable from “Samuel’s word” (4:1). Samuel the priest would become Samuel the prophet (v.20).
Samuel thought that Eli was calling him. Twice Eli told Samuel to go back to bed, but the third time it finally dawned on the aged priest that it must be God who was calling the boy. He therefore told Samuel that he should respond the next time by saying, “Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.” This time the Lord “came and stood there,” suggesting that Samuel could see him as well as hear him. Again the Lord called out Samuel’s name twice, imparting a sense of urgency and finality. Samuel responded as Eli had instructed, though he left out the word “LORD.”
11–14 The Lord’s word to Samuel not only had immediate reference to Eli’s house but also pointed forward to the more remote future (2:27–36). The disaster to overcome Eli and his sons (including the destruction of Shiloh) would “make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle.” Death was the penalty for showing contempt for the priesthood (Dt 17:12) as well as for disobeying one’s parents (21:18–21), and Eli was implicated because he did not “restrain” (GK 3909) Hophni and Phinehas. The house of Eli had thus committed blatant sins against God and showed no signs of remorse. They were now subject to the divine death sentence (2:25; cf. Heb 12:16–17), and no sacrifice or offering could atone for their guilt.
15–18 When Samuel arose in the morning, he opened the doors of the tabernacle compound and doubtless busied himself with other tasks to avoid telling Eli what he had seen and heard. The aged priest was not to be denied, however, and demanded a full report. Indeed, he swore an oath of imprecation, calling down God’s judgment if the boy refused to tell everything he knew. Samuel’s obedient response in v.18 echoes key words from v.17 (pers. tr.): “Samuel told him all the words; he did not hide [anything] from him.” Eli’s reaction is both devout and submissive; he resigns himself to divine sovereignty.
3:19–4:1a As the Lord’s presence would later be with David (16:18; 18:12), so the Lord was with Samuel, a fact evident to all the Israelites. That God “let none of [Samuel’s] words fall” means that he made sure that everything Samuel said with divine authorization came true. Although earlier God’s word had not been revealed to Samuel (v.7), it now was; and as the Lord had appeared to him earlier (vv.10–14), so he “continued to appear at Shiloh.” The Lord’s word became equivalent to “Samuel’s word” (4:1; see comment on 3:4–10).
The focus of this section is thus the Lord’s sentence of judgment against the house of Eli. The boy Samuel, having become a “man of God” (9:6–14), has confirmed in no uncertain terms the prophecy earlier proclaimed by the anonymous “man of God” (2:27–36).
B. The Ark Narratives (4:1b–7:17)
1. The capture of the ark (4:1b–11)
1b The “Philistines” (GK 7149), inveterate enemies of Israel, are mentioned nearly 150 times in 1 and 2 Samuel alone. They were so entrenched and dominant in the coastal areas and the foothills of Canaan that they eventually gave their name (Palestine) to the entire land. Although their connections with various Aegean cultures have been verified through decades of intensive research, their origins remain somewhat obscure. The OT relates them to Caphtor (Ge 10:14 = 1Ch 1:12; Jer 47:4; Am 9:7), which was probably Crete. The aggressive, expansionist ancestors of the Philistines of the time of Samuel apparently arrived in Canaan shortly after 1200 B.C.
It is impossible to say who was the aggressor in this first-recorded battle between Israel and the Philistines. The Philistines camped at Aphek, an important site inhabited during the entire biblical period. Ebenezer, where the Israelites camped, is about two miles east of Aphek on the road to Shiloh.
2–3 The Israelites were defeated not once but twice in this chapter (vv.2, 10). Not until 7:10–11 did they defeat the Philistines on the battlefield and then only (as always) with divine help. The Israelites lost “four thousand” men, a terrible tragedy. The Israelite elders were puzzled by the debacle on the battlefield. Their solution was to bring the ark of the covenant into the camp to guarantee the Lord’s presence with his people. The “ark” (GK 778) is a significant thematic element in this section.
The elders doubtless remembered the account of Joshua’s victory over Jericho (Jos 6:2–20; cf. also Nu 10:35). What they failed to understand, however, was that the ark would not ensure victory. If God willed defeat for his people, a thousand arks would not bring success. The elders understood clearly that if God was not “with” them, defeat was inevitable (Nu 14:42; Dt 1:42). They mistakenly assumed, however, that wherever the ark was, the Lord was.
4–9 So men were sent to Shiloh from the Israelite camp at Ebenezer to bring back the ark, here impressively described as “the ark of the covenant of the LORD Almighty, who is enthroned between the cherubim” (cf. 2Sa 6:2; 2Ki 19:15). In ancient Near Eastern art a king was often pictured sitting on a throne supported on each side by a cherub (winged lions with human heads.) One function of the ark of the covenant was to serve as the symbolic cherub-throne of the invisible Great King.
The ark, accompanied by Hophni and Phinehas, caused a great commotion upon reaching the Israelite camp. The people gave a loud shout (cf. Jos 6:5, 20). The uproar aroused the Philistines camped nearby, and their superstitious response echoed that of the Israelite elders. They believed that the arrival of the ark heralded the coming of whatever god or gods its owners worshiped. To avoid being enslaved by the Hebrews, as the Hebrews had been by them (cf. Jdg 13:1), they encouraged one another to be strong and fight like men.
10–11 The result of the ark’s presence was another Israelite defeat, this one far more severe and described as a “slaughter” (GK 4804). The Philistines’ own turn would come (14:13; 19:8; 23:5), but in the meantime Israel suffered heavy losses. The sins of Eli’s sons produced appalling casualties among Israel’s foot soldiers (cf. Dt 28:15, 25). As foretold by the man of God (2:34), Hophni and Phinehas died. The elders’ folly was revealed as the Philistines captured the ark, and the destruction of Shiloh—and perhaps the tabernacle itself—was not far behind.
2. The death of Eli (4:12–22)
12–18 No sooner was the second battle with the Philistines over than the tragic news of Israel’s defeat reached Shiloh. A Benjamite messenger, with his clothes “torn and dust on his head” (cf. Jos 7:6; Ne 9:1), reports Israel’s flight from and slaughter by the Philistines as well as the death of two prominent priests.
Eli is sitting on his chair beside the road (cf. 1:9). Perhaps no longer considering himself to be the priest he once was, he nevertheless trembles with fear for the ark’s safety.
The messenger first told his story to the townspeople at Shiloh, who “sent up a cry” when they learned that the ark had not brought them victory and was no longer with them. Mere possession of the ark enabled neither Israelite nor Philistine to manipulate the God whose presence it symbolized.
Hearing the uproar in the city, Eli wanted to know its meaning. Ninety-eight years old, obese, and totally blind, Eli was probably unable to go into town without considerable help; so the messenger went to him. The news was bad indeed. That his sons were dead did not seem to faze Eli, who may have already given them up as hopeless. But the shock of hearing that the ark had been captured was too much for him. He “fell” off his chair, broke his neck, and died. The tragedy of Eli’s life matches that of Saul: sometimes serving God faithfully, at other times not measuring up to even the most moderate of standards. Priest at Shiloh for most of his adult life, Eli had judged Israel forty years.
19–22 Eli’s death did not end the tragedy, even in his own family. The message of Eli’s and Phinehas’s deaths, combined with the report of the ark’s capture, caused Phinehas’s pregnant wife to go into premature labor. The distressing report caused her to be “overcome by her labor pains.” The combination was fatal: She died in childbirth. Before she died Phinehas’s wife named her newborn son Ichabod (“No glory”; cf. 14:3): “The glory [GK 3883] has departed [lit., ‘has gone into exile’] from Israel, for the ark of God has been captured.” After the Exodus the Lord promised to consecrate the tabernacle by his glory (Ex 29:43); after it was set up, his glory filled it and the cloud covered it (Ex 40:34–35). “Glory” represents the Presence of God dwelling in the tabernacle (Ps 26:8; cf. also Ex 25:8; 29:44–46), giving rise to the later theological term the “Shek(h)inah Glory” (cf. also Heb 9:5). Perhaps the wife of Phinehas, in her dying hour, spoke better than she knew.
3. The Lord’s affliction of the Philistines (5:1–12)
1–5 From the battlefield at Ebenezer, the Philistines took the ark to Ashdod, apparently the chief city (6:17). Ashdod was located three miles from the Mediterranean coast about thirty miles southwest of Ebenezer. The ark was brought into the temple of Dagon, the Philistine national deity, and placed near a large idol representing him. The next day the statue of Dagon had fallen facedown, vanquished by Israel’s God (see 17:49) and lying prostrate before the ark in a posture of worship. The people of Ashdod put the idol back in its “place” (cf. v.11).
The next morning Dagon was again facedown before the ark—this time with its head and hands “broken off” (cf. 17:51). In the ancient world severed heads and hands (cf. Jdg 8:6) were battlefield trophies. The Lord had therefore vanquished Dagon in his own temple. The head and hands of Dagon’s statue landed on the temple threshold, rendering it sacred (in the minds of his worshipers) and therefore untouchable (cf. Zep 1:4, 9).
6–12 With the reference to Dagon’s hands being rendered helpless, a major motif is introduced in the account: “the LORD’s hand.” The first reference here to the hand of the Lord comes from the lips of the Philistines, who related the divine hand to the plagues of Egypt (4:8)—and rightly so (see Ex 9:3; cf. also Jer 21:5–6). They did not take lightly the possibility that the fate of the Egyptians might befall them also (6:6).
“Tumors” (GK 6754) were one of the many potential curses that would be inflicted on the Israelites if they disobeyed God (Dt 28:58–60). Here that affliction descended on the Philistines, who realized that the hand of the Lord was heavy on them (cf. v.11). Their five rulers (6:18) advised them to get rid of the ark—which all recognized as the visible counterpart for the Israelite deity and therefore the cause of the plague—by moving it to Gath (about twelve miles east-southeast of Ashdod). The Lord’s hand was then against Gath (cf. 7:13) and brought “an outbreak of tumors” on its inhabitants.
The ark was quickly shipped to Ekron (about six miles due north of Gath). But the arrival of the ark in Ekron had the same effect there as the news of its capture had in Shiloh: The people sent up a cry for help, fearful that the God of Israel would “kill” them—a power that he certainly possessed (cf. 2:6, 25). The people of Ekron told their rulers to send the ark away. Even those who did not die were afflicted with tumors; no one escaped the dreaded plague.
4. The return of the ark (6:1–7:1)
1–6 Chapter 4 tells of the capture of the ark, ch. 5 of its movement from place to place in Philistia, and ch. 6 of its return to Israel after being in Philistine territory for several months. The Philistines, eager to rid themselves of the ark and its sinister influence, sought supernatural guidance as to the best way of sending the ark back to “its [proper] place.” “Tell us how,” they said to their pagan counselors.
Ancient religious protocol mandated that the worshiper not approach his god(s) empty-handed (cf. Ex 23:15; Dt 16:16). Thus the Philistine priests and diviners advised that a guilt offering accompany the ark back to Israel. Although such an offering was normally an animal sacrifice, occasionally money or other valuables were acceptable. If the Lord accepted the Philistines’ offering, their people would be healed; then they would know that his hand had been responsible for their misery.
The linking of tumors, rats, and plague suggests that the tumors were symptoms of bubonic plague spread by an infestation of rats, which were capable of destroying a country (cf. Jer 36:29; Da 11:16). The Philistine advisers recommended gold models of tumors and rats to serve as the guilt offering to placate the God of Israel. Perhaps the Philistines intended the models to function in the realm of sympathetic magic also, so that by sending them out of their land the genuine articles would depart as well.
The word “plague” (GK 4487) recalls the Egyptian plagues in Ex 9:14, further heightening the parallel between the earlier disaster and this (cf. again v.6). The lesson is clear: Hardening one’s heart only brings divine retribution, resulting in the victory of God’s people over their enemies (Ex 12:31–32). The Philistines are thus well advised to cut their losses as soon as possible.
7–12 A new cart pulled by two cows “that have calved and have never been yoked” was to be used to transport the ark. The cows would later be sacrificed by the Israelites (v.14) in faint reminiscence of the slaughter of the red heifer by Eleazar (Nu 19:2–3). The Philistines were to “take” the calves from their mothers, “send” the gold objects as a guilt offering to the Lord, and “return” the ark to him and his people (v.21).
The first destination of the ark was Beth Shemesh, just inside Israelite territory. Beth Shemesh had a pagan past (its name means “Temple of the sun-god”). The Philistines of Samuel’s day acknowledged that Beth Shemesh was under Israelite control. They hoped that the cows would take the ark there, reasoning that if cows new to the yoke would desert their newborn calves—even temporarily—to pull a cart all the way to Beth Shemesh, that would be a supernatural sign that the divine owner of the ark had sent the plague against them. But if the ark did not reach Beth Shemesh, they would take that fact as proof that the Lord’s hand had not struck them and that mere chance was responsible.
Against natural instinct (“lowing all the way” because their calves were not with them) and under divine compulsion (not turning “to the right or to the left”—i.e., staying on the main road), the cows pulled the cart straight to Beth Shemesh. The five Philistine rulers, following the cows to the border, stayed only long enough to make sure that the ark was securely in Israelite hands.
6:13–7:1 The ark arrived at Beth Shemesh in June, during wheat harvest, after the spring rains (cf. 12:16–18). Rejoicing to see the ark, the people decided to use the cart for fuel and to sacrifice the cows as a burnt offering. They “chopped up the wood” (cf. Ge 22:3). A large rock in a field belonging to Joshua of Beth Shemesh became the temporary locale for the ark. The Levites, who alone were permitted to handle the ark (cf. Jos 3:3; 2Sa 15:24), had removed it from the cart and set it on the rock, which served as a witness of the ark’s homecoming.
Meanwhile, the five Philistine rulers returned to their five cities (cf. Jos 13:3). Each one was fortified and was supported by a number of nearby “country villages” (cf. similarly Dt 3:5; Est 9:19).
Divine retribution continued to overtake those who misused the ark. This time some men of Beth Shemesh “looked into” (GK 8011) the ark, a sin punishable by instant death (Nu 4:5, 20; cf. also 2Sa 6:6–7). The mourners sensed that the ark symbolized the presence of a “holy God” (cf. Lev 11:44–45), whose sanctity they could not approach. They therefore hoped he would depart from them.
Kiriath Jearim (about ten miles northeast of Beth Shemesh) was the ark’s location for the next twenty years (7:2). More specifically, it resided at “Abinadab’s house on the hill” (7:1; 2Sa 6:3). Eleazar son of Abinadab was then consecrated to guard it. The downgraded status of the ark may have been partially due to the Philistine destruction of Shiloh (presupposed by Ps 78:60; Jer 7:12, 14; 26:6, 9) and perhaps the tabernacle as well. Not until David’s accession as king in Jerusalem would the ark once again be restored to its rightful place of honor (2Sa 6).
5. Samuel the judge (7:2–17)
2–4 The “twenty years” that the ark remained at Kiriath Jearim may be figurative for “half a generation,” during which time the “people” (lit., “house”; GK 1074) of Israel “mourned,” apparently with sincere remorse. They were bemoaning the reduced status of the ark, no longer housed in a tabernacle. Samuel encouraged them to repent and to serve the Lord wholeheartedly, as he would do later (12:20, 24).
Samuel urged the people to get rid of the foreign gods (GK 466; cf. “the Baals and the Ashtoreths” in 12:10) that they were so prone to worship (cf. also Dt 12:3; Jdg 10:16; 2Ch 19:3; 33:15). Baal and Ashtoreth were the chief god and goddess in the Canaanite pantheon during this period. Samuel pleaded with them to commit themselves wholeheartedly to the Lord. God’s people are to serve him exclusively (see Dt 6:13).
5–6 The assembly of “all Israel” did not necessarily include every single Israelite living in the land but most likely consisted of representatives from all the tribal territories. Convocations at Mizpah in Benjamin were not uncommon in the days of the judges and early monarchy (cf. 10:17; Jdg 20:1; 21:8). There Samuel prayed for the people (cf. also vv.8–9; 8:6; 12:19, 23; 15:11; Jer 15:1), and there they “poured . . . out [water] before the LORD,” perhaps a symbol of contrition (cf. 2Sa 23:16).
The notice of Samuel’s judgeship is followed immediately by a report of Philistine intention to attack Israel. The function of a “judge” during this period was more executive than judicial. “Judge” often paralleled “ruler” or “prince” (cf. Ex 2:14), and one of the most common roles of the judge was to repel invaders (Jdg 2:16, 18).
7–9 Cowed by Philistine might, Israel typically reacted with fear to news of impending warfare with them (17:11; 28:5). But when the Philistines “came up” to attack, Samuel prayerfully “offered . . . up” a burnt offering to the Lord. The sacrifice was a suckling lamb at least eight days old (cf. Lev 22:27).
10–12 While the sacrifice was still in progress, the Philistine troops marched forward. Before the battle could be joined, however, the Lord “thundered” against the enemy (see 2:10; 2Sa 22:14–15). He demonstrated that he, not the Philistine Dagon, not the Canaanite Baal son of Dagon, was truly the God of the storm, the only one able to control the elements whether for good or ill (cf. 12:17–18). “With loud thunder” highlights the vivid OT image of thunder as the voice of God (see Ps 29:3–9).
The ensuing panic in their ranks (cf. 2Sa 22:14–15) drove the Philistines into full retreat, enabling the Israelites to pursue and slaughter them. The Ebenezer of v.12 is almost certainly not the Ebenezer of 4:1 and 5:1, since the latter is too far to the northwest for Mizpah to be used as a benchmark for its location. Ebenezer (“The stone of [divine] help”), the stone set up by Samuel, paid tribute to the God apart from whom victory is inconceivable (cf. Ge 35:14; Jos 4:9; 24:26).
13–17 The second half of v.13 assumes continued Philistine pressure (though greatly reduced) against Israel and thus cautions us not to understand the first half as meaning that the Philistines no longer bothered the Israelites (cf. esp. 9:16). The Amorites, who preferred to live in the hilly regions of the land (cf. Nu 13:29; Dt 1:7) as compared to the Philistines who lived along the coast, were also relatively nonbelligerent during this period.
The circuit of Samuel’s judgeship was relatively restricted: Bethel, Gilgal, and Mizpah were all within a few miles of one another. All three towns served as shrine centers at one time or another, as did Ramah, Samuel’s hometown. The latter was not far from the other three (about fourteen miles northwest of Mizpah). The local nature of judgeship in ancient Israel subtly introduces us to the need for a king.
II. Advent of Monarchy in Israel (8:1–15:35)
Monarchy was a significant factor in God’s plans for his people from the days of Abraham (Ge 17:6, 16). The blessing of Jacob hints at the establishment of a continuing dynasty (Ge 49:10). Israel was to be “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Ex 19:6). Balaam’s fourth oracle refers to monarchical rule (Nu 24:17–19), and Moses outlines the divine expectations Israel’s kings were to meet (Dt 17:14–20).
However, from the earliest days it was recognized that ultimately God himself was King (Ex 15:18; Nu 23:21; Dt 33:5); he alone possessed absolute power and authority (Ex 15:6, 11; Jdg 5:3–5). Any king of Israel would have to appreciate from the outset that he was to rule over Israel under God. Only on the basis of this fundamental theological premise can the narratives of the advent of monarchy in Israel be properly understood.
A. The Rise of Saul (8:1–12:25)
1. The demand for a king (8:1–22)
1–3 With reference to Samuel’s advanced age (vv.1, 5; 12:2), the old order (of the judges) is passing, the new (of the monarchy) is dawning. While Samuel continued as judge at Ramah and nearby towns (7:15–17), he appointed his two sons to serve in the same capacity at Beersheba on the southern boundary of the land (cf. 3:20). Their actions and reputations (v.5) belied their names—Joel (“The Lord is God”); Abijah (“My [Divine] Father is the Lord”)—but at least their geographical distance from Samuel (Beersheba is about fifty-seven miles south-southwest of Ramah) absolved him from any direct complicity in their evil deeds.
Whether Samuel should have appointed his sons as judges in the first place is highly questionable, since judgeship was usually a divine charisma. In any event, they did not follow in their father’s footsteps. “Turned aside” and “perverted” (both GK 5742) tie their three sins together. Failing to emulate their father (12:3–4) or their God (Dt 10:17), Joel and Abijah accepted bribes, a crime inseparable from the perversion and denial of justice (Pr 17:23). Ironically, Samuel’s two sons were as wicked in their own way as were Eli’s two sons.
4–9 Old men (“elders”) confront the old man and—perhaps unwittingly—remind him of the cruel parallel between himself and the deceased Eli (cf. 2:22). Because of Samuel’s age, and because they want nothing to do with a dynastic succession that would include his rebellious sons, the elders decide that a king would best suit their needs. Samuel had “appointed” his sons as “judges”; the elders wanted him to “appoint” (GK 8492) a king to “judge” Israel.
This king was to lead them, “such as all the other nations have.” Verse 20 reveals their hidden agenda: The king would “go out before us and fight our battles.” They were looking for a permanent military leader who would build a standing army powerful enough to repulse any invader (cf. Dt 17:14, 15–17). Samuel, fully aware of those dangers, was “displeased” with the elders’ request—and he was convinced that the Lord too was displeased (12:17; cf. also 15:11).
But Samuel, as he sought God’s mind in the matter, was doubtless surprised when the Lord told him to “listen to” (or “obey”; GK 9048) the people’s request mediated through their elders. Israel was not rejecting the Lord’s chosen leader but the Lord himself (see also 10:19). Since the days of the Exodus, the people had consistently preferred other gods and other leaders to God himself and his chosen servants.
God, graciously condescending to the people’s desire (a desire not in itself wrong but sullied by the motivation behind it), told Samuel to warn them what the “regulations of the kingship” (10:25) would demand of them, particularly their loss of freedom in (absolute) monarchy.
10–18 The “regulations of the kingship” described by Samuel (with God’s prompting and approval) were totally bereft of redeeming features and consisted only of oppressive requirements. Among the latter was forced labor, including compulsory induction of both raw recruits and laborers in field and foundry.
The palace-to-be would acquire horses in great numbers (cf. Dt 17:16), and the king’s chariots would need front runners (cf. 2Sa 15:1; 1Ki 1:5). Reference to commanders “of thousands and . . . of fifties” implies a huge standing army, with “weapons of war.” Women would not be exempt from conscription into royal service. Even in desperate times the king would always get his share (Am 7:1)—a minimum of 10 percent of the income from field and flock.
Key words in the “regulations of the kingship” are “take” (GK 4374) and “best” (GK 3203). By nature royalty is parasitic rather than giving, and kings are never satisfied with the worst. Samuel’s regulations followed contemporary semifeudal Canaanite society. In the light of Samuel’s own record of fairness and honesty during his judgeship (cf. esp. 12:3–5), it is no wonder that he was alarmed at the prospect of setting up a typical Oriental monarchy in Israel.
