1 SAMUEL-2 KINGS

by C.F. Keil & F. Delitzsch To the Students of the Words, Works and Ways of God:

THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL INTRODUCTION TITLE, CONTENTS, CHARACTER, AND ORIGIN OF THE BOOKS OF SAMUEL.

The books of Samuel originally formed one undivided work, and in the Hebrew MSS they do so still. The division into two books originated with the Alexandrian translators (LXX), and was not only adopted in the Vulgate and other versions, but in the sixteenth century it was introduced by Daniel Bomberg into our editions of the Hebrew Bible itself. In the Septuagint and Vulgate, these books are reckoned as belonging to the books of the Kings, and have the heading, Basileiw>n prw>th deute>ra (Regum, i. et ii.). In the Septuagint they are called “books of the kingdoms,” evidently with reference to the fact that each of these works contains an account of the history of a double kingdom, viz.: the books of Samuel, the history of the kingdoms of Saul and David; and the books of Kings, that of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel. This title does not appear unsuitable, so far as the books before us really contain an account of the rise of the monarchy in Israel. Nevertheless, we cannot regard it as the original title, or even as a more appropriate heading than the one given in the Hebrew canon, viz., “the book of Samuel,” since this title not only originated in the fact that the first half (i.e., our first book) contains an account of the acts of the prophet Samuel, but was also intended to indicate that the spirit of Samuel formed the soul of the true kingdom in Israel, or that the earthly throne of the Israelitish kingdom of God derived its strength and perpetuity from the Spirit of the Lord which lived in the prophet. The division into two books answers to the contents, since the death of Saul, with which the first book closes, formed a turning-point in the development of the kingdom.

The Books of Samuel contain the history of the kingdom of God in Israel, from the termination of the age of the judges to the close of the reign of king David, and embrace a period of about 125 years, viz., from about 1140 to 1015 B.C. The first book treats of the judgeship of the prophet Samuel and the reign of king Saul, and is divided into three sections, answering to the three epochs formed by the judicial office of Samuel (ch. 1-7), the reign of Saul from his election till his rejection (ch. 8-15), and the decline of his kingdom during his conflict with David, whom the Lord had chosen to be the leader of His people in the place of Saul (ch. 16-31). The renewal of the kingdom of God, which was now thoroughly disorganized both within and without, commenced with Samuel. When the pious Hannah asked for a son from the Lord, and Samuel was given to her, the sanctuary of God at Shiloh was thoroughly desecrated under the decrepit high priest Eli by the base conduct of his worthless sons, and the nation of Israel was given up to the power of the Philistines. If Israel, therefore, was to be delivered from the bondage of the heathen it was necessary that it should be first of all redeemed from the bondage of sin and idolatry, that its false confidence in the visible pledges of the gracious presence of God should be shaken by heavy judgments, and the way prepared for its conversion to the Lord its God by deep humiliation.

At the very same time, therefore, at which Samuel was called to be the prophet of God, the judgment of God was announced upon the degraded priesthood and the desecrated sanctuary. The first section of our book, which describes the history of the renewal of the theocracy by Samuel, does not commence with the call of Samuel as prophet, but with an account on the one hand of the character of the national religion in the time of Eli, and on the other hand of the piety of the parents of Samuel, especially of his mother, and with an announcement of the judgment that was to fall upon Eli’s house (ch. 1-2). Then follow first of all the call of Samuel as prophet (ch. 3), and the fulfilment of the judgment upon the house of Eli and the house of God (ch. 4); secondly, the manifestation of the omnipotence of God upon the enemies of His people, by the chastisement of the Philistines for carrying off the ark of the covenant, and the victory which the Israelites gained over their oppressors through Samuel’s prayer (ch. 5-7:14); and lastly, a summary of the judicial life of Samuel (1 Sam 7:15-17).

The second section contains, first, the negotiations of the people with Samuel concerning the appointment of a king, the anointing of Saul by the prophet, and his election as king, together with the establishment of his kingdom (ch. 8-12); and secondly, a brief survey of the history of his reign, in connection with which the only events that are at all fully described are his first successful conflicts with the Philistines, and the war against the Amalekites which occasioned his ultimate rejection (ch. 13-15). In the third section (ch. 16-31) there is a much more elaborate account of the history of Saul from his rejection till his death, since it not only describes the anointing of David and his victory over Goliath, but contains a circumstantial account of his attitude towards Saul, and the manifold complications arising from his long-continued persecution on the part of Saul, for the purpose of setting forth the gradual accomplishment of the counsels of God, both in the rejection of Saul and the election of David as king of Israel, to warn the ungodly against hardness of heart, and to strengthen the godly in their trust in the Lord, who guides His servants through tribulation and suffering to glory and honour. The second book contains the history of the reign of David, arranged in four sections: (1) his reign over Judah in Hebron, and his conflict with Ishbosheth the son of Saul, whom Abner had set up as king over the other tribes of Israel (ch. 1-4): (2) the anointing of David as king over all Israel, and the firm establishment of his kingdom through the conquest of the citadel of Zion, and the elevation of Jerusalem into the capital of the kingdom; the removal of the ark of the covenant to Jerusalem; the determination to build a temple to the Lord; the promise given him by the Lord of the everlasting duration of his dominion; and lastly, the subjugation of all the enemies of Israel (ch. 5- 8:14), to which there is appended a list of the principal officers of state (1 Sam 8:15-18), and an account of the favour shown to the house of Saul in the person of Mephibosheth (ch. 9): (3) the disturbance of his reign through his adultery with Bathsheba during the Ammonitish and Syrian war, and the judgments which came upon his house in consequence of this sin through the wickedness of his sons, viz., the incest of Amnon and rebellion of Absalom, and the insurrection of Sheba (ch. 10-20): (4) the close of his reign, his song of thanksgiving for deliverance out of the hand of all his foes (ch. 22), and his last prophetic words concerning the just ruler in the fear of God (1 Sam 23:1-7).

The way is prepared for these, however, by an account of the expiation of Saul’s massacre of the Gibeonites, and of various heroic acts performed by his generals during the wars with the Philistines (ch. 21); whilst a list of his several heroes is afterwards appended in 1 Sam 23:8-39, together with an account of the numbering of the people and consequent pestilence (ch. 24), which is placed at the close of the work, simply because the punishment of this sin of David furnished the occasion for the erection of an altar of burnt-offering upon the site of the future temple. His death is not mentioned here, because he transferred the kingdom to his son Solomon before he died; and the account of this transfer forms the introduction to the history of Solomon in the first book of Kings, so that the close of David’s life was most appropriately recorded there.

So far as the character of the historical writing in the books of Samuel is concerned, there is something striking in the contrast which presents itself between the fulness with which the writer has described many events of apparently trifling importance, in connection with the lives of persons through whom the Lord secured the deliverance of His people and kingdom from their foes, and the summary brevity with which he disposes of the greatest enterprises of Saul and David, and the fierce and for the most part tedious wars with the surrounding nations; so that, as Thenius says, “particular portions of the work differ in the most striking manner from all the rest, the one part being very brief, and written almost in the form of a chronicle, the other elaborate, and in one part composed with really biographical fulness.”

This peculiarity is not to be accounted for from the nature of the sources which the author had at his command; for even if we cannot define with precision the nature and extent of these sources, yet when we compare the accounts contained in these books of the wars between David and the Ammonites and Syrians with those in the books of Chronicles (2 Sam and 10 with 1 Chron 18-19), we see clearly that the sources from which those accounts were derived embraced more than our books have given, since there are several places in which the chronicler gives fuller details of historical facts, the truth of which is universally allowed. The preparations for the building of the temple and the organization of the army, as well as the arrangement of the official duties of the Levites which David undertook, according to 1 Chron 22-28, in the closing years of his life, cannot possibly have been unknown to the author of our books.

Moreover, there are frequent allusions in the books before us to events which are assumed as known, though there is no record of them in the writings which have been handed down to us, such as the removal of the tabernacle from Shiloh, where it stood in the time of Eli (1 Sam 1:3,9, etc.), to Nob, where David received the shewbread from the priests on his flight from Saul (1 Sam 21:1ff.); the massacre of the Gibeonites by Saul, which had to be expiated under David (2 Sam 21); the banishment of the necromancers out of the land in the time of Saul (1 Sam 28:3); and the flight of the Beerothites to Gittaim (2 Sam 4:3). From this also we must conclude, that the author of our books knew more than he thought it necessary to mention in his work. But we certainly cannot infer from these peculiarities, as has often been done, that our books are to be regarded as a compilation.

Such an inference as this simply arises from an utter disregard of the plan and object, which run through both books and regulate the selection and arrangement of the materials they contain. That the work has been composed upon a definite plan, is evident from the grouping of the historical facts, in favour of which the chronological order generally observed in both the books has now and then been sacrificed. Thus, in the history of Saul and the account of his wars (1 Sam 14:47-48), the fact is also mentioned, that he smote the Amalekites; whereas the war itself, in which he smote them, is first described in detail in ch. 15, because it was in that war that he forfeited his kingdom through his transgression of the divine command, and brought about his own rejection on the part of God.

The sacrifice of the chronological order to the material grouping of kindred events, is still more evident in the history of David. In 2 Sam 8 all his wars with foreign nations are collected together, and even the wars with the Syrians and Ammonites are included, together with an account of the booty taken in these wars; and then after this, viz., in ch. 10-12, the war with the Ammonites and Syrians is more fully described, including the circumstances which occasioned it, the course which it took, and David’s adultery which occurred during this war.

Moreover, the history of Saul, as well as that of David, is divided into two self-contained periods, answering indeed to the historical course of the reigns of these two kings, but yet so distinctly marked off by the historian, that not only is the turning-point distinctly given in both instances, viz., the rejection of Saul and the grievous fall of David, but each of these periods is rounded off with a comprehensive account of the wars, the family, and the state officials of the two kings (1 Sam 14:47-52, and 2 Sam 8). So likewise in the history of Samuel, after the victory which the Israelites obtained over the Philistines through his prayer, everything that had to be related concerning his life as judge is grouped together in 1 Sam 7:15-17, before the introduction of the monarchy is described; although Samuel himself lived till nearly the close of the reign of Saul, and not only instituted Saul as king, but afterwards announced his rejection, and anointed David as his successor.

These comprehensive accounts are anything but proofs of compilations from sources of different kinds, which ignorance of the peculiarities of the Semitic style of writing history has led some to regard them as being; they simply serve to round off the different periods into which the history has been divided, and form resting-places for the historical review, which neither destroy the material connection of the several groups, nor throw any doubt upon the unity of the authorship of the books themselves. And even where separate incidents appear to be grouped together, without external connection or any regard to chronological order, on a closer inspection it is easy to discover the relation in which they stand to the leading purpose of the whole book, and the reason why they occupy this position and no other (see the introductory remarks to 2 Sam 9; 21:1- 24:25).

If we look more closely, however, at the contents of these books, in order to determine their character more precisely, we find at the very outset, in Hannah’s song of praise, a prophetic glance at the anointed of the Lord (1 Sam 2:10), which foretells the establishment of the monarchy what was afterwards accomplished under Saul and David. And with this there is associated the rise of the new name, Jehovah Sabaoth, which is never met with in the Pentateuch or in the books of Joshua and Judges; whereas it occurs in the books before us from the commencement (1 Sam 1:3,11, etc.) to the close. (For further remarks on the origin and signification of this divine name, see at 1 Sam 1:3.) When Israel received a visible representative of its invisible God-king in the person of an earthly monarch; Jehovah, the God of Israel, became the God of the heavenly hosts.

Through the establishment of the monarchy, the people of Jehovah’s possession became a “world-power;” the kingdom of God was elevated into a kingdom of the world, as distinguished from the other ungodly kingdoms of the world, which it was eventually to overcome in the power of its God. In this conflict Jehovah manifested himself as the Lord of hosts, to whom all the nations and kingdoms of this world were to become subject. Even in the times of Saul and David, the heathen nations were to experience a foretaste of this subjection. When Saul had ascended the throne of Israel, he fought against all his enemies round about, and extended his power in every direction in which he turned (1 Sam 1:14,47- 48). But David made all the nations who bordered upon the kingdom of God tributary to the people of the Lord, as the Lord gave him victory wherever he went (1 Sam 2:8,14-15); so that his son Solomon reigned over all the kingdoms, from the stream (the Euphrates) to the boundary of Egypt, and they all brought him presents, and were subject to him (1 Kings 5:1).

But the Israelitish monarchy could never thus acquire the power to secure for the kingdom of God a victory over all its foes, except as the king himself was diligent in his endeavours to be at all times simply the instrument of the God-king, and exercise his authority solely in the name and according to the will of Jehovah. And as the natural selfishness and pride of man easily made this concentration of the supreme earthly power in a single person merely an occasion for self-aggrandisement, and therefore the Israelitish kings were exposed to the temptation to use the plenary authority entrusted to them even in opposition to the will of God; the Lord raised up for Himself organs of His own Spirit, in the persons of the prophets, to stand by the side of the kings, and make known to them the will and counsel of God. The introduction of the monarchy was therefore preceded by the development of the prophetic office into a spiritual power in Israel, in which the kingdom was to receive not only a firm support to its own authority, but a strong bulwark against royal caprice and tyranny.

Samuel was called by the Lord to be His prophet, to convert the nation that was sunk in idolatry to the Lord its God, and to revive the religious life by the establishment of associations of prophets, since the priests had failed to resist the growing apostasy of the nation, and had become unfaithful to their calling to instruct and establish the congregation in the knowledge and fear of the Lord. Even before the call of Samuel as a prophet, there was foretold to the high priest Eli by a man of God, not only the judgment that would fall upon the degenerate priesthood, but the appointment of a faithful priest, for whom the Lord would build a permanent house, that he might ever walk before His anointed (1 Sam 2:26-36). And the first revelation which Samuel received from God had reference to the fulfilment of all that the Lord had spoken against the house of Eli (1 Sam 3:11ff.). The announcement of a faithful priest, who would walk before the anointed of the Lord, also contained a prediction of the establishment of the monarchy, which foreshadowed its worth and great significance in relation to the further development of the kingdom of God. And whilst these predictions of the anointed of the Lord, before and in connection with the call of Samuel, show the deep spiritual connection which existed between the prophetic order and the regal office in Israel; the insertion of them in these books is a proof that from the very outset the author had this new organization of the Israelitish kingdom of God before his mind, and that it was his intention not simply to hand down biographies of Samuel, Saul, and David, but to relate the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God at the time of its elevation out of a deep inward and outward decline into the full authority and power of a kingdom of the Lord, before which all its enemies were to be compelled to bow.

Israel was to become a kingship of priests, i.e., a kingdom whose citizens were priests and kings. The Lords had announced this to the sons of Israel before the covenant was concluded at Sinai, as the ultimate object of their adoption as the people of His possession (Ex 19:5-6). Now although this promise reached far beyond the times of the Old Covenant, and will only receive its perfect fulfilment in the completion of the kingdom of God under the New Covenant, yet it was to be realized even in the people of Israel so far as the economy of the Old Testament allowed. Israel was not only to become a priestly nation, but a royal nation also; not only to be sanctified as a congregation of the Lord, but also to be exalted into a kingdom of God. The establishment of the earthly monarchy, therefore, was not only an eventful turning-point, but also an “epoch-making” advance in the development of Israel towards the goal set before it in its divine calling.

And this advance became the pledge of the ultimate attainment of the goal, through the promise which David received from God (2 Sam 7:12-16), that the Lord would establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. With this promise God established for His anointed the eternal covenant, to which David reverted at the close of his reign, and upon which he rested his divine announcement of the just ruler over men, the ruler in the fear of God (2 Sam 23:1-7). Thus the close of these books points back to their commencement. The prophecy of the pious mother of Samuel, that the Lord would give strength unto His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed (1 Sam 2:10), found a fulfilment in the kingdom of David, which was at the same time a pledge of the ultimate completion of the kingdom of God under the sceptre of the Son of David, the promised Messiah.

This is one, and in fact the most conspicuous, arrangement of the facts connected with the history of salvation, which determined the plan and composition of the work before us. By the side of this there is another, which does not stand out so prominently indeed, but yet must not be overlooked. At the very beginning, viz., in ch. 1, the inward decay of the house of God under the high priest Eli is exhibited; and in the announcement of the judgment upon the house of Eli, a long-continued oppression of the dwelling-place (of God) is foretold (1 Sam 2:32). Then, in the further course of the narrative, not only is the fulfilment of these threats pointed out, in the events described in 1 Sam 4; 6:19-7:2, and 22:11-19; but it is also shown how David first of all brought the ark of the covenant, about which no one had troubled himself in the time of Saul, out of its concealment, had a tent erected for it in the capital of his kingdom upon Mount Zion, and made it once more the central point of the worship of the congregation; and how after that, when God had given him rest from his enemies, he wished to build a temple for the Lord to be the dwellingplace of His name; and lastly, when God would not permit him to carry out this resolution, but promised that his son would build the house of the Lord, how, towards the close of his reign, he consecrated the site for the future temple by building an altar upon Mount Moriah (2 Sam 24:25).

Even in this series of facts the end of the work points back to the beginning, so that the arrangement and composition of it according to a definite plan, which has been consistently carried out, are very apparent. If, in addition to this, we take into account the deep-seated connection between the building of the temple as designed by David, and the confirmation of his monarchy on the part of God as exhibited in 2 Sam 7, we cannot fail to observe that the historical development of the true kingdom, in accordance with the nature and constitution of the Old Testament kingdom of God, forms the leading thought and purpose of the work to which the name of Samuel has been attached, and that it was by this thought and aim that the writer was influenced throughout in his selection of the historical materials which lay before him in the sources that he employed.

The full accounts which are given of the birth and youth of Samuel, and the life of David, are in the most perfect harmony with this design. The lives and deeds of these two men of God were of significance as laying the foundation for the development and organization of the monarchical kingdom in Israel. Samuel was the model and type of the prophets; and embodied in his own person the spirit and nature of the prophetic office, whilst his attitude towards Saul foreshadowed the position which the prophet was to assume in relation to the king. In the life of David, the Lord himself education the king of His kingdom, the prince over His people, to whom He could continue His favour and grace even when he had fallen so deeply that it was necessary that he should be chastised for his sins. Thus all the separate parts and sections are fused together as an organic whole in the fundamental thought of the work before us. And this unity is not rendered at all questionable by differences such as we find in the accounts of the mode of Saul’s death as described in 1 Sam 31:4 and 2 Sam 1:9-10, or by such repetitions as the double account of the death of Samuel, and other phenomena of a similar kind, which can be explained without difficulty; whereas the assertion sometimes made, that there are some events of which we have two different accounts that contradict each other, has never yet been proved, and, as we shall see when we come to the exposition of the passages in question, has arisen partly from unscriptural assumptions, partly from ignorance of the formal peculiarities of the Hebrew mode of writing history, and partly from a mistaken interpretation of the passages themselves.

With regard to the origin of the books of Samuel, all that can be maintained with certainty is, that they were not written till after the division of the kingdom under Solomon’s successor. This is evident from the remark in 1 Sam 27:6, that “Ziklag pertaineth unto the kings of Judah unto this day.” For although David was king over the tribe of Judah alone for seven years, it was not till after the falling away of the ten tribes from the house of David that there were really “kings of Judah.” On the other hand, nothing can be inferred with certainty respecting the date of composition, either from the distinction drawn between Israel and Judah in 1 Sam 11:8; 17:52; 18:16, and 2 Sam 3:10; 24:1, which evidently existed as early as the time of David, as we may see from 2 Sam 2:9-10; 5:1-5; 19:41; 20:2; or from the formula “to this day,” which we find in 1 Sam 5:5; 6:18; 30:25; Sam 4:3; 6:18; 18:18, since the duration of the facts to which it is applied is altogether unknown; or lastly, from such passages as 1 Sam 9:9; 2 Sam 13:18, where explanations are given of expressions and customs belonging to the times of Saul and David, as it is quite possible that they may have been altogether changed by the time of Solomon. In general, the contents and style of the books point to the earliest times after the division of the kingdom; since we find no allusions whatever to the decay of the kingdoms which afterwards took place, and still less to the captivity; whilst the style and language are classical throughout, and altogether free from Chaldaisms and later forms, such as we meet with in the writings of the Chaldean period, and even in those of the time of the captivity.

The author himself is quite unknown; but, judging from the spirit of his writings, he was a prophet of the kingdom of Judah. It is unanimously admitted, however, that he made use of written documents, particularly of prophetic records made by persons who were contemporaries of the events described, not only for the history of the reigns of Saul and David, but also for the life and labours of Samuel, although no written sources are quoted, with the exception of the “book of Jasher,” which contained the elegy of David upon Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam 1:18); so that the sources employed by him cannot be distinctly pointed out. The different attempts which have been made to determine them minutely, from the time of Eichhorn down to G. Em. Karo (de fontibus librorum qui feruntur Samuelis Dissert. Berol. 1862), are lacking in the necessary proofs which hypotheses must bring before they can meet with adoption and support.

If we confine ourselves to the historical evidence, according to 1 Chron 29:29, the first and last acts of king David, i.e., the events of his entire reign, were recorded in the “dibre of Samuel the seer, of Nathan the prophet, and of Gad the seer.” These prophetic writings formed no doubt the leading sources from which our books of Samuel were also drawn, since, on the one hand, apart from sundry deviations arising from differences in the plan and object of the two authors, the two accounts of the reign of David in 2 Sam and 1 Chron 11-21 agree for the most part so thoroughly word for word, that they are generally regarded as extracts from one common source; whilst, on the other hand, the prophets named not only lived in the time of David but throughout the whole of the period referred to in the books before us, and took a very active part in the progressive development of the history of those times (see not only 1 Sam 1-3; 7:1-10:27; 12; 15:1-16:23, but also 1 Sam. 19:18-24; 22:5; 2 Sam. 7:7:12; 24:11-18).

Moreover, in 1 Chron 27:24, there are “chronicles (diaries or annals) of king David” mentioned, accompanied with the remark that the result of the census appointed by David was not inserted in them, from which we may infer that all the principal events of his reign were included in these chronicles. And they may also have formed one of the sources for our books, although nothing certain can be determined concerning the relation in which they stood to the writings of the three prophets that have been mentioned. Lastly, it is every evident from the character of the work before us, that the author had sources composed by eye-witnesses of the events at his command, and that these were employed with an intimate knowledge of the facts and with historical fidelity, inasmuch as the history is distinguished by great perspicuity and vividness of description, by a careful delineation of the characters of the persons engaged, and by great accuracy in the accounts of localities, and of subordinate circumstances connected with the historical events. FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL I. HISTORY OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL UNDER THE PROPHET SAMUEL.

The call of Samuel to be the prophet and judge of Israel formed a turningpoint in the history of the Old Testament kingdom of God. As the prophet of Jehovah, Samuel was to lead the people of Israel out of the times of the judges into those of the kings, and lay the foundation for a prosperous development of the monarchy. Consecrated like Samson as a Nazarite from his mother’s womb, Samuel accomplished the deliverance of Israel out of the power of the Philistines, which had been only commenced by Samson; and that not by the physical might of his arm, but by the spiritual power of his word and prayer, with which he led Israel back from the worship of dead idols to the Lord its God. And whilst as one of the judges, among whom he classes himself in 1 Sam 12:11, he brought the office of judge to a close, and introduced the monarchy; as a prophet, he laid the foundation of the prophetic office, inasmuch as he was the fist to naturalize it, so to speak, in Israel, and develope it into a power that continued henceforth to exert the strongest influence, side by side with the priesthood and monarchy, upon the development of the covenant nation and kingdom of God. For even if there were prophets before the time of Samuel, who revealed the will of the Lord at times to the nation, they only appeared sporadically, without exerting any lasting influence upon the national life; whereas, from the time of Samuel onwards, the prophets sustained and fostered the spiritual life of the congregation, and were the instruments through whom the Lord made known His purposes to the nation and its rulers.

To exhibit in its origin and growth the new order of things which Samuel introduced, or rather the deliverance which the Lord sent to His people through this servant of His, the prophetic historian goes back to the time of Samuel’s birth, and makes us acquainted not only with the religious condition of the nation, but also with the political oppression under which it was suffering at the close of the period of the judges, and during the high-priesthood of Eli. At the time when the pious parents of Samuel were going year by year to the house of God at Shiloh to worship and offer sacrifice before the Lord, the house of God was being profaned by the abominable conduct of Eli’s sons (ch. 1-2). When Samuel was called to be the prophet of Jehovah, Israel lost the ark of the covenant, the soul of its sanctuary, in the war with the Philistines (ch. 3-4). And it was not till after the nation had been rendered willing to put away its strange gods and worship Jehovah alone, through the influence of Samuel’s exertions as prophet, that the faithful covenant God gave it, in answer to Samuel’s intercession, a complete victory over the Philistines (ch. 7). In accordance with these three prominent features, the history of the judicial life of Samuel may be divided into three sections, viz.: ch. 1-2; 3-6; and 7.

SAMUEL’S BIRTH AND DEDICATION TO THE LORD. HANNAH’S SONG OF PRAISE. 1 SAMUEL 1-2:10.

While Eli the high priest was judging Israel, and at the time when Samson was beginning to fight against the Philistines, a pious Israelitish woman prayed to the Lord for a son (vv. 1-18). Her prayer was heard. She bore a son, to whom she gave the name of Samuel, because he had been asked for from the Lord. As soon as he was weaned, she dedicated him to the Lord for a lifelong service (vv. 19-28), and praised the Lord in a sing of prophetic character for the favour which He had shown to His people through hearkening to her prayer (1 Sam 2:1-10).

1 SAMUEL. 1:1-8

Samuel’s pedigree.

Verse 1. His father was a man of Ramathaim-zophim, on the mountains of Ephraim, and named Elkanah. Ramathaim-zophim, which is only mentioned here, is the same place, according to v. 3 (comp. with v. 19 and 1 Sam 2:11), which is afterwards called briefly ha-Ramah, i.e., the height.

For since Elkanah of Ramathaim-zophim went year by year out of his city to Shiloh, to worship and sacrifice there, and after he had done this, returned to his house to Ramah (v. 19; 1 Sam 2:11), there can be no doubt that he was not only a native of Ramathaim-zophim, but still had his home there; so that Ramah, where his house was situated, is only an abbreviated name for Ramathaim-zophim. f1 This Ramah (which is invariably written with the article, ha-Ramah), where Samuel was not only born (vv. 19ff.), but lived, laboured, died (1 Sam 7:17; 15:34; 16:13; 19:18-19,22-23), and was buried (1 Sam 25:1; 28:3), is not a different place, as has been frequently assumed, from the Ramah in Benjamin (Josh 18:25), and is not to be sought for in Ramleh near Joppa (v. Schubert, etc.), nor in Soba on the north-west of Jerusalem (Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 329), nor three-quarters of an hour to the north of Hebron (Wolcott, v. de Velde), nor anywhere else in the tribe of Ephraim, but is identical with Ramah of Benjamin, and was situated upon the site of the present village of er-Râm, two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, upon a conical mountain to the east of the Nablus road (see at Josh 18:25). This supposition is neither at variance with the account in ch. 9-10 (see the commentary upon these chapters), nor with the statement that Ramathaimzophim was upon the mountains of Ephraim, since the mountains of Ephraim extended into the tribe-territory of Benjamin, as is indisputably evident from Judg 4:5, where Deborah the prophetess is said to have dwelt between Ramah and Bethel in the mountains of Ephraim. The name Ramathaim-zophim, i.e., “the two heights (of the) Zophites” appear to have been given to the town to distinguish it from other Ramah’s, and to have been derived from the Levitical family of Zuph or Zophai (see Chron 6:26,35), which emigrated thither from the tribe of Ephraim, and from which Elkanah was descended. The full name, therefore, is given here, in the account of the descent of Samuel’s father; whereas in the further history of Samuel, where there was no longer the same reason for giving it, the simple name Ramah is invariably used. f3 The connection between Zophim and Zuph is confirmed by the fact that Elkanah’s ancestor, Zuph, is called Zophai in 1 Chron 6:26, and Zuph or Ziph in 1 Chron 6:35. Zophim therefore signifies the descendants of Zuph or Zophai, from which the name “land of Zuph,” in 1 Sam 9:5, was also derived (see the commentary on this passage). The tracing back of Elkanah’s family through four generations to Zuph agrees with the family registers in 1 Chron 6, where the ancestors of Elkanah are mentioned twice-first of all in the genealogy of the Kohathites (v. 26), and then in that of Heman, the leader of the singers, a grandson of Samuel (v. 33)-except that the name Elihu, Tohu, and Zuph, are given as Eliab, Nahath, and Zophai in the first instance, and Eliel, Toah, and Ziph (according to the Chethibh) in the second-various readings, such as often occur in the different genealogies, and are to be explained partly from the use of different forms for the same name, and partly from their synonymous meanings. Tohu and Toah, which occur in Arabic, with the meaning to press or sink in, are related in meaning to nachath or nuach, to sink or settle down.

From these genealogies in the Chronicles, we learn that Samuel was descended from Kohath, the son of Levi, and therefore was a Levite. It is no valid objection to the correctness of this view, that his Levitical descent is never mentioned, or that Elkanah is called an Ephrathite. The former of these can very easily be explained from the fact, that Samuel’s work as a reformer, which is described in this book, did not rest upon his Levitical descent, but simply upon the call which he had received from God, as the prophetic office was not confined to any particular class, like that of priest, but was founded exclusively upon the divine calling and endowment with the Spirit of God. And the difficulty which Nägelsbach expresses in Herzog’s Cycl., viz., that “as it was stated of those two Levites (Judg 17:7; 19:1), that they lived in Bethlehem and Ephraim, but only after they had been expressly described as Levites, we should have expected to find the same in the case of Samuel’s father,” is removed by the simple fact, that in the case of both those Levites it was of great importance, so far as the accounts which are given of them are concerned, that their Levitical standing should be distinctly mentioned, as is clearly shown by Judg 17:10,13, and 19:18; whereas in the case of Samuel, as we have already observed, his Levitical descent had no bearing upon the call which he received from the Lord. The word Ephrathite does not belong, so far as the grammatical construction is concerned, either to Zuph or Elkanah, but to “a certain man,” the subject of the principal clause, and signifies an Ephraimite, as in Judg 12:5 and 1 Kings 11:26, and not an inhabitant of Ephratah, i.e., a Bethlehemite, as in 1 Sam 17:12 and Ruth 1:2; for in both these passages the word is more precisely defined by the addition of the expression “of Bethlehem-Judah,” whereas in this verse the explanation is to be found in the expression “of Mount Ephraim.” Elkanah the Levite is called an Ephraimite, because, so far as his civil standing was concerned, he belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, just as the Levite in Judg 17:7 is described as belonging to the family of Judah. The Levites were reckoned as belonging to those tribes in the midst of which they lived, so that there were Judaean Levites, Ephraimitish Levites, and so on (see Hengstenberg, Diss. vol. ii. p. 50).

It by no means follows, however, from the application of this term to Elkanah, that Ramathaim-zophim formed part of the tribe- territory of Ephraim, but simply that Elkanah’s family was incorporated in this tribe, and did not remove till afterwards to Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin. On the division of the land, dwelling-places were allotted to the Levites of the family of Kohath, in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh (Josh 21:5,21ff.). Still less is there anything at variance with the Levitical descent of Samuel, as Thenius maintains, in the fact that he was dedicated to the Lord by his mother’s vow, for he was not dedicated to the service of Jehovah generally through this view, but was set apart to a lifelong service at the house of God as a Nazarite (vv. 11, 22); whereas other Levites were not required to serve till their twenty-fifth year, and even then had not to perform an uninterrupted service at the sanctuary.

On the other hand, the Levitical descent of Samuel receives a very strong confirmation from his father’s name. All the Elkanahs that we meet with in the Old Testament, with the exception of the one mentioned in 2 Chron 28:7, whose genealogy is unknown, can be proved to have been Levites; and most of them belong to the family of Korah, from which Samuel was also descended (see Simonis, Onomast. p. 493). This is no doubt connected in some way with the meaning of the name Elkanah, the man whom God has bought or acquired; since such a name was peculiarly suitable to the Levites, whom the Lord had set apart for service at the sanctuary, in the place of the first-born of Israel, whom He had sanctified to himself when He smote the first-born of Egypt (Num 3:13ff., 44ff.; see Hengstenberg, ut sup.).