If these “regulations of the kingship” attained full authority, the average Israelite would soon be little more than a chattel at the disposal of his monarch. The frequent occurrence of “servant” and “slave” thus sounds an especially ominous note. In v.17 Samuel warned the people that they would “become” their king’s “slaves” (GK 6269), terminology employed elsewhere of bondage imposed by a conqueror (17:9). Too late the Israelites would cry out to a God who would not answer—unlike the days when Samuel was judge (7:8–9).
19–22 Samuel’s best efforts were futile. Despite his totally negative delineation of the royal “regulations,” the people refused to “listen to” (or “obey”; GK 9048) him. They wanted a king—a demand that Samuel hurled back in their teeth twice in the context of their rejection of divine rule (10:19; 12:12). They clung doggedly to their original request (v.5). The implicit military component of their idea of monarchy now becomes explicit: Their king would “fight our battles”—although a godly Israelite king would know from the outset that it was the Lord’s joyful duty to do just that for his people (2Ch 32:8).
As the Lord had told Samuel earlier (v.7), so he told him now: “Listen to them and give them a king.” On that negative (for Samuel) note the chapter ends, and Samuel’s farewell oration to Israel begins (12:1).
2. The anointing of Saul (9:1–10:16)
1–2 Saul’s father, Kish, is called a “man of standing” (cf. Ru 2:1; 1Ki 11:28). The term often has military connotations and is translated “brave man” in Saul’s servant’s description of David (16:18). It is nowhere used of Saul himself. The family line of Kish is from Benjamin, the smallest of the tribes. Israel’s first king came from these humble origins. The Hebrew root for the name “Saul,” which means “Asked (of God),” occurs in 8:10, where the people were “asking” for a king (GK 8626).
Saul is introduced as an “impressive” young man (cf. Ge 39:6; 2Sa 14:25), “without equal” among the Israelites. That would eventually change, however; his kingdom would be torn from him and given to “one better than” he—to David (15:28). Saul was also “a head taller” than his fellow Israelites, a characteristic noteworthy enough to be mentioned again (10:23–24). Of regal stature, he had the potential of being every inch a king. Saul’s subsequent failure as king makes the well-known divine admonition in 16:7 all the more poignant.
3–14 The Lord used straying donkeys to bring Saul into contact with Samuel. Searching for the lost donkeys, Saul and his servant crisscrossed the borderlands between Benjamin and Ephraim, but to no avail. They began and ended their search in the “hill country of Ephraim” since Zuph is associated with the hill country in 1:1. The unnamed town in v.6 is therefore probably Ramah.
Saul, not wishing to cause his father needless worry, wants to give up the search and return to Benjamin. The servant, however, points out that there is a “man of God” nearby who might be able to help them. The servant appears to be more persistent and imaginative than Saul himself—a fact that may not speak well for Saul’s future attempts at leadership. Although the man of God is not named at first, we are later informed that he is indeed Samuel.
Saul continued to protest, reminding the servant that they had no gift for the prophet; their “sacks” were empty. When consulting a prophet, it was common courtesy to bring a gift (Am 7:12), whether modest (1Ki 14:3) or lavish (2Ki 8:8–9). The servant responded that he had “a quarter of a shekel of silver” to give to the prophet. Although coinage was not invented until the seventh century B.C., it is likely that much earlier there were pieces of silver of fixed weight.
Verses 9–10 bring together the three main terms to describe the prophetic office: “seer” (GK 8014), “prophet” (GK 5566), “man of God” (GK 408 & 466). Samuel is often (and fittingly) called the “last of the judges and first of the prophets”—the latter in the sense that the formal office of prophet began with the monarchy and ended shortly after the monarchy did (for Samuel’s unique role, cf. 2Ch 35:18; Ps 99:6; Jer 15:1; and esp. Ac 3:24; 13:20; Heb 11:32).
“Seer” means just what its Hebrew (and English) root implies: one who sees—but with spiritual eyes—beneath the surface of the obvious, focusing on the divine dimension. A seer was a man of (spiritual) vision (cf. Isa 1:1; 6:1–5; Jer 1:11–19; Am 7:7–9; 8:1–2; Zec 1:7–6:8).
A “prophet” was “called” in the sense of being summoned by God to be a spokesman for God (cf. Ex 4:16; 7:1–2). A prophet was to be God’s “mouth”; that was his “calling.” Prophecy was by calling, not by choice.
Saul and his servant went “up the hill” to the town (probably Ramah, which means “height”). It was early evening, since girls were coming out to the well to draw water (see Ge 24:11; cf. also v.19). When asked whether the seer was there, they informed the men that he had arrived only recently to participate in a sacrificial ritual at the “high place.” Almost always on conspicuous elevations and often located outside of town (vv.14, 25), high places were open-air sanctuaries, sometimes with shrines or other buildings (v.22), where worship was conducted. The association of high places with idolatry had contributed to the divine rejection of Shiloh and the capture of the ark (Ps 78:58–61).
Verses 12–13 are charged with urgency: “He’s ahead of you. Hurry now; he has just come. . . . Go up now.”
15–24 The divine encounter with Saul was mediated through Samuel, to whom the Lord had “revealed" (lit., “uncovered the ear of," as if to speak in secret) his will (cf. 2Sa 7:27; 1Ch 17:25). As an act of gracious condescension to the people’s request (Ac 13:21), the Lord promised to send an obscure Benjamite to Samuel, emphasizing the divine initiative in the matter. Samuel was to “anoint" him (with oil; cf. 10:1; cf. also 15:1, 17).
Anointing was by prophet and/or people, both acting as agents of the Lord (cf. 16:12–13; 2Sa 2:4; 5:3). It symbolized the coming of the Holy Spirit in power (16:13; Isa 61:1–3). Especially at the beginning of the monarchy, anointing was to the office of “leader” (GK 5592) rather than “king” (cf. 10:1; 13:14; 25:30; 2Sa 5:2; 6:21; 7:8). Beyond the likelihood that it represents Samuel’s understandable reluctance to establish a full-fledged kingship (with all its negative implications; cf. again 8:10–18), the term might have been a title for “king-designate, king-elect” (cf. 2Ch 11:22) with military connotations.
In language strongly reminiscent of the Exodus, God had looked on the people of Israel (cf. Ex 2:25), whose cry had reached him (cf. Ex 3:9). The new leader would have the potential of delivering Israel from the Philistines (cf. 4:3)—although some seriously doubted that Saul would be able to accomplish that formidable task (10:27).
The seer Samuel “caught sight of” Saul, raised up as leader because God had “looked upon” his people. “This is the man,” the Lord said to him, in a scene that would be replayed with only modest variations a few years later (cf. 16:12). Samuel then identified himself to Saul. As the Lord had promised to “send” Saul to Samuel, so Samuel would soon “let” Saul “go” (lit., “send” him on his way, as in v.26) after his divine commissioning (10:9). Samuel the seer authenticated his prophetic role by revealing Saul’s inmost thoughts and relieved Saul’s mind by informing him that his father’s donkeys had been found. He then told Saul that all Israel was eagerly awaiting his benevolent reign.
Saul respectfully demurred. He pointed out that Benjamin, his tribe, was the smallest in all Israel (doubtless due to the terrible massacre decades earlier; cf. Jdg 20:46–48) and that his clan was the weakest in his tribe (cf. Jdg 6:15). Saul’s humility (cf. 10:22) was in the grand tradition of prophets and judges.
Samuel, however, knowing that Saul was God’s choice, brushed aside his objections and led him and his servant into a “hall” (GK 4384), in a building on the high place outside Ramah. This Hebrew word almost always denotes a room in a sanctuary or temple. Such rooms were normally used as apartments for sanctuary personnel or as storerooms (cf. Ne 10:39; Jer 35:2, 4). The hall at Ramah was large enough to seat thirty people.
Saul and his servant, guests of honor, were seated at the head of the table. The special “piece of meat” brought to Saul was perhaps the “share” of the sacrifice normally reserved for priests (cf. Lev 7:33). It was a special “occasion” (GK 4595) indeed, a time for celebration—unlike a future “set time” (13:8, 11) when Saul’s impatience and disobedience would initiate his downfall (13:13–14).
25–27 After what must have been a sumptuous if solemn meal, eaten in a house of worship on a sacred site, Samuel, Saul, and Saul’s servant retired to Ramah and conversed for a while on the “roof” of Samuel’s house. Samuel was preparing Saul for his divine commissioning as ruler of Israel. Sleeping overnight on the roof of a house is a common practice even today in the Middle East. The following morning Samuel told Saul to dismiss his servant temporarily (see 10:14). Saul himself, however, was to stay briefly at Ramah (10:2) to receive a communication from God and to be anointed leader over the Lord’s inheritance (10:1).
10:1–8 Saul’s rise to kingship took place in three distinct stages: He was (1) anointed by Samuel (9:1–10:16), (2) chosen by lot (10:17–27), and (3) confirmed by public acclamation (11:1–15). The Lord had told Samuel to anoint Saul as leader over his people Israel (9:16). Samuel now proceeded to fulfill that command, being careful to inform Saul that the anointing was from the Lord. The Israelites are here called the Lord’s “inheritance” (GK 5709) in the sense that they inhabited his territorial patrimony and belonged uniquely to him as Creator, Redeemer, and Conqueror (Dt 4:20; 9:26; 32:8–9; Ps 78:70–71). The anointing oil was a distinctive formula (Ex 30:23–33); it was “sacred” (Ps 89:20). Samuel also kissed Saul as an act of respect and submission (cf. Ps 2:11–12).
Verses 7 and 9 speak of three “signs” (GK 253) that would confirm the Lord’s choice of Saul. (1) Samuel said that Saul would “meet” two men who would verify that Kish’s donkeys had indeed been found and that therefore Saul’s father could now devote his attention to his son’s welfare. (2) Three men would meet Saul and offer him two loaves of bread, which he would accept. The men were “going up to God” to worship and commune with him. On their way they would “greet” Saul. (3) This sign, because of its significance, is described at greater length. Whereas the first sign involved two men and the second involved three men, the third focused on a “procession”—a larger band or group—of prophets (vv.5, 10). Saul would meet them outside “Gibeah of God.”
The beginnings of the Israelite monarchy witnessed the emergence of a prophetic movement known as the “sons of the prophets” (cf. 1Ki 20:35). “Sons” is used here in the sense of “members of a group” (cf. 2Ki 2:3, 5, 7, 15). The companies were often large in number (“fifty,” 2Ki 2:7; “one hundred,” 1Ki 18:4, 13; 2Ki 4:43). They were frequently associated with time-honored places, such as Ramah (19:18–20), Bethel (2Ki 2:3), Jericho (2:5), and Gilgal (4:38). Their characteristic activity was “prophesying,” usually interpreted to mean “uttering ecstatic praises/oracles.” The actions and activities of prophetic bands were sometimes accompanied by music (2Ki 3:15; 1Ch 25:1–7).
Individual or group prophesying was often induced when the Spirit of the Lord came on a person in power (19:20, 23; Nu 11:25, 29). At such times the prophet would experience an altered state of consciousness and would be “changed into a different person” (cf. also v.9). Such ecstasy was often contagious (19:20–24). Similar ecstatic phenomena, though in a negative sense, were sometimes induced when an “evil” or “injurious” spirit came on a person (18:10; cf. also 16:14–16, 23). Members of prophetic bands were often young (2Ki 5:22; 9:4); they frequently lived together (2Ki 6:1–2), ate together (2Ki 4:38), and were supported by the generosity of their fellow Israelites (2Ki 4:42–43). Samuel provided guidance and direction for the movement in its early stages. At the head of a particular group of prophets would be the “father” (2Ki 2:12) or “leader” (19:20).
Samuel told Saul that after the three signs were fulfilled, he was to do whatever his hand found to do (cf. Ecc 9:10). Samuel assured Saul that God was with him, implying that therefore he could not fail (cf. Jos 1:5).
Then came a sober warning: At a later time Samuel would meet Saul at Gilgal. A preliminary meeting would first be held there to reaffirm Saul’s kingship (11:14–15), with the appropriate fellowship offerings and accompanying celebration. Then on a later occasion Samuel would meet Saul again at Gilgal, this time to sacrifice burnt offerings (cf. Lev 1:3–17; 6:8–13) and fellowship offerings (cf. Lev 3:1–17; 7:11–21). On this latter occasion Saul was to wait seven days, until Samuel came and told him what to do. Saul faithfully fulfilled the former obligation (13:8), but impatience got the better of him. He failed to await Samuel’s arrival with further instructions, and his act of disobedience was the beginning of the end for his kingdom (13:9–14).
9–16 Meanwhile, however, Saul was open to Samuel’s instructions and the Lord’s leading. He “turned” to leave, and as he did so, God “changed Saul’s heart” (cf. the third sign; v.6). The arrival of Saul and his servant at Gibeah of God (cf. v.5) was followed by the Spirit of God coming on Saul in power, resulting in his joining the prophetic band in their ecstatic behavior (cf. 11:6).
Gibeah of God was scarcely four miles northeast of Gibeah of Saul, the hometown of the new Israelite ruler. When his fellow townsmen learned of Saul’s arrival, they turned out in force to see what had happened to the “son of Kish.” The Spirit of the Lord, coming on Saul in power, authenticated him as Israel’s next ruler and produced the visible evidences of ecstatic behavior. To question the genuineness of that behavior was to question Saul’s legitimacy in his new office.
“And who is their father?” was asked to find out the identity of the leader of the “procession of prophets” (cf. 2Ki 2:12). Although perhaps prompted by the reference to Saul as “son of Kish,” the question was not so banal as to be requesting information about Saul’s physical paternity.
Verses 14–16 conclude the theme of Kish’s concern for Saul’s whereabouts and welfare. Saul’s “uncle” was doubtless seeking information for Kish and himself. The story of finding Kish’s lost donkeys is once again related, but Saul did not tell his uncle anything about Samuel’s view of kingship or his own participation in it (cf. 8:6–22). Rule over Israel would soon be his in truth (11:14), but it would not be long before he would be convinced that he was about to lose it to a man after God’s own heart (18:8).
3. The choice of Saul by lot (10:17–27)
17–24 Assembling the Israelites at Mizpah, Samuel addresses them in words strongly reminiscent of those of the prophet in Jdg 6:8–9a. The Lord is called the God of his chosen people Israel. He then speaks in the first person, using the emphatic pronoun “I” in strong contrast to the emphatic “But you.” The familiar Exodus redemption formula is followed by a reminder that God had delivered his people not only from Egypt but also from the “kingdoms” that “oppressed” them. Although the Lord had saved them out of all their “calamities and distresses,” they had rejected him (echoing 8:7; cf. also Nu 11:20). The Israelites continued to insist in no uncertain terms that they wanted a king (see 8:5, 19). Samuel, reluctantly acquiescing, told the people to present themselves before the Lord by their tribes and clans.
The lots, known as Urim (“Curses,” providing negative responses) and Thummim (“Perfections,” providing positive responses), were stored in the breastplate attached to the ephod of the high priest (Ex 28:28–30) and were brought out and cast whenever a simple “yes” or “no” would suffice. Although casting lots was perhaps not unlike throwing dice, God himself guided the results (Pr 16:33). Verses 20–21 show that Benjamin was chosen by lot from the Twelve Tribes, Matri (unknown elsewhere) from the Benjamite clans, and Saul—God’s man for this season—from the Matrite families. Ironically, like the lost donkeys that had earlier consumed so much anxious time for their searchers (9:3–5, 20; 10:2, 14–16), “when they looked for [Saul], he was not to be found.”
Another divine oracle was therefore necessary, but this time the question demanded more than a “yes” or “no” answer. So in a more direct way the people “inquired” (GK 928 & 8626) of the Lord to discover Saul’s whereabouts. The reluctant “leader” was subsequently found hiding among the military supplies (cf. 17:22; 25:13; 30:24).
Anxious to hail their new king, the people ran to bring him out from his hiding place. He came out and presented himself in their midst; his impressive height is again stressed (9:2). Samuel reminded the Israelites that the Lord had “chosen” (GK 4334) Saul.
The public acclamation “Long live the king!” represents now, as it did then, the enthusiastic hopes of the citizenry that their monarch would remain hale and hearty in order to bring their fondest dreams to fruition. The people of Saul’s day “shouted” their approval.
25–27 After the people’s acclamation of Saul as their king, Samuel outlined for them the “regulations of the kingship,” which he then wrote down on a scroll (cf. Ex 17:14; Jos 18:9). He deposited the scroll in a safe place “before the LORD”—i.e., in the tabernacle, probably located at Mizpah at that time (cf. v.17)—in order (1) to preserve it for future reference and (2) to have it serve as a witness against the king and/or people, should its provisions ever be violated (cf. Dt 31:26; Jos 24:26–27).
Samuel then permitted all the people to return to their homes. Saul, the recently anointed king, went to his home in Gibeah. With the formal festivities over, two opposing reactions to Israel’s new leader surface: “Valiant men,” apparently eager to affirm God’s choice, accompanied Saul to Gibeah, while “troublemakers” despised him. The latter group unwittingly echoed to Saul the earlier words of Gideon about himself: “How can I save Israel?” (Jdg 6:15). Neither Gideon nor the troublemakers understood—at least not at first—that it is God, not a human being, who saves (Jdg 6:16; 1Sa 10:19).
4. The defeat of the Ammonites (11:1–11)
1–2 The Ammonite siege of Jabesh Gilead under Nahash produced a conciliatory response in its inhabitants. They asked Nahash to “make a treaty” with them, as a result of which they would recognize him as their suzerain and become his vassals (cf. Eze 17:13–14). The phrase “cut a covenant” is almost universally understood to refer to the sacrifice (“cutting”) of one or more animals as an important element in covenant solemnization ceremonies in ancient times. Nahash’s threat to gouge out the right eye of every Jabeshite may imply their rebellion against a previously established overlordship. In the ancient Near East, the physical mutilation, dismemberment, or death of an animal or human victim could be expected as the inevitable penalty for treaty violation.
3 Nahash’s threat (v.2) received a plaintive response from the elders of Jabesh, who functioned as representatives of the community (cf. 4:3; 8:4; 16:4). They tried to buy some time to send for help. Nahash appears to have acceded to the elders’ request, apparently sure of his own military superiority.
4 When the Jabeshite messengers arrived at Gibeah of Saul with the terms of Nahash’s demands, its people “wept aloud,” a common display of grief, distress, or remorse (cf. Jdg 2:4; 1Sa 24:16; 2Sa 3:32; 13:36). Apparently Saul’s fellow citizens in his own hometown despaired of leadership at this critical juncture in their history.
5–6 But at that very moment, Saul was returning from plowing in the fields, and he asked two questions: “What is wrong with the people? Why are they weeping?” Upon hearing the Jabeshites’ report, Saul was energized by a powerful accession of God’s Spirit. He had already experienced a similar accession earlier (10:6–10). This time, in the tradition of the judges, the Spirit of God filled him with divine indignation and empowered him as a military leader. Although the earlier accession had been temporary, this one was somewhat more permanent, apparently lasting until Samuel anointed David to replace Saul as king (16:13–14).
7 Rallying the troops to defend a covenant suzerain, vassal, or brother was a common stipulation in ancient treaties. Similar to the earlier action of the Levite of Jdg 19:29; 20:6, Saul cut two of his oxen into pieces and sent them throughout Israel as a graphic illustration of what would happen to any tribe that failed to commit a contingent of troops (cf. Jdg 21:5, 10). The “terror of the LORD” that here fell on the people is not to be understood as fear of divine punishment.
8 The mustering or counting of the troops (cf. 13:15; 14:17; 2Sa 24:2, 4) took place at Bezek. The numbers represent substantial contingents of troops. Their being listed separately as “men of Israel” and “men of Judah” anticipates the eventual division of the kingdom into north and south.
9 Saul and his troops told the messengers to return to Jabesh Gilead and inform its frightened citizens that divine deliverance (cf. v.13) would come to them the very next day—“by the time the sun is hot” (cf. Ex 16:21; Neh 7:3), a phrase that almost surely refers to high noon. The messengers’ report caused the men of Jabesh to become “elated” (cf. v.15).
10 Confident of victory, the Jabeshites promised the Ammonites that they would surrender to them the following day and that the Ammonites would then be free to do “whatever seems good to you” (lit., “whatever seems good in your eyes,” an ironic pun on Nahash’s earlier threat to gouge out the right eye of any rebellious Jabeshite; cf. 14:36).
11 Saul wasted no time in deploying “his men” for the attack on Ammon. “The next day” probably refers to the evening of the day on which Saul’s message reached the Jabeshites (v.9), since among the Israelites each new day began after sunset. Saul, following a military strategy common in those days (see 13:17–18), divided his men into three groups. Offensively it gave the troops more options and greater mobility, while defensively it lessened the possibility of losing everyone to a surprise enemy attack. The Israelites under Saul’s leadership broke into the Ammonite camp “during the last watch of the night” (cf. Ex 14:24). Saul’s attack obviously caught the Ammonites by surprise, and—as promised (v.9)—by high noon God had defeated them and delivered his people, routing the enemy survivors by scattering them in every direction (cf. also Nu 10:35; Ps 68:1).
5. The confirmation of Saul as king (11:12–12:25)
12–15 Saul’s troops and the people of Jabesh Gilead, having witnessed God’s victory over Ammon under Saul’s leadership, demanded from Samuel the death penalty for all the troublemakers who had questioned his ability to save them from foreign rule (10:27). Saul, however, showing how magnanimous he could be when given the opportunity, asserted that the divine deliverance was a cause for gratitude, not vengeful retribution (cf. 2Sa 19:22).
Saul’s demonstration of the leadership qualities necessary to be Israel’s king led Samuel to convoke an important meeting at Gilgal. The OT records three meetings of Samuel and Saul at Gilgal, each fateful for Saul: (1) In the flush of his victory over Ammon, Saul was reaffirmed as king (11:14–15); (2) because of his impatience while awaiting Samuel’s arrival, Saul was rebuked by his spiritual mentor (13:7–14); and (3) because of his disobedient pride after the defeat of the Amalekites, Saul was rejected as king (15:10–26).
The purpose of the first meeting is to “reaffirm the kingship” of Saul, who had already been anointed at Ramah (10:1) and chosen by lot at Mizpah (10:17–25). The reaffirmation was a confirmation by public acclamation and is the last of the three stages comprising his rise to monarchy over Israel.
Samuel’s invitation to the people to reaffirm Saul as king was greeted with enthusiasm. “In the presence of the LORD” they confirmed their earlier choice, and “before the LORD” they brought their sacrifices. Fellowship offerings were the appropriate response of the people of Israel, who by sacrificing them were expressing their desire to rededicate themselves to God in covenant communion and allegiance. Saul’s ascent to the throne was now complete, and the “great celebration” that accompanied the sacrificial ritual more than matched Israel’s earlier elation upon their receiving the messengers’ report of the imminent doom of the Ammonites (v.9).
12:1 Samuel begins his farewell speech by reminding the people that he has “listened to” (meaning “obeyed”; GK 9048) them and has set a king over them (cf. vv.14–15). This phrase echoes 8:7, 9, 22, and highlights Samuel’s commitment to God’s will despite his own personal reservations. After all, Saul is “the man the LORD has chosen,” the king affirmed by public acclamation (10:24).
2 However reluctantly, Samuel formally acknowledges the transfer of Israel’s leadership from himself to Saul. Although Samuel has been the recognized “leader” of the people from his youth until the present (cf. 3:10; 3:19–4:1; 7:15–17), King Saul is now their “leader.” Samuel’s reference to himself as “old and gray” is probably a modest claim to wisdom (cf. Job 15:9–10). His mention of his sons emphasizes the length of time it has been his privilege to serve the people of Israel—and perhaps also provides them with an unwelcome reminder of their earlier refusal to allow his sons to succeed him as judge (8:5).
3 “Here I stand” echoes an important servant motif (e.g., Ge 22:1, 11) in Samuel’s first recorded words (cf. 3:4, 5, 6, 8, 16). Samuel invites the people to “testify against” him about covenant stipulations he might have violated. As though in a courtroom, the inquiry takes place “in the presence of” Samuel’s heavenly and earthly superiors.
Aware that testifying on his own behalf could well result in self-incrimination (cf. 2Sa 1:16), Samuel nevertheless launches into a brief series of protestations of innocence. The key verb is “taken” (GK 4374), which Samuel consciously uses as a powerful means of contrasting his admirable behavior with the potentially oppressive demands of a (despotic) king that he had earlier warned about (8:11, 13–17). Doubtless alluding to the covenant stipulations of Ex 20:17, Samuel challenges the people to accuse him of having taken from any of them so much as an ox or a donkey (contrast 8:16; 22:19; 27:9; cf. Nu 16:15; Ac 20:33).
Samuel goes on to affirm that he has neither “cheated” nor “oppressed” anyone. Samuel’s refusal to cheat/oppress others looks backward to his specific denial of having engaged in bribery. Accepting bribes is universally condemned in Scripture, and Samuel carefully distances himself from a practice that has already made his own sons infamous (8:3; cf. Ps 15:5; Am 5:12). If such were the case, Samuel promises to make restitution (cf. 2Sa 9:7).
4 The people readily accepted and agreed with Samuel’s declaration. Samuel declared his determination not to make merchandise of the prophetic office (cf. Mic 2:6–11; 3:11).
5 After solemnly affirming his innocence of any wrongdoing, Samuel declares that the Lord and Saul (cf. v.3) are witnesses to the truthfulness of his words. The people’s response, “He is witness,” could refer either to the Lord or to Saul and may be intentionally ambiguous.
6 Verses 6–12 summarize the history of Israel from the time of Moses and the Exodus through the period of the judges and their sinful request for a king, stressing divine leadership and Israel’s idolatrous disloyalty while challenging them to the same covenant faithfulness. By highlighting the name of the Lord from the outset, Samuel leaves no doubt that, in the final sense, Israel’s leader has always been the Lord. God, working through and in concert with Moses and Aaron, freed his people from Egyptian bondage (cf. Ex 6:13, 26–27). The exodus of Israel from Egypt was remembered as the greatest of all divine acts of redemption for the nation (see Ex 20:2).
7 Samuel continues to use the language of the courtroom as he commands the people to “stand” (GK 3656) at attention and in anticipation before the bar of God’s justice. He intends to “confront [them] with evidence” of God’s blessing on their history, all the more casting their apostasy in darker relief. Samuel’s evidence is “the righteous acts performed by the LORD” (cf. Jdg 5:11; Da 9:16; Mic 6:5).
8–9 Verses 8–12 recapitulate and expand on 8:7–8. “Jacob” refers to the patriarch himself and also, by extension, to the nation of Israel. The Lord (cf. also v.10) graciously answered (Ex 2:25) their cry for help (Ex 2:23–24). He sent Moses (Ex 3:10) and Aaron to lead Israel out of Egypt (cf. 1Sa 10:18)—a fact acknowledged even by their enemies (1Sa 6:6)—and to bring them to the borders of the Promised Land. The dreary cycle of the book of Judges is reprised in vv.9–11: rebellion (v.9a), retribution (v.9b), repentance (v.10), and restoration (v.11).
Rebelling against their God, the Israelites “forgot” (cf. Jdg 3:7) what he had done for them in the past and ignored him personally as they worshiped other gods (cf. v.10). In response to his people’s apostasy and in retribution against them for their sin, the Lord “sold them,” as though on the slave market, “into the hand[s] of” their enemies, including Sisera (Jdg 4:2; cf. Ps 83:9), the commander of the army of the city of Hazor, the Philistines (Jdg 3:31; 10:7; 13:1), and Eglon king of Moab (Jdg 3:12–14).
10 Samuel now describes repentant Israel sporadically throughout the period of the judges. Although they often forsook the Lord and violated his covenant with them by serving the Baals (male deities) and the Ashtoreths (female deities), they pled for his deliverance and promised to serve him alone if only he would release them from the shackles of enemy oppression.
11 God did restore the Israelites to their former covenant relationship by sending judges to their rescue. Jerub-Baal (Gideon) is perhaps mentioned first (1) because he is the central figure in the book of Judges and arguably the most important of the judges themselves; (2) because his very name (cf. Jdg 6:32 and NIV note there) means “Let Baal Contend”; and (3) because he specifically refused to establish dynastic as opposed to divine rule over his countrymen (Jdg 8:22–23)—for which refusal he must surely have been one of Samuel’s heroes (cf. v.13). Samuel then refers to Barak, Deborah’s general in the successful war against Sisera’s Canaanite army (Jdg 4:6–7), and Jephthah (Jdg 11:1), victor over the Ammonites. Finally, Samuel mentions himself as the last of the judges as well as the most recent victor over the Philistines (7:6, 11–15). He then summarizes the Lord’s triumphant deliverance of his people from all their enemies through his chosen leaders.
12 Three times the people express their determination not to have God as their King but rather to have a human king like “all the other nations” (8:5–7): (1) after Samuel’s earlier warning about the dangers inherent in their demand (8:19–20), (2) during the public assembly at Mizpah (10:19), and (3) in the face of the Ammonite threat (12:12).
13 Serving as the hinge of the chapter, this verse focuses once again on the gracious, permissive will of God, who has given his people the king they “asked for” (another pun on the name “Saul”; cf. also vv.17, 19). In successive stages Saul had acceded to that office. The Lord’s eventual rejection of the very king the people demanded is eerily echoed later in a similar situation in Hos 13:10–11 (cf. esp. v.11).
14–15 To “fear [GK 3707] the LORD and serve [GK 6268]” him (Jos 24:14) brings his blessing; to “rebel [GK 5277] against his commands” (Dt 1:26, 43; 9:23; Jos 1:18) brings his curse. “Fear of God/the LORD,” a common expression in OT wisdom literature (cf. Job 28:28; Pr 1:7; 9:10), was the generic term for “religion” in ancient Israel. In the OT, fearing God had more the connotation of reverence and awe (cf. Dt 17:19) than of terror or dread—although the latter was not totally lacking. To “serve” means not only to work and minister but also to worship (cf. already 7:3–4). If Israel and her new king would fear, serve, and obey God by carefully following his law, they would receive his blessing (for the king, see Dt 17:18–20). Disobedience and rebellion “against his commands,” however, would result in his curse against them in the future (cf. 1Ki 13:21–26; La 1:18) as it had been against their “fathers” in the past (cf. Nu 20:24–26; 27:12–14).
16 Earlier (v.7) Samuel had told the people to “stand” and see the evidence of God’s righteous acts in the past on their behalf. Now he commands them to “stand” and be awed by divine omnipotence (cf. also Ex 14:31). The divine act then results in natural inversion. In that part of the world not only is “rain in harvest . . . not fitting” (Pr 26:1), it is so totally unexpected that it could easily be interpreted as a sign of divine displeasure.
17 “Thunder” represents thunder as the loud and powerful voice of God manifested in storms (cf. 7:10; Ps 29:3–9). The driving rain that often accompanied such thunder could be especially destructive to crops (Pr 28:3), and when it occurred unseasonably, it could leave those who depended on it destitute (cf. Jdg 15:1–5). Thus Samuel’s rhetorical question in this verse served as an ominous reminder to the people that all their hard work had the potential of being wiped out in an equally brief period of time. The people would then “realize” how evil their motives had been in asking for a king.
18–19 Samuel’s prayer for a storm out of season was answered “that same day,” and all the people “stood in awe” of both God and Samuel (cf. Ex 14:31). The reputation of Moses and Samuel as being especially close to God’s counsel (Jer 15:1) was justly deserved; the people’s plea to Samuel—“Pray to the LORD”—is a clear echo of Ex 9:28. That the people should ask Samuel to pray to the Lord “your” God (rather than “our” God) indicates a recognition of their own apostate condition. They admit that asking for a king was an evil that “added to” all their other sins (cf. similarly 2Ch 28:13; Job 34:37; Isa 30:1).
20 Samuel concludes his address to the people of Israel by encouraging them to do good (vv.20–24) and warning them not to do evil (v.25). He reminds them that they were the ones who asked for a king (cf. v.19); thus they have only themselves to blame if Saul proves to be either weak or despotic. All is not lost, however, if only the people will acknowledge that their true King is the Lord himself. Samuel further urges Israel to “serve the LORD with all your heart,” an often expressed covenant requirement (cf. Dt 10:12–13; 11:13–14; cf. also 30:9–10).
21 By contrast, the people are not to follow “useless idols.” The reference in this context seems to denote any defection from serving the Lord—including, of course, preference for a human king. Only God can do the people good; no one else can “rescue.”
22 The Lord’s elective purposes for his people would not be denied. His intention to make Israel his own covenant people (Ex 19:5; cf. 1Pe 2:9) was not because of any merit on their part (Dt 7:6–7). Rather, he chose them because of his love for them and to fulfill his oath that he had sworn to their forefathers (Dt 7:8–9; cf. Ge 15:4–6, 13–18; 22:16–18). In addition, and perhaps most important, he chose them “for the sake of his great name” (cf. also Jos 7:9–11).
23 Taking his rightful place among the giants of intercession (Ex 32:30–32; Da 9:4–20; Ro 1:9–10; et al.), Samuel declares his unwillingness to sin against God (cf. 14:33–34) by failing to pray for Israel (cf. also v.19; 7:5, 8–9; 8:6; 15:11; Jer 15:1). To help the people live a life pleasing to God, he promises to “teach” them “the way that is good and right” (cf. also 1Ki 8:36 = 2Ch 6:27).
24–25 The rest is up to the people themselves; so ch. 12 ends with encouragement to faith and obedience (which summarizes Dt 10:20–21) and warning against the consequences of disobedience appropriate to a covenant renewal document (cf. Ecc 12:13). After all, the Lord had done “great things” for his people, which should have been a cause for rejoicing on their part (Ps 126:2–3; Joel 2:21). Samuel feels constrained to remind them, however, that pursuing their penchant for evil will surely result in their destruction.
B. The Decline of Saul (13:1–15:35)
1. The rebuke of Saul (13:1–15)
1 This verse is doubtless the defective remnant of the formal introduction of Saul’s reign. Such formulas are common in later portions of the Deuteronomic history of the southern kings. However, two notable exceptions to the regnal formula must be mentioned: that of Saul in v.1 and that of Ish-Bosheth son of Saul (2Sa 2:10). After the murder of Ish-Bosheth (2Sa 4), the regnal formula is reserved exclusively for southern kings. As for Saul, the mutilated condition of v.1 may reflect later scribal antipathy toward him. The two NIV footnotes to v.1 summarize the text-critical reasons for the numbers the NIV restores there.
2–10 The people had “chosen” a king to lead them into battle (8:18–20), and now their king obliged them: Saul “chose” (GK 1047) three thousand Israelite men to serve in his standing army (cf. 8:11–12). Two thousand were under his command at Micmash and in the high country at Bethel, while one thousand were at Gibeah in Benjamin (his hometown) under the command of his son Jonathan (which means “The LORD has given”). Apparently feeling confident in the size of his two military units, Saul sent the rest of the men home.
The smaller unit under Jonathan started a war against the Philistines by attacking their outpost at Geba in Benjamin, about five miles north-northeast of Jerusalem. Saul, ultimately responsible for the attack and realizing that the main Philistine army had heard about it, entertained second thoughts about his own troop strength. He therefore had the ram’s-horn trumpet blown throughout Israel to summon additional men (cf. Jdg 3:27; 6:34).
To state that Israel had now become a “stench to the Philistines” was tantamount to affirming that the Philistines would muster their troops to fight Israel, and so they did. In the meantime, Saul’s call to arms was answered by the “people,” who assembled at Gilgal.
The Philistines were feared far and wide for their wooden chariots armed with iron fittings. The present account uses hyperbole to emphasize the magnitude of the Philistine threat. Besides being able to put three thousand two-man chariots into the field, the enemy had summoned troops “as numerous as the sand on the seashore”—a simile not only familiar to a believing community who traced their allegiance to the Lord back to the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 22:17; cf. also 1Ki 4:20–21) but also useful in describing huge numbers of fighting men (2Sa 17:11; Jos 11:4).
Since the Philistines set up camp at Micmash, Saul either hastily retreated to Gilgal or perhaps had earlier decided to make his headquarters there. The Philistine deployment there caused mass desertions in the Israelite army. Like their ancestors before them (Jdg 6:2), some of the Israelites hid in whatever out-of-the-way places they could find (14:11, 22). Others fled eastward across the Jordan River, seeking safety in Gad and Gilead. David would later discover that caves (23:23; 24:3, 7–8, 10) would afford safe protection from Saul and other enemies.
The greatly reduced number of men who remained with Saul at Gilgal were understandably frightened. Saul, remembering Samuel’s earlier command (10:8), waited seven days for his arrival. When the prophet failed to appear at the appointed time, even more of Saul’s troops began to defect. Desperate, Saul decided to seek the Lord’s favor (v.12) by sacrificing the offerings that Samuel had told him he himself would make. Samuel arrived on the scene just after Saul had offered up the burnt offering but before he had had time to sacrifice the fellowship offerings. Upon Samuel’s arrival Saul went out to “greet” (lit., “bless”; GK 1385; cf. Ge 47:7) him, which would not mollify him in this situation any more than in similar circumstances later (15:13).
Saul’s sin was not that as king he was forbidden by God’s law to sacrifice burnt offerings and fellowship offerings under any and all circumstances. David (2Sa 24:25) and Solomon (1Ki 3:15) later made the same kinds of offerings, and there is no hint of divine rebuke in either case. Saul sinned because he disobeyed God’s word through the prophet Samuel—a sin that he would commit again (15:26).
11–15 Saul’s motivation to offer the sacrifice seems genuine and appropriate: The Philistines were gathering for battle against Israel, his men were deserting him, and Samuel had not arrived on the scene when he had said he would. Saul therefore felt the urgent need to seek God’s favor. What he apparently failed to realize, however, is that animal sacrifice is not a prerequisite for entreating God. Clearly, Saul had not heeded the divine word through the prophet, and obedience is always better than sacrifice (15:22).
But there is more. It would seem that in ancient Israel, rituals associated with the holy war were not to be performed by the king unless a prophet was present. In chs. 13 and 15 Saul acted without the presence of Samuel, and in both cases his transgression was related to holy war ritual (15:3, 7–11, 17–19). For these offenses he was rebuked by Samuel and rejected by God.
Had Saul obeyed, his “kingdom” over Israel would have been divinely established “for all time.” Such a promise presents a difficulty in light of the Davidic covenant since the Lord affirms that David’s throne will be established “forever” (2Sa 7:13, 16; cf. also Ge 49:10). It is possible, of course, that God’s original choice of Saul (9:15–17; 10:1, 24) carried with it a genuine (though hypothetical) promise of a continuing dynasty that was never in danger of being fulfilled, given Saul’s character.
Saul, reminded twice that he had not obeyed the Lord’s command, is told that he would be replaced by a man “after [God’s] own heart” (Ac 13:22), i.e., a man who truly has God’s interests at heart.
Saul now takes a census of his fighting men to assess their numerical strength (cf. 11:8; 14:17). In spite of the original two thousand men (or perhaps three thousand) mentioned earlier (v.2) and the general call to arms to supplement them (vv.3–4), wholesale defections had reduced his troops to “about six hundred” (cf. 14:2).
2. The struggle against the Philistines (13:16–14:23)
16–22 The combined forces of Saul and Jonathan at Gibeah numbered only in the hundreds (14:2), while those of the Philistines at Micmash scarcely four miles to the northeast numbered in the thousands (v.5). Philistine “raiding parties” (14:15) left camp in three detachments, a common military strategy in those days (11:11; Jdg 7:16; 9:43; 2Sa 18:2) since it provided more options and greater mobility. They headed off in three different directions: One group went toward Ophrah in Benjamin (cf. Jos 18:23), a second went toward (Upper) Beth Horon in Ephraim (cf. Jos 16:5), and the third went an undetermined distance eastward toward the Valley of Zeboim.
As an effective method of denying weapons to the beleaguered Israelites, the Philistines had apparently deported all the Israelite blacksmiths (cf. 2Ki 24:14, 16; Jer 24:1; 29:2). Hebrew fighting men were not to have swords or spears (Saul and Jonathan, either with Philistine permission or by subterfuge, were the sole exceptions; v.22).
Since Philistia was located on the coastal plains west of the foothills of Judah, Israelites who visited the Philistines for any purpose “went down” to them (see Jdg 14:19; 16:31; Am 6:2). As in the days of Deborah (Jdg 5:8), the Israelites were woefully outgunned as the battle against the enemy loomed before them. Despite their lack of weapons, however, with God’s help (14:6) they would rout the mighty Philistines just as David would later defeat the giant Goliath (17:45, 47).
13:23–14:14 The stage having been set in 13:16–22, the drama of Israel’s victory over Philistia begins with a remarkably courageous attack by two men, who win a skirmish with a heavily armed enemy against overwhelming odds.
A “detachment” of Philistines had left their main camp at Micmash (13:16) and had gone out to defend a pass leading to it. It is Saul’s son Jonathan who takes the initiative against the enemy. He suggests to his armor-bearer that they attack the recently established Philistine outpost. Armor-bearers in ancient times had to be unusually brave and loyal, since the lives of their masters often depended on them. The function of Jonathan’s armor-bearer was especially important because of the scarcity of weapons in Israel (13:22). Jonathan decided not to tell his father about his plans, perhaps not to worry him needlessly or because he felt that Saul would forbid him to go.
Meanwhile, Saul’s modest army of six hundred men (13:15) was with him near Gibeah, his hometown. Although the statement that Saul himself was sitting “under a pomegranate tree” contrasts his timidity and relative ease/luxury with Jonathan’s willingness to sacrifice his very life for Israel, it may simply be intended as an allusion to his role as leader (cf. Jdg 4:5).
Among the men with Saul was the priest Ahijah, grandson of Phinehas and great-grandson of Eli (v.3). Reference to Ahijah’s ancestors recalls the divine curse on the house of Eli (2:30–33) and the deaths of Eli (4:18) and Phinehas (4:11). Later the text will describe the deaths of Ahitub and his fellow priests (22:11–18) at the command of Saul himself. The apparently needless reference to Ichabod recalls yet another tragedy in Eli’s family. Thus the rebuked King Saul is in the company of the priest Ahijah of the rejected house of Eli, and neither is “aware” that the courageous Jonathan son of Saul is on his way to fight the Philistines.
When Jonathan repeated his suggestion of v.1 to his armor-bearer, he made a significant change by calling the Philistines “those uncircumcised fellows,” a term of reproach used elsewhere (17:26, 36; 31:4; 2Sa 1:20) and designating them as nonparticipants in the Abrahamic covenant (Ge 17:9–11). Jonathan is confident that the Lord will fight for Israel and that nothing can keep God from saving them (cf. 17:47). He knows that with God on his side, even an insignificant number of men can achieve victory (cf. Jdg 7:4, 7). The armor-bearer’s response to Jonathan shows the extent of his loyalty. Their two hearts beating as one, the men march into battle together.
A brief comment by Jonathan introduces the sign and its sequel. As the dew on the fleece would give Gideon the faith to believe that God would save Israel by Gideon’s hand (Jdg 6:36–37), so the appropriate Philistine response to the approach of Jonathan and his armor-bearer would give Jonathan the faith to believe that the Lord would give the enemy into their hands.
When the Philistines caught sight of the two men, they assumed them to be Israelite deserters who had earlier hidden in caves and holes (13:6). Confident that they had nothing to fear, the Philistines shouted the fateful words: “Come up to us.” Wasting no time, Jonathan and his companion climbed up to the outpost and began the slaughter. Although outnumbered about ten to one, Jonathan and his armor-bearer dispatched “some twenty men” in a “[furrowed] area” (cf. Ps 129:3) of a field small enough to be plowed by a yoke of oxen in half a day—that is, the Philistines were killed in a brief time and a short distance.
15–23 Confusion struck the Philistine troops (cf. vv.20, 22) whatever their location: in the camp at Micmash (13:16), out in the field, at the various outposts, with one or another of the three raiding parties (13:17–18). The panic, sent by God, was of the kind promised to Israel against her enemies when the people trusted him (Dt 7:23). During such times of terror, the ground may shake, as when the Lord led his people through the Sea of Reeds while at the same time overthrowing the Egyptians (Ps 77:18).
So total was the Philistine panic and so noisy their flight that Saul’s watchmen on the walls at Gibeah could see—and perhaps hear—many of the enemy soldiers as they scattered in all directions. The “melting [away]” of an enemy force is a vivid metaphor describing full retreat (cf. Isa 14:31; cf. also Ex 15:15; Jos 2:9, 24). Curious about what was causing the Philistine flight, and perhaps considering the possibility of helping to turn it into a total rout, Saul decided once again to take a census of his troops (see 13:15)—but this time to see whether any of them had left the camp and were perhaps responsible for the Philistine panic. Amazingly enough, it was not until the census was complete that Saul became aware of the absence of Jonathan, his own son.
Still not quite ready to go to Jonathan’s aid, however, Saul told the priest Ahijah to bring the ark of God before him. A special point is made of the fact that it was “with the Israelites” at that time (presumably having been brought to Gibeah from Kiriath Jearim; cf. 7:2), and Saul may well have wanted to carry it into battle against the Philistines in a superstitious attempt to guarantee victory (cf. 4:3–7).
Hearing the increasing tumult in the Philistine camp, Saul apparently changed his mind about the need to make use of the ark and told Ahijah to stop the ritual proceedings. Together with his men he then marched into battle, presumably without benefit of priestly blessing of any kind. The Philistines, meanwhile, had become filled with total “confusion.” Brother was wielding sword against brother (cf. Eze 38:21).
Saul, Jonathan, and the Israelite army were soon joined by two groups of reinforcements. Some were Hebrews who had previously gone to the Philistine camp, perhaps either to have their agricultural tools sharpened (cf. 13:20) or, disgruntled with Israelite rule, to hire themselves out as mercenaries (cf. 29:6). The second group of reinforcements consisted of Israelite deserters who had been hiding (cf. 13:6) in the hill country of Ephraim, a large, partially forested plateau (Jos 17:15–18) north and west of Micmash. The “hot pursuit” of the combined Israelite forces under Saul and Jonathan would be tragically reversed in the final relentless attack of the Philistines against the king and his son (31:2).