Verse 2-3. Elkanah had two wives, Hannah (grace or gracefulness) and Peninnah (coral), the latter of whom was blessed with children, whereas the first was childless. He went with his wives year by year µwOy µwOy , as in Ex 13:10; Judg 11:40), according to the instructions of the law (Ex 34:23; Deut 16:16), to the tabernacle at Shiloh (Josh 18:1), to worship and sacrifice to the Lord of hosts. “Jehovah Zebaoth” is an abbreviation of “Jehovah Elohe Zebaoth,” or ab;x; µyhila’ hwO;hy] ; and the connection of Zebaoth with Jehovah is not to be regarded as the construct state, nor is Zebaoth to be taken as a genitive dependent upon Jehovah. This is not only confirmed by the occurrence of such expressions as “Elohim Zebaoth” (Ps. 59:6; 80:5,8,15,20; 84:9) and “Adonai Zebaoth” (Isa 10:16), but also by the circumstance that Jehovah, as a proper name, cannot be construed with a genitive. The combination “Jehovah Zebaoth” is rather to be taken as an ellipsis, where the general term Elohe (God of), which is implied in the word Jehovah, is to be supplied in thought (see Hengstenberg, Christol. i. p. 375, English translation); for frequently as this expression occurs, especially in the case of the prophets, Zebaoth is never used alone in the Old Testament as one of the names of God. It is in the Septuagint that the word is first met with occasionally as a proper name ( Sabaw>q ), viz., throughout the whole of the first book of Samuel, very frequently in Isaiah, and also in Zech 13:2. In other passages, the word is translated either ku>riov , or qeo>v tw>n duna>mewn , or pantokra>twr ; whilst the other Greek versions use the more definite phrase ku>riov stratiw>n instead.

This expression, which was not used as a divine name until the age of Samuel, had its roots in Gen 2:1, although the title itself was unknown in the Mosaic period, and during the times of the judges (see p. 366). It represented Jehovah as ruler over the heavenly hosts (i.e., the angels, according to Gen 32:2, and the stars, according to Isa 40:26), who are called the “armies” of Jehovah in Ps 103:21; 148:2; but we are not to understand it as implying that the stars were supposed to be inhabited by angels, as Gesenius (Thes. s. v.) maintains, since there is not the slightest trace of any such notion in the whole of the Old Testament. It is simply applied to Jehovah as the God of the universe, who governs all the powers of heaven, both visible and invisible, as He rules in heaven and on earth. It cannot even be proved that the epithet Lord, or God of Zebaoth, refers chiefly and generally to the sun, moon, and stars, on account of their being so peculiarly adapted, through their visible splendour, to keep alive the consciousness of the omnipotence and glory of God (Hengstenberg on Ps 24:10).

For even though the expression ab;x; (their host), in Gen 2:1, refers to the heavens only, since it is only to the heavens (vid., Isa 40:26), and never to the earth, that a “host” is ascribed, and in this particular passage it is probably only the stars that are to be thought of, the creation of which had already been mentioned in Gen 1:14ff.; yet we find the idea of an army of angels introduced in the history of Jacob (Gen 32:2-3), where Jacob calls the angels of God who appeared to him the “camp of God,” and also in the blessing of Moses (Deut 33:2), where the “ten thousands of saints” (Kodesh) are not stars, but angels, or heavenly spirits; whereas the fighting of the stars against Sisera in the song of Deborah probably refers to a natural phenomenon, by which God had thrown the enemy into confusion, and smitten them before the Israelites (see at Judg 5:20).

We must also bear in mind, that whilst on the one hand the tribes of Israel, as they came out of Egypt, are called Zebaoth Jehovah, “the hosts of Jehovah” (Ex 7:4; 12:41), on the other hand the angel of the Lord, when appearing in front of Jericho in the form of a warrior, made himself known to Joshua as “the prince of the army of Jehovah,” i.e., of the angelic hosts.

And it is in this appearance of the heavenly leader of the people of God to the earthly leader of the hosts of Israel, as the prince of the angelic hosts, not only promising him the conquest of Jericho, but through the miraculous overthrow of the walls of this strong bulwark of the Canaanitish power, actually giving him at the same time a practical proof that the prince of the angelic hosts was fighting for Israel, that we have the material basis upon which the divine epithet “Jehovah God of hosts” was founded, even though it was not introduced immediately, but only at a later period, when the Lord began to form His people Israel into a kingdom, by which all the kingdoms of the heathen were to be overcome.

It is certainly not without significance that this title is given to God for the first time in these books, which contain an account of the founding of the kingdom, and (as Auberlen has observed) that it was by Samuel’s mother, the pious Hannah, when dedicating her son to the Lord, and prophesying of the king and anointed of the Lord in her song of praise (1 Sam 2:10), that this name was employed for the first time, and that God was addressed in prayer as “Jehovah of hosts” (v. 11). Consequently, if this name of God goes hand in hand with the prophetic announcement and the actual establishment of the monarchy in Israel, its origin cannot be attributed to any antagonism to Sabaeism, or to the hostility of pious Israelites to the worship of the stars, which was gaining increasing ground in the age of David, as Hengstenberg (on Ps 24:10) and Strauss (on Zeph 2:9) maintain; to say nothing of the fact, that there is no historical foundation for such an assumption at all. It is a much more natural supposition, that when the invisible sovereignty of Jehovah received a visible manifestation in the establishment of the earthly monarchy, the sovereignty of Jehovah, if it did possess and was to possess any reality at all, necessarily claimed to be recognised in its all-embracing power and glory, and that in the title “God of (the heavenly hosts” the fitting expression was formed for the universal government of the God-king of Israel-a title which not only serves as a bulwark against any eclipsing of the invisible sovereignty of God by the earthly monarchy in Israel, but overthrew the vain delusion of the heathen, that the God of Israel was simply the national deity of that particular nation. f4 The remark introduced in v. 3b, “and there were the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests of the Lord,” i.e., performing the duties of the priesthood, serves as a preparation for what follows. This reason for the remark sufficiently explains why the sons of Eli only are mentioned here, and not Eli himself, since, although the latter still presided over the sanctuary as high priest, he was too old to perform the duties connected with the offering of sacrifice. The addition made by the LXX, HJli> kai> , is an arbitrary interpolation, occasioned by a misapprehension of the reason for mentioning the sons of Eli.

Verse 4-5. “And it came to pass, the day, and he offered sacrifice” (for, “on which he offered sacrifice”), that he gave to Peninnah and her children portions of the flesh of the sacrifice at the sacrificial meal; but to Hannah he gave ãaæ dj;a, hn;m; , “one portion for two persons,” i.e., a double portion, because he loved her, but Jehovah had shut up her womb: i.e., he gave it as an expression of his love to her, to indicate by a sign, “thou art as dear to me as if thou hadst born me a child” (O. v. Gerlach). This explanation of the difficult word ãaæ , of which very different interpretations have been given, is the one adopted by Tanchum Hieros., and is the only one which can be grammatically sustained, or yields an appropriate sense.

The meaning face (facies) is placed beyond all doubt by Gen 3:19 and other passages; and the use of ãaæ as a synonym for µynip; in 1 Sam 25:23, also establishes the meaning “person,” since µynip; is used in this sense in 2 Sam 17:11.

It is true that there are no other passages that can be adduced to prove that the singular ãaæ was also used in this sense; but as the word was employed promiscuously in both singular and plural in the derivative sense of anger, there is no reason for denying that the singular may also have been employed in the sense of face ( pro>swpon ). The combination of ãaæ with dj;a, hn;m; in the absolute state is supported by many other examples of the same kind (see Ewald, §287, h). The meaning double has been correctly adopted in the Syriac, whereas Luther follows the tristis of the Vulgate, and renders the word traurig, or sad. But this meaning, which Fr. Böttcher has lately taken under his protection, cannot be philologically sustained either by the expression µynip; lpæn; (Gen 4:6), or by Dan 11:20, or in any other way. ãaæ and ãaæ do indeed signify anger, but anger and sadness are two very different ideas. But when Böttcher substitutes “angrily or unwillingly” for sadly, the incongruity strikes you at once: “he gave her a portion unwillingly, because he loved her!” For the custom of singling out a person by giving double or even large portions, see the remarks on Gen 43:34.

Verse 6. “And her adversary (Peninnah) also provoked her with provocation, to irritate her.” The µGæ is placed before the noun belonging to the verb, to add force to the meaning. µ[ær; (Hiphil), to excite, put into (inward) commotion, not exactly to make angry.

Verse 7. “So did he (Elkanah) from year to year (namely give to Hannah a double portion at the sacrificial meal), as often as she went up to the house of the Lord. So did she (Peninnah) provoke her (Hannah), so that she wept, and did not eat.” The two ˆKe correspond to one another. Just as Elkanah showed his love to Hannah at every sacrificial festival, so did Peninnah repeat her provocation, the effect of which was that Hannah gave vent to her grief in tears, and did not eat.

Verse 8. Elkanah sought to comfort her in her grief by the affectionate appeal: “Am I not better to thee bwOf , i.e., dearer) than ten children?” Ten is a found number for a large number.

1 SAMUEL. 1:9-11

Hannah’s prayer for a son. “After the eating at Shiloh, and after the drinking,” i.e., after the sacrificial meal was over, Hannah rose up with a troubled heart, to pour out her grief in prayer before God, whilst Eli was sitting before the door-posts of the palace of Jehovah, and vowed this vow: “Lord of Zebaoth, if Thou regardest the distress of Thy maiden, and givest men’s seed to Thy maiden, I will give him to the Lord all his life long, and no razor shall come upon his head.” The choice of the infinitive absolute ht;v; instead of the infinitive construct is analogous to the combination of two nouns, the first of which is defined by a suffix, and the second written absolutely (see e.g., tr;m]zi `z[o , Ex 15:2; cf. 2 Sam 23:5, and Ewald, §339, b). The words from `yli[e onwards to vp,n, rmæ form two circumstantial clauses inserted in the main sentence, to throw light upon the situation and the further progress of the affair.

The tabernacle is called “the palace of Jehovah” (cf. 1 Sam 2:22), not on account of the magnificence and splendour of the building, but as the dwelling-place of Jehovah of hosts, the God-king of Israel, as in Ps 5:8, etc. hz;Wzm] is probably a porch, which had been placed before the curtain that formed the entranced into the holy place, when the tabernacle was erected permanently at Shiloh. vp,n, rmæ , troubled in soul (cf. 2 Kings 4:27). hk;B; hk;B; is really subordinate to llæp; , in the sense of “weeping much during her prayer.” The depth of her trouble was also manifest in the crowding together of the words in which she poured out the desire of her heart before God: “If Thou wilt look upon the distress of Thine handmaid, and remember and not forget,” etc. “Men’s seed” (semen virorum), i.e., a male child. vyai is the plural of vyai , a man (see Ewald, §186-7), from the root cae , which combines the two ideas of fire, regarded as life, and giving life and firmness. The vow contained two points: (1) she would give the son she had prayed for to be the Lord’s all the days of his life, i.e., would dedicate him to the Lord for a lifelong service, which, as we have already observed at p. 374, the Levites as such were not bound to perform; and (2) no razor should come upon his head, by which he was set apart as a Nazarite for his whole life (see at Num 6:2ff., and Judg 13:5). The Nazarite, again, was neither bound to perform a lifelong service nor to remain constantly at the sanctuary, but was simply consecrated for a certain time, whilst the sacrifice offered at his release from the vow shadowed forth a complete surrender to the Lord. The second point, therefore, added a new condition to the first, and one which was not necessarily connected with it, but which first gave the true consecration to the service of the Lord at the sanctuary. At the same time, the qualification of Samuel for priestly functions, such as the offering of sacrifice, can neither be deduced from the first point in the vow, nor yet from the second.

If, therefore, at a later period, when the Lord had called him to be a prophet, and had thereby placed him at the head of the nation, Samuel officiated at the presentation of sacrifice, he was not qualified to perform this service either as a Levite or as a lifelong Nazarite, but performed it solely by virtue of his prophetic calling.

1 SAMUEL. 1:12-14

But when Hannah prayed much (i.e., a long time) before the Lord, and Eli noticed her mouth, and, as she was praying inwardly, only saw her lips move, but did not hear her voice, he thought she was drunken, and called out to her: “How long dost thou show thyself drunken? put away thy wine from thee,” i.e., go away and sleep off thine intoxication (cf. 1 Sam 25:37). ble `l[æ rbæd; , lit. speaking to her heart. `l[æ is not to be confounded with lae (Gen 24:45), but has the subordinate idea of a comforting address, as in Gen 34:3, etc.

1 SAMUEL. 1:15-16

Hannah answered: “No, my lord, I am a woman of an oppressed spirit. I have not drunk wine and strong drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord (see Ps 42:5). Do not count thine handmaid for a worthless woman, for I have spoken hitherto out of great sighing and grief.” µynip; ˆtæn; , to set or lay before a person, i.e., generally to give a person up to another; here to place him in thought in the position of another, i.e., to take him for another. jæyci , meditation, inward movement of the heart, sighing.

1 SAMUEL. 1:17

Eli then replied: “Go in peace, and the God of Israel give (grant) thy request hl;aev] for hl;aev] ), which thou hast asked of Him.” This word of the high priest was not a prediction, but a pious wish, which God in His grace most gloriously fulfilled.

1 SAMUEL. 1:18

Hannah then went her way, saying, “Let thine handmaid find grace in thine eyes,” i.e., let me be honoured with thy favour and thine intercession, and was strengthened and comforted by the word of the high priest, which assured her that her prayer would be heard by God; and she did eat, “and her countenance was no more,” sc., troubled and sad, as it had been before.

This may be readily supplied from the context, through which the word countenance µynip; ) acquires the sense of a troubled countenance, as in Job 9:27.

1 SAMUEL. 1:18

Hannah then went her way, saying, “Let thine handmaid find grace in thine eyes,” i.e., let me be honoured with thy favour and thine intercession, and was strengthened and comforted by the word of the high priest, which assured her that her prayer would be heard by God; and she did eat, “and her countenance was no more,” sc., troubled and sad, as it had been before.

This may be readily supplied from the context, through which the word countenance µynip; ) acquires the sense of a troubled countenance, as in Job 9:27.

1 SAMUEL. 1:19-20

Samuel’s birth, and dedication to the Lord.

The next morning Elkanah returned home to Ramah (see at v. 1) with his two wives, having first of all worshipped before the Lord; after which he knew his wife Hannah, and Jehovah remembered her, i.e., heard her prayer. “In the revolution of the days,” i.e., of the period of her conception and pregnancy, Hannah conceived and bare a son, whom she called Samuel; “for (she said) I have asked him of the Lord.” The name laeWmv] ( Samouh>l , LXX) is not formed from [mæv; = µve and lae , name of God (Ges. Thes. p. 1434), but from lae [æWmv] , heard of God, a Deo exauditus, with an elision of the [ (see Ewald, §275, a., Not. 3); and the words “because I have asked him of the Lord” are not an etymological explanation of the name, but an exposition founded upon the facts.

Because Hannah had asked him of Jehovah, she gave him the name, “the God-heard,” as a memorial of the hearing of her prayer.

1 SAMUEL. 1:21-22

When Elkanah went up again with his family to Shiloh, to present his yearly sacrifice and his vow to the Lord, Hannah said to her husband that she would not go up till she had weaned the boy, and could present him to the Lord, that he might remain there for ever. µwOy jbæz, , the sacrifice of the days, i.e., which he was accustomed to offer on the days when he went up to the sanctuary; really, therefore, the annual sacrifice. It follows from the expression “and his vow,” that Elkanah had also vowed a vow to the Lord, in case the beloved Hannah should have a son. The vow referred to the presentation of a sacrifice. And this explains the combination of wOdd]niAta, with jbæz; . f5 Weaning took place very late among the Israelites. According to 2 Macc. 7:28, the Hebrew mothers were in the habit of suckling their children for three years. When the weaning had taken place, Hannah would bring her son up to the sanctuary, to appear before the face of the Lord, and remain there for ever, i.e., his whole life long. The Levites generally were only required to perform service at the sanctuary from their twenty-fifth to their fiftieth year (Num 8:24-25); but Samuel was to be presented to the Lord immediately after his weaning had taken place, and to remain at the sanctuary for ever, i.e., to belong entirely to the Lord. To this end he was to receive his training at the sanctuary, that at the very earliest waking up of his spiritual susceptibilities he might receive the impressions of the sacred presence of God. There is no necessity, therefore, to understand the word lmæG; (wean) as including what followed the weaning, namely, the training of the child up to his thirteenth year (Seb. Schmidt), on the ground that a child of three years old could only have been a burden to Eli: for the word never has this meaning, not even in 1 Kings 11:20; and, as O. v.

Gerlach has observed, his earliest training might have been superintended by one of the women who worshipped at the door of the tabernacle (1 Sam 2:22).

1 SAMUEL. 1:23

Elkanah expressed his approval of Hannah’s decision, and added, “only the Lord establish His word,” i.e., fulfil it. By “His word” we are not to understand some direct revelation from God respecting the birth and destination of Samuel, as the Rabbins suppose, but in all probability the word of Eli the high priest to Hannah, “The God of Israel grant thy petition” (v. 17), which might be regarded by the parents of Samuel after his birth as a promise from Jehovah himself, and therefore might naturally excite the wish and suggest the prayer that the Lord would graciously fulfil the further hopes, which the parents cherished in relation to the son whom they had dedicated to the Lord by a vow. The paraphrase of rbæd; in the rendering given by the LXX, to> exelqo>n ek tou> sto>mato>v sou , is the subjective view of the translator himself, and does not warrant an emendation of the original text.

1 SAMUEL. 1:24-25

As soon as the boy was weaned, Hannah brought him, although still a r[ænæ , i.e., a tender boy, to Shiloh, with a sacrifice of three oxen, an ephah of meal, and a pitcher of wine, and gave him up to Eli when the ox (bullock) had been slain, i.e., offered in sacrifice as a burnt-offering. The striking circumstance that, according to v. 24, Samuel’s parents brought three oxen with them to Shiloh, and yet in v. 25 the ox rpæ ) alone is spoken of as being slain (or sacrificed), may be explained very simply on the supposition that in v. 25 that particular sacrifice is referred to, which was associated with the presentation of the boy, that is to say, the burnt-offering by virtue of which the boy was consecrated to the Lord as a spiritual sacrifice for a lifelong service at His sanctuary, whereas the other two oxen served as the yearly festal offering, i.e., the burnt-offerings and thank-offerings which Elkanah presented year by year, and the presentation of which the writer did not think it needful to mention, simply because it followed partly from v. 3 and partly from the Mosaic law. f

6 1 SAMUEL. 1:26-28

When the boy was presented, his mother made herself known to the high priest as the woman who had previously prayed to the Lord at that place (see vv. 11ff.), and said, “For this child I prayed; and the Lord hath granted me my request which I asked of Him: therefore I also make him one asked of the Lord all the days that he liveth; he is asked of the Lord.” ykinOa; µGæ : I also; et ego vicissim (Cler.). lyaiv]hi , to let a person ask, to grant his request, to give him what he asks (Ex 12:36), signifies here to make a person “asked” lWav; ). The meaning to lend, which the lexicons give to the word both here and Ex 12:36, has no other support than the false rendering of the LXX, and is altogether unsuitable both in the one and the other. Jehovah had not lent the son to Hannah, but had given him (see v. 11); still less could a man lend his son to the Lord. The last clause of v. 28, “and he worshipped the Lord there,” refers to Elkanah, qui in votum Hannae consenserat, and not to Samuel. On a superficial glance, the plural hj;v; , which is found in some Codd., and in the Vulgate, Syriac, and Arabic, appears the more suitable; but when we look more closely at the connection in which the clause stands, we see at once that it does not wind up the foregoing account, but simply introduces the closing act of the transference of Samuel. Consequently the singular is perfectly appropriate; and notwithstanding the fact that the subject is not mentioned, the allusion to Samuel is placed beyond all doubt. When Hannah had given up her son to the high priest, his father Elkanah first of all worshipped before the Lord in the sanctuary, and then Hannah worshipped in the song of praise, which follows in 1 Sam 2:1-10.

1 SAMUEL. 2:1-10

Hannah’s song of praise.-The prayer in which Hannah poured out the feelings of her heart, after the dedication of her son to the Lord, is a song of praise of a prophetic and Messianic character. After giving utterance in the introduction to the rejoicing and exulting of her soul at the salvation that had reached her (v. 1), she praises the Lord as the only holy One, the only rock of the righteous, who rules on earth with omniscience and righteousness, brings down the proud and lofty, kills and makes alive, maketh poor and maketh rich (vv. 2-8). She then closes with the confident assurance that He will keep His saints, and cast down the rebellious, and will judge the ends of the earth, and exalt the power of His king (vv. 9, 10).

This psalm is the mature fruit of the Spirit of God. The pious woman, who had gone with all the earnest longings of a mother’s heart to pray to the Lord God of Israel for a son, that she might consecrate him to the lifelong service of the Lord, “discerned in her own individual experience the general laws of the divine economy, and its signification in relation to the whole history of the kingdom of God” (Auberlen, p. 564). The experience which she, bowed down and oppressed as she was, had had of the gracious government of the omniscient and holy covenant God, was a pledge to her of the gracious way in which the nation itself was led by God, and a sign by which she discerned how God not only delivered at all times the poor and wretched who trusted in Him out of their poverty and distress, and set them up, but would also lift up and glorify His whole nation, which was at that time so deeply bowed down and oppressed by its foes. Acquainted as she was with the destination of Israel to be a kingdom, from the promises which God had given to the patriarchs, and filled as she was with the longing that had been awakened in the nation for the realization of these promises, she could see in spirit, and through the inspiration of God, the king whom the Lord was about to give to His people, and through whom He would raise it up to might and dominion.

The refusal of modern critics to admit the genuineness of this song is founded upon an a priori and utter denial of the supernatural saving revelations of God, and upon a consequent inability to discern the prophetic illumination of the pious Hannah, and a complete misinterpretation of the contents of her song of praise. The “proud and lofty,” whom God humbles and casts down, are not the heathen or the national foes of Israel, and the “poor and wretched” whom He exalts and makes rich are not the Israelites as such; but the former are the ungodly, and the latter the pious, in Israel itself. And the description is so well sustained throughout, that it is only by the most arbitrary criticism that it can be interpreted as referring to definite historical events, such as the victory of David over Goliath (Thenius), or a victory of the Israelites over heathen nations (Ewald and others). Still less can any argument be drawn from the words of the song in support of its later origin, or its composition by David or one of the earliest of the kings of Israel. On the contrary, not only is its genuineness supported by the general consideration that the author of these books would never have ascribed a song to Hannah, if he had not found it in the sources he employed; but still more decisively by the circumstance that the songs of praise of Mary and Zechariah, in Luke 1:46ff. and 68ff., show, through the manner in which they rest upon this ode, in what way it was understood by the pious Israelites of every age, and how, like the pious Hannah, they recognised and praised in their own individual experience the government of the holy God in the midst of His kingdom.

Verse 1. The first verse forms the introduction to the song. Holy joy in the Lord at the blessing which she had received impelled the favoured mother to the praise of God: 1 My heart is joyful in the Lord, My horn is exalted in the Lord, My mouth is opened wide over mine enemies:

For I rejoice in Thy salvation.

Of the four members of this verse, the first answers to the third, and the second to the fourth. The heart rejoices at the lifting up of her horn, the mouth opens wide to proclaim the salvation before which the enemies would be dumb. “My horn is high” does not mean ‘I am proud’ (Ewald), but “my power is great in the Lord.” The horn is the symbol of strength, and is taken from oxen whose strength is in their horns (vid., Deut 33:17; Ps 75:5, etc.). The power was high or exalted by the salvation which the Lord had manifested to her. To Him all the glory was due, because He had proved himself to be the holy One, and a rock upon which a man could rest his confidence. 2 None is holy as the Lord; for there is none beside Thee; And no rock is as our God. 3 Speak ye not much lofty, lofty; Let (not) insolence go out of thy mouth!

For the Lord is an omniscient God, And with Him deeds are weighed.

Verse 2-3. God manifests himself as holy in the government of the kingdom of His grace by His guidance of the righteous to salvation (see at Ex 19:6). But holiness is simply the moral reflection of the glory of the one absolute God. This explains the reason given for His holiness, viz., “there is not one (a God) beside thee” (cf. 2 Sam 22:32). As the holy and only One, God is the rock (vid., Deut 32:4,15; Ps 18:3) in which the righteous can always trust. The wicked therefore should tremble before His holiness, and not talk in their pride of the lofty things which they have accomplished or intend to perform. HboG; is defined more precisely in the following clause, which is also dependent upon laæ by the word `qt;[; , as insolent words spoken by the wicked against the righteous (see Ps 31:19). For Jehovah hears such words; He is “a God of knowledge” (Deus scientiarum), a God who sees and knows every single thing.

The plural h[;De has an intensive signification. `hl;yli[ ˆkæT; alo might be rendered “deeds are not weighed, or equal” (cf. Ezek 18:25-26; 33:17).

But this would only apply to the actions of men; for the acts of God are always just, or weighed. But an assertion respecting the actions of men does not suit the context. Hence this clause is reckoned in the Masora as one of the passages in which alo stands for wOl] (see at Ex 21:8). “To Him (with Him) deeds are weighed:” that is to say, the acts of God are weighed, i.e., equal or just. This is the real meaning according to the passages in Ezekiel, and not “the actions of men are weighed by Him” (De Wette, Maurer, Ewald, etc.): for God weighs the minds and hearts of men (Prov 16:2; 21:2; 24:12), not their actions. This expression never occurs. The weighed or righteous acts of God are described in vv. 4-8 in great and general traits, as displayed in the government of His kingdom through the marvellous changes which occur in the circumstances connected with the lives of the righteous and the wicked. 4 Bow-heroes are confounded, And stumbling ones gird themselves with strength; 5 Full ones hire themselves out for bread, And hungry ones cease to be.

Yea, the barren beareth seven (children), And she that is rich in children pines away. 6 The Lord kills and makes alive; Leads down into hell, and leads up. 7 The Lord makes poor and makes rich, Humbles and also exalts. 8 He raises mean ones out of the dust, He lifts up poor ones out of the dunghill, To set them beside the noble; And He apportions to them the seat of glory:

For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s, And He sets the earth upon them.

Verse 4-8. In v. 4, the predicate tjæ is construed with the nomen rectum rwOBGi , not with the nomen regens tv,q, , because the former is the leading term (vid., Ges. §148, 1, and Ewald, §317, d.). The thought to be expressed is, not that the bow itself is to be broken, but that the heroes who carry the bow are to be confounded or broken inwardly. “Bows of the heroes” stands for heroes carrying bows. For this reason the verb is to be taken in the sense of confounded, not broken, especially as, apart from Isa. 51:56, ha;F;jæ is not used to denote the breaking of outward things, but the breaking of men.

Verse 5-8. [æbec; are the rich and well to do; these would become so poor as to be obliged to hire themselves out for bread. ldej; , to cease to be what they were before. The use of `d[æ as a conjunction, in the sense of “yea” or “in fact,” may be explained as an elliptical expression, signifying “it comes to this, that.” “Seven children” are mentioned as the full number of the divine blessing in children (see Ruth 4:15). “The mother of many children” pines away, because she has lost all her sons, and with them her support in her old age (see Jer 15:9). This comes from the Lord, who kills, etc. (cf.

Deut 32:39). The words of v. 6 are figurative. God hurls down into death and the danger of death, and also rescues therefrom (see Ps 30:3-4). The first three clauses of v. 8 are repeated verbatim in Ps 113:7-8. Dust and the dunghill are figures used to denote the deepest degradation and ignominy.

The antithesis to this is, sitting upon the chair or throne of glory, the seat occupied by noble princes. The Lord does all this, for He is the creator and upholder of the world. The pillars qWxm; , from qWx = qxæy; ) of the earth are the Lord’s; i.e., they were created or set up by Him, and by Him they are sustained. Now as Jehovah, the God of Israel, the Holy One, governs the world with His almighty power, the righteous have nothing to fear. With this thought the last strophe of the song begins: 9 The feet of His saints He will keep, And the wicked perish in darkness; For by power no one becomes strong. 10 The Lord-those who contend against Him are confounded.

He thunders above him in the heavens; The Lord will judge the ends of the earth, That He may lend might to His king, And exalt the horn of His anointed.

Verse 9-10. The Lord keeps the feet of the righteous, so that they do not tremble and stumble, i.e., so that the righteous do not fall into adversity and perish therein (vid., Ps. 56:14; 116:8; 121:3). But the wicked, who oppress and persecute the righteous, will perish in darkness, i.e., in adversity, when God withdraws the light of His grace, so that they fall into distress and calamity. For no man can be strong through his own power, so as to meet the storms of life. All who fight against the Lord are destroyed.

To bring out the antithesis between man and God, “Jehovah” is written absolutely at the commencement of the sentence in v. 10: “As for Jehovah, those who contend against Him are broken,” both inwardly and outwardly ha;F;jæ , as in v. 4). The word `l[æ , which follows, is not to be changed into `l[æ . There is simply a rapid alternation of the numbers, such as we frequently meet with in excited language. “Above him,” i.e., above every one who contends against God, He thunders.

Thunder is a premonitory sign of the approach of the Lord to judgment. In the thunder, man is made to feel in an alarming way the presence of the omnipotent God. In the words, “The Lord will judge the ends of the earth,” i.e., the earth to its utmost extremities, or the whole world, Hannah’s prayer rises up to a prophetic glance at the consummation of the kingdom of God. As certainly as the Lord God keeps the righteous at all times, and casts down the wicked, so certainly will He judge the whole world, to hurl down all His foes, and perfect His kingdom which He has founded in Israel. And as every kingdom culminates in its throne, or in the full might and government of a king, so the kingdom of God can only attain its full perfection in the king whom the Lord will give to His people, and endow with His might. The king, or the anointed of the Lord, of whom Hannah prophesies in the spirit, is not one single king of Israel, either David or Christ, but an ideal king, though not a mere personification of the throne about to be established, but the actual king whom Israel received in David and his race, which culminated in the Messiah. The exaltation of the horn of the anointed to Jehovah commenced with the victorious and splendid expansion of the power of David, was repeated with every victory over the enemies of God and His kingdom gained by the successive kings of David’s house, goes on in the advancing spread of the kingdom of Christ, and will eventually attain to its eternal consummation in the judgment of the last day, through which all the enemies of Christ will be made His footstool.

SAMUEL’S SERVICE BEFORE ELI.

UNGODLINESS OF ELI’S SONS. DENUNCIATION OF JUDGMENT UPON ELI AND HIS HOUSE.

1 SAMUEL. 2:11-17

Samuel the servant of the Lord under Eli. Ungodliness of the sons of Eli. forms the transition to what follows. After Hannah’s psalm of thanksgiving, Elkanah went back with his family to his home at Ramah, and the boy (Samuel) was serving, i.e., ministered to the Lord, in the presence of Eli the priest. The fact that nothing is said about Elkanah’s wives going with him, does not warrant the interpretation given by Thenius, that Elkanah went home alone. It was taken for granted that his wives went with him, according to 1 Sam 1:21 (“all his house”). hwOhy]ATA, TREVE, which signifies literally, both here and in 1 Sam 3:1, to serve the Lord, and which is used interchangeably with YY YNEP]Ata, treve (v. 18), to serve in the presence of the Lord, is used to denote the duties performed both by priests and Levites in connection with the worship of God, in which Samuel took part, as he grew up, under the superintendence of Eli and according to his instruction.

Verse 12. But Eli’s sons, Hophni and Phinehas (v. 34), were l[æYæliB] ˆBe , worthless fellows, and knew not the Lord, sc., as He should be known, i.e., did not fear Him, or trouble themselves about Him (vid., Job 18:21; Hos 8:2; 13:4).

Verse 13-14. “And the right of the priests towards the people was (the following).” Mishpat signifies the right which they had usurped to themselves in relation to the people. “If any one brought a sacrifice ( jbæz, jæbezO vyaiAlK; is placed first, and construed absolutely: ‘as for every one who brought a slain-offering’), the priest’s servant (lit. young man) came while the flesh was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand, and thrust into the kettle, or pot, or bowl, or saucepan. All that the fork brought up the priest took. This they did to all the Israelites who came thither to Shiloh.”

Verse 15-16. They did still worse. “Even before the fat was consumed,” i.e., before the fat portions of the sacrifice had been placed in the altar-fire for the Lord (Lev 3:3-5), the priest’s servant came and demanded flesh of the person sacrificing, to be roasted for the priest; “for he will not take boiled flesh of thee, but only yjæ , raw, i.e., fresh meat.” And if the person sacrificing replied, “They will burn the fat directly (lit. ‘at this time,’ as in Gen 25:31; 1 Kings 22:5), then take for thyself, as thy soul desireth,” he said, “No wOl] for alo ), but thou shalt give now; if not, I take by force.”

These abuses were practised by the priests in connection with the thankofferings, with which a sacrificial meal was associated. Of these offerings, with which a sacrificial meal was associated. Of these offerings, the portion which legally fell to the priest as his share was the heave-leg and wavebreast.

And this he was to receive after the fat portions of the sacrifice had been burned upon the altar (see Lev 7:30-34). To take the flesh of the sacrificial animal and roast it before this offering had been made, was a crime which was equivalent to a robbery of God, and is therefore referred to here with the emphatic particle µGæ , as being the worst crime that the sons of Eli committed. Moreover, the priests could not claim any of the flesh which the offerer of the sacrifice boiled for the sacrificial meal, after burning the fat portions upon the altar and giving up the portions which belonged to them, to say nothing of their taking it forcibly out of the pots while it was being boiled.

Verse 17. Such conduct as this on the part of the young men (the priests’ servants), was a great sin in the sight of the Lord, as they thereby brought the sacrifice of the Lord into contempt. xaæn; , causative, to bring into contempt, furnish occasion for blaspheming (as in 2 Sam 12:14). “The robbery which they committed was a small sin in comparison with the contempt of the sacrifices themselves, which they were the means of spreading among the people” (O. v. Gerlach). Minchah does not refer here to the meat-offering as the accompaniment to the slain-offerings, but to the sacrificial offering generally, as a gift presented for the Lord.

1 SAMUEL. 2:18-21

Samuel’s service before the Lord.

Samuel served as a boy before the Lord by the side of the worthless sons of Eli, girt with an ephod of white material dBæ , see at Ex 28:42). The ephod was a shoulder-dress, no doubt resembling the high priest’s in shape (see Ex 28:6ff.), but altogether different in the material of which it was made, viz., simple white cloth, like the other articles of clothing that were worn by the priests. At that time, according to 1 Sam 22:18, all the priests wore clothing of this kind; and, according to 2 Sam 6:14, David did the same on the occasion of a religious festival. Samuel received a dress of this kind even when a boy, because he was set apart to a lifelong service before the Lord. rgæj; is the technical expression for putting on the ephod, because the two pieces of which it was composed were girt round the body with a girdle.

Verse 19. The small ly[im] also (Angl. “coat”), which Samuel’s mother made and brought him every year, when she came with her husband to Shiloh to the yearly sacrifice, was probably a coat resembling the meïl of the high priest (Ex 28:31ff.), but was made of course of some simpler material, and without the symbolical ornaments attached to the lower hem, by which that official dress was distinguished. Verse 20. The priestly clothing of the youthful Samuel was in harmony with the spiritual relation in which he stood to the high priest and to Jehovah. Eli blessed his parents for having given up the boy to the Lord, and expressed this wish to the father: “The Lord lend thee seed of this woman in the place of the one asked for hl;aev] ), whom they (one) asked for from the Lord.” The striking use of the third pers. masc. laæv; instead of the second singular or plural may be accounted for on the supposition that it is an indefinite form of speech, which the writer chose because, although it was Hannah who prayed to the Lord for Samuel in the sight of Eli, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, had shared the wishes of his pious wife. The apparent harshness disappears at once if we substitute the passive; whereas in Hebrew active constructions were always preferred to passive, wherever it was possible to employ them (Ewald, §294, b.). The singular suffix attached to µwOqm; after the plural Ëlæy; may be explained on the simple ground, that a dwelling-place is determined by the husband, or master of the house.

Verse 21. The particle yKi , “for” (Jehovah visited), does not mean if, as, or when, nor is it to be regarded as a copyist’s error. It is only necessary to supply the thought contained in the words, “Eli blessed Elkanah,” viz., that Eli’s blessing was not an empty fruitless wish; and to understand the passage in some such way as this: Eli’s word was fulfilled, or still more simply, they went to their home blessed; for Jehovah visited Hannah, blessed her with “three sons and two daughters; but the boy Samuel grew up with the Lord,” i.e., near to Him (at the sanctuary), and under His protection and blessing.

1 SAMUEL. 2:22-23

Eli’s treatment of the sins of his sons.

The aged Eli reproved his sons with solemn warnings on account of their sins; but without his warnings being listened to. From the reproof itself we learn, that beside the sin noticed in vv. 12-17, they also committed the crime of lying with the women who served at the tabernacle (see at Ex 38:8), and thus profaned the sanctuary with whoredom. But Eli, with the infirmities of his old age, did nothing further to prevent these abominations than to say to his sons, “Why do ye according to the sayings which I hear, sayings about you which are evil, of this whole people.” µy[ir; µk,yreb]DiAta, is inserted to make the meaning clearer, and lKo tae is dependent upon [mæv; . “This whole people” signifies all the people that came to Shiloh, and heard and saw the wicked doings there.

1 SAMUEL. 2:24

ˆBe laæ , “Not, my sons,” i.e., do not such things, “for the report which I hear is not good; they make the people of Jehovah to transgress.” `rbæ[; is written without the pronoun hT;aæ in an indefinite construction, like jlæv; in 1 Sam 6:3 (Maurer). Ewald’s rendering as given by Thenius, “The report which I hear the people of God bring,” is just as inadmissible as the one proposed by Böttcher, “The report which, as I hear, the people of God are spreading.” The assertion made by Thenius, that `rbæ[; , without any further definition, cannot mean to cause to sin or transgress, is correct enough no doubt; but it does not prove that this meaning is inadmissible in the passage before us, since the further definition is actually to be found in the context.

1 SAMUEL. 2:25

“If man sins against man, God judges him; but if a man sins against Jehovah, who can interpose with entreaty for him?” In the use of llæp; and yit¦palel-low there is a paranomasia which cannot be reproduced in our language. pileel signifies to decide or pass sentence (Gen 48:11), then to arbitrate, to settle a dispute as arbitrator (Ezek 16:52; Ps 106:30), and in the Hithpael to act as mediator, hence to entreat. And these meanings are applicable here. In the case of one man’s sin against another, God settles the dispute as arbitrator through the proper authorities; whereas, when a man sins against God, no one can interpose as arbitrator. Such a sin cannot be disposed of by intercession. But Eli’s sons did not listen to this admonition, which was designed to reform daring sinners with mild words and representation; “for,” adds the historian, “Jehovah was resolved to slay them.” The father’s reproof made no impression upon them, because they were already given up to the judgment of hardening. (On hardening as a divine sentence, see the discussions at Ex 4:21.)

1 SAMUEL. 2:26

The youthful Samuel, on the other hand, continued to grow in stature, and in favour with God and man (see Lev. 2:52).

1 SAMUEL. 2:27-36

Announcement of the judgment upon Eli and his house.

Before the Lord interposed in judgment, He sent a prophet (a “man of God,” as in Judg 13:6) to the aged Eli, to announce as a warning for all ages the judgment which was about to fall upon the worthless priests of his house. In order to arouse Eli’s own conscience, he had pointed out to him, on the one hand, the grace manifested in the choice of his father’s house, i.e., the house of Aaron, to keep His sanctuary (vv. 27b and 28), and, on the other hand, the desecration of the sanctuary by the wickedness of his sons (v. 29). Then follows the sentence: The choice of the family of Aaron still stood fast, but the deepest disgrace would come upon the despisers of the Lord (v. 30): the strength of his house would be broken; all the members of his house were to die early deaths. They were not, however, to be removed entirely from service at the altar, but to their sorrow were to survive the fall of the sanctuary (vv. 31-34).

But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest, and cause him to walk before His anointed, and from him all that were left of the house of Eli would be obliged to beg their bread (vv. 35, 36). To arrive at the true interpretation of this announcement of punishment, we must picture to ourselves the historical circumstances that come into consideration here. Eli the high priest was a descendant of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron, as we may see from the fact that his great-grandson Ahimelech was “of the sons of Ithamar” (1 Chron 24:3). In perfect agreement with this, Josephus (Ant. v. 11, 5) relates, that after the high priest Ozi of the family of Eleazar, Eli of the family of Ithamar received the high-priesthood. The circumstances which led to the transfer of this honour from the line of Eleazar to that of Ithamar are unknown. We cannot imagine it to have been occasioned by an extinction of the line of Eleazar, for the simple reason that, in the time of David, Zadok the descendant of Eleazar is spoken of as high priest along with Abiathar and Ahimelech, the descendants of Eli (2 Sam 8:17; 20:25).

After the deposition of Abiathar he was reinstated by Solomon as sole high priest (1 Kings 2:27), and the dignity was transmitted to his descendants.

This fact also overthrows the conjecture of Clericus, that the transfer of the high-priesthood to Eli took place by the command of God on account of the grievous sins of the high priests of the line of Eleazar; for in that case Zadok would not have received this office again in connection with Abiathar. We have, no doubt, to search for the true reason in the circumstances of the times of the later judges, namely in the fact that at the death of the last high priest of the family of Eleazar before the time of Eli, the remaining son was not equal to the occasion, either because he was still an infant, or at any rate because he was too young and inexperienced, so that he could not enter upon the office, and Eli, who was probably related by marriage to the high priest’s family, and was no doubt a vigorous man, was compelled to take the oversight of the congregation; and, together with the supreme administration of the affairs of the nation as judge, received the post of high priest as well, and filled it till the time of his death, simply because in those troublous times there was not one of the descendants of Eleazar who was able to fill the supreme office of judge, which was combined with that of high priest.

For we cannot possibly think of an unjust usurpation of the office of high priest on the part of Eli, since the very judgment denounced against him and his house presupposes that he had entered upon the office in a just and upright way, and that the wickedness of his sons was all that was brought against him. For a considerable time after the death of Eli the highpriesthood lost almost all its significance. All Israel turned to Samuel, whom the Lord established as His prophet by means of revelations, and whom He also chose as the deliverer of His people. The tabernacle at Shiloh, which ceased to be the scene of the gracious presence of God after the loss of the ark, was probably presided over first of all after Eli’s death by his grandson Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, as his successor in the highpriesthood.

He was followed in the time of Saul by his son Ahijah or Ahimelech, who gave David the shew-bread to eat at Nob, to which the tabernacle had been removed in the meantime, and was put to death by Saul in consequence, along with all the priests who were found there. His son Abiathar, however, escaped the massacre, and fled to David (1 Sam 22:9-20; 23:6). In the reign of David he is mentioned as high priest along with Zadok; but he was afterwards deposed by Solomon (2 Sam 15:24; 17:15; 19:12; 20:25; 1 Kings 2:27).

Different interpretations have been given of these verses. The majority of commentators understand them as signifying that the loss of the highpriesthood is here foretold to Eli, and also the institution of Zadok in the office. But such a view is too contracted, and does not exhaust the meaning of the words. The very introduction to the prophet’s words points to something greater than this: “Thus saith the Lord, Did I reveal myself to thy father’s house, when they were in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh?” The ha interrogative is not used for µwOlv; (nonne), but is emphatic, as in Jer 31:20. The question is an appeal to Eli’s conscience, which he cannot deny, but is obliged to confirm. By Eli’s father’s house we are not to understand Ithamar and his family, but Aaron, from whom Eli was descended through Ithamar. God revealed himself to the tribe-father of Eli by appointing Aaron to be the spokesman of Moses before Pharaoh (Ex 4:14ff. and 27), and still more by calling Aaron to the priesthood, for which the way was prepared by the fact that, from the very beginning, God made use of Aaron, in company with Moses, to carry out His purpose of delivering Israel out of Egypt, and entrusted Moses and Aaron with the arrangements for the celebration of the passover (Ex 12:1,43). This occurred when they, the fathers of Eli, Aaron and his sons, were still in Egypt at the house of Pharaoh, i.e., still under Pharaoh’s rule.

Verse 28. “And did I choose him out of all the tribes for a priest to myself.” The interrogative particle is not to be repeated before rjæB; , but the construction becomes affirmative with the inf. abs. instead of the perfect. “Him” refers back to “thy father” in v. 27, and signifies Aaron. The expression “for a priest” is still further defined by the clauses which follow: m’ `l[æ `hl;[; , “to ascend upon mine altar,” i.e., to approach my altar of burnt-offering and perform the sacrificial worship; “to kindle incense,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy place, the principal feature in which was the daily kindling of the incense, which is mentioned instar omnium; “to wear the ephod before me,” i.e., to perform the service in the holy of holies, which the high priest could only enter when wearing the ephod to represent Israel before the Lord (Ex 28:12). “And have given to thy father’s house all the firings of the children of Israel” (see at Lev 1:9).

These words are to be understood, according to Deut 18:1, as signifying that the Lord had given to the house of Aaron, i.e., to the priesthood, the sacrifices of Jehovah to eat in the place of any inheritance in the land, according to the portions appointed in the sacrificial law in Lev 6-7, and Num 18.

Verse 29. With such distinction conferred upon the priesthood, and such careful provision made for it, the conduct of the priests under Eli was an inexcusable crime. “Why do ye tread with your feet my slain-offerings and meat-offerings, which I have commanded in the dwelling-place?” Slainoffering and meat-offering are general expressions embracing all the altarsacrifices. ˆwO[m; is an accusative (“in the dwelling”), like tyiBæ , in the house. “The dwelling” is the tabernacle. This reproof applied to the priests generally, including Eli, who had not vigorously resisted these abuses. The words which follow, “and thou honourest thy sons more than me,” relate to Eli himself, and any other high priest who like Eli should tolerate the abuses of the priests. “To fatten yourselves with the first of every sacrificial gift of Israel, of my people.” `µ[æ serves as a periphrasis for the genitive, and is chosen for the purpose of giving greater prominence to the idea of `µ[æ (my people). tyviare , the first of every sacrificial gift (minchah, as in v. 17), which Israel offered as the nation of Jehovah, ought to have been given up to its God in the altar-fire because it was the best; whereas, according to vv. 15, 16, the sons of Eli took away the best for themselves.

Verse 30. For this reason, the saying of the Lord, “Thy house (i.e., the family of Eli) and thy father’s house (Eli’s relations in the other lines, i.e., the whole priesthood) shall walk before me for ever” (Num 25:13), should henceforth run thus: “This be far from me; but them that honour me I will honour, and they that despise me shall be despised.” The first declaration of the Lord is not to be referred to Eli particularly, as it is by C. a Lapide and others, and understood as signifying that the high-priesthood was thereby transferred from the family of Eleazar to that of Ithamar, and promised to Eli for his descendants for all time. This is decidedly at variance with the fact, that although “walking before the Lord” is not a general expression denoting a pious walk with God, as in Gen 17:1, but refers to the service of the priests at the sanctuary as walking before the face of God, yet it cannot possibly be specially and exclusively restricted to the right of entering the most holy place, which was the prerogative of the high priest alone.

These words of the Lord, therefore, applied to the whole priesthood, or the whole house of Aaron, to which the priesthood had been promised, “for a perpetual statute” (Ex 29:9). This promise was afterwards renewed to Phinehas especially, on account of the zeal which he displayed for the honour of Jehovah in connection with the idolatry of the people at Shittim (Num 25:13). But even this renewed promise only secured to him an eternal priesthood as a covenant of peace with the Lord, and not specially the high-priesthood, although that was included as the culminating point of the priesthood. Consequently it was not abrogated by the temporary transfer of the high-priesthood from the descendants of Phinehas to the priestly line of Ithamar, because even then they still retained the priesthood. By the expression “be it far from me,” sc., to permit this to take place, God does not revoke His previous promise, but simply denounces a false trust therein as irreconcilable with His holiness. That promise would only be fulfilled so far as the priests themselves honoured the Lord in their office, whilst despisers of God who dishonoured Him by sin and presumptuous wickedness, would be themselves despised.

This contempt would speedily come upon the house of Eli.

Verse 31. “Behold, days come,”-a formula with which prophets were accustomed to announce future events (see 2 Kings 20:17; Isa 39:6; Amos 4:2; 8:11; 9:13; Jer 7:32, etc.)- “then will I cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, that there shall be no old man in thine house.” To cut off the arm means to destroy the strength either of a man or of a family (see Job. 1 Sam 22:9; Ps 37:17). The strength of a family, however, consists in the vital energy of its members, and shows itself in the fact that they reach a good old age, and do not pine away early and die. This strength was to vanish in Eli’s house; no one would ever again preserve his life to old age.

Verse 32. “And thou wilt see oppression of the dwelling in all that He has shown of good to Israel.” The meaning of these words, which have been explained in very different ways, appears to be the following: In all the benefits which the lord would confer upon His people, Eli would see only distress for the dwelling of God, inasmuch as the tabernacle would fall more and more into decay. In the person of Eli, the high priest at that time, the high priest generally is addressed as the custodian of the sanctuary; so that what is said is not to be limited to him personally, but applies to all the high priests of his house. ˆwO[m; is not Eli’s dwelling-place, but the dwelling-place of God, i.e., the tabernacle, as in v. 29, and is a genitive dependent upon rxæ . b f1 y; , in the sense of benefiting a person, doing him good, is construed with the accusative of the person, as in Deut 28:63; 8:16; 30:5.

The subject to the verb b f1 y; is Jehovah, and is not expressly mentioned, simply because it is so clearly implied in the words themselves. This threat began to be fulfilled even in Eli’s own days. The distress or tribulation for the tabernacle began with the capture of the ark by the Philistines (1 Sam 4:11), and continued during the time that the Lord was sending help and deliverance to His people through the medium of Samuel, in their spiritual and physical oppression. The ark of the covenant-the heart of the sanctuary-was not restored to the tabernacle in the time of Samuel; and the tabernacle itself was removed from Shiloh to Nob, probably in the time of war; and when Saul had had all the priests put to death (1 Sam 21:2; 22:11ff.), it was removed to Gibeon, which necessarily caused it to fall more and more into neglect. Among the different explanations, the rendering given by Aquila ( kai> epible>yei ? epible>yhv ] anti’zeelon katoikeeteeri’ou) has met with the greatest approval, and has been followed by Jerome (et videbis aemulum tuum), Luther, and many others, including De Wette. According to this rendering, the words are either supposed to refer to the attitude of Samuel towards Eli, or to the deposition of Abiathar, and the institution of Zadok by Solomon in his place (1 Kings 2:27). But rxæ does not mean the antagonist or rival, but simply the oppressor or enemy; and Samuel was not an enemy of Eli any more than Zadok was of Abiathar. Moreover, if this be adopted as the rendering of rxæ , it is impossible to find any suitable meaning for the following clause. In the second half of the verse the threat of v. 31 is repeated with still greater emphasis. kaal-hayaamiym, all the time, i.e., so long as thine house shall exist.

Verse 33. “And I will not cut off every one to thee from mine altar, that thine eyes may languish, and thy soul consume away; and all the increase of thine house shall die as men.” The two leading clauses of this verse correspond to the two principal thoughts of the previous verse, which are hereby more precisely defined and explained. Eli was to see the distress of the sanctuary; for to him, i.e., of his family, there would always be some one serving at the altar of God, that he might look upon the decay with his eyes, and pine away with grief in consequence. vyai signifies every one, or any one, and is not to be restricted, as Thenius supposes, to Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, the brother of Ichabod; for it cannot be shown from Sam 14:3 and 22:20, that he was the only one that was left of the house of Eli. And secondly, there was to be no old man, no one advanced in life, in his house; but all the increase of the house was to die in the full bloom of manhood. vyai , in contrast with ˆqez; , is used to denote men in the prime of life.

Verse 34. “And let this be the sign to thee, what shall happen to (come upon) thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas; in one day they shall both die.”

For the fulfilment of this, see 1 Sam 4:11. This occurrence, which Eli lived to see, but did not long survive (1 Sam 4:17ff.), was to be the sign to him that the predicted punishment would be carried out in its fullest extent.

Verse 35. But the priesthood itself was not to fall with the fall of Eli’s house and priesthood; on the contrary the Lord would raise up for himself a tried priest, who would act according to His heart. “And I will build for him a lasting house, and he will walk before mine anointed for ever.”

Verse 36. Whoever, on the other hand, should still remain of Eli’s house, would come “bowing before him (to get) a silver penny and a slice of bread,” and would say, “Put me, I pray, in one of the priests’ offices, that I may get a piece of bread to eat.” hr;wOga , that which is collected, signifies some small coin, of which a collection was made by begging single coins.

Commentators are divided in their opinions as to the historical allusions contained in this prophecy. By the “tried priest,” Ephraem Syrus understood both the prophet Samuel and the priest Zadok. “As for the facts themselves,” he says, “it is evident that, when Eli died, Samuel succeeded him in the government, and that Zadok received the highpriesthood when it was taken from his family.” Since his time, most of the commentators, including Theodoret and the Rabbins, have decided in favour of Zadok. Augustine, however, and in modern times Thenius and O. v. Gerlach, give the preference to Samuel. The fathers and earlier theologians also regarded Samuel and Zadok as the type of Christ, and supposed the passage to contain a prediction of the abrogation of the Aaronic priesthood by Jesus Christ. f7 This higher reference of the words is in any case to be retained; for the rabbinical interpretation, by which Grotius, Clericus, and others abidenamely, that the transfer of the high-priesthood from the descendants of Eli to Zadok, the descendant of Eleazar, is all that is predicted, and that the prophecy was entirely fulfilled when Abiathar was deposed by Solomon (1 Kings 2:27)-is not in accordance with the words of the text. On the other hand, Theodoret and Augustine both clearly saw that the words of Jehovah, “I revealed myself to thy father’s house in Egypt,” and, “Thy house shall walk before me for ever,” do not apply to Ithamar, but to Aaron. “Which of his fathers,” says Augustine, “was in that Egyptian bondage, form which they were liberated when he was chosen to the priesthood, excepting Aaron? It is with reference to his posterity, therefore, that it is here affirmed that they would not be priests for ever; and this we see already fulfilled.” The only thing that appears untenable is the manner in which the fathers combine this historical reference to Eli and Samuel, or Zadok, with the Messianic interpretation, viz., either by referring vv. 31-34 to Eli and his house, and then regarding the sentence pronounced upon Eli as simply a type of the Messianic fulfilment, or by admitting the Messianic allusion simply as an allegory.

The true interpretation may be obtained from a correct insight into the relation in which the prophecy itself stands to its fulfilment. Just as, in the person of Eli and his sons, the threat announces deep degradation and even destruction to all the priests of the house of Aaron who should walk in the footsteps of the sons of Eli, and the death of the two sons of Eli in one day was to be merely a sign that the threatened punishment would be completely fulfilled upon the ungodly priests; so, on the other hand, the promise of the raising up of the tried priest, for whom God would build a lasting house, also refers to all the priests whom the Lord would raise up as faithful servants of His altar, and only receives its complete and final fulfilment in Christ, the true and eternal High Priest. But if we endeavour to determine more precisely from the history itself, which of the Old Testament priests are included, we must not exclude either Samuel or Zadok, but must certainly affirm that the prophecy was partially fulfilled in both.

Samuel, as the prophet of the Lord, was placed at the head of the nation after the death of Eli; so that he not only stepped into Eli’s place as judge, but stood forth as priest before the Lord and the nation, and “had the important and sacred duty to perform of going before the anointed, the king, whom Israel was to receive through him; whereas for a long time the Aaronic priesthood fell into such contempt, that, during the general decline of the worship of God, it was obliged to go begging for honour and support, and became dependent upon the new order of things that was introduced by Samuel” (O. v. Gerlach). Moreover, Samuel acquired a strong house in the numerous posterity that was given to him by God. The grandson of Samuel was Heman, “the king’s seer in the words of God,” who was placed by David over the choir at the house of God, and had fourteen sons and three daughters (1 Chron 6:33; 25:4-5).

But the very fact that these descendants of Samuel did not follow their father in the priesthood, shows very clearly that a lasting house was not built to Samuel as a tried priest through them, and therefore that we have to seek for the further historical fulfilment of this promise in the priesthood of Zadok. As the word of the Lord concerning the house of Eli, even if it did not find its only fulfilment in the deposition of Abiathar (1 Kings 2:27), was at any rate partially fulfilled in that deposition; so the promise concerning the tried priest to be raised up received a new fulfilment in the fact that Zadok thereby became the sole high priest, and transmitted the office to his descendants, though this was neither its last nor its highest fulfilment. This final fulfilment is hinted at in the vision of the new temple, as seen by the prophet Ezekiel, in connection with which the sons of Zadok are named as the priests, who, because they had not fallen away with the children of Israel, were to draw near to the Lord, and perform His service in the new organization of the kingdom of God as set forth in that vision (Ezek 40:46; 43:19; 44:15; 48:11). This fulfilment is effected in connection with Christ and His kingdom. Consequently, the anointed of the Lord, before whom the tried priest would walk for ever, is not Solomon, but rather David, and the Son of David, whose kingdom is an everlasting kingdom.

SAMUEL CALLED TO BE A PROPHET. CH. 3.

1 SAMUEL. 3:1-9

At the time when Samuel served the Lord before Eli, both as a boy and as a young man (1 Sam 2:11,21,26), the word of the Lord had become dear, i.e., rare, in Israel, and “Prophecy was not spread.” xræp , from xræp , to spread out strongly, to break through copiously (cf. Prov 3:10). The “word of the Lord” is the word of God announced by prophets: the “vision,” “visio prophetica.” It is true that Jehovah had promised His people, that He would send prophets, who should make known His will and purpose at all times (Deut 18:15ff.; cf. Num 23:23); but as a revelation from God presupposed susceptibility on the part of men, the unbelief and disobedience of the people might restrain the fulfilment of this and all similar promises, and God might even withdraw His word to punish the idolatrous nation. Such a time as this, when revelations from God were universally rare, and had now arisen under Eli, in whose days, as the conduct of his sons sufficiently proves, the priesthood had fallen into very deep corruption. Verse 2-4. The word of the Lord was then issued for the first time to Samuel. Vv. 2-4 form one period. The clause, “it came to pass at that time” (v. 2a), is continued in v. 4a, “that the Lord called,” etc. The intervening clauses from `yli[e to µyhila’ ˆwOra; are circumstantial clauses, intended to throw light upon the situation. The clause, “Eli was laid down in his place,” etc., may be connected logically with “at that time” by the insertion of “when” (as in the English version: Tr.). The dimness of Eli’s eyes is mentioned, to explain Samuel’s behaviour, as afterwards described.

Under these circumstances, for example, when Samuel heard his own name called out in sleep, he might easily suppose that Eli was calling him to render some assistance. The “lamp of God” is the light of the candlestick in the tabernacle, the seven lamps of which were put up and lighted every evening, and burned through the night till all the oil was consumed (see Ex 30:8; Lev 24:2; 2 Chron 13:11, and the explanation given at Ex 27:21).

The statement that this light was not yet extinguished, is equivalent to “before the morning dawn.” “And Samuel was lying (sleeping) in the temple of Jehovah, where the ark of God was.” lk;yhe does not mean the holy place, as distinguished from the “most holy,” as in 1 Kings 6:5; 7:50, f8 but the whole tabernacle, the tent with its court, as the palace of the Godking, as in 1 Sam 1:9; Ps 11:4. Samuel neither slept in the holy place by the side of the candlestick and table of shew-bread, nor in the most holy place in front of the ark of the covenant, but in the court, where cells were built for the priests and Levites to live in when serving at the sanctuary (see at v. 15). “The ark of God, i.e., the ark of the covenant, is mentioned as the throne of the divine presence, from which the call to Samuel proceeded.

Verse 5-9. As soon as Samuel heard his name called out, he hastened to Eli to receive his commands. But Eli bade him lie down again, as he had not called him. At first, no doubt, he thought the call which Samuel had heard was nothing more than a false impression of the youth, who had been fast asleep. But the same thing was repeated a second and a third time; for, as the historian explains in v. 6, “Samuel had not yet known Jehovah, and (for) the word of Jehovah was not yet revealed to him.” (The perfect [dæy; after µr,f, , though very rare, is fully supported by Ps 90:2 and Prov 8:25, and therefore is not to be altered into [dæy; , as Dietrich and Böttcher propose.) He therefore imagined again that Eli had called him. But when he came to Eli after the third call, Eli perceived that the Lord was calling, and directed Samuel, if the call were repeated, to answer, “Speak, Lord; for Thy servant heareth.”

1 SAMUEL. 3:10-11

When Samuel had lain down again, “Jehovah came and stood,” sc., before Samuel. These words show that the revelation of God was an objectively real affair, and not a mere dream of Samuel’s. “And he called to him as at other times” (see Num 24:1; Judg 16:20), etc.). When Samuel replied in accordance with Eli’s instructions, the Lord announced to him that He would carry out the judgment that had been threatened against the house of Eli (vv. 11-14). “Behold, I do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it shall tingle,” sc., with horror (see 2 Kings 21:12; Jer 19:3; Hab 1:5).

1 SAMUEL. 3:12-14

On that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house (see 1 Sam 2:30ff.), beginning and finishing it,” i.e., completely. rB,Di rv,a\Ata, µyqihe , to set up the word spoken, i.e., to carry it out, or accomplish it. In v. 13 this word is communicated to Samuel, so far as its essential contents are concerned. God would judge “the house of Eli for ever because of the iniquity, that he knew his sons were preparing a curse for themselves and did not prevent them.” To judge on account of a crime, is the same as to punish it. µl;wO[Ad[æ , i.e., without the punishment being ever stopped or removed. wOl llæq; , cursing themselves, i.e., bringing a curse upon themselves. “Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the iniquity of the house of Eli shall not µai , a particle used in an oath, equivalent to assuredly not) be expiated by slain-offerings and meatofferings (through any kind of sacrifice) for ever.” The oath makes the sentence irrevocable. (On the facts themselves, see the commentary on Sam 2:27-36.)

1 SAMUEL. 3:15

Samuel then slept till the morning; and when he opened the doors of the house of Jehovah, he was afraid to tell Eli of the revelation which he had received. Opening the doors of the house of God appears to have been part of Samuel’s duty. We have not to think of doors opening into the holy place, however, but of doors leading into the court. Originally, when the tabernacle was simply a tent, travelling with the people from place to place, it had only curtains at the entrance to the holy place and court. But when Israel had become possessed of fixed houses in the land of Canaan, and the dwelling-place of God was permanently erected at Shiloh, instead of the tents that were pitched for the priests and Levites, who encamped round about during the journey through the desert, there were erected fixed houses, which were built against or inside the court, and not only served as dwelling-places for the priests and Levites who were officiating, but were also used for the reception and custody of the gifts that were brought as offerings to the sanctuary. These buildings in all probability supplanted entirely the original tent-like enclosure around the court; so that instead of the curtains at the entrance, there were folding doors, which were shut in the evening and opened again in the morning. It is true that nothing is said about the erection of these buildings in our historical books, but the fact itself is not to be denied on that account. In the case of Solomon’s temple, notwithstanding the elaborate description that has been given of it, there is nothing said about the arrangement or erection of the buildings in the court; and yet here and there, principally in Jeremiah, the existence of such buildings is evidently assumed. ha;r]mæ , visio, a sign or vision. This expression is applied to the word of God which came to Samuel, because it was revealed to him through the medium of an inward sight or intuition.

1 SAMUEL. 3:16-18

When Samuel was called by Eli and asked concerning the divine revelation that he had received, he told him all the words, without concealing anything; whereupon Eli bowed in quiet resignation to the purpose of God: “It is the Lord; let Him do what seemeth Him good.” Samuel’s communication, however, simply confirmed to the aged Eli what God had already made known to him through a prophet, But his reply proves that, with all his weakness and criminal indulgence towards his wicked sons, Eli was thoroughly devoted to the Lord in his heart. And Samuel, on the other hand, through his unreserved and candid communication of the terribly solemn word of God with regard to the man, whom he certainly venerated with filial affection, not only as high priest, but also as his own parental guardian, proved himself to be a man possessing the courage and the power to proclaim the word of the Lord without fear to the people of Israel.

1 SAMUEL. 3:19-21

Thus Samuel grew, and Jehovah was with him, and let none of his words fall to the ground, i.e., left no word unfulfilled which He spoke through Samuel. (On lpæn; , see Josh 21:45; 23:14; 1 Kings 8:56.) By this all Israel from Dan to Beersheba (see at Judg 20:1) perceived that Samuel was found trustworthy, or approved (see Num 12:7) as a prophet of Jehovah.

And the Lord continued to appear at Shiloh; for He revealed himself there to Samuel “in the word of Jehovah,” i.e., through a prophetic announcement of His word. These three verses form the transition from the call of Samuel to the following account of his prophetic labours in Israel.

At the close of v. 21, the LXX have appended a general remark concerning Eli and his sons, which, regarded as a deduction from the context, answers no doubt to the paraphrastic treatment of our book in that version, but in a critical aspect is utterly worthless.

WAR WITH THE PHILISTINES. LOSS OF THE ARK. DEATH OF ELI AND HIS SONS. CH. 4.

At Samuel’s word, the Israelites attacked the Philistines, and were beaten (vv. 1, 2). They then fetched the ark of the covenant into the camp according to the advice of the elders, that they might thereby make sure of the help of the almighty covenant God; but in the engagement which followed they suffered a still greater defeat, in which Eli’s sons fell and the ark was taken by the Philistines (vv. 3-11). The aged Eli, terrified at such a loss, fell from his seat and broke his neck (vv. 12-18); and his daughter-inlaw was taken in labour, and died after giving birth to a son (vv. 19-22).

With these occurrences the judgment began to burst upon the house of Eli.

But the disastrous result of the war was also to be a source of deep humiliation to all the Israelites. Not only were the people to learn that the Lord had departed from them, but Samuel also was to make the discovery that the deliverance of Israel from the oppression and dominion of its foes was absolutely impossible without its inward conversion to its God. 1 SAMUEL 4:1,2 Verse 1, 2. The two clauses, “The word of Samuel came to all Israel,” and “Israel went out,” etc., are to be logically connected together in the following sense: “At the word or instigation of Samuel, Israel went out against the Philistines to battle.” The Philistines were ruling over Israel at that time. This is evident, apart from our previous remarks concerning the connection between the commencement of this book and the close of the book of Judges (see pp. 204ff.), from the simple fact that the land of Israel was the scene of the war, and that nothing is said about an invasion on the part of the Philistines. The Israelites encamped at Ebenezer, and the Philistines were encamped at Aphek. The name Ebenezer (“the stone of help”) was not given to the place so designated till a later period, when Samuel set up a memorial stone there to commemorate a victory that was gained over the Philistines upon the same chosen battle-field after the lapse of twenty years (1 Sam 7:12). According to this passage, the stone was set up between Mizpeh and Shen. The former was not the Mizpeh in the lowlands of Judah (Josh 15:38), but the Mizpeh of Benjamin (Josh 18:26), i.e., according to Robinson, the present Neby Samwil, two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, and half an hour to the south of Gibeon (see at Josh 18:26). The situation of Aphek has not been discovered. It cannot have been far from Mizpeh and Ebenezer, however, and was probably the same place as the Canaanitish capital mentioned in Josh 12:18, and is certainly different from the Aphekah upon the mountains of Judah (Josh 15:53); for this was on the south or south-west of Jerusalem, since, according to the book of Joshua, it belonged to the towns that were situated in the district of Gibeon.