The Hebrew expression translated “So the LORD rescued Israel that day” is a verbatim quotation of Ex 14:30. Its deliberate use stresses the importance of Saul’s victory while also giving all the glory to God (as Saul apparently also did; cf. v.39). The Israelite forces, however, were not satisfied with the results of their own efforts until they had driven the Philistines some distance west of Beth Aven toward their own homeland beyond Aijalon (v.31).
3. The cursing of Jonathan (14:24–46)
24–30 The scenes recorded here constitute a flashback to events simultaneous with the battle description in vv.20–23. Saul had bound the troops under an oath of abstaining from food for the entire day of the battle, an understandable religious demand in a “holy war” context. The result, however, was that they were “in distress” from hunger. Thus Saul’s motivation, however praiseworthy, resulted in his men’s becoming “faint” and “exhausted.” Accompanying the fulfillment of the oath, intended to implement a religiously motivated fast that would energize the men and fill them with fighting zeal, would be the opportunity for Saul to take vengeance on his enemies.
As with Samson (Jdg 14:8–20), honey in a Philistine context almost cost Jonathan his life. Upon entering a forest, Sàul’s troops noticed a honeycomb on the ground. Although it was filled with honey, no one so much as tasted any of it because they “feared” the oath (cf. Pr 13:13). But Jonathan, unaware of the oath, used the end of his staff (perhaps to avoid being stung by bees) to dip some honey from the comb. When Jonathan ate it, his eyes “brightened,” implying renewal of strength (cf. Ps 19:8–10).
One of Jonathan’s fellow soldiers warned him about his father’s oath, adding the observation that obeying it had caused the troops to become “faint.” Jonathan’s rebuttal, based on his refreshment after eating food, is that Saul “has made trouble for the country.” Jonathan concludes by arguing that even more Philistines would have been killed if Saul’s men had eaten some of the food they “took” as plunder.
31–35 Saul’s men were no longer under his oath of abstinence because it was after evening and the Philistines were totally routed. The Israelites had devastated them and driven them westward all the way to Aijalon, which had originally been assigned to the tribal territory of Dan (Jos 19:40–42).
Famished, the Israelite troops seized sheep, cattle, and calves from the Philistine plunder, butchered them, and ate the meat without waiting for the blood to drain from it. Since eating meat with the blood still in it was forbidden to the people of God throughout their history (cf. Lev 17:10–14; 19:26; et al.), it is not surprising that Saul, on hearing of his men’s sinful deed, would immediately act to absolve them of guilt. He first accused them of having betrayed their promise to God. He then demanded that a large stone be rolled over to him so that animals could be properly slaughtered on it, not on the ground as before. In this way he is making a commendable attempt to right a sinful wrong perpetrated by his understandably hungry troops.
Spiritually sensitive Israelite leaders built altars as a matter of routine (cf. 7:17; 2Sa 24:25; 1Ch 21:18; Jdg 6:24). In Saul’s case a special point is made of the fact that this was the “first time” he had done so, probably a negative comment directed at Saul’s lack of piety.
36–46 Initially Saul determined to plunder and slaughter the Philistines until nothing and no one remained. The decision to attack at night and plunder till dawn reflects the common practice of conducting military operations in the dead of night, when the number of attackers was small and the element of surprise was important (cf. 2Sa 17:22; Jdg 16:3). Saul’s men, apparently satisfied that he had their best interests at heart, were ready to follow him.
The priest Ahijah, however, sensed the need to “inquire of” God (lit., “draw near to”; GK 448 & 7928; cf. Zep 3:2), perhaps by making use of the sacred lots stored in the ephod (v.3). Agreeing, Saul “asked” the Lord whether the defeat of the enemy was imminent (cf. 7:8–9; Jdg 20:23). When he received no answer, he sensed that something was amiss in the army.
Saul called for the army “leaders” (cf. Jdg 20:2) to come before him to ascertain what sin had been committed and who had committed it. Pronouncing the solemn oath “As surely as the LORD lives” (cf. v.45; 19:6; 20:3, 21; 25:34; 26:10, 16; et al.), Saul affirmed that whoever had sinned “must die.” If necessary, he was even prepared to give up the life of his son Jonathan (cf. Ge 22:10, 12, 16; Jdg 11:31, 39; Heb 11:17). Respectful even in the face of Saul’s shocking announcement, knowing that Jonathan had (however innocently) violated his father’s imposed oath, aware that the brave Jonathan would likely die through no fault of his own, doubtless sympathizing with Jonathan’s position as over against Saul’s folly—none of his men “said a word” during those dramatic moments.
Anticipating the casting of lots to determine who had committed the sin that imperiled further war against Philistia, Saul made the first division by lining up his troops on one side and himself and Jonathan on the other. The casting of lots proceeds swiftly, and the rest of the men are eliminated as “Jonathan and Saul” are taken (that Jonathan’s name appears first is an ominous sign). As the final lot is cast, Saul is cleared and Jonathan taken. Saul’s statement to Jonathan echoes Joshua’s to Achan centuries earlier (Jos 7:19). Jonathan then admits tasting a little honey with the end of his staff, but also says he is ready to die. Even more solemn than the oath Saul had taken earlier (v.39) is the one he now takes (v.44; cf. also 25:22), and it seems that Jonathan’s doom is sealed.
Unable to contain themselves any longer, Saul’s men remind him of how cruel it would be to execute Israel’s deliverer. Because he was able to achieve victory with God’s help (cf. Ge 4:1), not a single hair of his head would fall to the ground (cf. 2Sa 14:11; 1Ki 1:52; Ac 27:34). Finally persuaded, Saul rescinds his order, and thus Jonathan is “rescued” (lit., “ransomed”; GK 7009; cf. Job 6:23) by the fervent pleas of the troops. Distracted by his determination to execute his own son, Saul loses his best opportunity to deal the Philistines a lethal blow.
4. Further wars of Saul (14:47–52)
47–48 Although for the most part we do not know the times or extent of Saul’s wars against his enemies, we read that he was successful wherever he turned. In anticipation of Saul’s fiasco in ch. 15, the narrator reserves the Amalekites for special attention. On one or more occasions (otherwise unrecorded) during his reign, Saul “fought valiantly” against Amalek and defeated them. He also saved Israel from the hands of “those who had plundered” them. But Saul’s incomplete victory in ch. 15, caused by his disobedience, led to divine rejection and the loss of his kingdom (15:28; 28:17–18).
49 The names of Saul’s children are recorded here, and those of other family members appear in vv.50–51. In addition to his firstborn, Jonathan, Saul had at least two other sons: Ishvi (probably Ish-Bosheth) and MalkiShua (“My King is noble,” 31:2). Saul also had a fourth son, not mentioned here (Abinadab; cf. 31:2). Saul’s two daughters, Merab (2Sa 21:8) and Michal (cf. 19:11–17; 2Sa 6:16–23), are listed in their proper genealogical order. Both would later be offered in marriage to David (18:17–27).
50–51 Saul’s wife was Ahinoam (“My Brother is pleasant”) daughter of Ahimaaz. Saul also had a concubine named Rizpah (2Sa 3:7). The commander of Saul’s army was his cousin Abner. Saul’s father Kish and uncle Ner were both sons of Abiel (cf. 9:1).
52 Chapter 14 concludes with reminders of the never-ending and all-pervasive Philistine threat and of the king’s continuing need for fresh troops (cf. 8:11). The final verse of the chapter also sends forth literary rays into the future. One of the “brave” men Saul will conscript is David (18:17).
5. The rejection of Saul (15:1–35)
Chapter 15 concludes the account of Saul’s decline (chs. 13–15). As in ch. 13, Saul’s intention to offer an unauthorized sacrifice in the context of holy war leads to God’s rejection—this time, a final rejection. If at that earlier time Saul was denied a dynasty, now he is denied his kingship. Thus ch. 15 is climactic.
1–3 Samuel stresses his role as the representative through whom God anointed Saul as king and through whom he now proclaims a further message to him. Soon to wrest the kingship from Saul’s grasp, the Lord—the only true King in Israel’s theocratic monarchy—is described as “the LORD Almighty,” a specifically royal name (see 1:3). His message to Saul is that the time has come for the final destruction of the Amalekites, predicted and reiterated long ago (Ex 17:8–16; Nu 24:20; Dt 25:17–19). The geographical clues scattered throughout the chapter make it clear that the Amalekites referred to here are the traditional southern marauders rather than a smaller Amalekite enclave occupying an area in the hills of western Samaria.
The significance and uniqueness of the divine command to annihilate the Amalekites is underscored by herem (GK 3049; see NIV note for its meaning). In this case it means “attack,” “do not spare,” and “put to death” (see v.3). It is furthermore clear that “everything that belongs to them” here means “everything among them that breathes” (cf. Dt 20:16–17). Representative pairings of animate creatures doomed to destruction conclude the verse. The command is specific: “Do not spare them”; later, Saul rationalized his disobedience of that command (vv.9, 15).
We should not be surprised that Saul did not flinch at the prospect of killing innocent women and children. Wars in the ancient Near East always had a religious dimension, and the battlefield was an arena of divine retribution. The Amalekites, in their persistent refusal to fear God (Dt 25:18), sowed the seeds of their own destruction. God is patient and slow to anger, “abounding in love and faithfulness” (Ex 34:6); he nevertheless “does not leave the guilty unpunished” (v.7). The agent of divine judgment can be impersonal (e.g., the Flood or the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah) or personal (as here), and in his sovereign purpose God permits entire families or nations to be destroyed if their corporate representatives are incorrigibly wicked (cf. Jos 7:1, 10–13, 24–26).
4–9 Saul summoned from Judah “ten thousand” men. In addition he mustered “two hundred thousand foot soldiers,” probably from Israel. Saul’s troop strength had declined considerably since the battles against Nahash and the Ammonites (11:8), but it was more than adequate for the present task.
Before Saul’s main attack against the Amalekites, he urged the Kenites living in or near Amalekite territory (cf. 27:10; 30:29) to move out (at least temporarily) to avoid getting killed in the crossfire. The Kenites had shown “kindness” to the Israelite spies centuries earlier and had thus been spared in return (Jos 2:12–14).
The Israelites attacked the Amalekites throughout their homeland. The description of the total destruction of “all” the people is hyperbolic, since the Amalekites survived to fight again (cf. 30:1). In any event, Saul spared Agag—but perhaps with the intent of later putting him to death, since the idiom “take alive” often describes an action preparatory to subsequent execution (cf. 2Ki 10:14; 2Ch 25:12; and esp. Jos 8:23, 29).
Besides sparing Agag, Saul and his troops also set aside the best of the enemy’s animals. When reproved by Samuel for not slaughtering even the best animals (vv.14, 19), Saul gave the excuse that his “soldiers” (vv.15, 21) intended to sacrifice them to the Lord. If Saul is sincere at this point, his reluctance to accept responsibility and his haste to shift the blame to his men are disquietingly reminiscent of similar situations (Ge 3:12–13; Ex 32:21–24). The text, however, states that Saul and his men were “unwilling” (GK 14) to destroy—a verb specifically linked elsewhere with the sin of rebellion (Dt 1:26).
10–21 The phrase “the word of the LORD came to” is used of God’s revelation to a prophet only three times in the books of Samuel (see 2Sa 7:4; 24:11; cf. 1Sa 3:l). In each of two stages in this section (vv.10–15, 16–21), Samuel brings the condemning word of God to Saul for having disobeyed the divine command.
Whether Samuel had by this time become reconciled—however reluctantly—to Saul’s kingship is difficult to say. After all, God’s role in making Saul king is stressed over and over in these chapters (9:17; 10:1, 24; 12:13; 13:13; 15:1). Although Samuel did not yet know it, Saul had “turned away” from the Lord (GK 8704), an action fraught with the most serious of consequences (cf. Nu 14:43; 32:15; Jos 22:16, 18, 23, 29; 1Ki 9:6–7). The Lord’s “word” to Samuel was clearly disturbing to him, causing him to be “troubled” and to cry out (for help; cf. 7:8–9; 12:8, 10; GK 2410) to the Lord all night long. During his night-long wrestling with God in prayer he received the divine message of irreversible doom for Saul’s kingdom (cf. v.16). God has now spoken; throughout the rest of the chapter Samuel mediates the divine word to the rejected Saul.
Samuel was told that Saul had gone to Carmel and set up a monument (probably an inscribed victory stele) “in his own honor” (apparently not giving credit to the Lord). Having built the monument, Saul then went to Gilgal—the very place where Samuel had earlier rebuked him for sacrificing to the Lord (13:7–14; cf. v.21).
When Samuel arrived at Gilgal, Saul—either genuinely or pretending innocence—greeted him in the traditional way (cf. 23:21; 2Sa 2:5; Ru 2:19–20; 3:10) and then told him that he had carried out the Lord’s “instructions.” But Samuel, not to be denied, wanted to know why he heard sheep and cattle in the background. Saul’s meek retort in v.15 fails on two counts: (1) However commendable his declared motive, Saul had been told to destroy every living thing and therefore should not have spared even the best of the animals; (2) even if his soldiers were primarily responsible for saving the animals, Saul was their leader and therefore should not have tried to shift the blame to them. Especially stark is the contrast between “they spared” and “we totally destroyed.” Notice that in speaking to Samuel, Saul referred to “the LORD your God” (rather than “the LORD our God”; cf. vv.21, 30).
Samuel would have none of Saul’s self-righteous protestations. With all the force of divine authority, he told Saul to “stop” (v.16) and to listen to what God had revealed to him the previous night. He reminded Saul that despite the fact that Saul had once considered himself too insignificant to be Israel’s ruler (cf. 9:21; 10:22), the Lord had nevertheless anointed him as king. He then reminded Saul of the divine commission regarding the wicked Amalekites. Saul has no better defense against Samuel’s onslaught than to repeat in detail what he had already said (v.13). Although he stresses his own obedience by speaking in the first person several times in v.20, he also tries to justify the actions of his troops by attributing to them the worthy intention to sacrifice to the Lord the animals they had spared.
22–31 The poetic format of Samuel’s well-known condemnation of Saul’s objection in no way blunts its severity (cf. v.33). As at the time of the Fall (Ge 2–3), the matter at stake is one of obedience, and Saul failed as miserably as did Adam and Eve.
Verse 22 is a classic text on the importance of obedience, moral conduct, and proper motivation in animal sacrifice (cf. Pss 40:6–8; 51:16–17; Isa 1:11–15; Hos 6:6; Mk 12:32–33). To Samuel, himself both prophet (3:20) and priest, the issue is not a question of either/or but of both/and. Sacrifice must be offered to the Lord on his terms, not ours. Saul’s postponement of the commanded destruction, however well meaning, constituted flagrant violation of God’s will.
Just as Saul’s earlier impetuous disobedience had brought the full force of Samuel’s rebuke (13:14), so now his halfhearted fulfillment of the divine command removes him from royal office. Rejection begets rejection.
The note of finality in Samuel’s voice finally brings Saul to his senses. Saul says—twice—“I have sinned.” He confesses to having “violated the LORD’s command,” apparently not having learned the lesson of his earlier failure (13:13). Fearing the people more than God (cf. Pr 29:25; Isa 51:12–13), Saul “gave in to them”—lit., “listened to their voice”—when all along he should have been obeying the voice of God through the prophet (vv.19, 22).
At first Saul’s plea to Samuel for forgiveness falls on deaf ears. As far as Samuel is concerned, the conversation is over; so he turns to leave the scene. At this point Saul in desperation seizes the hem of Samuel’s robe. Saul may not have been aware of the full implications of his spontaneous act. But since a man’s robe may symbolize his power and authority (cf. 2:19), the tearing of Samuel’s robe implies an irreparable breech between Saul and Samuel as well as the more obvious sundering of the kingdom from Saul and his descendants (cf. 1Ki 11:11–13, 29–31).
The “neighbor” destined to receive Saul’s kingdom (cf. 13:14) is David. As obedience is “better than” sacrifice, so David is “better than” Saul. It is ironic that Saul himself had originally been considered “better than” his peers (9:2).
The general statement in Nu 23:19 concerning the immutability of God’s basic nature and purpose is now applied in v.29. Samuel gives to the unchangeable God a unique name by calling him the “Glory” of Israel.
Perhaps by now reconciled to the irreversible divine determination to reject him finally as king of Israel, Saul poignantly repeats his earlier statements of confession and of his desire for Samuel to “come back” with him. Saul wanted to save face before the elders and people of Israel by publicly worshiping the Lord and so demonstrating his allegiance to him. Samuel—a man, not God—this time relented.
32–35 There was one piece of business still to take care of, however. Using the language common to the ritual procedure of sacrifice, Samuel said, “Bring me Agag.” The Amalekite king feels that his life will be spared. In Samuel’s mind, however, Agag is an offering to be sacrificed to the Lord. Quickly dispelling Agag’s optimism, Samuel applies the lex talionis to him (cf. Jdg 1:7) and reminds him that bloodshed begets bloodshed (Ge 9:6). Without further ado Samuel then executes Agag, probably by hacking him in pieces for the treaty violation implications of such an act (cf. 11:12).
Following the death of Agag, Samuel and Saul go their separate ways—Samuel to his hometown of Ramah, just as he does after anointing David (16:13), and Saul to his hometown of Gibeah. Although after this time Saul would go to see Samuel again on more than one occasion (19:23–24; 28:10–11), never again would Samuel initiate such a meeting. Samuel nonetheless “mourned” for Saul (cf. also 16:1)—the language used here suggests mourning for one who is dead.
The chapter ends with a doleful echo of v.11: “The LORD was grieved that he had made Saul king.” Saul’s rejection of God’s word through his prophet had led to God’s rejection of Saul’s rule over his people. To end this part of our discussion on a relatively positive note, however, we do well to remember that the divine rejection of the kingship of Saul does not imply a rejection of the person of Saul.
III. Establishment of Monarchy in Israel (16:1–31:13)
Although monarchy in the person of Saul had long since arrived in Israel, only with the anointing and rapid rise of David can it be said to have been truly established. Unlike Saul’s abortive rule, David’s reign was sovereignly instituted by God alone. Chapters 16–31 are as much the story of the decline and ultimate fall of Saul and Jonathan as they are of the rise of David.
A. The Rise of David (16:1–28:2)
1. The anointing of David (16:1–13)
In addition to being the middle chapter of 1 Samuel, ch. 16 is pivotal in another way as well: Its first half (vv.1–13), ending with a statement concerning David’s reception of the Spirit of God, describes David’s anointing as ruler of Israel to replace Saul; its second half (vv.14–23), beginning with a statement concerning Saul’s loss of the Spirit and his replacement with an “evil spirit” sent by God, describes David’s arrival in the court of Saul. Thus the juxtaposition of vv.13 and 14 delineates not only the transfer of the divine blessing and empowerment from Saul to David but also the beginning of the effective displacement of Saul by David as king of Israel. It serves as the literary, historical, and theological crux of 1 Samuel.
1–5 This chapter begins where ch. 15 ends: Samuel is still mourning for Saul. Ironically, the divine “how long” serves as a prophetic rebuke to the prophet Samuel. Since God had rejected Saul as king over Israel, a change of leadership was in order. The Lord tells Samuel to go to “Jesse of Bethlehem.” At Bethlehem one of Jesse’s sons would become the next ruler of Israel by being anointed with oil. Jesse of the tribe of Judah (cf. Ru 4:12, 18–22) and his hometown, Bethlehem in Judah, would forever become associated with the Messiah (Isa 11:1–3, 10; Mic 5:2; Mt 1:1, 5–6, 16–17; 2:4–6).
The Lord also tells Samuel that he has “chosen” a son of Jesse. Samuel was understandably afraid that the rejected Saul would kill him if he learned that Samuel was on the way to Bethlehem to anoint Saul’s successor. The Lord therefore reminded Samuel of an accompanying reason for making the journey: to sacrifice a heifer (presumably as a fellowship offering; cf. Lev 3:1) in conjunction with the ritual of anointing (cf. 9:11–10:1; 11:15).
©1989 The Zondervan Corporation.
The sacrificial ceremony was for a select few (including Jesse, his sons, and the elders of Bethlehem) and was therefore by invitation only (cf. 9:24). God’s promise to Samuel in v.3 leaves no doubt concerning God’s sovereign role in the choice of Saul’s successor: Samuel must anoint for the Lord the one whom the Lord indicates (cf. Dt 17:15).
Obedient to the Lord’s command, Samuel went to Bethlehem. Perhaps awed by his formidable reputation, the town elders “trembled when they met him” (cf. 21:1). They asked Samuel the customary question in such circumstances: “Do you come in peace?” (cf. 1Ki 2:13; 2Ki 9:22). Samuel’s cordial response allayed their fears as he told them (part of) the reason he had come. In preparation for entering into God’s presence, he had the elders consecrate themselves; then he personally consecrated the specially designated celebrants (Jesse and his sons).
6–10 Samuel, apparently eager to get on with the anointing of Israel’s next king, saw the oldest son, Eliab, and felt sure that he was the Lord’s “anointed.” The divine response to Samuel’s musings immediately eliminates Eliab. God rejects him (as he had rejected Saul, v.1). What Samuel saw externally was Eliab’s “appearance,” but what man “looks at” (GK 8011) is not what God looks at (cf. 15:29). Human beings are impressed—and therefore often deceived—by what their eyes tell them, while God looks at the “heart” (cf. 1Ki 8:39; 1Ch 28:9; cf. esp. Lk 16:15).
Abinadab and Shammah, the second and third sons of Jesse (17:13), fared no better than Eliab had. Regarding both of these, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.” Verse 10 summarizes the rest of the proceedings with respect to the divine rejection of David’s brothers. None of the seven is acceptable.
11–13 Samuel, knowing God’s determination that one of Jesse’s sons will be king (v.1), but also knowing that God has not chosen any of the first seven (v.10), asks Jesse whether he has any other sons. Jesse informs him that there is one more, the “youngest” (cf. also 17:14).
When we first met Saul, he was looking for his father’s donkeys (9:2–3); when we first meet David, he is tending his father’s sheep. At Samuel’s request, Jesse sends someone to bring David in from the fields. Ironically, David, while presumably not a tall man, immediately presents a striking appearance. No sooner was David brought into Samuel’s presence than the Lord commanded Samuel to anoint him as Israel’s next ruler.
Samuel’s anointing of David (“in the presence of his brothers,” so that there might be witnesses that he is truly God’s choice) is linked with David’s accession of the Spirit of the Lord. Anointing with oil thus symbolized anointing with the Holy Spirit (cf. Isa 61:1). In David’s case the divine accession was permanent (“from that day on”; cf. 30:25), while elsewhere the Spirit comes and goes (twice for Saul, 10:6, 10; 11:6; three times for Samson, Jdg 14:6, 19; 15:14).
Verse 13 concludes with Samuel’s prophetic departure for his home in Ramah. Although he makes additional appearances later on, he no longer plays an active role in 1 and 2 Samuel. The anointing of David was the capstone of Samuel’s career.