Verse 2. When the battle was fought, the Israelites were defeated by the Philistines, and in battle-array four thousand men were smitten upon the field. `Ëræ[; , sc., hm;j;l]mi , as in Judg 20:20,22, etc. hk;r;[mæ , in battle-array, i.e., upon the field of battle, not in flight. “In the field,” i.e., the open field where the battle was fought.

1 SAMUEL. 4:3-4

On the return of the people to the camp, the elders held a council of war as to the cause of the defeat they had suffered. “Why hath Jehovah smitten us today before the Philistines?” As they had entered upon the war by the word and advice of Samuel, they were convinced that Jehovah had smitten them. The question presupposes at the same time that the Israelites felt strong enough to enter upon the war with their enemies, and that the reason for their defeat could only be that the Lord, their covenant God, had withdrawn His help. This was no doubt a correct conclusion; but the means which they adopted to secure the help of their God in continuing the war were altogether wrong. Instead of feeling remorse and seeking the help of the Lord their God by a sincere repentance and confession of their apostasy from Him, they resolved to fetch the ark of the covenant out of the tabernacle at Shiloh into the camp, with the delusive idea that God had so inseparably bound up His gracious presence in the midst of His people with this holy ark, which He had selected as the throne of His gracious appearance, that He would of necessity come with it into the camp and smite the foe. In v. 4, the ark is called “the ark of the covenant of Jehovah of hosts, who is enthroned above the cherubim,” partly to show the reason why the people had the ark fetched, and partly to indicate the hope which they founded upon the presence of this sacred object. (See the commentary on Ex 25:20-22). The remark introduced here, “and the two sons of Eli were there with the ark of the covenant of God,” is not merely intended to show who the guardians of the ark were, viz., priests who had hitherto disgraced the sanctuary, but also to point forward at the very outset to the result of the measures adopted.

1 SAMUEL. 4:5

On the arrival of the ark in the camp, the people raised so great a shout of joy that the earth rang again. This was probably the first time since the settlement of Israel in Canaan, that the ark had been brought into the camp, and therefore the people no doubt anticipated from its presence a renewal of the marvellous victories gained by Israel under Moses and Joshua, and for that reason raised such a shout when it arrived.

1 SAMUEL. 4:6-8

When the Philistines heard the noise, and learned on inquiry that the ark of Jehovah had come into the camp, they were thrown into alarm, for “they thought (lit. said), God (Elohim) is come into the camp, and said, ‘Woe unto us! For such a thing has not happened yesterday and the day before (i.e., never till now). Woe to us! Who will deliver us from the hand of these mighty gods? These are the very gods that smote Egypt with all kinds of plagues in the wilderness.’ “ The Philistines spoke of the God of Israel in the plural., ryDiaæ µyhila’ , as heathen who only knew of gods, and not of one Almighty God. Just as all the heathen feared the might of the gods of other nations in a certain degree, so the Philistines also were alarmed at the might of the God of the Israelites, and that all the more because the report of His deeds in the olden time had reached their ears (see Ex 15:14-15).

The expression “in the wilderness” does not compel us to refer the words “smote with all the plagues” exclusively to the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea (Ex 14:23ff.). “All the plagues” include the rest of the plagues which God inflicted upon Egypt, without there being any necessity to supply the copula w before rB;d]mi , as in the LXX and Syriac.

By this addition an antithesis is introduced into the words, which, if it really were intended, would require to be indicated by a previous xr,a, or xr,a, .

According to the notions of the Philistines, all the wonders of God for the deliverance of Israel out of Egypt took place in the desert, because even when Israel was in Goshen they dwelt on the border of the desert, and were conducted thence to Canaan.

1 SAMUEL. 4:9

But instead of despairing, they encouraged one another, saying, “Show yourselves strong, and be men, O Philistines, that we may not be obliged to serve the Hebrews, as they have served you; be men, and fight!”

1 SAMUEL. 4:10-11

Stimulated in this way, they fought and smote Israel, so that every one fled home (“to his tent,” see at Josh 22:8), and 30,000 men of Israel fell. The ark also was taken, and the two sons of Eli died, i.e., were slain when the ark was taken-a practical proof to the degenerate nation, that Jehovah, who was enthroned above the cherubim, had departed from them, i.e., had withdrawn His gracious presence. f

9 1 SAMUEL. 4:12-14

The tidings of this calamity were brought by a Benjaminite, who came as a messenger of evil tidings, with his clothes rent, and earth upon his head-a sign of the deepest mourning (see Josh 7:6)-to Shiloh, where the aged Eli was sitting upon a seat by the side hk;n; is a copyist’s error for dy; ) of the way watching; for his heart trembled for the ark of God, which had been taken from the sanctuary into the camp without the command of God. At these tidings the whole city cried out with terror, so that Eli heard the sound of the cry, and asked the reason of this loud noise (or tumult), whilst the messenger was hurrying towards him with the news.

1 SAMUEL. 4:15

Eli was ninety-eight years old, and “his eyes stood,” i.e., were stiff, so that he could no more see (vid., 1 Kings 14:4). This is a description of the socalled black cataract (amaurosis), which generally occurs at a very great age from paralysis of the optic nerves.

1 SAMUEL. 4:16-18

When the messenger informed him of the defeat of the Israelites, the death of his sons, and the capture of the ark, at the last news Eli fell back from his seat by the side of the gate, and broke his neck, and died. The loss of the ark was to him the most dreadful of all-more dreadful than the death of his two sons. Eli had judged Israel forty years. The reading twenty in the Septuagint does not deserve the slightest notice, if only because it is perfectly incredible that Eli should have been appointed judge of the nation in his seventy-eight year.

1 SAMUEL. 4:19-22

The judgment which fell upon Eli through this stroke extended still further.

His daughter-in-law, the wife of Phinehas, was with child (near) to be delivered. dlæy; , contracted from dlæy; (from dlæy; : see Ges. §69, 3, note 1; Ewald, §238, c.). When she heard the tidings of the capture (‘el-hilaaqach, “with regard to the being taken away”) of the ark of God, and the death of her father-in-law and husband, she fell upon her knees and was delivered, for her pains had fallen upon her (lit. had turned against her), and died in consequence. Her death, however, was but a subordinate matter to the historian. He simply refers to it casually in the words, “and about the time of her death,” for the purpose of giving her last words, in which she gave utterance to her grief at the loss of the ark, as a matter of greater importance in relation to his object.

As she lay dying, the women who stood round sought to comfort her, by telling her that she had brought forth a son; but “she did not answer, and took no notice ( ble tWv = ble µWc , animum advertere ; cf. Ps 62:11), but called to the boy (i.e., named him), Ichabod dwObK; yai , no glory), saying, The glory of Israel is departed,” referring to the capture of the ark of God, and also to her father-in-law and husband. She then said again, “Gone hl,G, , wandered away, carried off) is the glory of Israel, for the ark of God is taken.” The repetition of these words shows how deeply the wife of the godless Phinehas had taken to heart the carrying off of the ark, and how in her estimation the glory of Israel had departed with it. Israel could not be brought lower. With the surrender of the earthly throne of His glory, the Lord appeared to have abolished His covenant of grace with Israel; for the ark, with the tables of the law and the capporeth, was the visible pledge of the covenant of grace which Jehovah had made with Israel.

HUMILIATION OF THE PHILISTINES BY MEANS OF THE ARK OF THE COVENANT.

Whilst the Israelites were mourning over the loss of the ark of God, the Philistines were also to derive no pleasure from their booty, but rather to learn that the God of Israel, who had given up to them His greatest sanctuary to humble His own degenerate nation, was the only true God, beside Whom there were no other gods. Not only was the principal deity of the Philistines thrown down into the dust and dashed to pieces by the glory of Jehovah; but the Philistines themselves were so smitten, that their princes were compelled to send back the ark into the land of Israel, together with a trespass-offering, to appease the wrath of God, which pressed so heavily upon them.

1 SAMUEL. 5:1-2

The Ark in the Land of the Philistines.

Vv. 1-6. The Philistines carried the ark from Ebenezer, where they had captured it, into their capital, Ashdod (Esdud; see at Josh 13:3), and placed it there in the temple of Dagon, by the side of the idol Dagon, evidently as a dedicatory offering to this god of theirs, by whose help they imagined that they had obtained the victory over both the Israelites and their God.

With regard to the image of Dagon, compounded of man and fish, i.e., of a human body, with head and hands, and a fish’s tail, see, in addition to Judg 16:23, Stark’s Gaza, pp. 248ff., 308ff., and Layard’s Nineveh and its Remains, pp. 466-7, where there is a bas-relief from Khorsabad, in which “a figure is seen swimming in the sea, with the upper part of the body resembling a bearded man, wearing the ordinary conical tiara of royalty, adorned with elephants’ tusks, and the lower part resembling the body of a fish. It has the hand lifted up, as if in astonishment or fear, and is surrounded by fishes, crabs, and other marine animals” (Stark, p. 308). As this bas-relief represents, according to Layard, the war of an Assyrian king with the inhabitants of the coast of Syria, most probably of Sargon, who had to carry on a long conflict with the Philistian towns, more especially with Ashdod, there can hardly be any doubt that we have a representation of the Philistian Dagon here. This deity was a personification of the generative and vivifying principle of nature, for which the fish with its innumerable multiplication was specially adapted, and set forth the idea of the giver of all earthly good.

1 SAMUEL. 5:3

The next morning the Ashdodites found Dagon lying on his face upon the ground before the ark of Jehovah, and restored him to his place again, evidently supposing that the idol had fallen or been thrown down by some accident.

1 SAMUEL. 5:4-5

But they were obliged to give up this notion when they found the god lying on his face upon the ground again the next morning in front of the ark of Jehovah, and in fact broken to pieces, so that Dagon’s head and the two hollow hands of his arms lay severed upon the threshold, and nothing was left but the trunk of the fish ˆwOgD; ). The word Dagon, in this last clause, is used in an appellative sense, viz., the fishy part, or fish’s shape, from gD; , a fish. ˆT;p]mi is no doubt the threshold of the door of the recess in which the image was set up. We cannot infer from this, however, as Thenius has done, that with the small dimensions of the recesses in the ancient temples, if the image fell forward, the pieces named might easily fall upon the threshold. This naturalistic interpretation of the miracle is not only proved to be untenable by the word træK; , since kaaruwt means cut off, and not broken off, but is also precluded by the improbability, not to say impossibility, of the thing itself. For if the image of Dagon, which was standing by the side of the ark, was thrown down towards the ark, so as to lie upon its face in front of it, the pieces that were broken off, viz., the head and hands, could not have fallen sideways, so as to lie upon the threshold. Even the first fall of the image of Dagon was a miracle. From the fact that their god Dagon lay upon its face before the ark of Jehovah, i.e., lay prostrate upon the earth, as though worshipping before the God of Israel, the Philistines were to learn, that even their supreme deity had been obliged to fall down before the majesty of Jehovah, the God of the Israelites. But as they did not discern the meaning of this miraculous sign, the second miracle was to show them the annihilation of their idol through the God of Israel, in such a way as to preclude every thought of accident. The disgrace attending the annihilation of their idol was probably to be heightened by the fact, that the pieces of Dagon that were smitten off were lying upon the threshold, inasmuch as what lay upon the threshold was easily trodden upon by any one who entered the house. This is intimated in the custom referred to in v. 5, that in consequence of this occurrence, the priests of Dagon, and all who entered the temple of Dagon at Ashdod, down to the time of the historian himself, would not step upon the threshold of Dagon, i.e., the threshold where Dagon’s head and hands had lain, but stepped over the threshold (not “leaped over,” as many commentators assume on the ground of Zeph 1:5, which has nothing to do with the matter), that they might not touch with their feet, and so defile, the place where the pieces of their god had lain.

1 SAMUEL. 5:6

The visitation of God was not restricted to the demolition of the statue of Dagon, but affected the people of Ashdod as well. “The hand of Jehovah was heavy upon the Ashdodites, and laid them waste.” heesheem, from µmev; , when applied to men, as in Mic 6:13, signifies to make desolate not only by diseases, but also by the withdrawal or diminution of the means of subsistence, the devastation of the fields, and such like. That the latter is included here, is evident from the dedicatory offerings with which the Philistines sought to mitigate the wrath of the God of the Israelites (1 Sam 6:4-5,11,18), although the verse before us simply mentions the diseases with which God visited them. f10 “And He smote them with `aapaaliym, i.e., boils:” according to the Rabbins, swellings on the anus, mariscae (see at Deut 28:27). For `plym the Masoretes have invariably substituted E¦choriym, which is used in 1 Sam 6:11,17, and was probably regarded as more decorous. Ashdod is a more precise definition of the word them, viz., Ashdod, i.e., the inhabitants of Ashdod and its territory.

1 SAMUEL. 5:7-8

“When the Ashdodites saw that it was so,” they were unwilling to keep the ark of the God of Israel any longer, because the hand of Jehovah lay heavy upon them and their god Dagon; whereupon the princes of the Philistines ˆr,s, , as in Josh 13:3, etc.) assembled together, and came to the resolution to “let the ark of the God of Israel turn (i.e., be taken) to Gath” (v. 8). The princes of the Philistines probably imagined that the calamity which the Ashdodites attributed to the ark of God, either did not proceed from the ark, i.e., from the God of Israel, or if actually connected with the presence of the ark, simply arose from the fact that the city itself was hateful to the God of the Israelites, or that the Dagon of Ashdod was weaker than the Jehovah of Israel: they therefore resolved to let the ark be taken to Gath in order to pacify the Ashdodites. According to our account, the city of Gath seems to have stood between Ashdod and Akron (see at Josh 13:3).

1 SAMUEL. 5:9

But when the ark was brought to Gath, the hand of Jehovah came upon that city also with very great alarm. lwOdG; hm;Whm] is subordinated to the main sentence either adverbially or in the accusative. Jehovah smote the people of the city, small and great, so that boils broke out upon their hinder parts.

1 SAMUEL. 5:10-12

They therefore sent the ark of God to Ekron, i.e., Akir, the north-western city of the Philistines (see at Josh 13:3). But the Ekronites, who had been informed of what had taken place in Ashdod and Gath, cried out, when the ark came into their city, “They have brought the ark of the God of Israel to me, to slay me and my people” (these words are to be regarded as spoken by the whole town); and they said to all the princes of the Philistines whom they had called together, “Send away the ark of the God of Israel, that it may return to its place, and not slay me and my people. For deadly alarm tw,m; hm;Whm] , confusion of death, i.e., alarm produced by many sudden deaths) ruled in the whole city; very heavy was the hand of God there. The people who did not die were smitten with boils, and the cry of the city ascended to heaven.” From this description, which simply indicates briefly the particulars of the plagues that God inflicted upon Ekron, we may see very clearly that Ekron was visited even more severely than Ashdod and Gath. This was naturally the case. The longer the Philistines resisted and refused to recognise the chastening hand of the living God in the plagues inflicted upon them, the more severely would they necessarily be punished, that they might be brought at last to see that the God of Israel, whose sanctuary they still wanted to keep as a trophy of their victory over that nation, was the omnipotent God, who was able to destroy His foes.

1 SAMUEL. 6:1-3

The Ark of God Sent Back.

The ark of Jehovah was in the land (lit. the fields, as in Ruth 1:2) of the Philistines for seven months, and had brought destruction to all the towns to which it had been taken. At length the Philistines resolved to send it back to the Israelites, and therefore called their priests and diviners (see at Num 23:23) to ask them, “What shall we do with regard to the ark of God; tell us, with what shall we send it to its place?” “Its place” is the land of Israel, and hm; does not mean “in what manner” (quomodo: Vulgate, Thenius), but with what, wherewith (as in Mic 6:6). There is no force in the objection brought by Thenius, that if the question had implied with what presents, the priests would not have answered, “Do not send it without a present;” for the priests did not confine themselves to this answer, in which they gave a general assent, but proceeded at once to define the present more minutely.

They replied, “If they send away the ark of the God of Israel jlæv; is to be taken as the third person in an indefinite address, as in 1 Sam 2:24, and not to be construed with hT;aæ supplied), do not send it away empty (i.e., without an expiatory offering), but return Him (i.e., the God of Israel) a trespass-offering.” µv;a; , lit. guilt, then the gift presented as compensation for a fault, the trespass-offering (see at Lev. 5:14-26). The gifts appointed by the Philistines as an asham were to serve as a compensation and satisfaction to be rendered to the God of Israel for the robbery committed upon Him by the removal of the ark of the covenant, and were therefore called asham, although in their nature they were only expiatory offerings. For the same reason the verb bWv , to return or repay, is used to denote the presentation of these gifts, being the technical expression for the payment of compensation for a fault in Num 5:7, and in Lev. 5:23 for compensation for anything belonging to another, that had been unjustly appropriated. “Are ye healed then, it will show you why His hand is not removed from you,” sc., so long as ye keep back the ark.

The words ap;r; za; are to be understood as conditional, even without µai , which the rules of the language allow (see Ewald, §357, b.); this is required by the context. For, according to v. 9, the Philistine priests still thought it a possible thing that any misfortune which had befallen the Philistines might be only an accidental circumstance. With this view, they could not look upon a cure as certain to result from the sending back of the ark, but only as possible; consequently they could only speak conditionally, and with this the words “we shall know” agree.

1 SAMUEL. 6:4-5

The trespass-offering was to correspond to the number of the princes of the Philistines. rp;s]mi is an accusative employed to determine either measure or number (see Ewald, §204, a.), lit., “the number of their princes:” the compensations were to be the same in number as the princes. “Five golden boils, and five golden mice,” i.e., according to v. 5, images resembling their boils, and the field-mice which overran the land; the same gifts, therefore, for them all, “for one plague is to all and to your princes,” i.e., the same plague has fallen upon all the people and their princes. The change of person in the two words, lKo , “all of them,” i.e., the whole nation of the Philistines, and ˆr,s, , “your princes,” appears very strange to us with our modes of thought and speech, but it is by no means unusual in Hebrew. The selection of this peculiar kind of expiatory present was quite in accordance with a custom, which was not only widely spread among the heathen but was even adopted in the Christian church, viz., that after recovery from an illness, or rescue from any danger or calamity, a representation of the member healed or the danger passed through was placed as an offering in the temple of the deity, to whom the person had prayed for deliverance; and it also perfectly agrees with a custom which has prevailed in India, according to Tavernier (Ros. A. u. N. Morgenland iii. p. 77), from time immemorial down to the present day, viz., that when a pilgrim takes a journey to a pagoda to be cured of a disease, he offers to the idol a present either in gold, silver, or copper, according to his ability, of the shape of the diseased or injured member, and then sings a hymn.

Such a present passed as a practical acknowledgement that the god had inflicted the suffering or evil. If offered after recovery or deliverance, it was a public expression of thanksgiving. In the case before us, however, in which it was offered before deliverance, the presentation of the images of the things with which they had been chastised was probably a kind of fine or compensation for the fault that had been committed against the Deity, to mitigate His wrath and obtain a deliverance from the evils with which they had been smitten.

This is contained in the words, “Give glory unto the God of Israel! peradventure He will lighten His (punishing) hand from off you, and from off your gods, and from off your land.” The expression is a pregnant one for “make His heavy hand light and withdraw it,” i.e., take away the punishment. In the allusion to the representations of the field-mice, the words “that devastate the land” are added, because in the description given of the plagues in ch. 5 the devastation of the land by mice is not expressly mentioned. The introduction of this clause after `rB;k][æ , when contrasted with the omission of any such explanation after `aap¦leeykem, is a proof that the plague of mice had not been described before, and therefore that the references made to these in the Septuagint at 1 Sam 5:3,6, and ch. 6:1, are nothing more than explanatory glosses. It is a well-known fact that field-mice, with their enormous rate of increase and their great voracity, do extraordinary damage to the fields. In southern lands they sometimes destroy entire harvests in a very short space of time (Aristot. Animal. vi. 37; Plin. h. n. x. c. 65; Strabo, iii. p. 165; Aelian, etc., in Bochart, Hieroz. ii. p. 429, ed. Ros.).

1 SAMUEL. 6:6

“Wherefore,” continued the priests, “will ye harden your heart, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? (Ex 7:13ff.) Was it not the case, that when He (Jehovah) had let out His power upon them ( B `llæ[; , as in Ex 10:2), they (the Egyptians) let them (the Israelites) go, and they departed?” There is nothing strange in this reference, on the part of the Philistian priests, to the hardening of the Egyptians, and its results, since the report of those occurrences had spread among all the neighbouring nations (see at 1 Sam 4:8). And the warning is not at variance with the fact that, according to v. 9, the priests still entertained some doubt whether the plagues really did come from Jehovah at all: for their doubts did not preclude the possibility of its being so; and even the possibility might be sufficient to make it seem advisable to do everything that could be done to mitigate the wrath of the God of the Israelites, of whom, under existing circumstances, the heathen stood not only no less, but even more, in dread, than of the wrath of their own gods.

1 SAMUEL. 6:7-9

Accordingly they arranged the sending back in such a manner as to manifest the reverence which ought to be shown to the God of Israel was a powerful deity (vv. 7-9). The Philistines were to take a new cart and make it ready `hc;[; ), and to yoke two milch cows to the cart upon which no yoke had ever come, and to take away their young ones (calves) from them into the house, i.e., into the stall, and then to put the ark upon the cart, along with the golden things to be presented as a trespass-offering, which were to be in a small chest by the side of the ark, and to send it (i.e., the ark) away, that it might go, viz., without the cows being either driven or guided. From the result of these arrangements, they were to learn whether the plague had been sent by the God of Israel, or had arisen accidentally. “If it (the ark) goeth up by the way to its border towards Bethshemesh, He (Jehovah) hath done us this great evil; but if not, we perceive that His hand hath not touched us.

It came to us by chance, i.e., the evil came upon us merely by accident. In `l[æ , ˆBe , and rjæaæ (v. 7), the masculine is used in the place of the more definite feminine, as being the more general form. This is frequently the case, and occurs again in vv. 10 and 12. zG;r]aæ , which only occurs again in vv. 8, 11, and 15, signifies, according to the context and the ancient versions, a chest or little case. The suffix to tae refers to the ark, which is also the subject to `hl;[; (v. 9). lWbG] , the territory of the ark, is the land of Israel, where it had its home. hr,q]mi is used adverbially: by chance, or accidentally. The new cart and the young cows, which had never worn a yoke, corresponded to the holiness of the ark of God. To place it upon an old cart, which had already been used for all kinds of earthly purposes, would have been an offence against the holy thing; and it would have been just the same to yoke to the cart animals that had already been used for drawing, and had had their strength impaired by the yoke (see Deut 21:3). The reason for selecting cows, however, instead of male oxen, was no doubt to be found in the further object which they hoped to attain. It was certainly to be expected, that if suckling cows, whose calves had been kept back from them, followed their own instincts, without any drivers, they would not go away, but would come back to their young ones in the stall.

And if the very opposite should take place, this would be a sure sign that they were driven and guided by a divine power, and in fact by the God whose ark they were to draw into His own land. From this they would be able to draw the conclusion, that the plagues which had fallen upon the Philistines were also sent by this God. There was no special sagacity in this advice of the priests; it was nothing more than a cleverly devised attempt to put the power of the God of the Israelites to the text, though they thereby unconsciously and against their will furnished the occasion for the living God to display His divine glory before those who did not know Him.

1 SAMUEL. 6:10-12

The God of Israel actually did what the idolatrous priests hardly considered possible. When the Philistines, in accordance with the advice given them by their priests, had placed the ark of the covenant and the expiatory gifts upon the cart to which the two cows were harnessed, “the cows went straight forward on the way to Bethshemesh; they went along a road going and lowing (i.e., lowing the whole time), and turned not to the right or to the left; and the princes of the Philistines went behind them to the territory of Bethshemesh.” Ër,D, rvæy; , lit., “they were straight in the way,” i.e., they went straight along the road. The form rvæy; for hn;r]væyyi is the imperf. Kal, third pers. plur. fem., with the preformative y instead of t , as in Gen 30:38 (see Ges. §47, Anm. 3; Ewald, §191, b.). Bethshemesh, the present Ainshems, was a priests’ city on the border of Judah and Dan (see at Josh 15:10).

1 SAMUEL. 6:13-14

The inhabitants of Bethshemesh were busy with the wheat-harvest in the valley (in front of the town), when they unexpectedly saw the ark of the covenant coming, and rejoiced to see it. The cart had arrived at the field of Joshua, a Bethshemeshite, and there it stood still before a large stone. And they (the inhabitants of Bethshemesh) chopped up the wood of the cart, and offered the cows to the Lord as a burnt-offering. In the meantime the Levites had taken off the ark, with the chest of golden presents, and placed it upon the large stone; and the people of Bethshemesh offered burntofferings and slain-offerings that day to the Lord. The princes of the Philistines stood looking at this, and then returned the same day to Ekron.

That the Bethshemeshites, and not the Philistines, are the subject to [qæB; , is evident from the correct interpretation of the clauses; viz., from the fact that in v. 14a the words from `hl;g;[ to lwOdG; ˆb,a, are circumstantial clauses introduced into the main clause, and that [qæB; is attached to ha;r; jmæc; , and carries on the principal clause.

1 SAMUEL. 6:15-18

V. 15a contains a supplementary remark, therefore dræy; is to be translated as a pluperfect. After sacrificing the cart, with the cows, as a burnt-offering to the Lord, the inhabitants of Bethshemesh gave a further practical expression to their joy at the return of the ark, by offering burnt-offerings and slain-offerings in praise of God. In the burnt-offerings they consecrated themselves afresh, with all their members, to the service of the Lord; and in the slain-offerings, which culminated in the sacrificial meals, they sealed anew their living fellowship with the Lord. The offering of these sacrifices at Bethshemesh was no offence against the commandment, to sacrifice to the Lord at the place of His sanctuary alone. The ark of the covenant was the throne of the gracious presence of God, before which the sacrifices were really offered at the tabernacle. The Lord had sanctified the ark afresh as the throne of His presence, by the miracle which He had wrought in bringing it back again.-In vv. 17 and 18 the different atoning presents, which the Philistines sent to Jehovah as compensation, are enumerated once more: viz., five golden boils, one for each of their five principal towns (see at Josh 13:3), and “golden mice, according to the number of all the Philistian towns of the five princes, from the fortified city to the village of the inhabitants of the level land” (perazi; see at Deut 3:5).

The priests had only proposed that five golden mice should be sent as compensation, as well as five boils (v. 4). But the Philistines offered as many images of mice as there were towns and villages in their five states, no doubt because the plague of mice had spread over the whole land, whereas the plague of boils had only fallen upon the inhabitants of those towns to which the ark of the covenant had come. In this way the apparent discrepancy between v. 4 and v. 18 is very simply removed. The words which follow, viz., wgw`l[æ jnæy; rv,a , “upon which they had set down the ark,” show unmistakeably, when compared with vv. 14 and 15, that we are to understand by lwOdG; lbea; the great stone upon which the ark was placed when it was taken off the cart. The conjecture of Kimchi, that this stone was called Abel (luctus), on account of the mourning which took place there (see v. 19), is extremely unnatural.

Consequently there is no other course left than to regard lb,ae as an error in writing for ˆb,a, , according to the reading, or at all events the rendering, adopted by the LXX and Targum. But `d[æ (even unto) is quite unsuitable here, as no further local definition is required after the foregoing yzir;p] rp,Ko `d[æ , and it is impossible to suppose that the Philistines offered a golden mouse as a trespass-offering for the great stone upon which the ark was placed. We must therefore alter `d[æ into `d[e : “And the great stone is witness (for `d[e in this sense, see Gen 31:52) to this day in the field of Joshua the Bethshemeshite,” sc., of the fact just described.

1 SAMUEL. 6:19-21

Disposal of the Ark of God.

As the ark had brought evil upon the Philistines, so the inhabitants of Bethshemesh were also to be taught that they could not stand in their unholiness before the holy God: “And He (God) smote among the men of Bethshemesh, because they had looked at the ark of Jehovah, and smote among the people seventy men, fifty thousand men.” In this statement of numbers we are not only struck by the fact that the 70 stands before the 50,000, which is very unusual, but even more by the omission of the copula w before the second number, which is altogether unparalleled. When, in addition to this, we notice that 50,000 men could not possibly live either in or round Bethshemesh, and that we cannot conceive of any extraordinary gathering having taken place out of the whole land, or even from the immediate neighbourhood; and also that the words vyai ãl,a, µyVimij are wanting in several Hebrew MSS, and that Josephus, in his account of the occurrence, only speaks of seventy as having been killed (Ant. vi. 1, 4); we cannot come to any other conclusion than that the number 50,000 is neither correct nor genuine, but a gloss which has crept into the text through some oversight, though it is of great antiquity, since the number stood in the text employed by the Septuagint and Chaldee translators, who attempted to explain them in two different ways, but both extremely forced.

Apart from this number, however, the verse does not contain anything either in form or substance that could furnish occasion for well-founded objections to its integrity. The repetition of hk;n; simply resumes the thought that had been broken off by the parenthetical clause yy ˆwOra; ha;r; yKi ; and `µ[æ is only a general expression for V awOB vyai . The stroke which fell upon the people of Bethshemesh is sufficiently accounted for in the words, “because they had looked,” etc. There is no necessity to understand these words, however, as many Rabbins do, as signifying “they looked into the ark,” i.e., opened it and looked in; for if this had been the meaning, the opening would certainly not have been passed over without notice. ha;r; with b means to look upon or at a thing with lust or malicious pleasure; and here it no doubt signifies a foolish staring, which was incompatible with the holiness of the ark of God, and was punished with death, according to the warning expressed in Num 4:20.

This severe judgment so alarmed the people of Bethshemesh, that they exclaimed, “Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God!”

Consequently the Bethshemeshites discerned correctly enough that the cause of the fatal stroke, which had fallen upon them, was the unholiness of their own nature, and not any special crime which had been committed by the persons slain. They felt that they were none of them any better than those who had fallen, and that sinners could not approach the holy God.

Inspired with this feeling, they added, “and to whom shall He go away from us?” The subject to `hl;[; is not the ark, but Jehovah who had chosen the ark as the dwelling-place of His name. In order to avert still further judgments, they sought to remove the ark from their town. They therefore sent messengers to Kirjath-jearim to announce to the inhabitants the fact that the ark had been sent back by the Philistines, and to entreat them to fetch it away.

1 SAMUEL. 7:1

The inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim complied with this request, and brought the ark into the house of Abinadab upon the height, and sanctified Abinadab’s son Eleazar to be the keeper of the ark. Kirjath-jearim, the present Kuryet el Enab (see at Josh 9:17), was neither a priestly nor a Levitical city. The reason why the ark was taken there, is to be sought for, therefore, in the situation of the town, i.e., in the fact that Kirjath-jearim was the nearest large town on the road from Bethshemesh to Shiloh. We have no definite information, however, as to the reason why it was not taken on to Shiloh, to be placed in the tabernacle, but was allowed to remain in the house of Abinadab at Kirjath-jearim, where a keeper was expressly appointed to take charge of it; so that we can only confine ourselves to conjectures. Ewald’s opinion (Gesch. ii. 540), that the Philistines had conquered Shiloh after the victory described in ch. 4, and had destroyed the ancient sanctuary there, i.e., the tabernacle, is at variance with the accounts given in 1 Sam 21:6; 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chron 1:3, respecting the continuance of worship in the tabernacle at Nob and Gibeon.

There is much more to be said in support of the conjecture, that the carrying away of the ark by the Philistines was regarded as a judgment upon the sanctuary, which had been desecrated by the reckless conduct of the sons of Eli, and consequently, that even when the ark itself was recovered, they would not take it back without an express declaration of the will of God, but were satisfied, as a temporary arrangement, to leave the ark in Kirjath-jearim, which was farther removed from the cities of the Philistines. And there it remained, because no declaration of the divine will followed respecting its removal into the tabernacle, and the tabernacle itself had to be removed from Shiloh to Nob, and eventually to Gibeon, until David had effected the conquest of the citadel of Zion, and chosen Jerusalem as his capital, when it was removed from Kirjath-jearim to Jerusalem (2 Sam 6). It is not stated that Abinadab was a Levites; but this is very probable, because otherwise they would hardly have consecrated his son to be the keeper of the ark, but would have chosen a Levite for the office. CONVERSION OF ISRAEL TO THE LORD BY SAMUEL. VICTORY OVER THE PHILISTINES.

SAMUEL AS JUDGE OF ISRAEL.

1 SAMUEL. 7:2-4

Purification of Israel from idolatry.

Twenty years passed away from that time forward, while the ark remained at Kirjath-jearim, and all Israel mourned after Jehovah. Then Samuel said to them, “If ye turn to the Lord with all your heart, put away the strange gods from the midst of you, and the Astartes, and direct your heart firmly upon the Lord, and serve Him only, that He may save you out of the hand of the Philistines.” And the Israelites listened to this appeal. The single clauses of vv. 2 and 3 are connected together by vav consec., and are not to be separated from one another. There is no gap between these verses; but they contain the same closely and logically connected thought, which may be arranged in one period in the following manner: “And it came to pass, when the days multiplied from the time that the ark remained at Kirjath-jearim, and grew to twenty years, and the whole house of Israel mourned after Jehovah, that Samuel said,” etc.

The verbs hb;r; , hy;h; , and hh;n; , are merely continuations of the infinitive bvæy; , and the main sentence is resumed in the words laeWmv] rmæa; . The contents of the verses require that the clauses should be combined in this manner. The statement that twenty years had passed can only be understood on the supposition that some kind of turning-point ensued at the close of that time. The complaining of the people after Jehovah was no such turning-point, but became one simply from the fact that this complaining was followed by some result. This result is described in v. 3. It consisted in the fact that Samuel exhorted the people to put away the strange gods (v. 3); and that when the people listened to his exhortation (v. 4), he helped them to gain a victory over the Philistines (vv. 5ff.). hh;n; , from hh;n; , to lament or complain (Micah. 1 Sam 2:4; Ezek 32:18). “The phrase, to lament after God, is taken from human affairs, when one person follows another with earnest solicitations and complaints, until he at length assents. We have an example of this in the Syrophenician woman in Matt 15.” (Seb. Schmidt). The meaning “to assemble together,” which is the one adopted by Gesenius, is forced upon the word from the Chaldee ‘it¦n¦hiy, and it cannot be shown that the word was ever used in this sense in Hebrew. Samuel’s appeal in v. 3 recalls to mind Josh 24:14, and Gen 35:2; but the words, “If ye do return unto the Lord with all your hearts,” assume that the turning of the people to the Lord their God had already inwardly commenced, and indeed, as the participle bWv expresses duration, had commenced as a permanent thing, and simply demand that the inward turning of the heart to God should be manifested outwardly as well, by the putting away of all their idols, and should thus be carried out to completion. The “strange gods” (see Gen 35:2) are described in v. 4 as “Baalim.” On Baalim and Ashtaroth, see at Judg 2:11,13. ble ˆWK, to direct the heart firmly: see Ps 78:8; 2 Chron 30:19.

1 SAMUEL. 7:5-14

Victory obtained over the Philistines through Samuel’s prayer.

When Israel had turned to the Lord with all its heart, and had put away all its idols, Samuel gathered together all the people at Mizpeh, to prepare them for fighting against the Philistines by a solemn day for penitence and prayer. For it is very evident that the object of calling all the people to Mizpeh was that the religious act performed there might serve as a consecration for battle, not only from the circumstance that, according to v. 7, when the Philistines heard of the meeting, they drew near to make war upon Israel, but also from the contents of v. 5: “Samuel said (sc., to the heads or representatives of the nation), Gather all Israel to Mizpeh, and I will pray for you unto the Lord.” His intention could not possibly have been any other than to put the people into the right relation to their God, and thus to prepare the way for their deliverance out of the bondage of the Philistines. Samuel appointed Mizpeh, i.e., Nebi Samwil, on the western boundary of the tribe of Benjamin (see at Josh 18:26), as the place of meeting, partly no doubt on historical grounds, viz., because it was there that the tribes had formerly held their consultations respecting the wickedness of the inhabitants of Gibeah, and had resolved to make war upon Benjamin (Judg 20:1ff.), but still more no doubt, because Mizpeh, on the western border of the mountains, was the most suitable place for commencing the conflict with the Philistines. Verse 6-9. When they had assembled together here, “they drew water and poured it out before Jehovah, and fasted on that day, and said there, We have sinned against the Lord.” Drawing water and pouring it out before Jehovah was a symbolical act, which has been thus correctly explained by the Chaldee, on the whole: “They poured out their heart like water in penitence before the Lord.” This is evident from the figurative expressions, “poured out like water,” in Ps 22:15, and “pour out thy heart like water,” in Lam 2:19, which are used to denote inward dissolution through pain, misery, and distress (see 2 Sam 14:14). Hence the pouring out of water before God was a symbolical representation of the temporal and spiritual distress in which they were at the time-a practical confession before God, “Behold, we are before Thee like water that has been poured out;” and as it was their own sin and rebellion against God that had brought this distress upon them, it was at the same time a confession of their misery, and an act of the deepest humiliation before the Lord. They gave a still further practical expression to this humiliation by fasting µWx ), as a sign of their inward distress of mind on account of their sin, and an oral confession of their sin against the Lord. By the word µv; , which is added to rmæa; , “they said “there,” i.e., at Mizpeh, the oral confession of their sin is formally separated from the two symbolical acts of humiliation before God, though by this very separation it is practically placed on a par with them.

What they did symbolically by the pouring out of water and fasting, they explained and confirmed by their verbal confession. µv; is never an adverb of time signifying “then;” neither in Ps 14:5; 132:17, nor Judg 5:11. “And thus Samuel judged the children of Israel at Mizpeh.” fpæv; does not mean “he became judge” (Mich. and others), any more than “he punished every one according to his iniquity” (Thenius, after David Kimchi). Judging the people neither consisted in a censure pronounced by Samuel afterwards, nor in absolution granted to the penitent after they had made a confession of their sin, but in the fact that Samuel summoned the nation to Mizpeh to humble itself before Jehovah, and there secured for it, through his intercession, the forgiveness of its sin, and a renewal of the favour of its God, and thus restored the proper relation between Israel and its God, so that the Lord could proceed to vindicate His people’s rights against their foes.

When the Philistines heard of the gathering of the Israelites at Mizpeh (vv. 7, 8), their princes went up against Israel to make war upon it; and the Israelites, in their fear of the Philistines, entreated Samuel, “Do not cease to cry for us to the Lord our God, that He may save us out of the hand of the Philistines.” V. 9. “And Samuel took a milk-lamb (a lamb that was still sucking, probably, according to Lev 22:27, a lamb seven days old), and offered it whole as a burnt-offering to the Lord.” lyliK; is used adverbially, according to its original meaning as an adverb, “whole.” The Chaldee has not given the word at all, probably because the translators regarded it as pleonastic, since every burnt-offering was consumed upon the altar whole, and consequently the word lyliK; was sometimes used in a substantive sense, as synonymous with `hl;[o (Deut. 33:10; Ps. 51:21). But in the passage before us, lyliK; is not synonymous with `hl;[o , but simply affirms that the lamb was offered upon the altar without being cut up or divided.

Samuel selected a young lamb for the burnt-offering, not “as being the purest and most innocent kind of sacrificial animal,”-for it cannot possibly be shown that very young animals were regarded as purer than those that were full-grown-but as being the most suitable to represent the nation that had wakened up to new life through its conversion to the Lord, and was, as it were, new-born. For the burnt-offering represented the man, who consecrated therein his life and labour to the Lord. The sacrifice was the substratum for prayer. When Samuel offered it, he cried to the Lord for the children of Israel; and the Lord “answered,” i.e., granted, his prayer.

Verse 10. When the Philistines advanced during the offering of the sacrifice to fight against Israel, “Jehovah thundered with a great noise,” i.e., with loud peals, against the Philistines, and threw them into confusion, so that they were smitten before Israel. The thunder, which alarmed the Philistines and threw them into confusion µmæh; , as in Josh 10:10), was the answer of God to Samuel’s crying to the Lord.

Verse 11. As soon as they took to flight, the Israelites advanced from Mizpeh, and pursued and smote them to below Beth-car. The situation of this town or locality, which is only mentioned here, has not yet been discovered. Josephus (Ant. vi. 2, 2) has me>cri KorraJi>wn .

Verse 12. As a memorial of this victory, Samuel placed a stone between Mizpeh and Shen, to which he gave the name of Eben-ha-ezer, i.e., stone of help, as a standing memorial that the Lord had thus far helped His people. The situation of Shen is also not known. The name Shen (i.e., tooth) seems to indicate a projecting point of rock (see 1 Sam 14:4), but may also signify a place situated upon such a point.

Verse 13. Through this victory which was obtained by the miraculous help of God, the Philistines were so humbled, that they no more invaded the territory of Israel, i.e., with lasting success, as they had done before. This limitation of the words “they came no more” (lit. “they did not add again to come into the border of Israel”), is implied in the context; for the words which immediately follow, “and the hand of Jehovah was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel,” show that they made attempts to recover their lost supremacy, but that so long as Samuel lived they were unable to effect anything against Israel. This is also manifest from the successful battles fought by Saul (ch. 13 and 14), when the Philistines had made fresh attempts to subjugate Israel during his reign. The defeats inflicted upon them by Saul also belong to the days of Samuel, who died but a very few years before Saul himself. Because of these battles which Saul fought with the Philistines, Lyra and Brentius understand the expression “all the days of Samuel” as referring not to the lifetime of Samuel, but simply to the duration of his official life as judge, viz., till the commencement of Saul’s reign. But this is at variance with v. 15, where Samuel is said to have judged Israel all the days of his life. Seb. Schmidt has given, on the whole, the correct explanation of v. 13: “They came no more so as to obtain a victory and subdue the Israelites as before; yet they did return, so that the hand of the Lord was against them, i.e., so that they were repulsed with great slaughter, although they were not actually expelled, or the Israelites delivered from tribute and the presence of military garrisons, and that all the days that the judicial life of Samuel lasted, in fact all his life, since they were also smitten by Saul.”

Verse 14. In consequence of the defeat at Ebenezer, the Philistines were obliged to restore to the Israelites the cities which they had taken from them, “from Ekron to Gath.” This definition of the limits is probably to be understood as exclusive, i.e., as signifying that the Israelites received back their cities up to the very borders of the Philistines, measuring these borders from Ekron to Gath, and not that the Israelites received Ekron and Gath also. For although these chief cities of the Philistines had been allotted to the tribes of Judah and Dan in the time of Joshua (Josh 13:3-4; 15:45-46), yet, notwithstanding the fact that Judah and Simeon conquered Ekron, together with Gaza and Askelon, after the death of Joshua (Judg 1:18), the Israelites did not obtain any permanent possession. “And their territory” (coasts), i.e., the territory of the towns that were given back to Israel, not that of Ekron and Gath, “did Israel deliver out of the hands of the Philistines. And there was peace between Israel and the Amorites;” i.e., the Canaanitish tribes also kept peace with Israel after this victory of the Israelites over the Philistines, and during the time of Samuel. The Amorites are mentioned, as in Josh 10:6, as being the most powerful of the Canaanitish tribes, who had forced the Danites out of the plain into the mountains (Judg 1:34-35).

1 SAMUEL. 7:15-17

Samuel’s judicial labours.

With the calling of the people to Mizpeh, and the victory at Ebenezer that had been obtained through his prayer, Samuel had assumed the government of the whole nation; so that his office as judge dates from his period, although he had laboured as prophet among the people from the death of Eli, and had thereby prepared the way for the conversion of Israel to the Lord. As his prophetic labours were described in general terms in 1 Sam 3:19-21, so are his labours as judge in the verses before us: viz., in v. their duration-”all the days of his life,” as his activity during Saul’s reign and the anointing of David (ch. 15-16) sufficiently prove; and then in vv. 16, 17 their general character- “he went round from year to year” bbæs; serves as a more precise definition of Ëlæh; , he went and travelled round) to Bethel, i.e., Beitin (see at Josh 7:2), Gilgal, and Mizpeh (see at. v. 5), and judged Israel at all these places.

Which Gilgal is meant, whether the one situated in the valley of the Jordan (Josh 4:19), or the Jiljilia on the higher ground to the south-west of Shiloh (see at Josh 8:35), cannot be determined with perfect certainty. The latter is favoured partly by the order in which the three places visited by Samuel on his circuits occur, since according to this he probably went first of all from Ramah to Bethel, which was to the north-east, then farther north or north-west to Jiljilia, and then turning back went towards the south-east to Mizpeh, and returning thence to Ramah performed a complete circuit; whereas, if the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan had been the place referred to, we should expect him to go there first of all from Ramah, and then towards the north-east to Bethel, and from that to the south-west to Mizpeh; and partly also by the circumstance that, according to 2 Kings 2:1 and 4:38, there was a school of the prophets at Jiljilia in the time of Elijah and Elisha, the founding of which probably dated as far back as the days of Samuel. If this conjecture were really a well-founded one, it would furnish a strong proof that it was in this place, and not in the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan, that Samuel judged the people.

But as this conjecture cannot be raised into a certainty, the evidence in favour of Jiljilia is not so conclusive as I myself formerly supposed (see also the remarks on 1 Sam 9:14). twOmwOqM]hæAlK; tae is grammatically considered an accusative, and is in apposition to laer;c]yiAta, , lit., Israel, viz., all the places named, i.e., Israel which inhabited all these places, and was to be found there. “And this return was to Ramah;” i.e., after finishing the annual circuit he returned to Ramah, where he had his house. There he judged Israel, and also built an altar to conduct the religious affairs of the nation. Up to the death of Eli, Samuel lived and laboured at Shiloh (1 Sam 3:21). But when the ark was carried away by the Philistines, and consequently the tabernacle at Shiloh lost what was most essential to it as a sanctuary, and ceased at once to be the scene of the gracious presence of God, Samuel went to his native town Ramah, and there built an altar as the place of sacrifice for Jehovah, who had manifested himself to him. The building of the altar at Ramah would naturally be suggested to the prophet by these extraordinary circumstances, even if it had not been expressly commanded by Jehovah.

II. THE MONARCHY OF SAUL FROM HIS ELECTION TILL HIS ULTIMATE REJECTION.

The earthly monarchy in Israel was established in the time of Samuel, and through his mediation. At the pressing desire of the people, Samuel installed the Benjaminite Saul as king, according to the command of God.

The reign of Saul may be divided into two essentially different periods: viz., (1) the establishment and vigorous development of his regal supremacy (ch. 8-15); (2) the decline and gradual overthrow of his monarchy (ch. 16-31). The establishment of the monarchy is introduced by the negotiations of the elders of Israel with Samuel concerning the appointment of a king (ch. 8).

This is followed by (1) the account of the anointing of Saul as king (1 Sam 9:1-10:16), of his election by lot, and of his victory over the Ammonites and the confirmation of his monarchy at Gilgal (1 Sam 10:17-11:15), together with Samuel’s final address to the nation (ch. 12); (2) the history of Saul’s reign, of which only his earliest victories over the Philistines are given at all elaborately (1 Sam 13:1-14:46), his other wars and family history being disposed of very summarily (1 Sam 14:47-52); (3) the account of his disobedience to the command of God in the war against the Amalekites, and the rejection on the part of God with which Samuel threatened him in consequence (ch. 15). The brevity with which the history of his actual reign is treated, in contrast with the elaborate account of his election and confirmation as king, may be accounted for from the significance and importance of Saul’s monarchy in relation to the kingdom of God in Israel.

The people of Israel traced the cause of the oppression and distress, from which they had suffered more and more in the time of the judges, to the defects of their own political constitution. They wished to have a king, like all the heathen nations, to conduct their wars and conquer their enemies.

Now, although the desire to be ruled by a king, which had existed in the nation even from the time of Gideon, was not in itself at variance with the appointment of Israel as a kingdom of God, yet the motive which led the people to desire it was both wrong and hostile to God, since the source of all the evils and misfortunes from which Israel suffered was to be found in the apostasy of the nation from its God, and its coquetting with the gods of the heathen. Consequently their self-willed obstinacy in demanding a king, notwithstanding the warnings of Samuel, was an actual rejection of the sovereignty of Jehovah, since He had always manifested himself to His people as their king by delivering them out of the power of their foes, as soon as they returned to Him with simple penitence of heart.

Samuel pointed this out to the elders of Israel, when they laid their petition before him that he would choose them a king. But Jehovah fulfilled their desires. He directed Samuel to appoint them a king, who possessed all the qualifications that were necessary to secure for the nation what it looked for from a king, and who therefore might have established the monarchy in Israel as foreseen and foretold by Jehovah, if he had not presumed upon his own power, but had submitted humbly to the will of God as made known to him by the prophet. Saul, who was chosen from Benjamin, the smallest but yet the most warlike of all the tribes, a man in the full vigour of youth, and surpassing all the rest of the people in beauty of form as well as bodily strength, not only possessed “warlike bravery and talent, unbroken courage that could overcome opposition of every kind, a stedfast desire for the well-being of the nation in the face of its many and mighty foes, and zeal and pertinacity in the execution of his plans” (Ewald), but also a pious heart, and an earnest zeal for the maintenance of the provisions of the law, and the promotion of the religious life of the nation.

He would not commence the conflict with the Philistines until sacrifice had been offered (1 Sam 13:9ff.); in the midst of the hot pursuit of the foe he opposed the sin committed by the people in eating flesh with the blood (1 Sam 14:32-33); he banished the wizards and necromancers out of the land (1 Sam 28:3,9); and in general he appears to have kept a strict watch over the observance of the Mosaic law in his kingdom. But the consciousness of his own power, coupled with the energy of his character, led his astray into an incautious disregard of the commands of God; his zeal in the prosecution of his plans hurried him on to reckless and violent measures; and success in his undertakings heightened his ambition into a haughty rebellion against the Lord, the God-king of Israel. These errors come out very conspicuously in the three great events of his reign which are the most circumstantially described.

When Saul was preparing for war against the Philistines, and Samuel did not appear at once on the day appointed, he presumptuously disregarded the prohibition of the prophet, and offered the sacrifice himself without waiting for Samuel to arrive (1 Sam 13:7ff.). In the engagement with the Philistines, he attempted to force on the annihilation of the foe by pronouncing the ban upon any one in his army who should eat bread before the evening, or till he had avenged himself upon his foes. Consequently, he not only diminished the strength of the people, so that the overthrow of the enemy was not great, but he also prepared humiliation for himself, inasmuch as he was not able to carry out his vow (1 Sam 14:24ff.). But he sinned still more grievously in the war with the Amalekites, when he violated the express command of the Lord by only executing the ban upon that nation as far as he himself thought well, and thus by such utterly unpardonable conduct altogether renounced the obedience which he owed to the Lord his God (ch. 15). All these acts of transgression manifest an attempt to secure the unconditional gratification of his own self-will, and a growing disregard of the government of Jehovah in Israel; and the consequence of the whole was simply this, that Saul not only failed to accomplish that deliverance of the nation out of the power of its foes which the Israelites had anticipated from their king, and was unable to inflict any lasting humiliation upon the Philistines, but that he undermined the stability of his monarchy, and brought about his own rejection on the part of God.

From all this we may see very clearly, that the reason why the occurrences connected with the election of Saul as king as fully described on the one hand, and on the other only such incidents connected with his enterprises after he began to reign as served to bring out the faults and crimes of his monarchy, was, that Israel might learn from this, that royalty itself could never secure the salvation it expected, unless the occupant of the throne submitted altogether to the will of the Lord. Of the other acts of Saul, the wars with the different nations round about are only briefly mentioned, but with this remark, that he displayed his strength and gained the victory in whatever direction he turned (1 Sam 14:47), simply because this statement was sufficient to bring out the brighter side of his reign, inasmuch as this clearly showed that it might have been a source of blessing to the people of God, if the king had only studied how to govern his people in the power and according to the will of Jehovah. If we examine the history of Saul’s reign from this point of view, all the different points connected with it exhibit the greatest harmony.

Modern critics, however, have discovered irreconcilable contradictions in the history, simply because, instead of studying it for the purpose of fathoming the plan and purpose which lie at the foundation, they have entered upon the inquiry with a twofold assumption: viz., (1) that the government of Jehovah over Israel was only a subjective idea of the Israelitish nation, without any objective reality; and (2) that the human monarchy was irreconcilably opposed to the government of God.

Governed by these axioms, which are derived not from the Scriptures, but from the philosophical views of modern times, the critics have found it impossible to explain the different accounts in any other way than by the purely external hypothesis, that the history contained in this book has been compiled from two different sources, in one of which the establishment of the earthly monarchy was treated as a violation of the supremacy of God, whilst the other took a more favourable view. From the first source, ch. 8, 1 Sam 10:17-27,11-12, and 15 are said to have been derived; and ch. 9- 10:17, 13, and 14 from the second.

ISRAEL’S PRAYER FOR A KING. 1 SAMUEL 8.

As Samuel had appointed his sons as judges in his old age, and they had perverted justice, the elders of Israel entreated him to appoint them a king after the manner of all the nations (vv. 1-5). This desire not only displeased Samuel, but Jehovah also saw in it a rejection of His government; nevertheless He commanded the prophet to fulfil the desire of the people, but at the same time to set before them as a warning the prerogatives of a king (vv. 6-9). This answer from God, Samuel made known to the people, describing to them the prerogatives which the king would assume to himself above the rest of the people (vv. 10-18). As the people, however, persisted in their wish, Samuel promised them, according to the direction of God, that their wishes should be gratified (vv. 19-22).

1 SAMUEL. 8:1-5

Verse 1-2. The reason assigned for the appointment of Samuel’s sons as judges is his own advanced age. The inference which we might draw from this alone, namely, that they were simply to support their father in the administration of justice, and that Samuel had no intention of laying down his office, and still less of making the supreme office of judge hereditary in his family, is still more apparent from the fact that they were stationed as judges of the nation in Beersheba, which was on the southern border of Canaan (Judg 20:1, etc.; see at Gen 21:31). The sons are also mentioned again in 1 Chron 6:13, though the name of the elder has either been dropped out of the Masoretic text or has become corrupt.

Verse 3. The sons, however, did not walk in the ways of their father, but set their hearts upon gain, took bribes, and perverted justice, in opposition to the command of God (see Ex 23:6,8; Deut 16:19).

Verse 4-5. These circumstances (viz., Samuel’s age and the degeneracy of his sons) furnished the elders of Israel with the opportunity to apply to Samuel with this request: “Appoint us a king to judge us, as all the nations” (the heathen), sc., have kings. This request resembles so completely the law of the king in Deut 17:14 (observe, for example, the expression µyiwOGhæAlk;K] ), that the distinct allusion to it is unmistakeable.

The custom of expressly quoting the book of the law is met with for the first time in the writings of the period of the captivity. The elders simply desired what Jehovah had foretold through His servant Moses, as a thing that would take place in the future and for which He had even made provision.

1 SAMUEL. 8:6-8

Nevertheless “the thing displeased Samuel when they said,” etc. This serves to explain rb;d; , and precludes the supposition that Samuel’s displeasure had reference to what they had said concerning his own age and the conduct of his sons. At the same time, the reason why the petition for a king displeased the prophet, was not that he regarded the earthly monarchy as irreconcilable with the sovereignty of God, or even as untimely; for in both these cases he would not have entered into the question at all, but would simply have refused the request as ungodly or unseasonable. But “Samuel prayed to the Lord,” i.e., he laid the matter before the Lord in prayer, and the Lord said (v. 7): “Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee.” This clearly implies, that not only in Samuel’s opinion, but also according to the counsel of God, the time had really come for the establishment of the earthly sovereignty in Israel. In this respect the request of the elders for a king to reign over them was perfectly justifiable; and there is no reason to say, with Calvin, “they ought to have had regard to the times and conditions prescribed by God, and it would no doubt have come to pass that the regal power would have grown up in the nation. Although, therefore, it had not yet been established, they ought to have waited patiently for the time appointed by God, and not to have given way to their own reasons and counsels apart from the will of God.” For God had not only appointed no particular time for the establishment of the monarchy; but in the introduction to the law for the king, “When thou shalt say, I will set a king over me,” He had ceded the right to the representatives of the nation to deliberate upon the matter.

Nor did they err in this respect, that while Samuel was still living, it was not the proper time to make use of the permission that they had received; for they assigned as the reason for their application, that Samuel had grown old: consequently they did not petition for a king instead of the prophet who had been appointed and so gloriously accredited by God, but simply that Samuel himself would give them a king in consideration of his own age, in order that when he should become feeble or die, they might have a judge and leader of the nation. Nevertheless the Lord declared, “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them. As they have always done from the day that I brought them up out of Egypt unto this day, that they have forsaken me and served other gods, so do they also unto thee.” This verdict on the part of God refers not so much to the desire expressed, as to the feelings from which it had sprung.

Externally regarded, the elders of Israel had a perfect right to present the request; the wrong was in their hearts. f13 They not only declared to the prophet their confidence in his administration of his office, but they implicitly declared him incapable of any further superintendence of their civil and political affairs. This mistrust was founded upon mistrust in the Lord and His guidance. In the person of Samuel they rejected the Lord and His rule. They wanted a king, because they imagined that Jehovah their God-king was not able to secure their constant prosperity. Instead of seeking for the cause of the misfortunes which had hitherto befallen them in their own sin and want of fidelity towards Jehovah, they searched for it in the faulty constitution of the nation itself. In such a state of mind as this, their desire for a king was a contempt and rejection of the kingly government of Jehovah, and was nothing more than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods. (See 1 Sam 10:18-19, and ch. 12:7ff., where Samuel points out to the people still more fully the wrong that they have committed.)

1 SAMUEL. 8:9

In order to show them wherein they were wrong, Samuel was instructed to bear witness against them, by proclaiming the right of the king who would rule over them. µyrit;a `dW[ `dW[ neither means “warn them earnestly” (De Wette), nor “explain and solemnly expound to them” (Thenius). B] `dW[ means to bear witness, or give testimony against a person, i.e., to point out to him his wrong. The following words, wgw T;d]Gæhiw] , are to be understood as explanatory, in the sense of “by proclaiming to them.” “The manner (mishpat) of the king” is the right or prerogative which the king would claim, namely, such a king as was possessed by all the other nations, and such an one as Israel desired in the place of its own God-king, i.e., a king who would rule over his people with arbitrary and absolute power.

1 SAMUEL. 8:10-18

In accordance with the instructions of God, Samuel told the people all the words of Jehovah, i.e., all that God had said to him, as related in vv. 7-9, and then proclaimed to them the right of the king.

Verse 11. “He will take your sons, and set them for himself upon his chariots, and upon his saddle-horses, and they will run before his chariot;” i.e., he will make the sons of the people his retainers at court, his charioteers, riders, and runners. The singular suffix attached to hb;K;r]m, is not to be altered, as Thenius suggests, into the plural form, according to the LXX, Chald., and Syr., since the word refers, not to war-chariots, but to the king’s state-carriage; and vr;p; does not mean a rider, but a saddlehorse, as in 2 Sam 1:6; 1 Kings 5:6, etc.

Verse 12. “And to make himself chiefs over thousands and over fifties;”- the greatest and smallest military officers are mentioned, instead of all the soldiers and officers (comp. Num 31:14; 2 Kings 1:9ff., with Ex 18:21,25). µWc is also dependent upon jqæl; (v. 11) “and to plough his field vyrij; , lit. the ploughed), and reap his harvest, and make his instruments of war and instruments of his chariots.”

Verse 13. “Your daughters he will take as preparers of ointments, cooks, and bakers,” sc., for his court.

Verse 14-17. All their possessions he would also take to himself: the good (i.e., the best) fields, vineyards, and olive-gardens, he would take away, and give to his servants; he would tithe the sowings and vineyards (i.e., the produce which they yielded), and give them to his courtiers and servants. syris; , lit. the eunuch; here it is used in a wider sense for the royal chamberlains. Even their slaves (men-servants and maid-servants) and their beasts of draught and burden he would take and use for his own work, and raise the tithe of the flock. The word rWjB; , between the slaves (menservants and maid-servants) and the asses, is very striking and altogether unsuitable; and in all probability it is only an ancient copyist’s error for µk,yreq]Bi , your oxen, as we may see from the LXX rendering, ta> bouko>lia . The servants and maids, oxen and asses, answer in that case to one another; whilst the young men are included among the sons in vv. 11, 12. In this way the king would make all the people into his servants or slaves. This is the meaning of the second clause of v. 17; for the whole are evidently summed up in conclusion in the expression, “and ye shall be his servants.”

Verse 18. Israel would then cry out to God because of its king, but the Lord would not hear it then. This description, which contains a fearful picture of the tyranny of the king, is drawn from the despotic conduct of the heathen kings, and does not presuppose, as many have maintained, the times of the later kings, which were so full of painful experiences.

1 SAMUEL. 8:19-20

With such a description of the “right of the king” as this, Samuel had pointed out to the elders the dangers connected with a monarchy in so alarming a manner, that they ought to have been brought to reflection, and to have desisted from their demand. “But the people refused to hearken to the voice of Samuel.” They repeated their demand, “We will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and conduct our battles.” 1 SAMUEL 8:21,22 These words of the people were laid by Samuel before the Lord, and the Lord commanded him to give the people a king. With this answer Samuel sent the men of Israel, i.e., the elders, away. This is implied in the words, “Go ye every man unto his city,” since we may easily supply from the context, “till I shall call you again, to appoint you the king you desire.”

ANOINTING OF SAUL AS KING.

1 SAMUEL. 9:1-10

When the Lord had instructed Samuel to appoint a king over the nation, in accordance with its own desire, He very speedily proceeded to show him the man whom He had chosen. Saul the Benjaminite came to Samuel, to consult him as a seer about his father’s she-asses, which had been lost, and for which he had been seeking in all directions in vain (1 Sam 9:1-14). And the Lord had already revealed to the prophet the day before, that He would send him the man who had been set apart by Him as the king of Israel; and when Samuel met with Saul, He pointed him out as the man to whom He had referred (vv. 15-17). Accordingly, Samuel invited Saul to be his guest at a sacrificial meal, which he was about to celebrate (vv. 18-24). After the meal he made known to him the purpose of God, anointed him as king (vv. 25-27; 1 Sam 10:1), and sent him away, with an announcement of three signs, which would serve to confirm his election on the part of God (1 Sam 10:2-16). This occurrence is related very circumstantially, to bring out distinctly the miraculous interposition of God, and to show that Saul did not aspire to the throne; and also that Samuel did not appoint of his own accord the man whom he was afterwards obliged to reject, but that Saul was elected by God to be king over His people, without any interference on the part of either Samuel or himself. f14 Saul searches for his father’s asses.

The elaborate genealogy of the Benjaminite Kish, and the minute description of the figure of his son Saul, are intended to indicate at the very outset the importance to which Saul attained in relation to the people of Israel, Kish was the son of Abiel: this is in harmony with 1 Sam 14:51. But when, on the other hand, it is stated in 1 Chron 8:33; 9:39, that Ner begat Kish, the difference may be reconciled in the simplest manner, on the assumption that the Ner mentioned there is not the father, but the grandfather, or a still more remote ancestor of Kish, as the intervening members are frequently passed over in the genealogies. The other ancestors of Kish are never mentioned again. lyijæ rwOBGi refers to Kish, and signifies not a brave man, but a man of property, as in Ruth 2:1. This son Saul (i.e., “prayed for:” for this meaning of the word, comp. 1 Sam 1:17,27) was “young and beautiful.” It is true that even at that time Saul had a son grown up (viz., Jonathan), according to 1 Sam 13:2; but still, in contrast with his father, he was “a young man,” i.e., in the full vigour of youth, probably about forty or forty-five years old. There is no necessity, therefore, to follow the Vulgate rendering electus. No one equalled him in beauty. “From his shoulder upwards he was higher than any of the people.”

Such a figure as this was well adapted to commend him to the people as their king (cf. 1 Sam 10:24), since size and beauty were highly valued in rulers, as signs of manly strength (see Herod. iii. 20, vii. 187; Aristot. Polit. iv. c. 24). Verse 3-5. Having been sent out by his father to search for his she-asses which had strayed, Saul went with his servant through the mountains of Ephraim, which ran southwards into the tribe-territory of Benjamin (see at 1 Sam 1:1), then through the land of Shalishah and the land of Shaalim, and after that through the land of Benjamin, without finding the asses; and at length, when he had reached the land of Zuph, he determined to return, because he was afraid that his father might turn his mind from the asses, and trouble himself about them (the son and servant). ˆmi ldej; , to desist from a thing, to give it up or renounce it.

As Saul started in any case from Gibeah of Benjamin, his own home (1 Sam 10:10ff., 26, 11:4; 15:34; 23:19; 26:1), i.e., the present Tuleil el Phul, which was an hour or an hour and a half to the north of Jerusalem (see at Josh 18:28), and went thence into the mountains of Ephraim, he no doubt took a north-westerly direction, so that he crossed the boundary of Benjamin somewhere between Bireh and Atarah, and passing through the crest of the mountains of Ephraim, on the west of Gophnah (Jifna), came out into the land of Shalishah. Shalishah is unquestionably the country round (or of) Baal- shalishah (2 Kings 4:42), which was situated, according to Eusebius (Onom. s.v. Baithsarisa’th: Beth-sarisa or Beth-salisa), in regione Thamnitica, fifteen Roman miles to the north of Diospolis (Lydda), and was therefore probably the country to the west of Jiljilia, where three different wadys run into one large wady, called Kurawa; and according to the probable conjecture of Thenius, it was from this fact that the district received the name of Shalishah, or Three-land. They proceeded thence in their search to the land of Shaalim: according to the Onom. (s.v.), “a village seven miles off, in finibus Eleutheropoleos contra occidentem.” But this is hardly correct, and is most likely connected with the mistake made in transposing the town of Samuel to the neighbourhood of Diospolis (see at 1 Sam 1:1).