2. The arrival of David in the court of Saul (16:14–23)
14–18 The Spirit’s coming on David and the Spirit’s leaving Saul were two climactic events that occurred in close sequence to each other (cf. esp. 18:12). Just as the accession of the Spirit by David was an expected accompaniment of his anointing as Israel’s next ruler (v.13), so the departure of the Spirit from Saul should be understood as the negation of effective rule on his part from that time on.
The “evil spirit,” the divinely sent scourge that “tormented” (GK 1286) Saul, returned again and again (18:10; 19:9; cf. Jdg 9:23). Although the “evil” spirit may have been a demon that embodied both moral and spiritual wickedness, it is more likely an “injurious” (see NIV note) spirit that produced harmful results for him. It was responsible for the mental and psychological problems that plagued Saul for the rest of his life. That God used alien spirits to serve him is taken for granted in the OT (cf. esp. 2Sa 24:1 with 1Ch 21:1). Saul’s “attendants,” aware that their king was being tormented by an evil spirit, were ready and eager to help (cf. v.17; 17:32, 34, 36; 18:5 et al.).
Perhaps sensing the soothing effect of music, Saul’s attendants offered to look for someone to play the “harp” to make their master “feel better.” Saul agreed with his attendants’ counsel, and one of his “servants” suggested that a certain son of Jesse would meet Saul’s needs admirably. In the course of doing so, the servant gave as fine a portrayal of David as one could wish: a good musician, a “brave man,” a “warrior,” an articulate speaker, and a handsome man as well. The servant’s final descriptive phrase reminds us that just as the Lord was with Samuel (3:19), so also he was with David. Although unwittingly, Saul’s servant has just introduced us to Israel’s next king.
19–23 Again Saul, influenced by a servant’s suggestion, sent for the man described. Saul’s reference to David as being “with the sheep” identifies him as a shepherd (cf. v.11). Unwittingly, he too characterizes David as Israel’s next king.
Jesse sent David to take bread, wine, and a young goat to Saul (cf. Pr 18:16). Obviously impressing Saul, David “entered his service” as an armor-bearer. Although skilled men can expect to be pressed into service by kings (Pr 22:29), Saul also “liked” David personally. David’s skill as a harpist brought soothing “relief” that drove the evil “spirit” from the disturbed king. The chapter ends with a gifted young man, Israel’s future king, coming to serve a rejected and dejected ruler who is totally unaware of the implications of his welcoming David into his court.
3. The death of Goliath (17:1–58)
Just as Samuel’s anointing of Saul (10:1) was followed by Saul’s defeat of Nahash and the Ammonites (11:1–11), so also Samuel’s anointing of David (16:13) is followed by David’s defeat of Goliath and the Philistines (ch. 17). Each victory demonstrated the courage, determination, and military expertise of the newly anointed leader. The exciting story of David and Goliath is an excellent example of representative warfare effected by means of a contest of champions. The purpose of such contests was to decide the strength of a country without massive loss of life.
1–3 The Philistines were Saul’s inveterate enemies throughout his reign (14:52). On this occasion they gathered “their forces” between Socoh and Azekah, two towns in the western foothills of Judah (Jos 15:20, 33, 35). The Israelite camp was on the northern slopes of the valley. The contest between David and Goliath took place on the floor of the valley itself, about halfway between the two opposing campsites.
4–7 In vv.4 and 23 Goliath is called a “champion.” By any standard of measure, the Philistine champion was a giant of a man, “over nine feet tall.” His armor and weapons are described at length. A coat of mail such as Goliath’s was fashioned from several hundred small bronze plates that resembled fish scales and had to meet the needs of protection, lightness, and freedom of movement. The weight of Goliath’s armor is impressive. Greaves protected the legs below the knee, and javelins were probably used to fend off attackers as often as they were used in offensive maneuvers. Goliath’s most formidable offensive weapon seems to have been his spear, whose heavy “point” was made of iron (cf. 13:19–22). Goliath’s sword, although not mentioned until vv.45, 51, doubtless had an iron blade. Receiving added protection from the large shield carried by his aide, the Philistine giant must have felt—and appeared—invincible.
8–11 Goliath hurls the challenge of representative combat into the teeth of the Israelite army. The Philistines (so Goliath thinks) will win a quick and easy victory over Israel, who will then be enslaved by them. Having thrown down the gauntlet, the Philistine challenger at first had no takers. In fact, Saul and his troops were “dismayed and terrified.” Barring the response of an Israelite hero, Goliath would win by default, and the Philistines would continue to be Israel’s masters.
12–16 Again we are introduced to David, Jesse’s son (16:19). His three oldest sons, loyal warriors all, “followed” Saul into battle. Although having entered Saul’s service earlier (16:21), David was currently engaged in his main task, tending his father’s sheep—in preparation for a more important shepherding task later. Goliath came forward twice a day for forty days in continuing, taunting defiance. He “took his stand,” like the kings of the earth in Ps 2:2, “against the LORD and against his anointed one” (Ps 2:2, NIV note).
17–22 The urgency of Jesse’s command (“Hurry”) underscores his concern for his sons’ well-being and safety. Jesse sent along the staple items of roasted grain and bread for David’s brothers, while for the commander of their unit he provided a gift of “ten cheeses.”
The rest of ch. 17 describes David’s transformation from being a shepherd of flocks to becoming a leader of people. When he reached the battle lines, David “greeted” his brothers (lit., “asked concerning [their] welfare/well-being”; cf. the same expression in v.18).
23–30 Even from a distance Goliath’s defiant challenge appears to have been loud enough to interrupt David’s conversation with his brothers. The mere sight of the giant was enough to cause the men of Israel to flee in panic. Nothing had changed in more than a month (v.16).
Notice the contrast between the attitudes of David and the men of Israel: The men of Israel call Goliath “this man,” David calls him “this uncircumcised Philistine”; they say that Goliath has come out to “defy Israel,” David says that he has come out to “defy the armies of the living God”; they refer to Goliath’s potential victor as “the man who kills him,” David refers to him as “the man who kills this Philistine and removes this disgrace from Israel.” In short, the men of Israel see a fearsome giant who is reproaching Israel; David sees merely an uncircumcised Philistine who is defying the living God.
Giving one’s daughter in marriage as a reward for faithful service was not unprecedented in Israel (cf. Jos 15:13–17). In addition, Saul promised great wealth to Goliath’s victor as well as making his father’s family “exempt . . . from taxes.”
In righteous indignation David implicitly offers himself to fight Goliath, an offer that becomes explicit in v.32. In David’s eyes the Philistines’ god Dagon is a dead idol (5:3–4). By contrast “the LORD is the true God; he is the living God, the eternal King” (Jer 10:10). David’s oldest brother, Eliab, misunderstood and angrily questioned David’s motives for coming down to the battlefield (cf. Ge 37:4–36).
31–33 David’s expressions of bravado were reported to Saul, who then decided that he wanted to talk to the young shepherd. Knowing that the Lord is on his side, David offers to fight Goliath in spite of the overwhelming odds against him (cf. Dt 20:1–4). But Saul, unimpressed, insists that a fight between David and Goliath would be a mismatch. As for Goliath’s reputation as a “fighting man,” David has already been referred to as a “warrior” earlier in the text (16:18). The odds are therefore much more even than either Saul or Goliath might imagine, especially when the divine element is added to the equation.
34–35 In vv.34–37 David demonstrates beyond cavil that he “speaks well” (16:18). Though others may flee from lions and bears (Am 5:19), David does not. As a shepherd “keeping his father’s sheep” (cf. 16:11), David often rescued them from the mouths of dangerous animals (cf. Am 3:12).
36–37 The comparison between David as a herder of sheep and David as a leader of people is made even more explicit. Goliath will be “like” the lion or the bear, both of whom David had killed. As David routinely “rescued” sheep from wild animals (v.35), so also God had “delivered” David from them and would thus “deliver” him from Goliath. Deliverance from enemies depicted as predatory animals is not an uncommon motif in Scripture (Ps 22:21; cf. also 2Ti 4:17).
Saul, again impressed by David’s bravado (cf. v.31), tells him to “Go.” Saul’s added expression of encouragement (“the LORD be with you”) echoes 16:18 and unwittingly calls attention to the tragically disparate spiritual conditions of Saul and David (16:13–14).
38–40 Saul, desirous of giving David every advantage, clothed him in the same kind of armor. Since it was generally believed that to wear the clothing of another was to be imbued with his essence and to share his very being, these latter acts were probably calculated to enable Saul to take credit for, or at least to share in, David’s victory.
David, however, denied Saul his potential moment of glory. He insisted that he could not “go” while wearing Saul’s heavy armor. After taking the armor off, he selected five sling stones from the streambed in the Valley of Elah. Such stones were part of the normal repertoire of weapons in the ancient world (cf. 2Ch 26:14). Armed only with his shepherd’s staff and the five sling stones, David the Israelite shepherd strides forth to do battle with Goliath the Philistine champion.
41–44 Together with his aide carrying a large shield, the huge Goliath must have considered himself invincible. He failed to understand, however, that he and his shield bearer were no match for David and his God. Apparently ignoring David’s sling, Goliath perceived that David was coming to fight against him with “sticks.” Such weapons, he implied, would be appropriate for beating a “dog,” the lowest of animals. He then cursed David “by” his “gods.”
45–47 David’s responding taunt begins and ends with reference to the ineffectiveness and irrelevance of “sword and spear” when the God of Israel is involved in the battle. David fights Goliath “in the name of” the Lord. Goliath is on perilous ground. He has “defied” (GK 3070) “the armies of Israel,” thus defying “the armies of the living God” (v.36; cf. v.10); this is tantamount to defying God himself.
Anxious to get on with the contest, David asserts that Goliath will be killed “this day” and he will “cut off” the giant’s head. All who hear will know that the God of Israel is the only true God. In addition, they will know that the Lord, not weapons of war or a human instrument, is the true Deliverer, a fact already understood by Jonathan (14:6). “The battle” belongs to him alone (2Ch 20:15). David concludes by warning that God would give “you” (pl.) into “our” (pl.) hands, thus reminding Goliath of his own earlier intention that their battle was indeed representative warfare, the results of which would have profound implications for the Philistines and Israelites as a whole (vv.8–9).
48–49 Undeterred, Goliath moved closer to “attack” David, who in turn wasted no time in running forward to “meet” him. One sling stone sufficed; it felled the Philistine, who toppled to the ground facedown (cf. 5:4).
50–51a With only a sling and a stone, not with a sword, David vanquished Goliath. As David had earlier “struck . . . and killed” wild animals threatening his father’s sheep (v.35), so now he “struck down the Philistine and killed him.” The actual killing did not take place with an Israelite sword; irony of ironies, David killed Goliath with his own sword.
That David “ran” to the Philistine after felling him indicates that he wanted to kill Goliath before he regained consciousness. As he had promised (v.46), he cut off the Philistine’s head (cf. 5:4). Goliath’s head was later displayed as a trophy of war (v.54); his sword as well became a battlefield trophy (owned by David; cf. 21:9).
51b–54 The death of Goliath produced panic in the Philistine ranks, and they fled in disorder. Goliath’s original defiant challenge of representative warfare was now forgotten or ignored or both. The men of “Israel” and “Judah” set out in hot pursuit, chasing the Philistines all the way to Gath (Goliath’s hometown, v.4) and Ekron (about six miles north of Gath).
On returning from the slaughter of the Philistines, the Israelite army plundered the enemy camp. David’s role in the plundering operation is perhaps summarized in v.54b, which informs us that he put Goliath’s weapons in “his” own tent. He proceeded to put Goliath’s head on public display. That he took it to Jerusalem, a city not yet under Israelite control (cf. 2Sa 5:6–10), perhaps was a way of putting the Jebusites on notice that just as the Philistine had fallen victim to David, Jerusalem’s demise was only a matter of time. Perhaps under cover of night to avoid detection, David may have affixed Goliath’s head to Jerusalem’s wall (cf. 31:10).
55–58 The events recorded in v.54 postdate vv.55–58, as v.57 makes clear. Indeed, vv.55–56 synchronize with v.40, while vv.57–58 follow immediately on v.51a. Determined to know who the boy is, Saul says to Abner, “Find out.” Abner brought David to Saul, and David identified himself as the son of “Jesse of Bethlehem.”
4. The jealousy of Saul (18:1–30)
Up to the events recorded in ch. 18, Saul had apparently been favorably disposed toward David. The scene that unfolds in vv.6–9, however, changed all that.
1–4 Some time after David’s conversation with Saul that concludes ch. 17, Saul’s son Jonathan entered into a covenant with David. The ambiguous verb “loved” (GK 170) describes the covenantal relationship. That intimate friendship made Saul all the more determined to make David a permanent member of the royal household. The covenant between Jonathan and David was only one of many such agreements made over a long period of time, until David’s kingship was firmly established (20:16–17; 23:18; 2Sa 3:13, 21; 5:3). And when Jonathan took off his robe (a symbol of the Israelite kingdom; cf. 15:27–28) and gave it to David, he was in effect transferring his own status as heir apparent to him. Saul had earlier tried to put his tunic and armor on David, but to no avail (17:38–39). Jonathan now gives his own tunic and armor (including a type of belt that was often used to hold a sheathed dagger; cf. 2Sa 20:8) to David, who apparently accepts it without further ado.
5 This verse anticipates and summarizes David’s continued successes as a warrior after his victory over Goliath. Having experienced repeated military success himself (14:47), Saul appreciated its importance and honored David accordingly by giving him command over one or more army units. David’s skill as a warrior “pleased” all the “people.” After David became Israel’s king, his ability to please his subjects would continue (2Sa 3:36).
6–8 When David the conquering hero returned to the Israelite camp (17:57) after killing Goliath, and after the Israelite army had defeated their Philistine counterparts (17:52–53), all the troops (including Saul) returned home to be greeted by their fellow countrymen. Such victory celebrations were normally led by women, who came to meet the triumphant warriors with “dancing” accompanied by “tambourines” (cf. Ex 15:20; Jdg 11:34) and “singing” (cf. Ex 15:21; Jdg 5:1). Saul’s reaction to the contents of the refrain was not surprising: He became angry (cf. 20:7), assuming that David was receiving ten times more praise than himself. Saul now fears for his kingdom.
9–16 Saul’s formerly positive attitude toward his young armor-bearer now became decidedly negative. His paranoia was exacerbated by the frequent arrival of “an evil spirit from God.” To bring relief to Saul when an evil spirit was tormenting him, David would play the harp (16:15–16, 23; cf. 19:9).
There would be at least one other time (cf. “twice,” v.11) when Saul would try to pin David to the wall with a spear (19:10). Although Jonathan at first could not believe that Saul was determined to kill David (20:9), Saul’s attempt to impale even his own son finally convinced him (20:32–33).
Apparently fearful because God was with David but had “left” him (cf. esp. 16:13–14), Saul “sent away” David. He made him commander of a “thousand.” His purpose was sinister: He intended to place David at the head of the front rank of troops, where he would be sure to be killed by the Philistines (v.17; cf. 2Sa 11:14–15). David’s military exploits, possible only because the Lord was “with him,” bound him all the more closely to “Israel and Judah” in covenant relationship. But Saul became increasingly afraid of David.
17–19 As a further means of assuring David’s death at the hands of the Philistines, Saul offered him the distraction of his “older daughter Merab” in marriage. But David declined to marry Merab and later became the husband of her younger sister Michal (vv.26–28), although David is never described as loving Michal.
Saul’s mandate to David—essentially “be brave and fight”—echoed the common battle cries of those days (cf. 4:9). David had already proven himself to be just the sort of man that Saul was eager to press into service in his army (14:52). His duplicity, however, is evident in his intention to place him in situations that would guarantee his death at the hand of the Philistines.
20–26a Every time either Merab or Michal appears in this chapter, she is referred to as the “daughter” of Saul (vv.17, 19–20, 27–28). David’s marriage to one or both could not escape the political implications of their being the daughters of the reigning king: If Saul (and Jonathan) should die, David’s claim on the throne of Israel would be all the stronger. In addition, when political marriages were arranged, it was usually the daughter of the ostensibly weaker ruler who married the stronger (cf. Ge 34:9; 1Ki 3:1; 2Ch 18:1). David’s relentless climb to Israel’s throne was thus proceeding apace.
Michal’s “love” for David parallels that of Jonathan (vv.1, 3) and perhaps carries the same covenantal nuances. What is certain is that these two siblings evidence more love to David than to their father.
In spite of David’s plea of poverty as an excuse not to marry Michal, Saul would hear none of it. A mere “hundred Philistine foreskins” would suffice as compensation for her. In asking David to kill one hundred Philistines, Saul of course was hoping that David himself would be killed. Saul gave another reason, however, for his demand: that he might “take revenge” on his enemies by decimating them (cf. 14:24; Jdg 15:7). Ironically, David himself has become one of Saul’s “enemies” (v.29; cf. also 19:17; 20:13; 24:4, 19; 25:26, 29).
26b–29 David’s “men” (first mentioned in v.27) accompany him on this venture. The verbs “went out,” “killed,” and “brought” are singular in number, stressing David’s leadership in fulfilling Saul’s demand. “Presented,” however, has a plural subject and involves David’s men, without whose help he surely would have failed in the overall success. Saul, true to his word, gave his daughter to his enemy. The combination of the evidence of God’s help for and presence with David and of Michal’s love for David increased Saul’s fear of David (cf. v.12), with the result that “he” (Saul) remained “his” (David’s) enemy for the rest of his “days” (cf. 23:14).
30 The final verse of ch. 18 repeats the theme of David’s success (cf. vv.5, 14–15). He soon proved that he was more than a match for the Philistine commanders; and even when they later joined in common cause against Saul, they would justifiably remain wary of David (29:3–4, 9).
5. David the refugee (19:1–24)
1–7 Although Saul is earlier described as desiring David’s permanent residence at the palace (18:2), ch. 19 records the final break between the two men. Despite being Saul’s wise and successful “servant,” David is the object, not of the king’s delight, but of his murderous intent, asking his servants and even his son Jonathan to find an opportunity to kill David. But Jonathan is “fond of” David and will therefore do everything in his power to save the life of his covenanted friend (cf. 18:1–3).
Jonathan tells David to “go into hiding and stay there.” From this time on and for a long period of time, the man after God’s own heart would be a hunted fugitive. Jonathan’s personal interest in helping David is underscored by his agreement to stand “with” his father as David’s advocate (cf. v.4). The venue was the “field” where David was hiding, perhaps not far from Saul’s fortress in Gibeah. Jonathan further promised to keep David fully informed (cf. 20:10).
The plea of Jonathan in vv.4–5 begins and ends with his hope that Saul would not “do wrong to” David, especially since the latter had not “wronged” the king (cf. also 24:11). Jonathan further reminds his father that David’s deeds have helped Saul, that David “took his life in his hands” in Goliath’s challenge, and that Saul himself had been pleased with the outcome (17:55–58). There is therefore no reason to kill “an innocent man,” and such a crime could only bring bloodguilt on Saul (Dt 21:8–9).
Jonathan’s rebuke of his father brought him to his senses, at least temporarily: He “listened to” Jonathan and took the most solemn of all oaths (cf. 14:39), promising that David would not be put to death—a promise that he quickly forgot (v.11). In the meantime, however, David was once again made a member of Saul’s court in good standing (cf. 16:21; 18:2).
8–10 David’s continued military success against the Philistines evoked the repetition of a familiar scene (see 16:14, 16; 18:10–11).
11–17 Tradition claims vv.11–17 as the original setting of Ps 59. Although the mission of Saul’s men was to kill David “in the morning,” God’s strength and love preserved him “in the morning” (Ps 59:16).
The human agent assuring David’s rescue was Michal, his loving wife (18:20, 28). After warning him to flee the home they shared, she helped him escape by lowering him “through a window” (cf. Jos 2:15; 2Co 11:33). To give David time to put sufficient distance between himself and his pursuers, Michal fashioned a crude dummy to take his place in his bed. She further stalled for time by telling Saul’s men that her husband was ill, thus implying that they should not disturb him.
Michal’s dummy is described as “an idol,” a Hebrew word that is usually translated “household gods” (GK 9572). Since these gods are presumably always small (Ge 31:19, 34–35; et al.), the dummy was almost certainly not a single, man-sized idol. Michal probably piled clothing, carpets, or the like on David’s bed and covered it with a garment, allowing only goats’ hair at the head to show. She did not place the household idols “in” the bed but “beside” it, to enhance the impression of David’s illness.
Michal’s ruse worked to perfection; Saul’s men were deceived. Saul, however, not satisfied with their report, sent his men back for another look, this time with orders to “bring [David] up” to Gibeah, bed and all, so that he might be killed there. By the time they arrived, of course, David was long gone.
In v.5 Saul’s son asks him “why” he would want to kill David, and in v.17 Saul asks his daughter “why” she would “deceive” him and keep David from being killed. Michal tells Saul that David had warned her that if she did not let him flee he would kill her. Saul’s own words identify David as his mortal “enemy” (cf. 18:29), barring forever his return to Saul’s court at Gibeah. David’s days as an outlaw, now begun in earnest, would continue until Saul’s death.
18–24 Verse 18 reverts to the time when David had escaped after Michal’s warning (v.12). He went to Ramah, Samuel’s hometown, to inform the prophet about what Saul had done. Saul heard where David was and, in relentless pursuit, sends men to Naioth to capture him. The Spirit of God, however, protects David by causing three successive contingents of Saul’s messengers to prophesy under a divinely induced trance (see 10:5).
Finally realizing that his men were not going to apprehend David, Saul took matters into his own hands by going to Ramah himself. As soon as he found out the exact whereabouts of Samuel and David, Saul continued on his way and began “prophesying” himself, after receiving an accession of the Spirit of God. His laying aside of his robe is symbolic of his rule, demonstrating once again his forfeiture of any claim to be Israel’s king.
In addition, the rhetorical question demanding a negative answer—“Is Saul also among the prophets?”—underscores that forfeiture and thus takes an ironic twist: To question the genuineness of Saul’s prophetic behavior was to question his legitimacy as king of Israel. The use of this proverb in 10:11–12 and now here brackets the narrative descriptions of Saul’s first and last encounters with Samuel as well as with the Spirit of God. Neither legitimate king nor genuine prophet, Saul continues to stumble toward his doom at the hands of the Philistines, when he will be “stripped” of his garments for the last time (31:8–9).
6. Jonathan’s friendship (20:1–42)
1–4 David’s flight from Saul at Naioth takes him back to the Gibeah fortress and to his friend Jonathan, the only one he can trust. David wants to know the nature of the terrible sin he has supposedly committed that would bring on such frantic pursuit of him. Jonathan, trusting son as well as loyal friend, thought it incredible that Saul really intended to harm David (vv.2, 9; cf. also Saul’s oath in 19:6)—until it became painfully obvious to him (v.33). Jonathan encouraged David by assuring him that Saul did nothing without “confiding in me.”