For since they went on from Shaalim into the land of Benjamin, and then still further into the land of Zuph, on the south-west of Benjamin, they probably turned eastwards from Shalishah, into the country where we find Beni Mussah and Beni Salem marked upon Robinson’s and v. de Velde’s maps, and where we must therefore look for the land of Shaalim, that they might proceed thence to explore the land of Benjamin from the north-east to the south-west. If, on the contrary, they had gone from Shaalim in a southerly or south-westerly direction, to the district of Eleutheropolis, they would only have entered the land of Benjamin at the south-west corner, and would have had to go all the way back again in order to go thence to the land of Zuph. For we may infer with certainty that the land of Zuph was on the south-west of the tribe-territory of Benjamin, from the fact that, according to 1 Sam 10:2, Saul and his companion passed Rachel’s tomb on their return thence to their own home, and then came to the border of Benjamin. On the name Zuph, see at 1 Sam 1:1.

Verse 6. When Saul proposed to return home from the land of Zuph, his servant said to him, “Behold, in this city (‘this,’ referring to the town which stood in front of them upon a hill) is a man of God, much honoured; all that he saith cometh surely to pass: now we will go thither; perhaps he will tell us our way that we have to go” (lit. have gone, and still go, sc., to attain the object of our journey, viz., to find the asses). The name of this town is not mentioned either here or in the further course of this history.

Nearly all the commentators suppose it to have been Ramah, Samuel’s home. But this assumption has no foundation at all in the text, and is irreconcilable with the statements respecting the return in 1 Sam 10:2-5.

The servant did not say there dwells in this city, but there is in this city (v. 6; comp. with this v. 10, “They went into the city where the man of God was,” not “dwelt”).

It is still more evident, from the answer given by the drawers of water, when Saul asked them, “Is the seer here?” (v. 11)-viz., “He came to-day to the city, for the people have a great sacrifice upon the high place” (v. 12)- that the seer (Samuel) did not live in the town, but had only come thither to a sacrificial festival. Moreover, “every impartial man will admit, that the fact of Samuel’s having honoured Saul as his guest at the sacrificial meal of those who participated in the sacrifice, and of their having slept under the same roof, cannot possibly weaken the impression that Samuel was only there in his peculiar and official capacity. It could not be otherwise than that the presidency should be assigned to him at the feast itself as priest and prophet, and therefore that the appointments mentioned should proceed from him. And it is but natural to assume that he had a house at his command for any repetition of such sacrifices, which we find from 2 Kings 4 to have been the case in the history of Elisha” (Valentiner). And lastly, the sacrificial festival itself does not point to Ramah; for although Samuel had built an altar to the Lord at Ramah (1 Sam 7:17), this was by no means the only place of sacrifice in the nation. If Samuel offered sacrifice at Mizpeh and Gilgal (1 Sam 7:9; 10:8; 13:8ff.), he could also do the same at other places. What the town really was in which Saul met with him, cannot indeed be determined, since all that we can gather from 1 Sam 10:2, is, that it was situated on the south-west of Bethlehem.

Verse 7-8. Saul’s objection, that they had no present to bring to the man of God, as the bread was gone from their vessels, was met by the servant with the remark, that he had a quarter of a shekel which he would give.

Verse 9-10. Before proceeding with the further progress of the affair, the historian introduces a notice, which was required to throw light upon what follows; namely, that beforetime, if any one wished to inquire of God, i.e., to apply to a prophet for counsel from God upon any matter, it was customary in Israel to say, We will go to the seer, because “he that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer.” After this parenthetical remark, the account is continued in v. 10. Saul declared himself satisfied with the answer of the servant; and they both went into the town, to ask the man of God about the asses that were lost.

1 SAMUEL. 9:11-12

As they were going up to the high place of the town, they met maidens coming out of the town to draw water; and on asking them whether the seer was there, they received this answer: “Yes; behold, he is before thee: make haste, now, for he has come into the town to-day; for the people have a sacrifice to-day upon the high place.” Bamah (in the singular) does not mean the height or hill generally; but throughout it signifies the high place, as a place of sacrifice or prayer.

1 SAMUEL. 9:13

“When ye come into the city, ye will find him directly before he goes up to the high place to eat.” ˆKe not only introduces the apodosis, but corresponds to K, as, so: here, however, it is used with reference to time, in the sense of our “immediately.” “For the people are not accustomed to eat till he comes, for he blesses the sacrifice,” etc. Ërær; , like eulogei>n , refers to the thanksgiving prayer offered before the sacrificial meal. “Go now for him; yet will meet him even to-day.” The first tae is placed at the beginning for the sake of emphasis, and then repeated at the close. µwOy , “Even to-day.”

1 SAMUEL. 9:14-16

When they went into the town, Samuel met them on his way out to go to the high place of sacrifice. Before the meeting itself is described, the statement is introduced in vv. 15-17, that the day before Jehovah had foretold to Samuel that the man was coming to him whom he was to anoint as captain over his people. ˆz,aO hl,G, , to open any one’s ear, equivalent to reveal something to him (1 Sam 20:12; 2 Sam 7:27, etc.). jlæv; , I will send thee, i.e., “I will so direct his way in my overruling providence, that he shall come to thee” (J. H. Mich.). The words, “that he may save my people out of the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon my people, for their cry is come unto me,” are not at all at variance with 1 Sam 7:13. In that passage there is simply the assertion, that there was no more any permanent oppression on the part of the Philistines in the days of Samuel, such as had taken place before; but an attempt to recover their supremacy over Israel is not only not precluded, but is even indirectly affirmed (see the comm. on 1 Sam 7:13).

The words before us simply show that the Philistines had then begun to make a fresh attempt to contend for dominion over the Israelites. “I have looked upon my people:” this is to be explained like the similar passage in Ex 2:25, “God looked upon the children of Israel,” and Ex 3:7, “I have looked upon the misery of my people.” God’s looking was not a quiet, inactive looking on, but an energetic look, which brought help in trouble. “Their cry is come unto me:” this is word for word the same as in Ex 3:9.

As the Philistines wanted to tread in the footsteps of the Egyptians, it was necessary that Jehovah should also send His people a deliverer from these new oppressors, by giving them a king. The reason here assigned for the establishment of a monarchy is by no means at variance with the displeasure which God had expressed to Samuel at the desire of the people for a king (1 Sam 8:7ff.); since this displeasure had reference to the state of heart from which the desire had sprung.

1 SAMUEL. 9:17

When Samuel saw Saul, the Lord answered him, sc., in reply to the tacit inquiry, ‘Is this he?’ “Behold, this is the man of whom I spake to thee.” `rx;[; , coercere imperio.

1 SAMUEL. 9:18-24

The thread of the narrative, which was broken off in v. 15, is resumed in v. 18. Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and asked him for the seer’s house. The expression r[ævæ Ëw,T; is used to define more precisely the general phrase in v. 14, `ry[i Ëw,T; awOB; and there is no necessity to alter `ry[i in v. 14 into r[ævæ , as Thenius proposes, for `ry[i Ëw,T; awOB does not mean to go (or be) in the middle of the town, as he imagines, but to go into, or enter, the town; and the entrance to the town was through the gate.

Verse 19-21. Samuel replied, “I am the seer: go up before me to the high place, and eat with me to-day; and to-morrow I will send thee away, and make known to thee all that is in thy heart.” Letting a person go in front was a sign of great esteem. The change from the singular `hl;[; to the plural lkæa; may be explained on the ground that, whilst Samuel only spoke to Saul, he intended expressly to invite his servant to the meal as well as himself. “All that is in thine heart” does not mean “all that thou hast upon thy heart,” i.e., all that troubles thee, for Samuel relieved him of all anxiety about the asses at once by telling him that they were found; but simply the thoughts of thy heart generally. Samuel would make these known to him, to prove to him that he was a prophet. He then first of all satisfied him respecting the asses (v. 20): “As for the asses that were lost to thee to-day three days (three days ago), do not set thy heart upon them (i.e., do not trouble thyself about them), for they are found.” After this quieting announcement, by which he had convinced Saul of his seer’s gift, Samuel directed Saul’s thoughts to that higher thing which Jehovah had appointed for him: “And to whom does all that is worth desiring of Israel belong?

Is it not to thee, and to all thy father’s house? “The desire of Israel” (optima quaeque Israel , Vulg.; “the best in Israel,” Luther) is not all that Israel desires, but all that Israel possesses of what is precious or worth desiring (see Hag 2:7). “The antithesis here is between the asses and every desirable thing” (Seb. Schmidt). Notwithstanding the indefinite character of the words, they held up such glorious things as in prospect for Saul, that he replied in amazement (v. 21), “Am not I a Benjaminite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family is the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin ( nb fb,ve is unquestionably a copyist’s error for nb fb,ve ); and how speakest thou such a word to me?” Samuel made no reply to this, as he simply wanted first of all to awaken the expectation in Saul’s mind of things that he had never dreamt of before.

Verse 22. When they arrived at the high place, he conducted Saul and his servant into the cell (the apartment prepared for the sacrificial meal), and gave them (the servant as well as Saul, according to the simple customs of antiquity, as being also his guest) a place at the upper end among those who had been invited. There were about thirty persons present, no doubt the most distinguished men of the city, whilst the rest of the people probably encamped in the open air.

Verse 23-24. He then ordered the cook to bring the piece which he had directed him to set aside, and to place it before Saul, namely the leg and `l[æ (the article in the place of the relative; see Ewald, §331, b.); i.e., not what was over it, viz., the broth poured upon it (Dathe and Maurer), but what was attached to it (Luther). The reference, however, is not to the kidney as the choicest portion (Thenius), for the kidneys were burned upon the altar in the case of all the slain sacrifices (Lev 3:4), and only the flesh of the animals offered in sacrifice was applied to the sacrificial meal. What was attached to the leg, therefore, can only have been such of the fat upon the flesh as was not intended for the altar. Whether the right or left leg, is not stated: the earlier commentators decide in favour of the left, because the right leg fell to the share of the priests (Lev 7:32ff.). But as Samuel conducted the whole of the sacrificial ceremony, he may also have offered the sacrifice itself by virtue of his prophetic calling, so that the right leg would fall to his share, and he might have it reserved for his guest.

In any case, however, the leg, as the largest and best portion, was to be a piece of honour for Saul (see Gen 43:34). There is no reason to seek for any further symbolical meaning in it. The fact that it was Samuel’s intention to distinguish and honour Saul above all his other guests, is evident enough from what he said to Saul when the cook had brought the leg: “Behold, that which is reserved is set before thee µWc is the passive participle, as in Num 24:21); for unto this time hath it been kept for thee, as I said I have invited the people.” d[ewOm is either “to the appointed time of thy coming,” or possibly, “for the (this) meeting together.” Samuel mentions this to give Saul his guest to understand that he had foreseen his coming in a supernatural way. rmæa; , saying, i.e., as I said (to the cook).

1 SAMUEL. 9:25-27

When the sacrificial meal was over, Samuel and Saul went down from the high place into the town, and he (Samuel) talked with him upon the roof (of the house into which Samuel had entered). The flat roofs of the East were used as placed of retirement for private conversation (see at Deut 22:8). This conversation did not refer of course to the call of Samuel to the royal dignity, for that was not made known to him as a word of Jehovah till the following day (v. 27); but it was intended to prepare him for that announcement: so that O. v. Gerlach’s conjecture is probably the correct one, viz., that Samuel “talked with Saul concerning the deep religious and political degradation of the people of God, the oppression of the heathen, the causes of the inability of the Israelites to stand against these foes, the necessity for a conversion of the people, and the want of a leader who was entirely devoted to the Lord.” f15 Verse 26-27. “And they rose up early in the morning: namely, when the morning dawn arose, Samuel called to Saul upon the roof (i.e., he called from below within the house up to the roof, where Saul was probably sleeping upon the balcony; cf. 2 Kings 4:10), Get up, I will conduct thee.”

As soon as Saul had risen, “they both (both Samuel and Saul) went out (into the street).” And when they had gone down to the extremity of the town, Samuel said to Saul, “Let the servant pass on before us (and he did so), and do thou remain here for the present; I will show thee a word of God.”

1 SAMUEL. 10:1

Samuel then took the oil-flask, poured it upon his (Saul’s) head, kissed him, and said, “Hath not Jehovah (equivalent to ‘Jehovah assuredly hath’) anointed thee to be captain over His inheritance?” µwOlv; , as an expression of lively assurance, receives the force of an independent clause through the following yKi , “is it not so?” i.e., “yea, it is so, that,” etc., just as it does before µai in Gen 4:7. hl;jnæ , (His (Jehovah’s) possession, was the nation of Israel, which Jehovah had acquired as the people of His own possession through their deliverance out of Egypt (Deut 4:20; 9:26, etc.). Anointing with oil as a symbol of endowment with the Spirit of God; as the oil itself, by virtue of the strength which it gives to the vital spirits, was a symbol of the Spirit of God as the principle of divine and spiritual power (see at Lev 8:12). Hitherto there had been no other anointing among the people of God than that of the priests and sanctuary (Ex 30:23ff.; Lev 8:10ff.). When Saul, therefore, was consecrated as king by anointing, the monarchy was inaugurated as a divine institution, standing on a par with the priesthood; through which henceforth the Lord would also bestow upon His people the gifts of His Spirit for the building up of His kingdom.

As the priests were consecrated by anointing to be the media of the ethical blessings of divine grace for Israel, so the king was consecrated by anointing to be the vehicle and medium of all the blessings of grace which the Lord, as the God-king, would confer upon His people through the institution of a civil government. Through this anointing, which was performed by Samuel under the direction of God, the king was set apart from the rest of the nation as “anointed of the Lord” (cf. 1 Sam 12:3,5, etc.), and sanctified as the dygin; , i.e., its captain, its leader and commander.

Kissing was probably not a sign of homage or reverence towards the anointed of the Lord, so much as “a kiss of affection, with which the grace of God itself was sealed” (Seb. Schmidt). f

16 1 SAMUEL. 10:2-7

To confirm the consecration of Saul as king over Israel, which had been effected through the anointing, Samuel gave him three more signs which would occur on his journey home, and would be a pledge to him that Jehovah would accompany his undertakings with His divine help, and practically accredit him as His anointed. These signs, therefore, stand in the closest relation to the calling conveyed to Saul through his anointing.

Verse 2. The first sign: “When thou goest away from me to-day (i.e., now), thou wilst meet two men at Rachel’s sepulchre, on the border of Benjamin at Zelzah; and they will say unto thee, The asses of thy father, which thou wentest to seek, are found. Behold, they father hath given up twOntoa\h; yreb]DiAta, , the words (i.e., talking) about the asses, and troubleth himself about you, saying, What shall I do about my son?” According to Gen 35:16ff., Rachel’s sepulchre was on the way from Bethel to Bethlehem, only a short distance from the latter place, and therefore undoubtedly on the spot which tradition has assigned to it since the time of Jerome, viz., on the site of the Kubbet Rahil, half an hour to the north-west of Bethlehem, on the left of the road to Jerusalem, about an hour and a half from the city (see at Gen 35:20). This suits the passage before us very well, if we give up the groundless assumption that Saul came to Samuel at Ramah and was anointed by him there, and assume that the place of meeting, which is not more fully defined in ch. 9, was situated to the southwest of Bethlehem. f17 The expression “in the border of Benjamin” is not at variance with this. It is true that Kubbet Rahil is about an hour and a quarter from the southern boundary of Benjamin, which ran past the Rogel spring, through the valley of Ben-hinnom (Josh 18:16); but the expression hr;Wbq] `µ[i must not be so pressed as to be restricted to the actual site of the grave, since otherwise the further definition “at Zelzah” would be superfluous, as Rachel’s tomb was unquestionably a well-known locality at that time. If we suppose the place called Zelzah, the situation of which has not yet been discovered, f18 to have been about mid-way between Rachel’s tomb and the Rogel spring, Samuel could very well describe the spot where Saul would meet the two men in the way that he has done. This sign, by confirming the information which Samuel had given to Saul with reference to the asses, was to furnish him with a practical proof that what Samuel had said to him with regard to the monarchy would quite as certainly come to pass, and therefore not only to deliver him from all anxiety as to the lost animals of his father, but also to direct his thoughts to the higher destiny to which God had called him through Samuel’s anointing.

Verse 3-4. The second sign (vv. 3, 4): “Then thou shalt go on forward from thence, and thou shalt come to the terebinth of Tabor; and there shall meet thee there three men going up to God to Bethel, carrying one three kinds, one three loaves of bread, and one a bottle of wine. They will ask thee after thy welfare, and give thee two loaves; receive them at their hands.” The terebinth of Tabor is not mentioned anywhere else, and nothing further can be determined concerning it, than that it stood by the road leading from Rachel’s tomb to Gibeah. f19 The fact that the three men were going up to God at Bethel, shows that there was still a place of sacrifice consecrated to the Lord at Bethel, where Abraham and Jacob had erected altars to the Lord who had appeared to them there (Gen 12:8; 13:3-4; 28:18-19; 35:7); for the kids and loaves and wine were sacrificial gifts which they were about to offer. µwOlv; laæv; , to ask after one’s welfare, i.e., to greet in a friendly manner (cf. Judg 18:15; Gen 43:27). The meaning of this double sign consisted in the fact that these men gave Saul two loaves from their sacrificial offerings. In this he was to discern a homage paid to the anointed of the Lord; and he was therefore to accept the gift in this sense at their hand.

Verse 5, 6. The third sign (vv. 5, 6) Saul was to receive at Gibeah of God, where posts of the Philistines were stationed. Gibeath ha-Elohim is not an appellative, signifying a high place of God, i.e., a high place dedicated to God, but a proper name referring to Gibeah of Benjamin, the native place of Saul, which was called Gibeah of Saul from the time when Saul resided there as king (v. 16: cf. 1 Sam 11:4; 15:34; 2 Sam 21:6; Isa 10:29). This is very apparent from the fact that, according to vv. 10ff., all the people of Gibeah had known Saul of old, and therefore could not comprehend how he had all at once come to be among the prophets. The name Gibeah of God is here given to the town on account of a bamah or sacrificial height which rose within or near the town (v. 13), and which may possibly have been renowned above other such heights, as the seat of a society of prophets. yTiv]lip] byxin] are not bailiffs of the Philistines, still less columns erected as signs of their supremacy (Thenius), but military posts of the Philistines, as 1 Sam 13:3-4, and 2 Sam 8:6,14, clearly show.

The allusion here to the posts of the Philistines at Gibeah is connected with what was about to happen to Saul there. At the place where the Philistines, those severe oppressors of Israel, had set up military posts, the Spirit of God was to come upon Saul, and endow him with the divine power that was required for his regal office. “And it shall come to pass, when thou comest to the town there, thou wilt light upon a company of prophets coming down from the high place (bamah, the sacrificial height), before them lyre and tambourin, and flute, and harp, and they prophesying.” lb,j, signifies a rope or cord, then a band or company of men. It does not follow that because this band of prophets was coming down from the high place, the high place at Gibeah must have been the seat of a school of the prophets. They might have been upon a pilgrimage to Gibeah. The fact that they were preceded by musicians playing, seems to indicate a festal procession.

Nebel and Kinnor are stringed instruments which were used after David’s time in connection with the psalmody of divine worship (1 Chron 13:8; 15:20; Ps 33:2; 43:4, etc.). The nebel was an instrument resembling a lyre, the kinnor was more like a guitar than a harp. Toph: the tambourin, which was played by Miriam at the Red Sea (Ex 15:20). Chalil: the flute; see my Bibl. Archaeology, ii. §137. By the prophesying of these prophets we are to understand an ecstatic utterance of religious feelings to the praise of God, as in the case of the seventy elders in the time of Moses (Num 11:25). Whether it took the form of a song or of an enthusiastic discourse, cannot be determined; in any case it was connected with a very energetic action indicative of the highest state of mental excitement. (For further remarks on these societies of prophets, see at 1 Sam 19:18ff.)

Verse 6. “And the Spirit of Jehovah will come upon thee, and thou wilt prophesy with them, and be changed into another man.” “Ecstatic states,” says Tholuck (die Propheten, p. 53), “have something infectious about them. The excitement spreads involuntarily, as in the American revivals and the preaching mania in Sweden, even to persons in whose state of mind there is no affinity with anything of the kind.” But in the instance before us there was something more than psychical infection. The Spirit of Jehovah, which manifested itself in the prophesying of the prophets, was to pass over to Saul, so that he would prophesy along with them ab;n; formed like a verb hl for tabnth ; so again in v. 13), and was entirely to transform him. This transformation is not to be regarded indeed as regeneration in the Christian sense, but as a change resembling regeneration, which affected the entire disposition of mind, and by which Saul was lifted out of his former modes of thought and feeling, which were confined within a narrow earthly sphere, into the far higher sphere of his new royal calling, was filled with kingly thoughts in relation to the service of God, and received “another heart” (v. 9). Heart is used in the ordinary scriptural sense, as the centre of the whole mental and psychical life of will, desire, thought, perception, and feeling (see Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol. pp. 248ff., ed. 2).

Through this sign his anointing as king was to be inwardly sealed.

Verse 7. “When these signs are come unto thee (the Kethibh tb’ynh is to be read awOB, as in Ps 45:16 and Est 4:4; and the Keri awOB is a needless emendation), do to thee what thy hand findeth, i.e., act according to the circumstances (for this formula, see Judg 9:33); for God will be with thee.”

The occurrence of the signs mentioned was to assure him of the certainty that God would assist him in all that he undertook as king. The first opportunity for action was afforded him by the Ammonite Nahash, who besieged Jabesh-gilead (ch. 11).

1 SAMUEL. 10:8

In conclusion, Samuel gave him an important hint with regard to his future attitude: “And goest thou before me down to Gilgal; and, behold, I am coming down to thee, to offer burnt-offerings, and to sacrifice peaceofferings: thou shalt wait seven days, till I come to thee, that I may show thee what thou art to do.” The infinitive clause wgw `hl;[; is undoubtedly dependent upon the main clause dræy; , and not upon the circumstantial clause which is introduced as a parenthesis. The thought therefore is the following: If Saul went down to Gilgal to offer sacrifice there, he was to wait till Samuel arrived. The construction of the main clause itself, however, is doubtful, since, grammatically considered, dræy; can either be a continuation of the imperative `hc;[; (v. 7), or can be regarded as independent, and in fact conditional.

The latter view, according to which dræy; supposes his going down as a possible thing that may take place at a future time, is the one required by the circumstantial clause which follows, and which is introduced by hNehi ; for if dræy; were intended to be a continuation of the imperative which precedes it, so that Samuel commanded Saul to go down to Gilgal before him, he would have simply announced his coming, that is to say, he would either have said dræy; or dræy; ynæa . The circumstantial clause “and behold I am coming down to thee” evidently presupposes Saul’s going down as a possible occurrence, in the event of which Samuel prescribes the course he is to pursue. But the conditional interpretation of dræy; is still more decidedly required by the context. For instance, when Samuel said to Saul that after the occurrence of the three signs he was to do what came to his hand, he could hardly command him immediately afterwards to go to Gilgal, since the performance of what came to his hand might prevent him from going to Gilgal. If, however, Samuel meant that after Saul had finished what came to his hand he was to go down to Gilgal, he would have said, “And after thou hast done this, go down to Gilgal,” etc.

But as he does not express himself in this manner, he can only have referred to Saul’s going to Gilgal as an occurrence which, as he foresaw, would take place at some time or other. And to Saul himself this must not only have presented itself as a possible occurrence, but under the existing circumstances as one that was sure to take place; so that the whole thing was not so obscure to him as it is to us, who are only able to form our conclusions from the brief account which lies before us. If we suppose that in the conversation which Samuel had with Saul upon the roof (1 Sam 9:25), he also spoke about the manner in which the Philistines, who had pushed their outposts as far as Gibeah, could be successfully attacked, he might also have mentioned that Gilgal was the most suitable place for gathering an army together, and for making the necessary preparations for a successful engagement with their foes.

If we just glance at the events narrated in the following chapters, for the purpose of getting a clear idea of the thing which Samuel had in view; we find that the three signs announced by Samuel took place on Saul’s return to Gibeah (vv. 9-16). Samuel then summoned the people to Mizpeh, where Saul was elected king by lot (vv. 17-27); but Saul returned to Gibeah to his own house even after this solemn election, and was engaged in ploughing the field, when messengers came from Jabesh with the account of the siege of that town by the Ammonites. On receiving this intelligence the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, so that he summoned the whole nation with energy and without delay to come to battle, and proceeded to Jabesh with the assembled army, and smote the Ammonites (1 Sam 11:1-11).

Thereupon Samuel summoned the people to come to Gilgal and renew the monarchy there (1 Sam 11:12-15); and at the same time he renewed his office of supreme judge (ch. 12), so that now for the first time Saul actually commenced his reign, and began the war against the Philistines (1 Sam 13:1), in which, as soon as the latter advanced to Michmash with a powerful army after Jonathan’s victorious engagement, he summoned the people to Gilgal to battle, and after waiting there seven days for Samuel in vain, had the sacrifices offered, on which account as soon as Samuel arrived he announced to him that his rule would not last (1 Sam 13:13ff.).

Now, it cannot have been the first of these two gatherings at Gilgal that Samuel had in his mind, but must have been the second. The first is precluded by the simple fact that Samuel summoned the people to go to Gilgal for the purpose of renewing the monarchy; and therefore, as the words “come and let us go to Gilgal” (1 Sam 11:14) unquestionably imply, he must have gone thither himself along with the people and the king, so that Saul was never in a position to have to wait for Samuel’s arrival. The second occurrence at Gilgal, on the other hand, is clearly indicated in the words of 1 Sam 13:8, “Saul tarried seven days, according to the set time that Samuel had appointed,” in which there is almost an express allusion to the instructions given to Saul in the verse before us. But whilst we cannot but regard this as the only true explanation, we cannot agree with Seb.

Schmidt, who looks upon the instructions given to Saul in this verse as “a rule to be observed throughout the whole of Samuel’s life,” that is to say, who interprets dræy; in the sense of “as often as thou goest down to Gilgal.”

For this view cannot be grammatically sustained, although it is founded upon the correct idea, that Samuel’s instructions cannot have been intended as a solitary and arbitrary command, by which Saul was to be kept in a condition of dependence.

According to our explanation, however, this is not the case; but there was an inward necessity for them, so far as the government of Saul was concerned. Placed as he was by Jehovah as king over His people, for the purpose of rescuing them out of the power of those who were at that time its most dangerous foes, Saul was not at liberty to enter upon the war against these foes simply by his own will, but was directed to wait till Samuel, the accredited prophet of Jehovah, had completed the consecration through the offering of a solemn sacrifice, and had communicated to him the requisite instructions from God, even though he should have to wait for seven days. f

20 1 SAMUEL. 10:9-16

When Saul went away from Samuel, to return to Gibeah, “God changed to him another heart,”-a pregnant expression for “God changed him, and gave him another heart” (see at v. 6); and all these signs (the signs mentioned by Samuel) happened on that very day. As he left Samuel early in the morning, Saul could easily reach Gibeah in one day, even if the town where he had met with Samuel was situated to the south-west of Rachel’s tomb, as the distance from that tomb to Gibeah was not more than three and a half or four hours.

Verse 10. The third sign is the only one which is minutely described, because this caused a great sensation at Gibeah, Saul’s home. “And they (Saul and his attendant) came thither to Gibeah.” “Thither” points back to “thither to the city” in v. 5, and is defined by the further expression “to Gibeah” (Eng. version, “to the hill:” Tr.). The rendering e>keiqen (LXX) does not warrant us in changing µv; into µv; ; for the latter would be quite superfluous, as it was self-evident that they came to Gibeah from the place where they had been in the company of Samuel. Verse 11. When those who had known Saul of old saw that he prophesied with the prophets, the people said one to another, “What has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” This expression presupposes that Saul’s previous life was altogether different from that of the disciples of the prophets.

Verse 12. And one from thence (i.e., from Gibeah, or from the crowd that was gathered round the prophets) answered, “And who is their father?” i.e., not “who is their president?” which would be a very gratuitous question; but, “is their father a prophet then?” i.e., according to the explanation given by Oehler (Herzog’s Real. Enc. xii. p. 216), “have they the prophetic spirit by virtue of their birth?” Understood in this way, the retort forms a very appropriate “answer” to the expression of surprise and the inquiry, how it came to pass that Saul was among the prophets. If those prophets had not obtained the gift of prophecy by inheritance, but as a free gift of the Lord, it was equally possible for the Lord to communicate the same gift to Saul. On the other hand, the alteration of the text from ba; (their father) into ba; (his father), according to the LXX, Vulg., Syr., and Arab., which is favoured by Ewald, Thenius, and others, must be rejected, for the simple reason that the question, Who is his father? in the mouth of one of the inhabitants of Gibeah, to whom Saul’s father was so well known that they called Saul the son of Kish at once, would have no sense whatever. From this the proverb arose, “Is Saul also among the prophets?”-a proverb which was used to express astonishment at the appearance of any man in a sphere of life which had hitherto been altogether strange to him.

Verse 13-16. When Saul had left off prophesying, and came to Bamah, his uncle asked him and his attendant where they had been; and Saul told him, that as they had not found the asses anywhere, they had gone to Samuel, and had learned from him that the asses were found. But he did not relate the words which had been spoken by Samuel concerning the monarchy, from unambitious humility (cf. vv. 22, 23) and not because he was afraid of unbelief and envy, as Thenius follows Josephus in supposing. From the expression “he came to Bamah” (Eng. ver. “to the high place”), we must conclude, that not only Saul’s uncle, but his father also, lived in Bamah, as we find Saul immediately afterwards in his own family circle (see vv. 14ff.). SAUL ELECTED KING. HIS ELECTION CONFIRMED.

1 SAMUEL. 10:17-27

Saul’s Election by Lot.

After Samuel had secretly anointed Saul king by the command of God, it was his duty to make provision for a recognition of the man whom God had chosen on the part of the people also. To this end he summoned the people to Mizpeh, and there instructed the tribes to choose a king by lot.

As the result of the lot was regarded as a divine decision, not only was Saul to be accredited by this act in the sight of the whole nation as the king appointed by the Lord, but he himself was also to be more fully assured of the certainty of his own election on the part of God.— f21 Verse 17. `µ[æ is the nation in its heads and representatives. Samuel selected Mizpeh for this purpose, because it was there that he had once before obtained for the people, by prayer, a great victory over the Philistines (1 Sam 7:5ff.).

Verse 18-19. “But before proceeding to the election itself, Samuel once more charged the people with their sin in rejecting God, who had brought them out of Egypt, and delivered them out of the hand of all their oppressors, by their demand for a king, that he might show them how dangerous was the way which they were taking now, and how bitterly they would perhaps repent of what they had now desired” (O. v. Gerlach; see the commentary on ch. 8). The masculine xjæl; is construed ad sensum with hk;l;m]mæ . In wOl rmæa; the early translators have taken wOl] for alo , which is the actual reading in some of the Codices. But although this reading is decidedly favoured by the parallel passages, 1 Sam 8:19; 12:12, it is not necessary; since yKi is used to introduce a direct statement, even in a declaration of the opposite, in the sense of our “no but” (e.g., in Ruth 1:10, where wOl] precedes). There is, therefore, no reason for exchanging wOl] for alo .

Verse 20-21. After this warning, Samuel directed the assembled Israelites to come before Jehovah (i.e., before the altar of Jehovah which stood at Mizpeh, according to 1 Sam 7:9) according to their tribes and families (alaphim: see at Num 1:16); “and there was taken (by lot) the tribe of Benjamin.” dkeL;hii , lit. to be snatched out by Jehovah, namely, through the lot (see Josh 7:14,16). He then directed the tribe of Benjamin to draw near according to its families, i.e., he directed the heads of the families of this tribe to come before the altar of the Lord and draw lots; and the family of Matri was taken. Lastly, when the heads of the households in this family came, and after that the different individuals in the household which had been taken, the lot fell upon Saul the son of Kish. In the words, “Saul the son of Kish was taken,” the historian proceeds at once to the final result of the casting of the lots, without describing the intermediate steps any further. When the lot fell upon Saul, they sought him, and he could not be found.

Verse 22. Then they inquired of Jehovah, “Is any one else come hither?” and Jehovah replied, “Behold, he (whom ye are seeking) is hidden among the things.” The inquiry was made through the high priest, by means of the Urim and Thummim, for which hwO;hy] laæv; was the technical expression, according to Num 27:21 (see Judg 20:27-28; 1:1, etc.). There can be no doubt, that in a gathering of the people for so important a purpose as the election of a king, the high priest would also be present, even though this is not expressly stated. Samuel presided over the meeting as the prophet of the Lord. The answer given by God, “Behold, he is hidden,” etc., appears to have no relation to the question, “Is any one else come?” The Sept. and Vulg. have therefore altered the question into ei> e>ti e>rcetai oJ anh>r , utrumnam venturus esset; and Thenius would adopt this as an emendation.