David, however—more sensitive to Saul’s unpredictability and changes of mood—responds by suggesting that he go and hide in the field. He swears with the most solemn of oaths that there is “only a step” between him and death at the hands of Saul. David affirms that Saul, who knows of the high regard in which Jonathan holds David (cf. v.29), does not want his son to know of his evil designs on David’s life or he would be “grieved.”
5–7 David’s plan is simple: If Saul accepts Jonathan’s explanation for David’s absence from the forthcoming New Moon festival celebration, then David is safe; but if Saul becomes angry, then Jonathan will know that Saul is bent on harming David. David would hide in a “field” (near Saul’s fortress in Gibeah) until the evening of the third day, by which time he would presumably expect to receive word from Jonathan concerning Saul’s reaction toward his absence from the festival.
David’s excuse for not attending is relayed by Jonathan to Saul in vv.28–29. David’s desire to participate in an “annual sacrifice” with his family would not have been considered unusual (1:21; 2:19). During Samuel’s boyhood days the normal venue was Shiloh (1:3), the site of the tabernacle. By David’s time, however, Shiloh had been destroyed (see 4:11), and the tabernacle had no fixed location. Thus it was only to be expected that annual sacrifices would be offered in the celebrants’ hometowns.
Understandably, David was risking Saul’s wrath by pretending to substitute a competing festival for the one the king had invited him to. David surely was not serious in asserting that Saul’s ready agreement to allow him to go to Bethlehem would mean that he would then be back in the king’s good graces. David knew that Saul was determined to kill him; and although Jonathan had not yet brought himself to admit that cold fact (vv.9, 13), he soon would (v.33).
8–17 Reminding Jonathan of the covenant that they had made (18:3), David asks him to demonstrate covenant loyalty (“kindness”; GK 2876). David voiced his preference for dying at the hand of his covenanted friend Jonathan instead of his sworn enemy Saul. But Jonathan avowed that if he had “the least inkling” that his father intended to harm David, he would surely tell his friend. David, still wary, wants to know whether Jonathan would really tell him if Saul answered “harshly.”
David and Jonathan went to the field “together,” using the privacy the field afforded to reaffirm their undying loyalty. In accord with David’s wishes to learn of Saul’s response by “the evening of the day after tomorrow” (v.5), Jonathan promises on oath to send David word no later than that time—whether the news is favorable or unfavorable. In Jonathan’s closing statement, he acknowledges David’s divine calling and recognizes that David, not he himself, will be the next king of Israel.
Jonathan has David reaffirm his side of the covenant they have made. Covenant friendship is the basis of Jonathan’s plea that neither he nor his descendants be executed by David after he becomes king. By now Jonathan surely perceives that among David’s “enemies” is his own father, Saul (cf. 18:29; 19:17). Thus Jonathan extends in perpetuity his previous covenant with David to his house/family/descendants.
18–23 Jonathan’s suggested ruse begins by echoing the time and place of the venue that David had originally proposed (v.5). He agrees that David will be “missed” because his seat will be “empty.” On the third day David is to go to the field where he was hiding. There he is to “wait” by a stone called Ezel. Jonathan then goes on to explain how the message of Saul’s reaction to David’s absence will be communicated. If the arrows are beyond where the boy is at the time of Jonathan’s shout, then David’s life is in danger, and he must flee in response to the will of “the LORD.”
24–34 Playing out the charade to humor his friend, David hid in the field. When the celebrants gathered for the New Moon festival, Saul took his customary seat “by the wall,” where he could feel relatively secure from surprise attack. Jonathan and Abner, Saul’s army commander (and cousin) (14:50; 17:55), occupied places of honor at the table, but David’s place was “empty” (as Jonathan and David had planned, v.18).
When David did not appear on the first day of the New Moon festival, Saul assumed that something had happened to make him “ceremonially unclean” (cf. Lev 15:16, 18) and therefore disqualified from participating in a religious feast (cf. Nu 9:6). But when David’s seat was empty on the second day also, Saul naturally wanted to know why. In referring to David as the “son of Jesse” (cf. also 22:7–9, 13, and esp. 25:10), Saul probably intended at least a mild insult.
Jonathan responded to Saul’s question essentially as he and David had discussed. As David had feared (v.7), Saul became violently angry when Jonathan told him the reason for David’s absence. For all intents and purposes, Jonathan and David were indistinguishable to Saul as he exploded. Saul curses Jonathan by a vile epithet hurled at his son. He accuses Jonathan of having “sided with” David, and that not only to his own shame but also the shame of the “mother who bore you.”
Saul further reminded Jonathan that so long as David remained alive, neither Jonathan nor Jonathan’s kingdom could survive. History would prove Saul’s fears to be prophetic beyond his worst nightmares: Although the kingdom of Saul and his son would not be established (13:13–14), the kingdom of David and his son would be (2Sa 7:16, 26; 1Ki 2:12, 46).
Saul’s demand for David’s death brings a predictable response from Jonathan: “Why?” (cf. 19:5). Saul, though placated before (19:6), would not be denied this time. Not having David as his target, Saul tried to pin David’s surrogate Jonathan to the wall with his spear. Jonathan needed no further convincing that Saul indeed intended to kill David (cf. v.7) and that the spear had really been meant for his covenanted friend. In Saul’s eyes, Jonathan and David had momentarily become one.
It was Jonathan’s turn to fly into a rage. Knowing of his father’s murderous designs on and mistreatment of David caused Jonathan to be “grieved” (GK 6772; see David’s statement in v.3). On the second day of the New Moon festival, neither David nor Jonathan ate at the king’s table (vv.29, 34).
35–40 Jonathan had told David to wait by the stone Ezel on the second day of the New Moon festival “toward evening” (v.19). The boy Jonathan takes with him (vv.21–22) is “small” and thus less likely to ask embarrassing questions about the orders he is given.
Jonathan tells the boy to find the “arrows” he shoots; but, since his aim is true, he discovers that he needs to shoot only one “arrow.” The arrow’s landing beyond the running lad, loudly confirmed by Jonathan so that David would be sure to hear it, was a signal to David that it was God’s will for him to remain a fugitive from Saul (v.22). After the boy retrieved the arrow, Jonathan sent him back to town with all the weapons, assuming (and doubtless hoping) that David might want a private moment to bid his friend farewell.
41–42 Getting up from his hiding place near “the stone,” David bowed down more than once to acknowledge Jonathan’s (covenant) superiority. Jonathan’s “Go in peace” reflects the “safe(ly)” of vv.7, 13, 21 and is generally spoken by a superior to an inferior (cf. 1:17; 25:35). At the same time Jonathan magnanimously uses the emphatic “we” as he reminds David of their mutual and everlasting oath of friendship (cf. vv.17, 23), sworn “in the name of the LORD.” The covenant between Jonathan and David included their “descendants forever” (cf. v.15; cf. also 24:21).
The two friends parted after Jonathan’s farewell speech. Apart from one other brief meeting (23:16–18), this was the last time they would see each other.
7. David and the priest of Nob (21:1–9)
Chapters 21–22 apparently record events later than those in the preceding chapters since by this time David has gathered around him a sizable body of “men” (21:2, 4–5; 22:6) and has become their “leader” (22:2).
1–6 David, needing help in his continued flight from Saul, went to Nob, where there was a large contingent of priests (22:11, 18–19); it may have been the location of the tabernacle. Ahimelech, one of the more prominent of Nob’s priests and mentioned several times in these chapters, “trembled” when he “met” David, thus fearing his reputation and perhaps also recognizing his authority (cf. 16:4).
Ahimelech’s two questions—“Why are you alone?” and “Why is no one with you?”—may seem to be saying much the same thing, but David answers them separately. He is alone because there is a secret matter that he wishes to discuss with the priest, and his men are not with him because he will meet them later.
David next asks Ahimelech two questions (vv.3, 8), each of which is followed by the priest’s answer (vv.4, 9a) and then David’s response (vv.5, 9b). The first question is, “What do you have on hand?” David follows it up with a request: “Give me five loaves of bread”—a modest amount at best (cf. 17:17).
Echoing David’s request, Ahimelech tells him what he has and does not have “on hand”: No “ordinary” bread is available, but “there is” some “consecrated” (lit., “holy”) bread that David and his men may eat. There was a condition, however: The men must not recently have had sexual relations with women, which would have rendered them ceremonially unclean (Ex 19:14–15; Lev 15:18) and therefore temporarily unfit to partake of the holy food. David assured Ahimelech that women had indeed been “kept” from himself and his men, and they are thus clean.
Satisfied with David’s rationale, Ahimelech gives him this bread of the (divine) “Presence.” Such bread, after it had performed its symbolic function, became “a most holy part” of the customary share given to the priests, who were to eat it in a “holy” place (Lev 24:9). Since priestly perquisites were for priests and their families only (cf. Ex 29:32–33; Lev 22:10–16), how could Ahimelech in good conscience give the consecrated bread to David and his men, who were not priests? The answer provided by Jesus (Mt 12:1–8; Mk 2:23–28; Lk 6:1–5) seems to be that human need may take precedence over ceremonial law.
7 Doeg the Edomite, perhaps a mercenary pressed into service as a result of Saul’s war(s) against Edom (14:47), is introduced parenthetically in anticipation of his sinister role later (22:18–19). He had been detained “before the LORD” (i.e., at the tabernacle). His official role in Saul’s employ was as his “head shepherd.”
8–9 David’s request for bread (v.3) is followed by one for weapons. What is not in his own hand he hopes is in Ahimelech’s. The urgency of the “king’s business” is David’s excuse for his lack of weapons. As in v.2, the identity of the king remains shrouded in studied ambiguity.
The only weapon Ahimelech has to offer to David is the sword of Goliath, whom—as was apparently widely known—David had killed (cf. 17:2, 19, 48–51). Although he first took the giant’s sword as part of his share of the Philistine plunder (17:54), he must have eventually brought it to the sanctuary of the Lord. Ahimelech thus tells David that it is in a storage place behind the “ephod,” where David can find it protected in a “cloth” (cf. Ex 12:34; Jdg 8:25).
8. David the fugitive: Gath, Adullam, Mizpah (21:10–22:5)
10–15 Immediately after departing from Nob with the sword of Goliath, David went to Gath (ironically Goliath’s hometown, 17:4), possibly to seek employment as a mercenary soldier. The king of Gath was Achish son of Maoch (27:2). Whatever David’s intentions in going to Gath, the “servants” of Achish were sufficiently impressed by David’s reputation—as reflected in the ditty composed after he and Saul had defeated the Philistines (18:7; cf. 29:4–5)—to be wary of him. David took the servants’ words seriously. Having fled “from” Saul, he was now very much afraid “of” Achish. Sensing danger, David extricates himself from the situation by feigning madness. The manifestations of David’s pretended insanity were “making marks” on the doors of the (city) gate and letting saliva run down his beard—hardly the picture of a recently anointed king!
Achish has seen enough. Sarcastically declaring that he already has sufficient madmen of his own, he makes it clear that he wants nothing more to do with this Israelite refugee. David’s deception of Achish worked—as it would again (ch. 27) and again (ch. 29).
22:1–2 Leaving Gath David “escaped” (a reference to his continuing flight from Saul; cf. 27:1) to a cave near Adullam. His brothers and other family members went “down” (presumably from the higher ground at Bethlehem, their hometown) to join him there. They may have feared royal reprisal if they remained in Bethlehem, where Saul would be sure to come looking for the fugitive David.
Those who had gathered around David numbered about “four hundred” (in itself a formidable force; cf. 25:13; 30:10, 17) even in the beginning; the ranks of David’s men eventually swelled to as many as six hundred (23:13; 27:2; 30:9). United by adverse circumstances of all sorts, they were attracted to the charismatic David as their “leader” (GK 8569; cf. 2Sa 4:2; 1Ki 11:24). Such bands of malcontents and other social misfits were not uncommon in the ancient Near East (cf. Jdg 9:4; 11:3).
3–5 The “forest of Hereth” was located on one of the heights of the tableland east of the Dead Sea. It was understandable that David should seek refuge for his “father and mother” in Moab (which he would later conquer, 2Sa 8:2), since Moabite blood flowed through the veins of his ancestors on his great-grandmother’s side (Ru 1:4; 4:13, 16–17). In being solicitous of the needs of his parents, David was following common ancient practice (Jos 2:13, 18; 6:23; 1Ki 19:20) as well as obeying the fifth commandment (Ex 20:12; Dt 5:16). The location of David’s “stronghold” is unknown, though it could not have been the Cave of Adullam since that “stronghold” was not in Judah. David’s true stronghold, of course, was ultimately God himself (2Sa 22:2–3).
As the prophet Samuel had helped and advised Saul, so from now on “the prophet Gad,” among others, would perform the same functions for David (cf. 2Sa 24:11). It was through such prophets that the word of God was mediated to Israel’s leaders during the days of the monarchy.
9. The slaughter of the priests of Nob (22:6–23)
6–8 Saul knew both David’s whereabouts and the identity of the men with him. They “had been discovered.” Saul demands of his fellow Benjamites an answer to the question of whether the “son of Jesse” can provide for them more possessions and privileges than they already have as associates of Saul himself. Would David be able to make them “commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds” (which, if true, would mean that David had become king; cf. 8:12)? After all, David himself was merely a “leader” of a few hundred men.
In his paranoia Saul assumes that all his men—indeed, the priest Ahimelech as well (v.13)—are co-conspirators with David against him. Saul complains that no one “tells” him about his son Jonathan’s perceived acts of treachery: making a covenant with David (cf. 18:3; 20:16) and inciting David to ambush Saul. All this, Saul insists, demonstrates his servants’ lack of concern for their master.
9–10 Like Saul’s officials (v.6), Doeg the Edomite was “standing” near him. Imitating Saul’s reference (v.7) to David as the (despised) “son of Jesse,” Doeg informs Saul that he witnessed David’s meeting with Ahimelech, “son of Ahitub” (see 14:3), at Nob (see 21:7) and intimates that Ahimelech had “inquired” of the Lord for David, a fact not mentioned in 21:1–9 but readily admitted to by the priest (v.15). In addition, Doeg continues, Ahimelech gave David “provisions” and “the sword of Goliath the Philistine.” Doeg is suggesting that Ahimelech was committing treasonable acts by assisting Saul’s enemy.
11–17 Doeg’s report to Saul resulted in the king’s sending for Ahitub’s “whole” priestly family, who “all” responded by coming from Nob to Gibeah, scarcely two miles to the northwest. Upon their arrival Saul addressed Ahimelech in words that echo vv.7–8. In response Ahimelech’s “Yes, my lord” is appropriately servile and obedient.
Saul’s retort combines the elements of Doeg’s report in v.10 and the substance of his own accusations against his officials in v.8. But whereas Saul was of the opinion that his men had conspired among themselves, he insists that Ahimelech is overtly in league with his enemy David. Ahimelech’s response to Saul is polite but firm. He defends David’s character by suggesting that none of the king’s servants is as “loyal” as David (cf. 2:35). After all, David is Saul’s “son-in-law” (cf. 18:18). In addition, he is the captain of Saul’s “bodyguard” (cf. 2Sa 23:23) and “highly respected” (cf. 9:6).
Having evaluated David’s reputation positively to his own satisfaction, Ahimelech emphatically denies that this was the first time he had consulted God on David’s behalf. Ahimelech claims to know nothing at all of the crimes that Saul attributes to David. Believing Ahimelech to be a liar, however, Saul tells him that he and his family “will surely die” (cf. 14:39, 44).
Saul then issues orders for the execution of the priests of Nob. He first commands the “guards” at his side to kill them for their failure to tell Saul about David’s whereabouts and perhaps also for being in league with David. But Saul’s orders fall on deaf ears, thwarted by the religious scruples of his officials. The officials are adamant: They are “not willing” to kill the Lord’s priests.
18–19 When Saul, not to be denied, issues his ominous order to Doeg, the doom of the priests is sealed. An Edomite, Doeg has no qualms about massacring Israelite priests. Not satisfied with killing the eighty-five priests of Nob, Doeg extends the slaughter by putting the entire town “to the sword” (cf. the similar threat against Jerusalem in 2Sa 15:14). The doleful list of victims at the end of the verse recalls once again the contrast to Saul’s earlier reluctance to totally destroy the Amalekites (see 15:3). David’s response to this massacre is found in Ps 52.
20–23 Probably unknown to Saul at the time, one son of Ahimelech, Abiathar, “escaped” and joined David’s fugitive band. He performed priestly functions for David for the rest of David’s life (cf. 23:6, 9; 30:7; 2Sa 8:17), eventually to be replaced by Zadok under Solomon’s reign (1Ki 2:27, 35). When he informs David about Saul’s massacre, David tells him that he had anticipated Doeg’s act of betrayal ever since their earlier encounter at Nob (cf. 21:7). David then confesses that he himself, however unwittingly, is ultimately accountable for the massacre. He therefore offers refuge to Abiathar, telling him not to “be afraid” (cf. 23:17). Saul now seeks the life of both of them; so they become partners in flight. King-elect and priest-elect have joined forces as fellow fugitives.
10. The rescue of Keilah (23:1–6)
1–6 The Philistine threat returns to menace a town in Judah. Just as Saul had saved Israel from “those who had plundered” them (see 14:48), so also David would save the people of Keilah from the Philistines who were “looting” their threshing floors, which often served as storage areas (2Ki 6:27; Joel 2:24).
David’s repeated inquiries to God concerning whether he should go to Keilah and attack the Philistines are reminiscent of similar inquiries and responses during the period of the judges (Jdg 20:23, 28). Such inquiries usually made use of the sacred lots, the Urim and Thummim, stored in the priestly ephod (cf. v.6). When David’s men learned that the Lord had responded affirmatively to his first inquiry, they demurred out of fear.
David therefore inquired of the Lord again, and this time God told him that he himself would guarantee David’s victory over the Philistines. The promise of divine help apparently reassured David’s men, who then joined him in defeating the enemy. Thus David “saved” the people of Keilah, as God had commanded and promised. Once again, the Lord chooses not the rejected king Saul but the fugitive king-elect to deliver his people from the Philistines.
11. The pursuit of David (23:7–29)
In contrast to David’s seeking and receiving divine guidance, which brings him victory (vv.1–6), Saul relies totally on human messages and reports (cf. vv.7, 13, 19, 25, 27), which bring him frustration and failure (vv.7–29).
7–13 Whether sincerely or in a false display of piety, Saul affirms that God has “handed” David over to him (cf. v.20). Saul assumes that David is trapped, that he has “imprisoned himself” in a walled town from which there may be only one exit. Preparing to attack David at Keilah, Saul “called up” his troops.
David soon found out about the evil that Saul was “plotting” against him. He therefore told Abiathar to bring the ephod so that he might use the Urim and Thummim to inquire of the Lord (cf. vv.1–6; 30:7–8). David begins and concludes his plea with the words “O LORD, God of Israel,” acknowledging the Lord as the true Sovereign of his people. He expresses his concern that Saul “plans” to destroy Keilah because of him.
Although David asks two questions, the Lord answers only the second one. David therefore repeats the first one, this time expressing his concern for the safety of his men also. The Lord now answers it as well. That the citizens of Keilah would even think of surrendering their deliverer and his men to Saul might seem like the height of ingratitude, but perhaps they feared royal retribution if they harbored fugitives. In any case, David and his men leave Keilah and frequently change their location. Although since the last count (22:2) the number of his men has increased to “about six hundred” (cf. also 25:13; 27:2; 30:9), David understandably feels that they are still no match for Saul and his army (cf. 24:2). For his part, Saul changes his mind about going to Keilah when he learns that the fugitives have left.
14–24a Knowing that Saul was relentlessly continuing his search for him, David hid in various “strongholds” in the Desert of Ziph and elsewhere. In spite of God’s gracious and providential care, David was afraid, because Saul came out to take his life (cf. 20:1; 22:23). So Saul’s son Jonathan went to Horesh to remind David of the Lord’s concern for him and to encourage him. Jonathan said, “Don’t be afraid, because” Saul will not “lay a hand on you.”
Jonathan vigorously continues to encourage David: “You will be king,” while “I will be second to you”—an inevitable truth that Saul also knows. “The two of them”—as equals—then make a covenant in the presence of the Lord, perhaps invoking his blessing and taking an oath in his name. It is better to understand this covenant as a fresh, bilateral covenant defining their new relationship (see 18:3) rather than simply renewing their previous covenant. Having comforted his friend, Jonathan returns home to Gibeah—perhaps never to see David again.
Certain “Ziphites” go to Gibeah and reveal David’s whereabouts, perhaps to ingratiate themselves to Saul (cf. the title of Ps 54, whose traditional setting is the narrative in vv.19–24a). The Ziphites invite Saul to come to them “whenever it pleases you,” at which time they promise to hand David over to him.
Saul’s reply to the Ziphites, “The LORD bless you,” is a stereotyped expression that tells nothing about his piety (or lack of it; see v.7). Always the investigator relying on human ability, Saul tells the Ziphites to “find out” (cf. 14:38; lit., “know and see”) where David usually hides. David will later hurl Saul’s phrase back at him (24:11) in protestation of his own innocence.
Saul is determined to track David down no matter where he goes or what it takes; he will not permit the “crafty” David to outwit him. The Ziphites are to pinpoint every potential hiding place that David might use and then report back to Saul “with definite information.” Obedient to their presumed overlord, they return to Ziph and begin to search for David and his men.
24b–29 On the run as usual (v.13), David and his men go to “the Desert of Maon, in the Arabah south of Jeshimon.” Like the Desert of Ziph (see v.14), the Desert of Maon was named for a town that had been allotted to Judah in the hill country west of the Dead Sea after Joshua’s conquest of Canaan (Jos 15:48, 55).
Upon hearing that Saul had once again embarked on his relentless “search” for him (cf. v.14), David retreated with his men to “the rock” in the Desert of Maon. Informed of this (probably by the Ziphites), Saul pursued his quarry. He probably divided “his forces” into two groups so that they could attack both flanks of David’s men “on the other side” of the mountain, thus “closing in” on them. Although David had been able to “get away” from Saul on several occasions (cf. 18:11; 19:10), it appears that this time all was lost—at least from a human standpoint. Providentially, however, a messenger arrived with the unsettling news that Philistines were raiding part of Saul’s sovereign territory. Sensing a greater threat from the Philistines, Saul had no choice but to postpone his pursuit of David. The “rock” therefore was called “Sela Hammahlekoth,” “The rock of parting,” apparently referring to the timely retreat of Saul’s men from David’s men on that occasion.
God used the distraction of Philistines, rather than the aid of Ziphites or other Judahites, to rescue David from the tentacles of Saul. For his part David moved himself and his men to strongholds in the vicinity of the En Gedi oasis (cf. SS 1:14; Eze 47:10, 18–19; 48:28).
12. Sparing Saul’s life (24:1–22)
1–7 On a previous occasion when the Israelites “returned from chasing the Philistines,” they plundered their camp (17:53). This time, after Saul “returned from pursuing the Philistines” (cf. 23:28), he was told about David’s general location and set out with “three thousand chosen men” (see also 26:2) that outnumbered David’s motley band five to one. The term “chosen men” (GK 1047) refers to warriors who were especially skilled (Jdg 20:16) and courageous (Jdg 20:34).
The “sheep pens” Saul came to probably consisted of one or more enclosures made of low stone walls flanking the entrance to a cave. Thus Saul would have entered the pens to gain access to the cave. His purpose in going into the cave was to “relieve himself” (cf. Dt 23:12–13; Jdg 3:24).
Unknown to Saul, David and his men were “far back in” that very cave; compare Pss 57 and 142 in this connection. In both psalms David cries out for divine “mercy” (57:1; 142:1), and in both he affirms that the Lord, not the cave, is his true “refuge” (57:1; 142:5).
David’s men see in the presence of Saul inside the cave a golden opportunity to get rid of him once and for all: David now has a chance to eliminate his “enemy” (vv.4, 19; see also 18:29). Out of respect for Saul’s divine anointing, and therefore not willing to kill him, but at the same time wanting to let him know that he was not in control of his own destiny, David crept up behind him “unnoticed.” In cutting off the corner of Saul’s robe, David may have been symbolically depriving Saul of his royal authority and transferring it to himself (cf. v.11).
That David was “conscience-stricken” for what he had done is to be understood as recognition on his part that he had sinned (cf. 2Sa 24:10). Using a solemn oath, David—himself also the Lord’s anointed—affirms to his men that he will never do harm to his master Saul, who is “the LORD’s anointed” (used seven times in chs. 24 and 26).
8–15 The brief apologia of David recorded here should be compared with that of Samuel (ch. 12) in terms of persuasive power. Moreover, David’s speech is echoed at the end of ch. 26, where it functions in much the same way as that of Samuel, serving as a kind of farewell speech to Israel’s king. After Saul left the cave (v.7), David, after a short time, himself emerged and “called out” to Saul (the verb often implies physical distance between sender and receiver, as in 20:37; GK 7924). Addressing Saul as his acknowledged superior, David “bowed down and prostrated himself with his face to the ground” (cf. 28:14).
David begins his protestation and defense with a “Why?” He assures Saul that he is not intent on “harming” him, nor is he guilty of “wrongdoing.” Unlike those who spread false rumors about his murderous plans, David refuses to listen to all who would incite him to vengeance against Saul. Indeed, the king himself knows that David has just now had a unique opportunity to kill him, but David has refused to seize it.
Pressing his advantage, David says to Saul, “See . . . look . . . recognize.” When he addresses Saul as “my father,” he is probably not simply using a term of respect but is reminding the king that he is, after all, Saul’s son-in-law (cf. 18:17–27; 22:14) and thus holds him in high regard (Saul will later respond to David as “my son,” v.16).
Continuing to protest his innocence, David wants Saul to “understand and recognize” that he is not guilty of “wrongdoing,” a plea that he will repeat later (26:18). David reminds Saul that he has not “wronged” him (cf. also Jonathan’s strong objections to his father in 19:4). There is therefore no reason, says David, that Saul should be “hunting” him down. Unwilling to submit their dispute to human arbitration, David invokes the help of the Lord, the only fair and impartial Judge (cf. Jdg 11:27). But no matter what happens, David assures his king, “My hand will not touch you.”
David concludes his apology by entreating the Lord to decide between himself and Saul. Confident of the outcome, David affirms his belief that the Lord will “uphold” his “cause” against Saul, using a phrase that he would use again after the death of Nabal, Saul’s alter ego (25:39). He prays to the Lord to “vindicate me [by delivering me] from” Saul (v.15).
16–22 It is no more necessary to deny Saul’s sincerity here than in 26:21, 25. In each case Saul begins with the plaintive “Is that your voice, David my son?” (v.16; 26:17; cf. also 26:21, 25). Saul, distressed and conscience-stricken, “wept aloud” when confronted by David’s innocence. Saul says to his son-in-law David, “You are more righteous than I.” He then draws a contrast between David’s exemplary conduct and his own deplorable actions. David has treated Saul “well.” Saul admits that what David has done to him is “good,” and Saul desires that the Lord will reward David “well” for what he has done, since no one ever lets his enemy get away “unharmed.” Saul admits to David, “I have treated you badly.”
Saul’s recognition that the Lord had “delivered” (GK 6037) him into David’s hands is later echoed by Abishai (26:8). Understanding that David has every right not to let his “enemy” (cf. v.4) get away, Saul—with words reminiscent of Boaz’s to Ruth (Ru 2:12)—prays that God will reward David richly for what he has done.
Earlier Samuel had told Saul that, because of his rebellion against God, his “kingdom” would not endure but would be given to a man after God’s own heart (13:14). Now Saul emphatically acknowledges that David will be ruler over the “kingdom” of Israel (cf. also 15:28; 18:8; 23:17).
Like Jonathan before him, Saul is concerned that David not “cut off” his “descendants.” And as David had sworn that he would show unfailing kindness to Jonathan and his family (20:14–17), so now he swears that he will not harm Saul’s offspring or wipe out his name. Having secured David’s oath, Saul returns to Gibeah. David, however, wisely continues to distrust Saul and therefore retreats to his “stronghold” (see 22:4–5).
13. David, Nabal, and Abigail (25:1–44)
1a Loved and respected by his people, Samuel was mourned by them at his death (cf. 28:3). Notices of the burials of Samuel and Saul in v.1 and 31:13 frame the final seven chapters of the book.
1b–3 The difference in social status between David and Nabal becomes immediately apparent: David “moved down” to the “Desert of Maon,” but he told his men to “go up” (v.5) to Nabal at “Carmel.” Like David’s later friend Barzillai (2Sa 19:32), Nabal was very “wealthy.” Sheepshearing was a time for celebration (cf. 2Sa 13:23–24).
The contrast between Nabal (meaning “fool”) and his wife Abigail (meaning “My [Divine] Father is joy”) could scarcely be more stark. Not only “beautiful” (GK 3637 & 9307; cf. Ge 29:17; Est 2:7), Abigail was also “intelligent” (GK 3202 & 8507). Nabal, however, was “mean” (GK 8273)—and thus a polarity between “good” and “evil” is set up at the beginning of ch. 25. Together they underscore one of the major themes of the story: Good brings its own reward, while evil recoils on the head of the wicked.
The beautiful and intelligent Abigail, though mismatched with Nabal, is a perfect match for David, whose commendable qualities complement hers (cf. 16:12, 18). In all respects she is David’s equal. In fact, she should perhaps be identified with one of David’s two sisters, the only other Abigail mentioned in the Bible (1Ch 2:15–16). At the same time, since David was the son of Jesse, Abigail would then have been only his half sister, which would have made it possible for him to marry her (v.42; cf. Ge 20:12). If the two Abigails are thus identified, her first husband would have been Jether (2Sa 17:25; 1Ch 2:17)—perhaps Nabal’s real name.
4–13 After hearing that Nabal is shearing sheep, David sends ten young men to him. David’s message to Nabal begins by telling them to “greet him” in David’s name (i.e., as his representative). They are instructed to wish him “well-being/welfare/peace/good health” (GK 8934). David continues in his persuasive tone as he seeks a favor from Nabal. He senses that sheep shearing time would put Nabal in a good mood, because it is a “festive” occasion. Utilizing the ancient equivalent of the protection racket, David observes that his men did not mistreat Nabal’s shepherds or steal anything from them, perhaps implying that there were plenty of opportunities to do so (see also vv.14–16). David’s concern for the welfare of Nabal’s shepherds had in fact extended over a long period of time.
David’s request that Nabal should “be favorable toward my young men” is the epitome of courtesy. He is simply requesting for himself and his men “whatever” supplies (primarily food; cf. v.11) Nabal might be willing to give them, since they depend on the generosity of others for the protection they provide (v.16).
Arriving in Carmel, David’s men act as faithful messengers by reporting to Nabal David’s message. Nabal’s repeated “Who?” is uttered with scorn, like that of David with respect to Goliath (17:26). Nabal also uses “son of Jesse” in an insulting and belittling way, as did Saul before him. In so doing Nabal rejects David’s courteous reference to himself as Nabal’s “son.”
Nabal’s contention that “many servants are breaking away from their masters these days” is at least double-edged and perhaps even triple-edged. (1) He may be referring to David, who is fleeing from his master Saul; (2) he may be subtly suggesting to David’s servants that they would be well advised to break away from their master; and (3), ironically, he speaks better than he knows, since he will shortly find himself as a master whose servants break away (cf. vv.14–17). Nabal is even unwilling to give to David and his men “bread and water,” the most basic food and drink (Nu 21:5; Dt 9:9, 18; 1Ki 13:8–9, 16–17)—much less the meat he had slaughtered for his workers.
Upon receiving Nabal’s response, David’s men “turned” (GK 2200) and reported back to David. His immediate reaction was to retaliate by arming himself and his men with swords—a poignant contrast to his earlier repudiation of the sword before his contest with Goliath (17:39, 45, 47). Splitting his six hundred men into two groups of unequal size, David sets out for Carmel with four hundred and leaves the rest behind with the “supplies.”
14–19 Nabal’s servant describes to Abigail the shoddy treatment David’s men received at Nabal’s hands. He especially stresses the physical proximity of Nabal’s shepherds to David’s men (“near them”) during “the whole time” they were in the fields. Like the fortress “wall” enclosing a city, the protection provided by David and his men continued around the clock. The servant concludes his appeal by observing that no one can talk to Nabal, implying that perhaps his wife Abigail may be able to persuade him of the folly of his ways. Otherwise, disaster may happen.
Abigail’s response to the servant’s report was a “gift” (lit., “blessing,” v.27; GK 1388) of substantial proportions for David. Nabal’s sloth is more than compensated for by Abigail’s speed in meeting David’s needs. She “lost no time,” she acted “quickly” by supplying him with “two hundred loaves of bread” in addition to large amounts of other provisions. “Cakes of raisins” and “cakes of pressed figs” were especially prized, not only for their sweetness and nutritive value, but also because they could be kept for some time without spoiling (cf. 30:1, 11–12).
20–31 Having sent her servants ahead with the provisions for David and his men, Abigail follows on a donkey, a common means of transportation in ancient times (Ex 4:20; Jos 15:18). She intercepts David near a mountain “ravine,” an out-of-the-way place reminding us that he is still a hunted fugitive. David was feeling cheated by Nabal’s action (or inaction). Although guaranteeing that none of his property was “missing” (cf. also vv.7, 15), David has been “paid . . . back evil for good.” He was intending to retaliate by killing every male in Nabal’s household by daybreak—although he later expresses his gratitude that the Lord (and Abigail) kept him from doing so (vv.33–34).
In preparation for responding at some length to David’s threat against her husband and in contrast to Nabal’s treatment of David and his men (vv.10–11), Abigail bows down respectfully before him. Her speech is a masterpiece of rhetoric, appealing not only to reason and the emotions, but also to her own credibility. Beginning with a formal introduction and ending with a formal conclusion, the main body of the speech treats matters of the past, present, and future.
Riding alone to meet a band of four hundred armed men bent on violence, the defenseless Abigail knows that she has very little time to change their minds. She immediately demonstrates an attitude of submission to David, referring to him as “my master” in every verse of her speech and to herself as “your servant” in all but vv.26, 29, and 30. The contrast between her attitude toward David and that of Nabal could hardly be more striking. Abigail pleads for an opportunity to “speak to” David.
To save Nabal’s life, Abigail assumes his guilt (v.24). The urgency and insistence clearly detectable throughout her speech are modulated by a tone of courtesy and politeness. She characterizes Nabal as a “wicked man” and a “fool”; her action is wise and calculating, for David would hardly have been eager to marry (vv.39–40, 42) a woman known for disloyalty to her husband, even though wealthy and beautiful, since she would be a continual threat to his rule. At the same time her integrity prevents her from pulling any punches. Since Nabal is a “wicked man,” one should “pay no attention” (cf. also 4:20) to him.
Abigail disavows having seen the “men” (v.25) David had sent to him (v.5). She senses that God has “kept” David from harming Nabal and his men, a truth that David later acknowledges (v.34). At the same time David asserts the important role of Abigail herself in keeping him from “bloodshed” (v.33), recognizing in her the mediator of the Lord’s intentions. Since vengeance belongs to God alone (Dt 32:35), David must not avenge himself (vv.26, 31, 33) and so usurp God’s prerogatives. Abigail expresses her desire that David’s “enemies” (among whom Saul counts himself, 18:29; cf. also 26:8) and all who “intend to harm” him might “be like Nabal”—thus apparently anticipating the death of her husband and also, by implication, foreshadowing the death of Saul.
Though Nabal may be stingy, not so Abigail. She describes the generous supply of food that she brings to David and his men as a “gift” (GK 1388). Continuing to accept the blame for Nabal’s folly (v.28), she begs David’s forgiveness for her own “offense” and pleads with him not to do anything rash—anything that might endanger or even destroy the “lasting dynasty” that God will give him. Unlike the king desired by the people of Samuel’s day, a king who would “fight our battles” (8:20), David is to be a man who “fights the LORD’s battles.”
Continuing to look into the future, Abigail alludes (v.30) to the Davidic covenant of 2Sa 7. She refers to the time when the Lord will have done for David “according to every good thing he promised.” Although God has already “appointed him leader,” a fact earlier announced to Saul by Samuel (see 13:14), David would not exercise effective rule over Israel until after Saul’s death. In the meantime, however, Abigail does not want David to do anything to jeopardize his future or endanger his throne. Abigail ends her plea by asking that David “remember” her when the Lord “has brought . . . success” to him.
32–35 Although David was on his way to destroy Nabal’s household, Abigail’s sevenfold use of the divine name YHWH (vv.26 [bis], 28 [bis], 29, 30, 31) has perhaps reminded him of the spiritual dimensions of his calling. David sees in Abigail the Lord’s envoy. He recognizes that “good judgment” is an admirable quality in a woman (cf. Pr 11:22). He also understands that God has used Abigail to keep him from bloodshed and from attempting to avenge himself. The oath “As surely as the LORD . . . lives” is frequently used where life and death hang in the balance (see 14:39). Mass killings of the kind that David had contemplated often occurred at night, giving point to his statement that not a male in Nabal’s household would have survived till “daybreak” (cf. v.22; 14:36).
David then gratefully accepts Abigail’s gift of food for himself and his men. He makes it clear that she has succeeded in assuaging his wrath: “Go . . . in peace.” His final words must have been like music to her ears: “I have . . granted your request,” guaranteeing that he would not be the instrument of Nabal’s death.
36–38 Abigail went to Nabal’s “house,” doubtless in Carmel (cf. v.40), where his sheep shearing celebration was taking place. He was presiding at a banquet fit for a “king”—a cruel irony when it is remembered that his wife has just declared her allegiance to Israel’s king-elect. At his feast Nabal was “in high spirits” from wine. Realizing that he was in no condition to understand what she might say to him, Abigail decided to tell him “nothing” until “daybreak”—the time by which, ominously, David had originally sworn to kill every male in Nabal’s household (cf. also v.22).
As it turns out, Nabal’s folly was his own worst enemy. By the next morning “Nabal was sober.” Feeling that the time is now ripe, Abigail tells her husband “all these things”—perhaps the entire story of her meeting with David, but doubtless including the list of provisions that she had so generously given him and that Nabal would surely begrudge. The shock is too much for him in his materialistic greed. Nabal the “fool” now suffers from a heart that goes bad. Since the heart is the seat of courage, Nabal is depicted as a coward as well.
The description of Nabal’s becoming “like a stone” should not be diagnosed as a specific illness but understood figuratively (cf. Ex 15:16). The narrator may be presenting Nabal as receiving a “heart of stone” in exchange for his heart of flesh (contrast Eze 36:2). Though not immediate, Nabal’s death was not long in coming. After about ten days “the LORD struck” him. Thus Nabal “died” at God’s hand.
39a David greets the news of Nabal’s death with an outburst of praise (cf. v.32). As he had earlier entreated the Lord to “uphold” his “cause” against Saul (24:15), so now he expresses his gratitude to the Lord for having “upheld his cause” against this Saul-like person. The Lord’s dealings with David and Nabal could hardly be more diverse: As for David, God has “kept his servant from doing wrong,” while in Naba’s case he has “brought [his] wrongdoing down on his own head.”
39b–43 Nabal now dead, David “sent” his servants to Abigail to “take” her to become his wife. Abigail, by no means unwilling, nevertheless continues to characterize herself as David’s “maidservant.” Adopting the same posture of servile obedience with which she had first met him (v.23), Abigail then expresses her readiness to go so far as to “wash the feet of my master’s servants.” Since foot-washing normally was a self-administered act (Ge 18:4; 19:2; 24:32; et al.), Abigail demonstrates her joyful willingness to be “slave of all” (Mk 10:44; cf. Jn 13:5–17). “Attended by her five maids,” she hurries back with David’s messengers to become his wife (see v.3).
Verse 43 calls attention to David’s marriage to Ahinoam, which occurred before he took Abigail as his wife (Ahinoam is always mentioned before Abigail when the two names occur together; 27:3; 30:5; 2Sa 2:2; 3:2–3). The only other Ahinoam mentioned in the Bible is the wife of Saul (14:50), and thus possibly before David took Abigail to become his wife, he had already asserted his right to the throne of Israel by marrying Queen Ahinoam—a tactic perhaps hinted at in Nathan’s speech to David (2Sa 12:8).
44 Whether or not Ahinoam of Jezreel is to be identified with the wife of Saul, he “had given” his daughter Michal, David’s wife, to another man. The name of Michal’s second husband was Paltiel, who was from Gallim.
14. Sparing Saul’s life again (26:1–25)
1–5 This chapter narrates the final confrontation between Saul and David, and its speeches are animated by the mutual irreconcilability of the two men. Once again Saul goes “down” from the high ground at Gibeah with his “three thousand chosen men” (see 24:2) to the “Desert of Ziph,” where he continues to “search . . . for” David. David, sensing that Saul has followed him to the desert, sends scouts to confirm that fact.
After his scouts have pinpointed the exact location of Saul’s camp, David waits until Saul and his men have retired for the night and then goes to look over the situation for himself. Saul’s apparent invulnerability is detailed: (1) Abner, his cousin (see 14:50–51) and the commander of his army, is lying beside him; (2) he is safely inside the “camp” (vv.5, 7); and (3) the rest of his army is encamped “around him” (v.7).
6–12 “Ahimelech the Hittite” (mentioned only here) and “Abishai son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother” are asked whether they are willing to join David to go down to Saul’s camp. Zeruiah, David’s sister, was the mother of Abishai and Joab (1Ch 2:15–16), who both figure prominently in 2 Samuel, especially after David becomes king following Saul’s death. Portending his later importance, Abishai volunteers to go down with David into the camp of Saul.
The two men arrive after dark, when everyone is asleep, and leave before anyone wakes up (v.12). Since Saul and his men are in a “deep sleep” brought on by the Lord (cf. Ge 2:21; 15:12), David and Abishai can move about undetected and speak to one another without being heard. Like a scepter symbolizing the royal presence, a “spear” is stuck in the ground near Saul’s head. Abishai, anxious to be rid of Saul once and for all, wants to kill him. He envisions himself as the instrument of divine deliverance: “Let me pin him to the ground.” Not characterized by restraint, Abishai is always quick to act (cf. 2Sa 16:9–10; 19:21–23).
David does not allow any of his men to press their advantage against the unsuspecting Saul. Because he is the “LORD’s anointed,” no one—including David himself—is to “lay a hand on” him (vv.9, 11, 23; cf. 24:6, 10).
David intones the solemn oath—“As surely as the LORD lives” (cf. v.16). Then David describes potential ways that Saul might die: (1) The Lord will “strike” him (with a fatal disease), “or” (2) when his “time” comes he will die (i.e., a natural death), “or” (3) he will “perish” in battle. In any of these, of course, the Lord is the ultimate cause of Saul’s death, because vengeance belongs to him (25:32, 39).
Reflecting the language of 24:6, David uses another oath to underscore his refusal to kill Saul. In 24:4 he had taken “a corner of Saul’s robe,” a symbol of royal authority. Here he orders Abishai to take Saul’s spear (a symbol of his authority but also of death) and water jug (a symbol of life; cf. 1Ki 19:46). As Saul was unprotected and unsuspecting in 24:3, so also here—indeed, he and his men are unable to awaken because of divinely induced slumber. Thus David and Abishai, unseen and unheard, steal away into the night. Although Abishai doubtless obeyed David’s command to take the spear and the water jug, he did so on David’s behalf—and so the text attributes the act to David.
13–16 After leaving Saul’s camp, David places a safe distance between himself and his enemy. Then David calls out to Saul’s army in general and to its commander, Abner, in particular. Abner finally replies, “Who are you who calls to the king?” David’s first two questions in v.15 seem to be scornful. His third question rebukes Abner for dereliction of duty, a failing in which he also implicates Abner’s men. The “someone” who came to “destroy” the king was of course Abishai, whom David had already kept from doing so.
17–20 Saul’s initial question—“Is that your voice, David my son?”—is a verbatim echo of 24:16. But whereas there David had addressed Saul not only as “my lord the king” (24:8) but also as “my father,” here Saul is simply “my lord the king.” Saul has already acknowledged David as his legitimate successor (24:20), and therefore David no longer needs the rejected “king” as his “father.” David is firm in his conviction that he is innocent of any “wrong[doing]” (cf. 24:11). By deciding again not to “lay a hand” on the Lord’s anointed, David refuses to make his guiltless hands guilty of wrongdoing.
In vv.19–20a David sets forth two possible sources of Saul’s dogged pursuit of him. First, God may have “incited” Saul against him. Second, men may be at fault. In that case David pronounces a solemn oath against them: “May they be cursed before the LORD!” (cf. Jos 6:26). David’s sense of urgency is underscored by his use of “now.” He is concerned that his fugitive status would prevent his participation in “the LORD’s inheritance” (i.e., the land of Israel). David thus prays that Saul will not cause him to die “far from the presence of the LORD”—in this case, in Philistia.
In a reprise of 24:14, David concludes his statement to Saul by stressing the incongruity of Saul’s enterprise. The most powerful man in the land (“king of Israel”) has taken it upon himself to “come out” (cf. also 23:15) to look for something trivial, something unworthy of his time and energy—a single “flea.” Looking for a single flea is compared to hunting a single “partridge” in the mountains, something no one in his right mind would take the time or make the effort to do.
21–25 Saul responds to David with words that he has felt a need to utter before: “I have sinned” (cf. 15:24). Recognizing that David has “considered” his “life precious,” Saul promises not to harm him. Apparently Saul’s repentance is sincere this time: He admits that he has erred “greatly” and that—like Nabal—he has “acted like a fool” (cf. 13:13).
David’s retort to Saul offers to return his spear, the symbol of death, but not the water jug, the symbol of life. The argument of David to the effect that God “rewards” all who are characterized by “righteousness” (GK 7407) and “faithfulness” (GK 575) is perhaps as much a condemnation of Saul’s conduct as it is a commendation of his own. As before so also now David refuses to lay a hand on Saul, the Lord’s anointed. It is the Lord who has “delivered” Saul into David’s hands, and as recompense for his respect for Saul’s life he prays that the Lord will “deliver” him from “all trouble.”