But he is wrong in doing so; for there was no necessity to ask whether Saul would still come: they might at once have sent to fetch him. What they asked was rather, whether any one else had come besides those who were present, as Saul was not to be found among them, that they might know where they were to look for Saul, whether at home or anywhere else. And to this question God gave the answer, “He is present, only hidden among the things.” By yliK] (the things or vessels, Eng. ver. the stuff) we are to understand the travelling baggage of the people who had assembled at Mizpeh. Saul could neither have wished to avoid accepting the monarchy, nor have imagined that the lot would not fall upon him if he hid himself.

For he knew that God had chosen him; and Samuel had anointed him already. He did it therefore simply from humility and modesty. “In order that he might not appear to have either the hope or desire for anything of the kind, he preferred to be absent when the lots were cast” (Seb.

Schmidt).

Verse 23-25. He was speedily fetched, and brought into the midst of the (assembled) people; and when he came, he was a head taller than all the people (see 1 Sam 9:2). And Samuel said to all the people, “Behold ye whom the Lord hath chosen! for there is none like him in all the nation.”

Then all the people shouted aloud, and cried, “Let the king live!” Saul’s bodily stature won the favour of the people (see the remarks on 1 Sam 9:2).

Samuel then communicated to the people the right of the monarchy, and laid it down before Jehovah. “The right of the monarchy” (meluchah) is not to be identified with the right of the king (melech), which is described in Sam 8:11 and sets forth the right or prerogative which a despotic king would assume over the people; but it is the right which regulated the attitude of the earthly monarchy in the theocracy, and determined the duties and rights of the human king in relation to Jehovah the divine King on the one hand, and to the nation on the other. This right could only be laid down by a prophet like Samuel, to raise a wholesome barrier at the very outset against all excesses on the part of the king. Samuel therefore wrote it in a document which was laid down before Jehovah, i.e., in the sanctuary of Jehovah; though certainly not in the sanctuary at Bamah in Gibeah, as Thenius supposes, for nothing is known respecting any such sanctuary. It was no doubt placed in the tabernacle, where the law of Moses was also deposited, by the side of the fundamental law of the divine state in Israel. When the business was all completed, Samuel sent the people away to their own home.

Verse 26. Saul also returned to his house at Gibeah, and there went with him the crowd of the men whose hearts God had touched, sc., to give him a royal escort, and show their readiness to serve him. lyijæ is not to be altered into lyijæ ˆBe , according to the free rendering of the LXX, but is used as in Ex 14:28; with this difference, however, that here it does not signify a large military force, but a crowd of brave men, who formed Saul’s escort of honour.

Verse 27. But as it generally happens that, where a person is suddenly lifted up to exalted honours or office, there are sure to be envious people found, so was it here: there were l[æYæliB] ˆBe , worthless people, even among the assembled Israelites, who spoke disparagingly of Saul, saying, “How will this man help us?” and who brought him no present. Minchah: the present which from time immemorial every one has been expected to bring when entering the presence of the king; so that the refusal to bring a present was almost equivalent to rebellion. But Saul was “as being deaf,” i.e., he acted as if he had not heard. The objection which Thenius brings against this view, viz., that in that case it would read mk] hy;h; aWh , exhibits a want of acquaintance with the Hebrew construction of a sentence. There is no more reason for touching hy;h; than Ëlæh; in v. 26. In both cases the apodosis is attached to the protasis, which precedes it in the form of a circumstantial clause, by the imperfect, with vav consec. According to the genius of our language, these protases would be expressed by the conjunction when, viz.: “when Saul also went home,...there went with him,” etc.; and “when loose (or idle) people said, etc., he was as deaf.”

1 SAMUEL. 11:1-5

Saul’s Victory over the Ammonites.

Even after the election by lot at Mizpeh, Saul did not seize upon the reins of government at once, but returned to his father’s house in Gibeah, and to his former agricultural occupation; not, however, merely from personal humility and want of ambition, but rather from a correct estimate of the circumstances. The monarchy was something so new in Israel, that the king could not expect a general and voluntary recognition of his regal dignity and authority, especially after the conduct of the worthless people mentioned in 1 Sam 10:27, until he had answered their expectations from a king (1 Sam 8:6,20), and proved himself a deliverer of Israel from its foes by a victorious campaign. But as Jehovah had chosen him ruler over his people without any seeking on his part, he would wait for higher instructions to act, before he entered upon the government. The opportunity was soon given him.

Verse 1-5. Nahash, the king of the Ammonites (cf. 1 Sam 12:12; 2 Sam 10:2), attacked the tribes on the east of the Jordan, no doubt with the intention of enforcing the claim to part of Gilead asserted by his ancestor in the time of Jephthah (Judg 11:13), and besieged Jabesh in Gilead, f23 according to Josephus the metropolis of Gilead, and probably situated by the Wady Jabes (see at Judg 21:8); from which we may see that he must have penetrated very far into the territory of the Israelites. The inhabitants of Jabesh petitioned the Ammonites in their distress, “Make a covenant with us, and we will serve thee;” i.e., grant us favourable terms, and we will submit.

Verse 2. But Nahash replied, “On this condition tazO, lit. at this price, b pretii) will I make a covenant with you, that I may put out all your right eyes, and so bring a reproach upon all Israel.” From the fact that the infinitive hqæn; is continued with µWc , it is evident that the subject to hqæn; is Nahash, and not the Israelites, as the Syriac, Arabic, and others have rendered it. The suffix to µWc is neuter, and refers to the previous clause: “it,” i.e., the putting out of the right eye. This answer on the part of Nahash shows unmistakeably that he sought to avenge upon the people of Israel the shame of the defeat which Jephthah had inflicted upon the Ammonites.

Verse 3-4. The elders of Jabesh replied: “Leave us seven days, that we may send messengers into all the territory of Israel; and if there is no one who saves us, we will come out to thee,” i.e., will surrender to thee. This request was granted by Nahash, because he was not in a condition to take the town at once by storm, and also probably because, in the state of internal dissolution into which Israel had fallen at that time, he had no expectation that any vigorous help would come to the inhabitants of Jabesh. From the fact that the messengers were to be sent into all the territory of Israel, we may conclude that the Israelites had no central government at that time, and that neither Nahash nor the Jabeshites had heard anything of the election that had taken place; and this is still more apparent from the fact that, according to v. 4, their messengers came to Gibeah of Saul, and laid their business before the people generally, without applying at once to Saul.

Verse 5. Saul indeed did not hear of the matter will he came (returned home) from the field behind the oxen, and found the people weeping and lamenting at these mournful tidings. “Behind the oxen,” i.e., judging from the expression “yoke of oxen” in v. 7, the pair of oxen with which he had been ploughing.

1 SAMUEL. 11:6-11

When the report of the messengers had been communicated to him, “the Spirit of Jehovah came upon him, and his anger was kindled greatly,” sc., at the shame which the Ammonites had resolved to bring upon all Israel.

Verse 7. He took a yoke of oxen, cut them in pieces, and sent (the pieces) into every possession of Israel by messengers, and said, “Whoever cometh not forth after Saul and Samuel, so shall it be done unto his oxen.” The introduction of Samuel’s name after that of Saul, is a proof that Saul even as king still recognised the authority which Samuel possessed in Israel as the prophet of Jehovah. This symbolical act, like the cutting up of the woman in Judg 19:29, made a deep impression. “The fear of Jehovah fell upon the people, so that they went out as one man.” By “the fear of Jehovah” we are not to understand dei>ma paniko>n (Thenius and Böttcher), for Jehovah is not equivalent to Elohim, nor the fear of Jehovah in the sense of fear of His punishment, but a fear inspired by Jehovah. In Saul’s energetic appeal the people discerned the power of Jehovah, which inspired them with fear, and impelled them to immediate obedience.

Verse 8. Saul held a muster of the people of war, who had gathered together at (or near) Bezek, a place which was situated, according to the Onom. (s. v. Bezek), about seven hours to the north of Nabulus towards Beisan (see at Judg 1:4). The number assembled were 300,000 men of Israel, and 30,000 of Judah. These numbers will not appear too large, if we bear in mind that the allusion is not to a regular army, but that Saul had summoned all the people to a general levy. In the distinction drawn between the children of Judah and the children of Israel we may already discern a trace of that separation of Judah from the rest of the tribes, which eventually led to a formal secession on the part of the latter.

Verse 9. The messengers from Jabesh, who had been waiting to see the result of Saul’s appeal, were now despatched with this message to their fellow-citizens: “To-morrow you will have help, when the sun shines hot,” i.e., about noon.

Verse 10. After receiving these joyful news, the Jabeshites announced to the Ammonites: “To-morrow we will come out to you, and ye may do to us what seemeth good to you,”-an untruth by which they hoped to assure the besiegers, so that they might be fallen upon unexpectedly by the advancing army of Saul, and thoroughly beaten. Verse 11. The next day Saul arranged the people in three divisions varo , as in Judg 7:16), who forced their way into the camp of the foe from three different sides, in the morning watch (between three and six o’clock in the morning), smote the Ammonites “till the heat of the day,” and routed them so completely, that those who remained were all scattered, and there were not two men left together.

1 SAMUEL. 11:12-13

Renewal of the Monarchy.

Saul had so thoroughly acted the part of a king in gaining this victory, and the people were so enthusiastic in his favour, that they said to Samuel, viz., after their return from the battle, “Who is he that said, Saul should reign over us!” The clause `l[æ Ëlæm; lWav; contains a question, though it is indicated simply by the tone, and there is no necessity to alter lWav; into lWav;h\ . These words refer to the exclamation of the worthless people in Sam 10:27. “Bring the men (who spoke in this manner), that we may put them to death.” But Saul said, “There shall not a man be put to death this day; for to-day Jehovah hath wrought salvation in Israel;” and proved thereby not only his magnanimity, but also his genuine piety. f

24 1 SAMUEL. 11:14-15

Samuel turned this victory to account, by calling upon the people to go with him to Gilgal, and there renew the monarchy. In what the renewal consisted is not clearly stated; but it is simply recorded in v. 15 that “they (the whole people) made Saul king there before the Lord in Gilgal.” Many commentators have supposed that he was anointed afresh, and appeal to David’s second anointing (2 Sam 2:4 and 5:3). But David’s example merely proves as Seb. Schmidt has correctly observed, that the anointing could be repeated under certain circumstances; but it does not prove that it was repeated, or must have been repeated, in the case of Saul. If the ceremony of anointing had been performed, it would no doubt have been mentioned, just as it is in 2 Sam 2:4 and 5:3. But Ëlæm; does not mean “they anointed,” although the LXX have rendered it e>crise Samouh>l , according to their own subjective interpretation.

The renewal of the monarchy may very well have consisted in nothing more than a solemn confirmation of the election that had taken place at Mizpeh, in which Samuel once more laid before both king and people the right of the monarchy, receiving from both parties in the presence of the Lord the promise to observe this right, and sealing the vow by a solemn sacrifice. The only sacrifices mentioned are zebachim shelamim, i.e., peaceofferings.

These were thank-offerings, which were always connected with a sacrificial meal, and when presented on joyous occasions, formed a feast of rejoicing for those who took part, since the sacrificial meal shadowed forth a living and peaceful fellowship with the Lord. Gilgal is in all probability the place where Samuel judged the people every year (1 Sam 7:16). But whether it was the Gilgal in the plain of the Jordan, or Jiljilia on higher ground to the south-west of Shiloh, it is by no means easy to determine.

The latter is favoured, apart from the fact that Samuel did not say “Let us go down,” but simply “Let us go” (cf. 1 Sam 10:8), by the circumstance that the solemn ceremony took place after the return from the war at Jabesh; since it is hardly likely that the people would have gone down into the valley of the Jordan to Gilgal, whereas Jiljilia was close by the road from Jabesh to Gibeah and Ramah.

SAMUEL’S ADDRESS AT THE RENEWAL OF THE MONARCHY.

Samuel closed this solemn confirmation of Saul as king with an address to all Israel, in which he handed over the office of judge, which he had hitherto filled, to the king, who had been appointed by God and joyfully recognised by the people. The good, however, which Israel expected from the king depended entirely upon both the people and their king maintaining that proper attitude towards the Lord with which the prosperity of Israel was ever connected. This truth the prophet felt impelled to impress most earnestly upon the hearts of all the people on this occasion. To this end he reminded them, that neither he himself, in the administration of his office, nor the Lord in His guidance of Israel thus far, had given the people any reason for asking a king when the Ammonites invaded the land (vv. 1-12).

Nevertheless the Lord had given them a king, and would not withdraw His hand from them, if they would only fear Him and confess their sin (vv. 13- 15). This address was then confirmed by the Lord at Samuel’s desire, through a miraculous sign (vv. 16-18); whereupon Samuel gave to the people, who were terrified by the miracle and acknowledged their sin, the comforting promise that the Lord would not forsake His people for His great name’s sake, and then closed his address with the assurance of his continued intercession, and a renewed appeal to them to serve the Lord with faithfulness (vv. 19-25). With this address Samuel laid down his office as judge, but without therefore ceasing as prophet to represent the people before God, and to maintain the rights of God in relation to the king. In this capacity he continued to support the king with his advice, until he was compelled to announce his rejection on account of his repeated rebellion against the commands of the Lord, and to anoint David as his successor.

1 SAMUEL. 12:1-6

Verse 1-6. The time and place of the following address are not given. But it is evident from the connection with the preceding chapter implied in the expression rmæa; , and still more from the introduction (vv. 1, 2) and the entire contents of the address, that it was delivered on the renewal of the monarchy at Gilgal.

Verse 1-2. Samuel starts with the fact, that he had given the people a king in accordance with their own desire, who would now walk before them. hNehi with the participle expresses what is happening, and will happen still. µynip; Ëlæh; must not be restricted to going at the head in war, but signifies the general direction and government of the nation, which had been in the hands of Samuel as judge before the election of Saul as king. “And I have grown old and grey byci from byci ); and my sons, behold, they are with you.” With this allusion to his sons, Samuel simply intended to confirm what he had said about his own age. By the further remark, “and I have walked before you from my childhood unto this day,” he prepares the way for the following appeal to the people to bear witness concerning his conduct in office.

Verse 3. “Bear witness against me before the Lord,” i.e., looking up to the Lord, the omnipotent and righteous God-king, “and before His anointed,” the visible administrator of His divine government, whether I have committed any injustice in my office of judge, by appropriating another’s property, or by oppression and violence xxær; , to pound or crush in pieces, when used to denote an act of violence, is stronger than qvæ[; , with which it is connected here and in many other passages, e.g., Deut 28:33; Amos 4:1), or by taking atonement money rp,Ko , redemption or atonement money, is used, as in Ex 21:30 and Num 35:31, to denote a payment made by a man to redeem himself from capital punishment), “so that I had covered my eyes with it,” viz., to exempt from punishment a man who was worthy of death. The µyrit;a ], which is construed with µyli[‘h, , is the b instrumenti, and refers to rp,Ko ; consequently it is not to be confounded with ˆmi , “to hide from,” which would be quite unsuitable here. The thought is not that the judge covers his eyes from the copher, that he may not see the bribe, but that he covers his eyes with the money offered him as a bribe, so as not to see and not to punish the crime committed.

Verse 4. The people answered Samuel, that he had not done them any kind of injustice.

Verse 5. To confirm this declaration on the part of the people, he then called Jehovah and His anointed as witnesses against the people, and they accepted these witnesses. laer;c]yiAlK; is the subject to rmæa; ; and the Keri rmæa; , though more simple, is by no means necessary. Samuel said, “Jehovah be witness against you,” because with the declaration which the people had made concerning Samuel’s judicial labours they had condemned themselves, inasmuch as they had thereby acknowledged on oath that there was no ground for their dissatisfaction with Samuel’s administration, and consequently no well-founded reason for their request for a king.

Verse 6. But in order to bring the people to a still more thorough acknowledgment of their sin, Samuel strengthened still more their assent to his solemn appeal to God, as expressed in the words “He is witness,” by saying, “Jehovah (i.e., yea, the witness is Jehovah), who made Moses and Aaron, and brought your fathers out of the land of Egypt.” The context itself is sufficient to show that the expression “is witness” is understood; and there is no reason, therefore, to assume that the word has dropped out of the text through a copyist’s error. `hc;[; , to make, in a moral and historical sense, i.e., to make a person what he is to be; it has no connection, therefore, with his physical birth, but simply relates to his introduction upon the stage of history, like poiei>n , Heb 3:2. But if Jehovah, who redeemed Israel out of Egypt by the hands of Moses and Aaron, and exalted it into His own nation, was witness of the unselfishness and impartiality of Samuel’s conduct in his office of judge, then Israel had grievously sinned by demanding a king. In the person of Samuel they had rejected Jehovah their God, who had given them their rulers (see 1 Sam 8:7). Samuel proves this still further to the people from the following history.

1 SAMUEL. 12:7-12

“And now come hither, and I will reason with you before the Lord with regard to all the righteous acts which He has shown to you and your fathers.” hq;d;x] , righteous acts, is the expression used to denote the benefits which Jehovah had conferred upon His people, as being the results of His covenant fidelity, or as acts which attested the righteousness of the Lord in the fulfilment of the covenant grace which He had promised to His people.

Verse 8-12. The first proof of this was furnished by the deliverance of the children of Israel out of Egypt, and their safe guidance into Canaan (“this place” is the land of Canaan). The second was to be found in the deliverance of the people out of the power of their foes, to whom the Lord had been obliged to give them up on account of their apostasy from Him, through the judges whom He had raised up for them, as often as they turned to Him with penitence and cried to Him for help. Of the hostile oppressions which overtook the Israelites during this period of the judges, the following are singled out in v. 9: (1) that by Sisera, the commander-in-chief of Hazor, i.e., that of the Canaanitish king Jabin of Hazor (Judg 4:2ff.); (2) that of the Philistines, by which we are to understand not so much the hostilities of that nation described in Judg 3:31, as the forty years’ oppression mentioned in Judg 10:2 and 13:1; and (3) the Moabitish oppression under Eglon (Judg 3:12ff.). The first half of v. 10 agrees almost word for word with Judg 10:10, except that, according to Judg 10:6, the Ashtaroth are added to the Baalim (see at 1 Sam 7:4 and Judg 2:13). Of the judges whom God sent to the people as deliverers, the following are named, viz., Jerubbaal (see at Judg 6:32), i.e., Gideon (Judg 6), and Bedan, and Jephthah (see Judg 11), and Samuel. There is no judge named Bedan mentioned either in the book of Judges or anywhere else.

The name Bedan only occurs again in 1 Chron 7:17, among the descendants of Machir the Manassite: consequently some of the commentators suppose Jair of Gilead to be the judge intended. But such a supposition is perfectly arbitrary, as it is not rendered probable by any identity in the two names, and Jair is not described as having delivered Israel from any hostile oppression. Moreover, it is extremely improbable that Samuel should have mentioned a judge here, who had been passed over in the book of Judges on account of his comparative insignificance. There is also just as little ground for rendering Bedan as an appellative, e.g., the Danite (ben-Dan), as Kimchi suggests, or corpulentus as Böttcher maintains, and so connecting the name with Samson. There is no other course left, therefore, than to regard Bedan as an old copyist’s error for Barak (Judg 4), as the LXX, Syriac, and Arabic have done-a conclusion which is favoured by the circumstance that Barak was one of the most celebrated of the judges, and is placed by the side of Gideon and Jephthah in Heb 11:32.

The Syriac, Arabic, and one Greek MS (see Kennicott in the Addenda to his Dissert. Gener.), have the name of Samson instead of Samuel. But as the LXX, Chald., and Vulg. all agree with the Hebrew text, there is no critical ground for rejecting Samuel, the more especially as the objection raised to it, viz., that Samuel would not have mentioned himself, is far too trivial to overthrow the reading supported by the most ancient versions; and the assertion made by Thenius, that Samuel does not come down to his own times until the following verse, is altogether unfounded. Samuel could very well class himself with the deliverers of Israel, for the simple reason that it was by him that the people were delivered from the forty years’ tyranny of the Philistines, whilst Samson merely commenced their deliverance and did not bring it to completion. Samuel appears to have deliberately mentioned his own name along with those of the other judges who were sent by God, that he might show the people in the most striking manner (v. 12) that they had no reason whatever for saying to him, “Nay, but a king shall reign over us,” as soon as the Ammonites invaded Gilead. “As Jehovah your God is your king,” i.e., has ever proved himself to be your King by sending judges to deliver you. 13-18a. After the prophet had thus held up before the people their sin against the Lord, he bade them still further consider, that the king would only procure for them the anticipated deliverance if they would fear the Lord, and give up their rebellion against God.

1 SAMUEL. 12:13

“But now behold the king whom ye have chosen, whom ye have asked for! behold, Jehovah hath set a king over you.” By the second hNehi , the thought is brought out still more strongly, that Jehovah had fulfilled the desire of the people. Although the request of the people had been an act of hostility to God, yet Jehovah had fulfilled it. The word rjæB; , relating to the choice by lot (1 Sam 10:17ff.), is placed before laæv; rv,a , to show that the demand was the strongest act that the people could perform. They had not only chosen the king with the consent or by the direction of Samuel; they had even demanded a king of their own self-will.

1 SAMUEL. 12:14

Still, since the Lord had given them a king, the further welfare of the nation would depend upon whether they would follow the Lord from that time forward, or whether they would rebel against Him again. “If ye will only fear the Lord, and serve Him,...and ye as well as the king who rules over you will be after Jehovah your God.” µai , in the sense of modo, if only, does not require any apodosis, as it is virtually equivalent to the wish, “O that ye would only!” for which µai with the imperfect is commonly used (vid., 2 Kings 20:19; Prov 24:11, etc.; and Ewald, §329, b.). There is also nothing to be supplied to hwO;hy] hy;h; , since rjæaæ hy;h; , to be after or behind a person, is good Hebrew, and is frequently met with, particularly in the sense of attaching one’s self to the king, or holding to him (vid., 2 Sam 2:10; 1 Kings 12:20; 16:21-22). This meaning is also at the foundation of the present passage, as Jehovah was the God-king of Israel.

1 SAMUEL. 12:15

“But if ye do not hearken to the voice of Jehovah, and strive against His commandment, the hand of Jehovah will be heavy upon you, as upon your fathers.” W in the sense of as, i.e., used in a comparative sense, is most frequently placed before whole sentences (see Ewald, §340, b.); and the use of it here may be explained, on the ground that ba’aboteeykem contains the force of an entire sentence: “as it was upon your fathers.” The allusion to the fathers is very suitable here, because the people were looking to the king for the removal of all the calamities, which had fallen upon them from time immemorial. The paraphrase of this word, which is adopted in the Septuagint, epi> to>n basile>a uJmw>n , is a very unhappy conjecture, although Thenius proposes to alter the text to suit it.

1 SAMUEL. 12:16-17

In order to give still greater emphasis to his words, and to secure their lasting, salutary effect upon the people, Samuel added still further: Even now ye may see that ye have acted very wickedly in the sight of Jehovah, in demanding a king. This chain of thought is very clearly indicated by the words hT;[æAµGæ , “yea, even now.” “Even now come hither, and see this great thing which Jehovah does before your eyes.” The words hT;[æAµGæ , which are placed first, belong, so far as the sense is concerned, to dhAta, War] ; and bxæy; (“place yourselves,” i.e., make yourselves ready) is merely inserted between, to fix the attention of the people more closely upon the following miracle, as an event of great importance, and one which they ought to lay to heart. “Is it not now wheat harvest? I will call to Jehovah, that He may give thunder lwOq , as in Ex 9:23, etc.) and rain. Then perceive and see, that the evil is great which ye have done in the eyes of Jehovah, to demand a king.” The wheat harvest occurs in Palestine between the middle of May and the middle of June (see by Bibl. Arch. i. §118). And during this time it scarcely ever rains. Thus Jerome affirms (ad Am. c. 4): “Nunquam in fine mensis Junii aut in Julio in his provinciis maximeque in Judaea pluvias vidimus.” And Robinson also says in his Palestine (ii. p. 98): “In ordinary seasons, from the cessation of the showers in spring until their commencement in October and November, rain never falls, and the sky is usually serene” (see my Arch. i. §10). So that when God sent thunder and rain on that day in answer to Samuel’s appeal to him, this was a miracle of divine omnipotence, intended to show to the people that the judgments of God might fall upon the sinners at any time. Thunderings, as “the voice of God” (Ex 9:28), are harbingers of judgment.

Verse 18-25. This miracle therefore inspired the people with a salutary terror. “All the people greatly feared the Lord and Samuel,” and entreated the prophet, “Pray for thy servants to the Lord thy God, that we die not, because we have added to all our sins the evil thing, to ask us a king.”

1 SAMUEL. 12:20-21

Samuel thereupon announced to them first of all, that the Lord would not forsake His people for His great name’s sake, if they would only serve Him with uprightness. In order, however, to give no encouragement to any false trust in the covenant faithfulness of the Lord, after the comforting words, “Fear not,” he told them again very decidedly that they had done wrong, but that now they were not to turn away from the Lord, but to serve Him with all their heart, and not go after vain idols. To strengthen this admonition, he repeats the rWs alo in v. 21, with the explanation, that in turning from the Lord they would fall away to idols, which could not bring them either help or deliverance. To the yKi after rWs the same verb must be supplied from the context: “Do not turn aside (from the Lord), for (ye turn aside) after that which is vain.” WhTo , the vain, worthless thing, signifies the false gods. This will explain the construction with a plural: “which do not profit and do not save, because they are emptiness” (tohu), i.e., worthless beings (elilim, Lev 19:4; cf. Isa 44:9 and Jer 16:19).

1 SAMUEL. 12:22

“For yKi gives the reason for the main thought of the previous verse, ‘Fear not, but serve the Lord,’ etc.) the Lord will not forsake His people for His great name’s sake; for it hath pleased the Lord (for laæy; , see at Deut 1:5) to make you His people.” The emphasis lies upon His. This the Israelites could only be, when they proved themselves to be the people of God, by serving Jehovah with all their heart. “For His great name’s sake,” i.e., for the great name which He had acquired in the sight of all the nations, by the marvellous guidance of Israel thus far, to preserve it against misapprehension and blasphemy (see at Josh 7:9).

1 SAMUEL. 12:23

Samuel then promised the people his constant intercession: “Far be it from me to sin against the Lord, that I should cease to pray for you, and to instruct you in the good and right way,” i.e., to work as prophet for your good. “In this he sets a glorious example to all rulers, showing them that they should not be led astray by the ingratitude of their subordinates or subjects, and give up on that account all interest in their welfare, but should rather persevere all the more in their anxiety for them” (Berleb.

Bible). 1 SAMUEL 12:24,25 Lastly, he repeats once more his admonition, that they would continue stedfast in the fear of God, threatening at the same time the destruction of both king and people if they should do wrong (on v. 24a, see 1 Sam 7:3 and Josh 24:14, where the form arey; is also found). “For see what great things He has done for you” (shown to you), not by causing it to thunder and rain at Samuel’s prayer, but by giving them a king. `µ[i ldæG; , as in Gen 19:19.

SAUL’S REIGN, AND HIS UNSEASONABLE SACRIFICE IN THE WAR AGAINST THE PHILISTINES.

1 SAMUEL. 13:1

The history of the reign of Saul commences with this chapter; and according to the standing custom in the history of the kings, it opens with a statement of the age of the king when he began to reign, and the number of years that his reign lasted. If, for example, we compare the form and contents of this verse with 2 Sam 2:10; 5:4; 1 Kings 14:21; 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26, and other passages, where the age is given at which Ishbosheth, David, and many of the kings of Judah began to reign, and also the number of years that their reign lasted, there can be no doubt that our verse was also intended to give the same account concerning Saul, and therefore that every attempt to connect this verse with the one which follows is opposed to the uniform historical usage.

Moreover, even if, as a matter of necessity, the second clause of v. 1 could be combined with v. 2 in the following manner: He was two years king over Israel, then Saul chose 3000 men, etc.; the first half of the verse would give no reasonable sense, according to the Masoretic text that has come down to us. wObl]m;B] lWav; hn;v;AˆB, cannot possibly be rendered “jam per annum regnaverat Saul,” “Saul had been king for a year,” or “Saul reigned one year,” but can only mean “Saul was a year old when he became king.” This is the way in which the words have been correctly rendered by the Sept. and Jerome; and so also in the Chaldee paraphrase (“Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign”) this is the way in which the text has been understood.

It is true that this statement as to his age is obviously false; but all that follows from that is, that there is an error in the text, namely, that between ˆBe and hn,v; the age has fallen out-a thing which could easily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally the numbers were not written in words, but only in letters that were used as numerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version, as our present text is given there.

There is, it is true, an anonymus in the hexapla, in which we find the reading uiJo>v tria>konta etw>n Saou>l ; but this is certainly not according to ancient MSS, but simply according to a private conjecture, and that an incorrect one. For since Saul already had a son, Jonathan, who commanded a division of the army in the very first years of his reign, and therefore must have been at least twenty years of age, if not older, Saul himself cannot have been less than forty years old when he began to reign.

Moreover, in the second half of the verse also, the number given is evidently a wrong one, and the text therefore equally corrupt; for the rendering “when he had reigned two years over Israel” is opposed both by the parallel passages already quoted, and also by the introduction of the name Saul as the subject in v. 2a, which shows very clearly that v. commences a fresh sentence, and is not merely the apodosis to v. 1b. But Saul’s reign must have lasted longer than two years, even if, in opposition to all analogies to be found elsewhere, we should understand the two years as merely denoting the length of his reign up to the time of his rejection (ch. 15), and not till the time of his death. Even then he reigned longer than that; for he could not possibly have carried on all the wars mentioned in Sam 14:47, with Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah and the Philistines, in the space of two years. Consequently a numeral, say k , twenty, must also have dropped out before hn,v; µyinæv] (two years); since there are cogent reasons for assuming that his reign lasted as long as twenty or twenty-two years, reckoning to the time of his death. We have given the reasons themselves in connection with the chronology of the period of the judges (pp. 206f.). f

26 1 SAMUEL. 13:2-7

The war with the Philistines (ch. 13-14) certainly falls, at least so far as the commencement is concerned, in the very earliest part of Saul’s reign. This we must infer partly from the fact, that at the very time when Saul was seeking for his father’s asses, there was a military post of the Philistines at Gibeah (1 Sam 10:5), and therefore the Philistines had already occupied certain places in the land; and partly also from the fact, that according to this chapter Saul selected an army of 3000 men out of the whole nation, took up his post at Michmash with 2000 of them, placing the other thousand at Gibeah under his son Jonathan, and sent the rest of the people home (v. 2), because his first intention was simply to check the further advance of the Philistines. The dismission of the rest of the people to their own homes presupposes that the whole of the fighting men of the nation were assembled together.

But as no other summoning together of the people has been mentioned before, except to the war upon the Ammonites at Jabesh (1 Sam 11:6-7), where all Israel gathered together, and at the close of which Samuel had called the people and their king to Gilgal (1 Sam 11:14), the assumption is a very probable one, that it was there at Gilgal, after the renewal of the monarchy, that Saul formed the resolution at once to make war upon the Philistines, and selected 3000 fighting men for the purpose out of the whole number that were collected together, and then dismissed the remainder to their homes. In all probability Saul did not consider that either he or the Israelites were sufficiently prepared as yet to undertake a war upon the Philistines generally, and therefore resolved, in the first place, only to attack the outpost of the Philistines, which was advanced as far as Gibeah, with a small number of picked soldiers. According to this simple view of affairs, the war here described took place at the very commencement of Saul’s reign; and the chapter before us is closely connected with the preceding one.

Verse 2. Saul posted himself at Michmash and on the mount of Bethel with his two thousand men. Michmash, the present Mukhmas, a village in ruins upon the northern ridge of the Wady Suweinit, according to the Onom. (s. v. Machmas), was only nine Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem, whereas it took Robinson three hours and a half to go from one to the other (Pal. ii. p. 117). Bethel (Beitin; see at Josh 7:2) is to the north-west of this, at a distance of two hours’ journey, if you take the road past Deir- Diwan. The mountain rhæ ) of Bethel cannot be precisely determined.

Bethel itself was situated upon very high ground; and the ruins of Beitin are completely surrounded by heights (Rob. ii. p. 126; and v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 178-9). Jonathan stationed himself with his thousand men at (by) Gibeah of Benjamin, the native place and capital of Saul, which was situated upon Tell el Phul (see at Josh 18:28), about an hour and a half form Michmas.