Strangely enough, Saul’s final words to David are good wishes for his greatness and triumph. Three times Saul has called David his “son” (vv.17, 21, 25), and Saul now apparently knows that David will be his successor on Israel’s throne as well (cf. 24:19–20). His blessing on David virtually assures as much. David had prayed that any potential enemies of his might be “cursed” (v.19); Saul now leaves David after praying that he might be “blessed.” Since there is nothing more to be said, David and Saul part (cf. 24:22), never to see each other again.
15. Achish the Philistine (27:1–28:2)
27:1–4 Long a fugitive, David decides to flee to Philistia where he will be free of Saul’s relentless pursuit once and for all. David knows that it is only a matter of time before he will be “destroyed” (lit., “swept away”; GK 6200) by Saul. David thus comes to the conclusion that “the best thing I can do is” to go to Philistia. If he does so, Saul will “give up” his pursuit. Saul does stop “searching” for him, ceasing what he had relentlessly done while David was still in Israelite territory (23:14, 25; 24:2; 26:2, 20).
So David and his six hundred men seek refuge in Philistia with Achish son of Maoch king of Gath, to whom David had earlier fled for help (see 21:10). Since Gath is some thirty rugged miles northwest of the Desert of Ziph, where David had been hiding earlier (26:1–2), the task of moving himself, his two wives Ahinoam and Abigail, and his men and their families (v.3) must have involved considerable hardship.
5–7 David’s settlement in Gath would doubtless be temporary, however, since he is not sure that it would be advisable to live with a man who had earlier given him reason to fear him (21:11–12). David therefore hopes that if he has “found favor” in the “eyes” of Achish—implying that Achish can now trust him (see 20:29)—the Philistine ruler will not insist that he live in the “royal city.” David would be content to be assigned a country town; so Achish gives him Ziklag, which originally had been part of the tribal patrimony of Simeon “within the territory of Judah” (cf. Jos 19:1, 5; cf. Jos 15:21, 31). Achish doubtless placed David in Ziklag to protect Philistia against marauders from the south. His settlement there anticipates the subsequent ownership of Ziklag by the “kings of Judah,” of whom he would become the ideal dynastic ancestor (2Sa 2:4). Altogether David lived in Philistine-controlled territory for “a year and four months.”
8–12 While vv.1–7 describe David’s settlement in Philistia, vv.8–12 outline his raiding operations, in connection with which—for the second time—he succeeds in deceiving Achish (cf. 21:12–15). Since the Philistines themselves were often raiders (23:27), it is not surprising that a Philistine vassal or ally like David would also engage in raiding campaigns. Among those whom David and his men raided were the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites. All these peoples had lived in southern Canaan and northern Sinai “from ancient times.” Saul had conducted a fateful campaign against the Amalekites (ch. 15), and David would soon fight them again (ch. 30).
David’s “practice” whenever he attacked an area was not to “leave a man or woman alive.” Unlike the situation in 15:3, however, where total annihilation of the population was for religious purposes, David here kills everyone so that no survivors would be left to report to Achish what has really happened. In addition to garments, he “took” as plunder only animals, a procedure to be expected as a matter of course from kings (8:16) but not from prophets (see 12:3).
Although David was raiding Geshurites, Girzites, and Amalekites, he told Achish that he was raiding various subdistricts of the Negev that belonged to or were controlled by Judah (30:26–29). Far enough away from Gath so that Achish would be ignorant of his movements, David can lie to him with impunity—especially by leaving no survivors who might be able to contradict him. David thus has the best of both worlds: He implies to Achish that Judahite hostility toward David is increasing, and at the same time he gains the appreciation and loyalty of Judah toward himself by raiding their desert neighbors.
To his detriment, Achish trusts David and is therefore deceived by his report. He is confident that David the Israelite has become “odious” (GK 944) to his own people and will thus be forced to be a “servant” (GK 6269) of Achish the Philistine for life.
28:1–2 Still laboring under the assumption that David is his faithful vassal, Achish forcefully reminds him that he and his men are expected to “accompany” the Philistines to fight against Israel. David appears to acquiesce by responding that Achish would then “see” for himself what David was capable of doing. In referring to himself as Achish’s “servant,” David reflects the thoughts of Achish concerning him (27:12)—although David intends nothing more than a polite expression equivalent to the personal pronoun “I.” Continuing to misjudge David, Achish announces his desire to make him “my bodyguard.” Achish, however, fails to see that David and his men constitute a dangerous fifth column inside Philistine territory.
B. The End of the Reign of Saul (28:3–31:13)
1. Saul and the medium at Endor (28:3–25)
The strange story of the meeting of Saul with Endor’s “witch” (better “necromancer” or “medium”; GK 200), resulting in the announcement that Saul would die at the hands of the Philistines (v.19), is preceded (27:1–28:2) and followed (29:1–11) by accounts of David’s friendly relationships with the Philistines through Achish king of Gath.
© 1985 The Zondervan Corporation
3 Verse 3a reprises 25:1a. The reminder that Samuel had died is coupled with the observation that Saul (cf. Lev 19:31; 20:6–7; Dt 18:11) had expelled the mediums and spiritists from Israel; both events figure prominently in the rest of the chapter.
4–6 Skillfully and tersely v.4 describes the opposing forces: The Philistines “assembled” and “set up camp” at Shunem (in the territory of Issachar), while Saul “gathered” his forces and “set up camp” at Gilboa (a mountain ten miles south-southeast of Shunem).
When Saul “saw” (GK 8011) the Philistines, he became “afraid” (cf. 17:11, 24; 23:3). Given the situation, it is understandable that Saul “inquired of” the Lord. For all Saul’s efforts to receive an “answer” (cf. v.15) from the Lord, none came. The normal modes of divine communication were silent: “dreams” (cf. v.15), “Urim” (the sacred lots stored in the priestly ephod), and “prophets” (cf. v.15).
7–14 Under such circumstances it is not surprising that Saul, out of sheer desperation, would resort to a forbidden source of information—a “medium.” Fearful of Philistine strength, he wanted to know how to proceed (v.15). An element of mystery suffuses ch. 28, and it would be presumptuous to claim to have successfully plumbed its depths.
“Find” a medium, the king says, thus violating his own earlier intention (v.3). Endor was located dangerously close to where the Philistines were encamped (v.4). That Saul should prefer a “woman” as a medium is not surprising (cf. Na 3:4). Although he was obviously convinced that if he “disguised himself” he would be able to conceal his identity, he was wrong—and in any event the information he received through the medium’s efforts was hardly what he wanted to hear (vv.17–20).
Since the netherworld is a place of darkness (Job 10:21–22; 17:13; Pss 88:12; 143:3), “night” provided the proper setting for communicating with one of its denizens. In addition, necromancers probably preferred to do their work at night, and Saul would have found it easier to conceal his identity under cover of darkness. Taking two men with him, the king went to the woman and asked her to “consult” a “spirit” on his behalf, a practice universally condemned as a pagan abomination (6:2; cf. Dt 18:10, 14; 2Ki 17:17). King Saul is now commanding a necromancer to “bring up” for him one who dwells in the “realm of death below” (Dt 32:22).
Not yet recognizing Saul, the woman reminds him that Israel’s king has “cut off”(either killed or expelled) all the land’s mediums and spiritists. Her words to Saul drip with irony: “You know” that “spiritists” are no longer allowed here. Saul will later compound the irony by asking the wraith that he believes to be Samuel “to tell me” what to do (v.15). Meanwhile the woman wonders why her nocturnal visitor would want to put her life in jeopardy by begging her to do what royal decree has forbidden. In promising the woman that she would not be punished, Saul uses the most solemn of oaths by swearing (for the last time) in the Lord’s name.
Saul’s response to the medium’s question is specific: He wants her to bring up “Samuel.” Although Saul and Samuel had worked at cross-purposes throughout much of their time together, the king now desires a final word from his prophet. How—and whether—the woman engaged the dead we are not told. The medium’s reaction when Samuel appeared was one of shock and surprise: She “cried out” (GK 2410), an emotional outburst often linked with feelings of fear and dismay (cf. 4:13; 5:10). At the very least the woman must have been clairvoyant, because while in her trancelike state she was able to penetrate Saul’s disguise and recognize him.
The irony continues: Saul, previously afraid because of the Philistine threat (v.5) and soon to be afraid “because of Samuel’s words” (v.20), tells the necromancer not to be afraid. He then asks her what she sees, thus indicating that he is not privy to the apparition itself. She responds that she sees “a spirit.” Saul asks what he looks like. When the medium describes him as “an old man wearing a robe,” Saul is convinced that the apparition is Samuel, who in Saul’s mind has always worn the robe of the prophet (15:27; cf. 2:18–19).
15–19 Saul now speaks (probably via the medium) to what he believes is the “spirit” of Samuel. The apparition begins the interchange by complaining that Saul has “disturbed” him (see Isa 14:9). Saul’s claim to be in “great” distress reflects his desperate emotional state. He knows full well that “God” had long ago abandoned him (see 16:14; cf. also 18:12), and therefore he felt it necessary to consult a spirit.
In v.6 the Lord did not answer Saul “by dreams or Urim or prophets”; in v.15 Saul tells “Samuel” that God does not answer him “either by prophets or by dreams,” perhaps omitting “Urim” to hide his slaughter of the priests of Nob (22:11–19) and perhaps listing “prophets” first in his hope that the prophet Samuel will now fill that vacuum. In a sense Samuel obliges: Saul has complained that God no longer speaks by prophets, and Samuel says that the Lord has done what he predicted through Samuel himself. Meanwhile Saul wants Samuel to “tell” him what to do, in spite of his earlier refusal to pay attention to Samuel’s counsel (cf. 10:8 with 13:8–14).
The statements made to Saul are in full agreement with what we know of Samuel in other contexts. Although Saul uses the general word “God” in v.15, Samuel characteristically refers to “the LORD” in vv.16–19—seven times in all.
The prediction in v.17 refers back to 15:28 and echoes much of the terminology found there. This time, however, Samuel specifies precisely who the new king will be: “David” (a fact that Saul himself had already admitted earlier; cf. 24:20).
Verse 18 summarizes the two fateful decisions made by Saul that prompted the Lord to wrench the kingdom from his grasp: (1) He disobeyed the Lord’s command through his prophet (see ch. 13), and (2) he refused to fully carry out the divine wrath against the Amalekites (see ch. 15). Obeying God had never been easy for Saul (cf. 15:19, 22), and his impatient insistence on his own way cost him the kingdom.
Although throughout Samuel’s lifetime the Israelites had been delivered “out of the hand/power of the Philistines” (cf. 7:3, 14), the Lord would now “hand over” Israel to them. Samuel predicts the slaughter of Saul and his sons on Mount Gilboa. Samuel’s last-recorded words, describing the fate of “both Israel and you [Saul],” reprise the final words of his apologia: “Both you [Israel] and your king [Saul] will be swept away” (12:25). Apart from v.20, Samuel does not appear again in the two OT books named after him, though his importance and influence continue to leave their mark throughout the rest of the Bible.
20–25 His strength gone, King Saul falls on the ground “full length.” Fearful earlier because of the Philistine threat (v.5), Saul is now “filled with fear” because of Samuel’s words of doom. In addition he lacks physical strength because he has eaten no food “all that day and night” (19:24).
The medium, politely referring to herself as Saul’s “(maid)servant” (GK 9148; see 1:11; 25:27), reminds him that she risked her own safety for him. The verb for “hear,” “obey,” “listen to” (GK 9048) plays a prominent role in this section: The medium “obeyed” Saul when she “did” (lit., “listened to”) what he told her to do; she now wants him to “listen to” her and eat some food; although he at first refused, he finally “listened to” her when his men joined her in urging him. Having eaten, Saul and his men go out into the night—“that same night” (v.25) in which Samuel’s words have sealed the fate of a doomed king.
2. The dismissal of David (29:1–11)
1–5 The chapter begins by recalling the muster of Philistine and Israelite armies described in 28:4. The Philistines gathered their “forces” at Aphek (mentioned only here and in 4:1)—the staging area for Philistine troop deployment in the first and last battles in 1 Samuel.
The personal involvement of the Philistine “rulers” demonstrates their perception that the present battle was crucial. David and his men, mercenaries in the Philistine army (cf. 28:1), fall in behind at the behest of Achish king of Gath. The commanders, understandably wary of David (cf. 18:30), question the wisdom of including “Hebrews” in the army. But Achish, who had earlier made David his “bodyguard for life” (28:2), rises to his defense: (1) Although David had at one time been an “officer” of Saul, he “left” Saul. (2) Having fled from Saul, David has now been with Achish for “over a year” and has therefore had sufficient time to demonstrate his loyalty. (3) During this entire period Achish has found “no fault” in David. Unconvinced, the Philistine commanders demand that Achish “send” David “back” to Ziklag (see 27:6), fearing that David might turn against them during the fighting. They want no fifth column in their ranks. The commanders conclude their critique by reminding Achish of the victory refrain—by now well known (see 18:7–8)—sung by the women of Israel in honor of (Saul and) David.
6–11 Achish, not willing to buck his peers on this point, tells David about the commanders’ concern but without sharing any details with him. To assure David of the truth of what he is about to say, he takes a solemn oath in the name of David’s God. As far as Achish is aware (but cf. 27:8–11), David has been “reliable” (GK 3838). He then advises David to “go in peace,” a cordial expression of farewell (2Sa 15:9; cf. 2Sa 15:27).
David’s response echoes in part some of Achish’s own words (cf. v.6). In addition, David wants to know “what [he has] done” to deserve such suspicion, again playing the role of the innocent victim (cf. 17:29; 20:1; 26:18). He wants to fight (or pretends that he does) against the enemies of his “lord the king”—Achish, at least in this context.
For the third time (cf. vv.3, 6) Achish vindicates David’s honor and dependability. In Achish’s eyes David is like “an angel of God” (cf. 2Sa 14:17, 20; 19:27; Zec 12:8). But he goes on to request urgently that David return to Ziklag before he needlessly angers the Philistine rulers even further. David and his men leave early in the morning, doubtless relieved that they have avoided fighting against David’s countrymen.
3. The defeat of the Amalekites (30:1–31)
1–3 Having been dismissed by Achish, David and his men begin the long trek from Aphek (29:1) to Ziklag (see 27:6) in “the land of the Philistines” (29:11) and arrive there on the “third day.” In the meantime the Amalekites (Israel’s agelong enemies, who inhabited large tracts of land southwest of the Dead Sea) had “raided [lit., stripped; GK 7320] the Negev and Ziklag” (see v.14 for more details). The Amalekites had taken advantage of David’s absence from Ziklag and retaliated for David’s earlier raid (27:8). They had also “taken captive” everyone who lived in the town, from the youngest to the oldest (vv.2, 19). The captured “women” receive pride of place in v.2, probably because David’s two wives were included among them (v.5).
4–8 Weeping aloud is an understandable reaction when the situation seems hopeless. But the abject sorrow of David and his men would soon be replaced by confident expectation as a result of the Lord’s assurance of victory. David mourns the apparent loss of his two wives, whom he had moved to Ziklag after Achish had assigned the town to him (cf. 27:3–6).
David is further grieved because his men blame him for their plight. They even consider “stoning him.” Convinced that they will never see their children again, the men are “bitter in spirit” (cf. 1:10; 2Ki 4:27). While in 22:2 people who were “discontented” flocked to David’s leadership, here his men are so distraught that they are ready to harm him.
David’s spiritual discernment now comes to the fore: He “found strength” in the right Person (cf. Ezr 7:28; Dan 10:19). By using the expression “the LORD his God,” the narrator emphasizes David’s intimate relationship with the One who from the beginning has always been “with him” (see 16:18).
As at Keilah, so also at Ziklag David inquires of the Lord through Abiathar the priest. When the rejected Saul inquired of the Lord, no answer came (28:6); when the “man after [God’s] own heart” (13:14) does the same, the Lord answers specifically and with precision (cf. also 23:2, 4). David is commanded to “pursue,” he will “certainly overtake,” and he will “succeed in the rescue.” True to his promise, the Lord makes sure that David has “recovered” everything (vv.18, 22).
9–20 The staging area for the campaign against the Amalekites is the Besor Ravine. Of David’s “six hundred men,” two hundred are too “exhausted” (vv.10, 21) to continue the rigorous march. David and the four hundred others, however, press on. Finding a starving Egyptian in a field, whose cruel Amalekite master had left him for dead simply because he had become ill, they give him water and food. His enforced three-day fast has apparently weakened him, because after eating he is “revived.”
The emphatic “we” at the beginning of v.14 suggests that the slave participated personally in the Amalekites’ raids. Among the pillaged regions were the Negev of the Kerethites, an undefined portion of Judahite territory, and the Negev of Caleb (named after the clan that occupied it and of which Nabal was a member [25:3]). Last of all, says the Egyptian, “Ziklag we burned.”
The Egyptian agrees to show David where the Amalekite raiding party has gone if David will swear not to kill him or “hand [him] over to” his master; the present text is silent concerning whether he does so. In any event, the Egyptian leads David down to the Amalekite bivouac. The raiders are not only “eating” and “drinking”—in contrast to the former plight of the Egyptian slave, who had considered himself one of their number—but also “reveling.” After all, they had recently “taken” great quantities of plunder (cf. vv.18–20).
David and his men are more than a match for the Amalekites, who must have been much more numerous than the Israelites. Even after a full night and day of fighting, during which large numbers of Amalekites fell, “four hundred”—the same figure as David’s original army (v.10)—are still able to get away on their camels.
Emphasizing the completeness of the rout and the scope of David’s victory, the narrator reports that everything the Amalekites had taken, David “took” back, including (most important of all) “his two wives.” Indeed, “nothing was missing.” The success is attributed to David as the leader of his men; the plunder is “David’s plunder.”
21–25 David, however, understands that the plunder is ultimately not his but the Lord’s, and he must therefore exercise the utmost care in its disposition. Returning to the Besor Ravine, he and his troops are met by the two hundred men who had remained behind (cf. vv.9–10). As was his custom on such occasions (17:22; 25:5–6), David “greeted” them.
As Saul had his “troublemakers” (10:27) at the beginning of his reign, so also David has his. They declare their unwillingness to share the plunder with men who had not participated in the campaign against the Amalekites. David, generously calling the troublemakers “my brothers,” reminds them that the booty is not, as they think, “the plunder we recovered” but rather “what the LORD has given us.” God has enabled them to defeat those who came against them. However exhausted the men who remained behind might have been, they deserve a reward for staying with and guarding the “supplies” (see 10:22). They are thus not to be considered inferior and are to share equally in the plunder. The magnanimous David, who knows full well that he has been divinely deputized to distribute the Lord’s plunder as he wishes, makes sure that loyal service is suitably compensated. David makes the principle of equal sharing of plunder a “statute and ordinance.”
26–31 The final section of ch. 30 begins as does the first: “David arrived in Ziklag.” Representing Judah, the elders (cf. 2Sa 19:11) receive a “present” (lit., “blessing”; GK 1388) from David (see comment on 25:27). The Judahite elders, who are David’s “friends,” stand in contrast to the Amalekite raiders, who are “the LORD’s”—and therefore David’s—“enemies.”
Concluding the chapter, vv.27–31 list the specific places where David’s “present” was distributed and give additional information concerning the areas raided by the Amalekites. David thus ingratiates himself to the elders and other inhabitants of Judah. And even before David the king-elect has finished currying favor with Israelites living in the south, King Saul has died while fighting the Philistines in the north, a story vividly and tersely related in the last chapter of 1 Samuel.
4. The death of Saul and Jonathan (31:1–13)
1–7 The Philistine threat has hung like a pall over Israel throughout 1 Samuel almost from the beginning (cf. 4:1–2), and the end is not yet. Even now, as Samuel promised, the Philistines fight Israel (cf. 28:19), and, as all too often under Saul’s erratic leadership, “many” Israelites “fell slain.” Symbolizing defeat for Israel, the verb “fell” (GK 5877) appears three times in this section (vv.1, 4–5).
Although Saul and Jonathan had earlier engaged “in hot pursuit” of the Philistines (14:22), now the tables are tragically turned: The Philistines “pressed hard” after Saul and his sons. Of the four sons of Saul, three (including Jonathan) are killed (vv.2, 6, 8) before Saul himself commits suicide. The other son, Ish-Baal/Ish-Bosheth, may not have been present on the battlefield (see 2Sa 2:8, where he enters the scene).
With Saul helpless and virtually alone, the Philistines moved in for the kill. As the fighting grew “fierce” around him, the archers “overtook him,” and he was badly wounded. Saul does not want those “uncircumcised fellows” to finish him off. Relying on his armor-bearer to do as he is told, Saul tells him, “Draw your sword and run me through.” But Saul’s armor-bearer—like David before him (26:23)—“would not” kill the Lord’s anointed. Since Saul is determined to die on his own terms, he has no alternative but to take his own sword and fall on it. Thus the man who had originally been introduced as the one who would “deliver [God’s] people from the hand of the Philistines” (9:16) meets his end by dying at their hands.
Seeing that his king is dead, the armor-bearer follows his example and falls on his own sword. As if to stress the camaraderie and mutual loyalty within the Israelite army, the narrator states that all the warriors—Saul, his sons, his armor-bearer, his men—die “together.” The Philistines now occupy deserted Israelite towns in the valley of Jezreel and in Transjordan.
8–13 The following day the Philistines come back to the battlefield to “strip the dead.” As David had earlier cut off the head of Goliath (see 17:51), they now cut off the head of Israel’s king and put it on display in the temple of Dagon as a trophy of war (1Ch 10:10). They also strip Saul of his armor and display it in the temple of their goddesses. Messengers “proclaim the news” of the resounding victory and its aftermath.
The report is to be broadcast throughout Philistia but especially “in the temple of their idols.” It is indeed ironic that a book that begins at the “house of the LORD at Shiloh” (1:24) ends at the “temple” of one or more pagan deities. As for the mutilated bodies of Saul and his sons (Saul’s suicide did not prevent his body from being abused, v.4), the Philistines fasten them to Beth Shan’s wall.
At the beginning of his reign, Saul’s first military action had been to rescue the people of Jabesh Gilead from the Ammonites (11:1–11). At the end of his reign, after his final military action (which cost him his life), the grateful people of Jabesh pay tribute to Saul and his sons by retrieving their bodies from Beth Shan (doubtless at great personal risk), burning them, and giving them an honorable burial. Then, in honor of Saul, they fast for seven days (cf. also 2Sa 1:12).
At best, Saul remains a complex and enigmatic figure, at once hero and villain. Perhaps the fittest conclusion to the story of Saul, as well as the most appropriate transition from 1 Samuel to 2 Samuel, is the Chronicler’s inspired coda: “Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance, and did not inquire of the LORD. So the LORD put him to death and turned the kingdom over to David son of Jesse” (1Ch 10:13–14).