Verse 3-4. “And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was at Geba,” probably the military post mentioned in 1 Sam 10:5, which had been advanced in the meantime as far as Geba. For Geba is not to be confounded with Gibeah, from which it is clearly distinguished in v. 16 as compared with v. 15, but is the modern Jeba, between the Wady Suweinit and Wady Fara, to the north-west of Ramah (er-Râm; see at Josh 18:24). “The Philistines heard this. And Saul had the trumpet blown throughout the whole land, and proclamation made: let the Hebrews hear it.” rmæa; after rp;wOv [qæT; points out the proclamation that was made after the alarm given by the shophar (see 2 Sam 20:1; 1 Kings 1:34,39, etc.). The object to “let them hear” may be easily supplied from the context, viz., Jonathan’s feat of arms. Saul had this trumpeted in the whole land, not only as a joyful message for the Hebrews, but also as an indirect summons to the whole nation to rise and make war upon the Philistines. In the word [mæv; (hear), there is often involved the idea of observing, laying to heart that which is heard.

If we understand [mæv; in this sense here, and the next verse decidedly hints at it, there is no ground whatever for the objection which Thenius, who follows the LXX, has raised to `yrib][i [mæv; . He proposes this emendation, µyrib][ih; W[v]p]yi , “let the Hebrews fall away,” according to the Alex. text hqeth>kasin oiJ dou>loi , without reflecting that the very expression ohi dou’loi is sufficient to render the Alex. reading suspicious, and that Saul could not have summoned the people in all the land to fall away from the Philistines, since they had not yet conquered and taken possession of the whole. Moreover, the correctness of [mæv; is confirmed by W[m]v; laer;c]yiAlk;w[ in v. 4. “All Israel heard,” not the call to fall away, but the news, “Saul has smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and Israel has also made itself stinking with the Philistines,” i.e., hated in consequence of the bold and successful attack made by Jonathan, which proved that the Israelites would no longer allow themselves to be oppressed by the Philistines. “And the people let themselves be called together after Saul to Gilgal.” q[ex;hi , to permit to summon to war (as in Judg 7:23-24). The words are incorrectly rendered by the Vulgate, “clamavit ergo populus post Saul,” and by Luther, “Then the people cried after Saul to Gilgal.” Saul drew back to Gilgal, when the Philistines advanced with a large army, to make preparations for the further conflict (see at v. 13).

Verse 5. The Philistines also did not delay to avenge the defeat at Geba.

They collected an innumerable army: 30,000 chariots, 6000 horsemen, and people, i.e., foot-soldiers, without number (as the sand by the sea-shore; cf.

Judg 7:12; Josh 11:4, etc.). bk,r, by the side of vr;p; can only mean war chariots. 30,000 war chariots, however, bear no proportion whatever to 6000 horsemen, not only because the number of war chariots is invariably smaller than that of the horsemen (cf. 2 Sam 10:18; 1 Kings 10:26; Chron 12:3), but also, as Bochart observes in his Hieroz. p. i. lib. ii. c. 9, because such a number of war chariots is never met with either in sacred or profane history, not even in the case of nations that were much more powerful than the Philistines. The number is therefore certainly corrupt, and we must either read 3000 ( la vwOkv; instead of la µyviwOlv] ), according to the Syriac and Arabic, or else simply 1000; and in the latter case the origin of the number thirty must be attributed to the fact, that through the oversight of a copyist the l of the word laer;c]yi was written twice, and consequently the second l was taken for the numeral thirty.

This army was encamped “at Michmash, before (i.e., in the front, or on the western side of) Bethaven:” for, according to Josh 7:2, Bethaven was to the east of Michmash; and hm;d]qi when it occurs in geographical accounts, does not “always mean to the east,” as Thenius erroneously maintains, but invariably means simply “in front” (see at Gen 2:14). f27 Verse 6-7. When the Israelites saw that they had come into a strait (tsarlow), for the people were oppressed (by the Philistines), they hid themselves in the caves, thorn-bushes, rocks (i.e., clefts of the rocks), fortresses ( µyjirix] : see at Judg 9:46), and pits (which were to be found in the land); and Hebrews also went over the Jordan into the land of Gad and Gilead, whilst Saul was still at Gilgal; and all the people (the people of war who had been called together, v. 4) trembled behind him, i.e., were gathered together in his train, or assembled round him as leader, trembling or in despair.

The Gilgal mentioned here cannot be Jiljilia, which is situated upon the high ground, as assumed in the Comm. on Joshua, pp. 68f., but must be the Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan. This is not only favoured by the expression dræy; (the Philistines will come down from Michmash to Gilgal, v. 12), but also by `hl;[; (Samuel went up from Gilgal to Gibeah, v. 15), and by the general attitude of Saul and his army towards the Philistines. As the Philistines advanced with a powerful army, after Jonathan’s victory over their garrison at Geba (to the south of Michmash), and encamped at Michmash (v. 5); and Saul, after withdrawing from Gilgal, where he had gathered the Israelites together (vv. 4, 8, 12), with Jonathan and the six hundred men who were with him when the muster took place, took up his position at Geba (vv. 15, 16), from which point Jonathan attacked the Philistine post in the pass of Michmash (v. 23, and 1 Sam 14:1ff.): Saul must have drawn back from the advancing army of the Philistines to the Gilgal in the Jordan valley, to make ready for the battle by collecting soldiers and presenting sacrifices, and then, after this had been done, must have advanced once more to Gibeah and Geba to commence the war with the army of the Philistines that was encamped at Michmash. If, on the other hand, he had gone northwards to Jiljilia from Michmash, where he was first stationed, to escape the advancing army of the Philistines; he would have had to attack the Philistines from the north when they were encamped at Michmash, and could not possibly have returned to Geba without coming into conflict with the Philistines, since Michmash was situated between Jiljilia and Geba.

1 SAMUEL. 13:8-15

Saul’s untimely sacrifice.

Saul waited seven days for Samuel’s coming, according to the time appointed by Samuel (see at 1 Sam 10:8), before proceeding to offer the sacrifices through which the help of the Lord was to be secured for the approaching campaign (see v. 12); and as Samuel did not come, the people began to disperse and leave him. The Kethib ljæy; is either the Niphal ljæy; , as in Gen 8:12, or Piel ljeyæy]wæ ; and the Keri ljæy; (Hiphil) is unnecessary. The verb d[æy; may easily be supplied to laeWmv] rv,a from the word d[ewOm (see Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 851).

Verse 9. Saul then resolved, in his anxiety lest the people should lose all hart and forsake him altogether if there were any further delay, that he would offer the sacrifice without Samuel. `hl;[o `hl;[; does not imply that Saul offered the sacrifice with his own hand, i.e., that he performed the priestly function upon this occasion. The co-operation of the priests in performing the duties belonging to them on such an occasion is taken for granted, just as in the case of the sacrifices offered by David and Solomon (2 Sam 24:25; 1 Kings 3:4; 8:63).

Verse 10-12. The offering of the sacrifice was hardly finished when Samuel came and said to Saul, as he came to meet him and salute him, “What hast thou done?” Saul replied, “When I saw that the people were scattered away from me, and thou camest not at the time appointed, and the Philistines were assembled at Michmash, I thought the Philistines will come down to me to Gilgal now (to attack me), before I have entreated the face of Jehovah; and I overcame myself, and offered the burnt-offering.” yy’ µynip; hl;j; : see Ex 32:11.

Verse 13-14. Samuel replied, “Thou hast acted foolishly, (and) not kept the commandment of Jehovah thy God, which He commanded thee: for now (sc., if thou hadst obeyed His commandment) Jehovah would have established thy sovereignty over Israel for ever; but now (sc., since thou hast acted thus) thy sovereignty shall not continue.” The antithesis of ˆWK `hT;[æ and µWq alo `hT;[æ requires that we should understand these two clauses conditionally. The conditional clauses are omitted, simply because they are at once suggested by the tenor of the address (see Ewald, §358, a.). The yKi (for) assigns the reason, and refers to lkæs; (“thou hast done foolishly”), the wgwrmæv; alo being merely added as explanatory. The noncontinuance of the sovereignty is not to be regarded as a rejection, or as signifying that Saul had actually lost the throne so far as he himself was concerned; but µWq alo (shall not continue) forms the antithesis to µl;wO[Ad[æ ˆykihe (established for ever), and refers to the fact that it was not established in perpetuity by being transmitted to his descendants.

It was not till his second transgression that Saul was rejected, or declared unworthy of being king over the people of God (ch. 15). We are not compelled to assume an immediate rejection of Saul even by the further announcement made by Samuel, “Jehovah hath sought him a man after his own heart; him hath Jehovah appointed prince over His people;” for these words merely announce the purpose of God, without defining the time of its actual realization. Whether it would take place during Saul’s reign, or not till after his death, was known only to God, and was made contingent upon Saul’s further behaviour. But if Saul’s sin did not consist, as we have observed above, in his having interfered with the prerogatives of the priests by offering the sacrifice himself, but simply in the fact that he had transgressed the commandment of God as revealed to him by Samuel, to postpone the sacrifice until Samuel arrived, the punishment which the prophet announced that God would inflict upon him in consequence appears a very severe one, since Saul had not come to the resolution either frivolously or presumptuously, but had been impelled and almost forced to act as he did by the difficulties in which he was placed in consequence of the prophet delaying his coming.

But wherever, as in the present instance, there is a definite command given by the Lord, a man has no right to allow himself to be induced to transgress it, by fixing his attention upon the earthly circumstances in which he is placed. As Samuel had instructed Saul, as a direct command from Jehovah, to wait for his arrival before offering sacrifice, Saul might have trusted in the Lord that he would send His prophet at the right time and cause His command to be fulfilled, and ought not to have allowed his confidence to be shaken by the pressing danger of delay. The interval of seven days and the delay in Samuel’s arrival were intended as a test of his faith, which he ought not to have lightly disregarded. Moreover, the matter in hand was the commencement of the war against the principal enemies of Israel, and Samuel was to tell him what he was to do (1 Sam 10:8). So that when Saul proceeded with the consecrating sacrifice for that very conflict, without the presence of Samuel, he showed clearly enough that he thought he could make war upon the enemies of his kingdom without the counsel and assistance of God. This was an act of rebellion against the sovereignty of Jehovah, for which the punishment announced was by no means too severe.

Verse 15. After this occurrence Samuel went up to Gibeah, and Saul mustered the people who were with him, about six hundred men.

Consequently Saul had not even accomplished the object of his unseasonable sacrifice, namely, to prevent the dispersion of the people. With this remark the account of the occurrence that decided the fate of Saul’s monarchy is brought to a close.

1 SAMUEL. 13:16-23

Disarming of Israel by the Philistines.

The following account is no doubt connected with the foregoing, so far as the facts are concerned, inasmuch as Jonathan’s brave heroic deed, which brought the Israelites a splendid victory over the Philistines, terminated the war for which Saul had entreated the help of God by his sacrifice at Gilgal; but it is not formally connected with it, so as to form a compact and complete account of the successive stages of the war. On the contrary, the 16th verse, where we have an account of the Israelitish warriors and their enemies, commences a new section of the history, in which the devastating march of the Philistines through the land, and the disarming of the Israelites by these their enemies, are first of all depicted (vv. 17-23); and then the victory of the Israelites through Jonathan’s daring and heroic courage, notwithstanding their utter prostration, is recorded (1 Sam 14:1-46), for the purpose of showing how the Lord had miraculously helped His people. f28 Verse 16. The two clauses of this verse are circumstantial clauses: “But Saul, and Jonathan his son, and the people that were with him, were sitting, i.e., tarrying, in Geba of Benjamin (the present Jeba; see at v. 3); and the Philistines had encamped at Michmash.” Just as in vv. 2-4 it is not stated when or why Saul went from Michmash or Geba to Gilgal, but this change in his position is merely hinted at indirectly at the close of v. 4; so here Saul’s return from Gilgal to Geba with the fighting men who remained with him is not distinctly mentioned, but simply taken for granted as having already occurred.

Verse 17-18. Then the spoiler went out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies. varo vwOkv; is made subject to the verb to define the mode of action (see Ewald, §279, c.); and rashim is used here, as in 1 Sam 11:11. tjæv; , according to the context, is a hostile band that went out to devastate the land. The definite article points it out as well known. One company took the road to Ophrah into the land of Shual, i.e., went in a north-easterly direction, as, according to the Onom., Ophrah of Benjamin was five Roman miles to the east of Bethel (see at Josh 18:23). Robinson supposes it to have been on the site of Tayibeh. The land of Shual (foxland) is unknown; it may possibly have been identical with the land of Saalim (1 Sam 9:5). The other company turned on the road to Beth-horon (Beit-ur: see at Josh 10:11), that is to say, towards the west; the third, “the way to the territory that rises above the valley of Zeboim towards the desert.” These descriptions are obscure; and the valley of Zeboim altogether unknown. There is a town of this name µy[ibox] , different from µy[ibox] , Deut 29:22; Gen 14:2,8; or µyaibox] , Hos 11:8, in the vale of Siddim) mentioned in Neh 11:34, which was inhabited by Benjaminites, and was apparently situated in the south-eastern portion of the land of Benjamin, to the north-east of Jerusalem, from which it follows that the third company pursued its devastating course in a south-easterly direction from Michmash towards Jericho. “The wilderness” is probably the desert of Judah. The intention of the Philistines in carrying out these devastating expeditions, was no doubt to entice the men who were gathered round Saul and Jonathan out of their secure positions at Gibeah and Geba, and force them to fight.

Verse 19-21. The Israelites could not offer a successful resistance to these devastating raids, as there was no smith to be found in the whole land: “For the Philistines thought the Hebrews might make themselves sword or spear” rmæa; followed by ˆpe , “to say, or think, that not,” equivalent to being unwilling that it should be done). Consequently (as the words clearly imply) when they proceeded to occupy the land of Israel as described in v. 5, they disarmed the people throughout, i.e., as far as they penetrated, and carried off the smiths, who might have been able to forge weapons; so that, as is still further related in v. 20, all Israel was obliged to go to the Philistines, every one to sharpen his edge-tool, and his ploughshare, and his axe, and his chopper. According to Isa 2:4; Mic 4:3, and Joel 4:10, tae is an iron instrument used in agriculture; the majority of the ancient versions render it ploughshare. The word hv;rejmæ is striking after the previous tv,r,jmæ (from machareshet); and the meaning of both words is uncertain.

According to the etymology, machareshet might denote any kind of edgetool, even the ploughshare. The second hv;rejmæ is rendered to> dre>panon autou> (his sickle) by the LXX, and sarculum by Jerome, a small garden hoe for loosening and weeding the soil. The fact that the word is connected with µDor]qæ , the axe or hatchet, favours the idea that it signifies a hoe or spade rather than a sickle. Some of the words in v. 21 are still more obscure. hy;h; , which is the reading adopted by all the earlier translators, indicates that the result is about to be given of the facts mentioned before: “And there came to pass,” i.e., so that there came to pass (or arose), hp, hr;yxip] , “a blunting of the edges.” hr;yxip] , bluntness, from rxæp; , to tear, hence to make blunt, is confirmed by the Arabic futâr, gladius fissuras habens, obtusus ensis, whereas the meaning to hammer, i.e., to sharpen by hammering, cannot be established.

The insertion of the article before hr;yxip] is as striking as the omission of it before hp, ; also the stat. abs. instead of the construct p¦tsiyrat. These anomalies render it a very probable conjecture that the reading may have been hapiym hap¦tsiyr (inf. Hiph. nomin.). Accordingly the rendering would be, “so that bluntness of the edges occurred in the edge-tools, and the ploughshares, and the trident, and the axes, and the setting of the goad.” ˆwOvL]qi vwOkv; is to be regarded as a nom. comp. like our trident, denoting an instrument with three prongs, according to the Chaldee and the Rabbins (see Ges. Thes. p. 1219). ˆwObr]D; , stimulus, is probably a pointed instrument generally, since the meaning goad is fully established in the case of ˆwObr]D; in Eccl 12:11. f29 Verse 22. On the day of battle, therefore, the people with Saul and Jonathan were without either sword or spear; Saul and Jonathan were the only persons provided with them. The account of the expedition of the Israelites, and their victory over the Ammonites, given in v. 11, is apparently at variance with this description of the situation of the Israelites, since the war in question not only presupposes the possession of weapons by the Israelites, but must also have resulted in their capturing a considerable quantity. The discrepancy is very easily removed, however, when we look carefully at all the circumstances. For instance, we can hardly picture the Israelites to ourselves as amply provided with ordinary weapons in this expedition against the Ammonites. Moreover, the disarming of the Israelites by the Philistines took place for the most part if not entirely after this expedition, viz., at the time when the Philistines swept over the land with an innumerable army after Jonathan had smitten their garrison at Geba (vv. 3, 5), so that the fighting men who gathered round Saul and Jonathan after that could hardly bring many arms with them. Lastly, the words “there was neither sword nor spear found in the hands of all the people with Saul and Jonathan” must not be too closely pressed, but simply affirm that the 600 fighting men of Saul and Jonathan were not provided with the necessary arms, because the Philistines had prevented the possibility of their arming themselves in the ordinary way by depriving the people of all their smiths.

Verse 23. forms the transition to the heroic act of Jonathan described in ch. 14.: “An outpost of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash;” i.e., the Philistines pushed forward a company of soldiers to the pass rb;[mæ , the crossing place) of Michmash, to prevent an attack being made by the Israelites upon their camp. Between Geba and Michmash there runs the great deep Wady es Suweinit, which goes down from Beitin and Bireh (Bethel and Beeroth) to the valley of the Jordan, and intersects the ridge upon which the two places are situated, so that the sides of the wady form very precipitous walls. When Robinson was travelling from Jeba to Mukhmas he had to go down a very steep and rugged path into this deep wady (Pal. ii. p. 116). “The way,” he says in his Biblical Researches, p. 289, “was so steep, and the rocky steps so high, that we were compelled to dismount; while the baggage mules got along with great difficulty. Here, where we crossed, several short side wadys came in from the south-west and north-west. The ridges between these terminate in elevating points projecting into the great wady; and the most easterly of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two garrisons of Israel and the Philistines. The road passes around the eastern side of the southern hill, the post of Israel, and then strikes up over the western part of the northern one, the post of the Philistines, and the scene of Jonathan’s adventure.”

JONATHAN’S HEROIC ACT, AND ISRAEL’S VICTORY OVER THE PHILISTINES. SAUL’S WARS AND FAMILY.

1 SAMUEL. 14:1-15

Jonathan’s heroic act.

With strong faith and confidence in the might of the Lord, that He could give the victory even through the hands of very few, Jonathan resolved to attack the outpost of the Philistines at the pass of Mukhmas, accompanied by his armour-bearer alone, and the Lord crowned his enterprise with a marvellous victory.

Verse 1-2. Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, “We will go over to the post of the Philistines, that is over there.” To these words, which introduce the occurrences that followed, there are attached from ba; to v. 5 a series of sentences introduced to explain the situation, and the thread of the narrative is resumed in v. 6 by a repetition of Jonathan’s words. It is first of all observed that Jonathan did not disclose his intentions to his father, who would hardly have approved of so daring an enterprise. Then follows a description of the place where Saul was stationed with the six hundred men, viz., “at the end of Gibeah (i.e., the extreme northern end), under the pomegranate-tree (Rimmon) which is by Migron.” Rimmon is not the rock Rimmon (Judg 20:45), which was on the north-east of Michmash, but is an appellative noun, signifying a pomegranate-tree. Migron is a locality with which we are not acquainted, upon the north side of Gibeah, and a different place from the Migron which was on the north or north-west of Michmash (Isa 10:28). Gibeah (Tuleil el Phul) was an hour and a quarter from Geba, and from the pass which led across to Michmash. Consequently, when Saul was encamped with his six hundred men on the north of Gibeah, he may have been hardly an hour’s journey from Geba.

Verse 3. Along with Saul and his six hundred men, there was also Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, the (elder) brother of Ichabod, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest at Shiloh, and therefore a great-grandson of Eli, wearing the ephod, i.e., in the high priest’s robes. Ahiah is generally supposed to be the same person as Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub (1 Sam 22:9ff.), in which case Ahiah (‘achiyaah, brother, i.e., friend of Jehovah) would be only another form of the name Ahimelech (i.e., brother or friend of the King, viz., Jehovah). This is very probable, although Ahimelech might have been Ahaiah’s brother, who succeeded him in the office of high priest on account of his having died without sons, since there is an interval of at least ten years between the events related in this chapter and those referred to in ch. 22. Ahimelech was afterwards slain by Saul along with the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:9ff.); the only one who escaped being his son Abiathar, who fled to David and, according to 1 Sam 30:7, was invested with the ephod.

It follows, therefore, that Ahiah (or Ahimelech) must have had a son at least ten years old at the time of the war referred to here, viz., the Abiathar mentioned in 1 Sam 30:7, and must have been thirty or thirty-five years old himself, since Saul had reigned at least twenty-two years, and Abiathar had become high priest a few years before the death of Saul. These assumptions may be very easily reconciled with the passage before us. As Eli was ninety-eight years old when he died, his son Phinehas, who had been killed in battle a short time before, might have been sixty or sixty-five years old, and have left a son of forty years of age, namely Ahitub. Forty years later, therefore, i.e., at the beginning of Saul’s reign, Ahitub’s son Ahiah (Ahimelech) might have been about fifty years old; and at the death of Ahimelech, which took place ten or twelve years after that, his son Abiathar might have been as much as thirty years of age, and have succeeded his father in the office of high priest. But Abiathar cannot have been older than this when his father died, since he was high priest during the whole of David’s forty years’ reign, until Solomon deposed him soon after he ascended the throne (1 Kings 2:26ff.). Compare with this the remarks on 2 Sam 8:17. Jonathan had also refrained from telling the people anything about his intentions, so that they did not know that he had gone.

Verse 4-5. In vv. 4, 5, the locality is more minutely described. Between the passes, through which Jonathan endeavoured to cross over to go up to the post of the Philistines, there was a sharp rock on this side, and also one upon the other. One of these was called Bozez, the other Seneh; one (formed) a pillar qWxm; ), i.e., a steep height towards the north opposite to Michmash, the other towards the south opposite to Geba. The expression “between the passes” may be explained from the remark of Robinson quoted above, viz., that at the point where he passed the Wady Suweinit, side wadys enter it from the south-west and north-west. These side wadys supply so many different crossings. Between them, however, on the north and south walls of the deep valley, were the jagged rocks Bozez and Seneh, which rose up like pillars to a great height. These were probably the “hills” which Robinson saw to the left of the pass by which he crossed: “Two hills of a conical or rather spherical form, having steep rocky sides, with small wadys running up behind so as almost to isolate them. One is on the side towards Jeba, and the other towards Mukhmas” (Pal. ii. p. 116).

Verse 6. And Jonathan said to his armour-bearer, “Come, we will go over to the post of these uncircumcised; it may be that Jehovah will work for us; for (there is) no hindrance for Jehovah to work salvation by many or few.”

Jonathan’s resolution arose from the strong conviction that Israel was the nation of God, and possessed in Jehovah an omnipotent God, who would not refuse His help to His people in their conflict with the foes of His kingdom, if they would only put their whole trust in Him.

Verse 7. As the armour-bearer approved of Jonathan’s resolution wOl hf;n; , turn hither), and was ready to follow him, Jonathan fixed upon a sign by which he would ascertain whether the Lord would prosper his undertaking.

Verse 8-10. “Behold, we go over to the people and show ourselves to them. If they say to us, Wait µmæD; , keep quiet) till we come to you, we will stand still in our place, and not go up to them; but if they say thus, Come up unto us, then we will go up, for Jehovah hath (in that case) delivered them into our hand.” The sign was well chosen. If the Philistines said, “Wait till we come,” they would show some courage; but if they said, “Come up to us,” it would be a sign that they were cowardly, and had not courage enough to leave their position and attack the Hebrews. It was not tempting God for Jonathan to fix upon such a sign by which to determine the success of his enterprise; for he did it in the exercise of his calling, when fighting not for personal objects, but for the kingdom of God, which the uncircumcised were threatening to annihilate, and in the most confident belief that the Lord would deliver and preserve His people. Such faith as this God would not put to shame.

Verse 11-13. When the two showed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines, they said, “Behold, Hebrews come forth out of the holes in which they have hidden themselves.” And the men of the garrison cried out to Jonathan and his armour-bearer, “Come up to us, and we will tell you a word,” i.e., we will communicate something to you. This was ridicule at the daring of the two men, whilst for all that they had not courage enough to meet them bravely and drive them back. In this Jonathan received the desired sign that the Lord had given the Philistines into the hand of the Israelites: he therefore clambered up the rock on his hands and feet, and his armour-bearer after him; and “they (the Philistines) fell before Jonathan,” i.e., were smitten down by him, “and his armour-bearer was slaying behind him.”

Verse 14. The first stroke that Jonathan and his armour-bearer struck was (amounted to) about twenty men “on about half a furrow of an acre of field.” hn;[mæ , a furrow, as in Ps 129:3, is in the absolute state instead of the construct, because several nouns follow in the construct state (cf. Ewald, §291, a.). dm,,x, , lit. things bound together, then a pair; here it signifies a pair or yoke of oxen, but in the transferred sense of a piece of land that could be ploughed in one morning with a yoke of oxen, like the Latin jugum, jugerum. It is called the furrow of an acre of land, because the length only of half an acre of land was to be given, and not the breadth or the entire circumference. The Philistines, that is to say, took to flight in alarm as soon as the brave heroes really ascended, so that the twenty men were smitten one after another in the distance of half a rood of land. Their terror and flight are perfectly conceivable, if we consider that the outpost of the Philistines was so stationed upon the top of the ridge of the steep mountain wall, that they would not see how many were following, and the Philistines could not imagine it possible that two Hebrews would have ventured to climb the rock alone and make an attack upon them. Sallust relates a similar occurrence in connection with the scaling of a castle in the Numidian war (Bell. Jugurth. c. 89, 90).

Verse 15. And there arose a terror in the camp upon the field (i.e., in the principal camp) as well as among all the people (of the advanced outpost of the Philistines); the garrison (i.e., the army that was encamped at Michmash), and the spoilers, they also trembled, and the earth quaked, sc., with the noise and tumult of the frightened foe; “and it grew into a trembling of God,” i.e., a supernatural terror miraculously infused by God into the Philistines. The subject to the last hy;h; is either hd;r;j , the alarm in the camp, or all that has been mentioned before, i.e., the alarm with the noise and tumult that sprang out of it.

1 SAMUEL. 14:16-23

Flight and defeat of the Philistines.

Verse 16. The spies of Saul at Gibeah saw how the multitude (in the camp of the Philistines) melted away and was beaten more and more. The words µlæh; Ëlæy; are obscure. The Rabbins are unanimous in adopting the explanation magis magisque frangebatur, and have therefore probably taken µlh as an inf. absol. µwOlv; , and interpreted µlæh; according to Judg 5:26. This was also the case with the Chaldee; and Gesenius (Thes. p. 383) has adopted the same rendering, except that he has taken µlæh; in the sense of dissolutus, dissipatus est. Others take µwOlv; as adverbial (“and thither”), and supply the correlate µlh (hither), so as to bring out the meaning “hither and thither.” Thus the LXX render it e>nqen ( NT:1759a ) kai> e>nqen ], but they have not translated Ëlæy; at all.

Verse 17. Saul conjectured at once that the excitement in the camp of the Philistines was occasioned by an attack made by Israelitish warriors, and therefore commanded the people: an;Awdq]pi , “Muster (number) now, and see who has gone away from us;” and “Jonathan and his armour-bearer were not there,” i.e., they were missing.

Verse 18. Saul therefore resolved to ask God, through the priest Ahiah, what he should do; whether he should go out with his army against the Philistines or no. But whilst he was talking with the priest, the tumult in the camp of the Philistines became greater and greater, so that he saw from that what ought to be done under the circumstances, and stopped the priest’s inquiring of God, and set out with his people without delay. We are struck, however, with the expression in v. 18, “Bring hither the ark of God,” and the explanation which follows, “for the ark of God was at that time with the children of Israel,” inasmuch as the ark was then deposited at Kirjath-jearim, and it is a very improbable thing that it should have been in the little camp of Saul. Moreover, in other cases where the high priest is spoken of as inquiring the will of God, there is no mention made of the ark, but only of the ephod, the high priest’s shoulder-dress, upon which there were fastened the Urim and Thummim, through which inquiry was made of God. And in addition to this, the verb vgæn; is not really applicable to the ark, which was not an object that could be carried about at will; whereas this verb is the current expression used to signify the fetching of the ephod (vid., 1 Sam 23:9; 30:7).

All these circumstances render the correctness of the Masoretic text extremely doubtful, notwithstanding the fact that the Chaldee, the Syriac, and Arabic, and the Vulgate support it, and recommend rather the reading adopted by the LXX, prosa>gage to> Efou>d oJ>ti auto>v h>ren to> Efou>d en th> hJme>ra ekei>nh enw>pion Israh>l , which would give as the Hebrew text, laer;c]yi µynip; aWh µwOy dwOpae ac;n; aWh yKi dwOpae vgæn; . In any case, laer;c]yi ˆBe at the end of the verse should be read yis’ ˆBe or µynip; , since uw gives no sense at all.

Verse 19. “It increased more and more;” lit. increasing and becoming greater. The subject wgwˆwOmh; is placed absolutely at the head, so that the verb Ëlæy; is appended in the form of an apodosis. dy; ãsæa; , “draw thy hand in” (back); i.e., leave off now.

Verse 20. “And (i.e., in consequence of the increasing tumult in the enemy’s camp) Saul had himself, and all the people with him, called,” i.e., called together for battle; and when they came to the war, i.e., to the place of conflict, “behold, there was the sword of the one against the other, a very great confusion,” in consequence partly of terror, and partly of the circumstance alluded to in v. 21.

Verse 21-22. “And the Hebrews were with the Philistines as before (yesterday and the day before yesterday), who had come along with them in the camp round about; they also came over to Israel, which was with Saul and Jonathan.” bybis; means distributed round about among the Philistines. Those Israelites whom the Philistines had incorporated into their army are called Hebrews, according to the name which was current among foreigners, whilst those who were with Saul are called Israel, according to the sacred name of the nation. The difficulty which many expositors have found in the word hy;h; has been very correctly solved, so far as the sense is concerned, by the earlier translators, by the interpolation of “they returned:” Wbt; (Chald.), epestra>fhsan (LXX), reversi sunt (Vulg.), and similarly the Syriac and Arabic. We are not at liberty, however, to amend the Hebrew text in this manner, as nothing more is omitted than the finite verb hy;h; before the infinitive hy;h; (for this construction, see Gesenius, Gramm. §132, 3, Anm. 1), and this might easily be left out here, since it stands at the beginning of the verse in the main clause. The literal rendering would be, they were to be with Israel, i.e., they came over to Israel. The fact that the Hebrews who were serving in the army of the Philistines came over to Saul and his host, and turned their weapons against their oppressors, naturally heightened the confusion in the camp of the Philistines, and accelerated their defeat; and this was still further increased by the fact that the Israelites who had concealed themselves on the mountains of Ephraim also joined the Israelitish army, as soon as they heard of the flight of the Philistines (v. 22).

Verse 23. “Thus the Lord helped Israel that day, and the conflict went out beyond Bethaven.” Bethaven was on the east of Michmash, and, according to v. 31, the Philistines fled westwards from Michmash to Ajalon. But if we bear in mind that the camp of the Philistines was on the eastern side of Michmash before Bethaven, according to 1 Sam 13:5, and that the Israelites forced their way into it from the south, we shall see that the battle might easily have spread out beyond Bethaven, and that eventually the main body of the enemy might have fled as far as Ajalon, and have been pursued to that point by the victorious Israelites.

1 SAMUEL. 14:24-31

Saul’s precipitate haste.

Verse 24. The men of Israel were pressed (i.e., fatigued) on that day, sc., through the military service and fighting. Then Saul adjured the people, saying, “Cursed be the man that eateth bread until the evening, and (till) I have avenged myself upon mine enemies.” hl;a; , fut. apoc. of hl,ayO for hl,a\yæ , from hl;a; , to swear, Hiphil to adjure or require an oath of a person. The people took the oath by saying “amen” to what Saul had uttered. This command of Saul did not proceed from a proper attitude towards the Lord, but was an act of false zeal, in which Saul had more regard to himself and his own kingly power than to the cause of the kingdom of Jehovah, as we may see at once from the expression wgw µqæn; , “till I have avenged myself upon mine enemies.” It was a despotic measure which not only failed to accomplish its object (see vv. 30, 31), but brought Saul into the unfortunate position of being unable to carry out the oath (see v. 45). All the people kept the command. “They tasted no bread.” yTim]Qæniw] is not to be connected with µqæn; as an apodosis.

Verse 25. “And all the land (i.e., all the people of the land who had gathered round Saul: vid., v. 29) came into the woody country; there was honey upon the field.” r[æyæ signifies here a woody district, in which forests alternated with tracts of arable land and meadows.

Verse 26. When the people came into the wood and saw a stream of honey (or wild or wood bees), “no one put his hand to his mouth (sc., to eat of the honey), because they feared the oath.”

Verse 27. But Jonathan, who had not heard his father’s oath, dipped (in the heat of pursuit, that he might not have to stop) the point of his staff in the new honey, and put it to his mouth, “and his eyes became bright;” his lost strength, which is reflected in the eye, having been brought back by this invigorating taste. The hnart is probably to be read hn;a,r]Ti , the eyes became seeing, received their power of vision again. The Masoretes have substituted as the Keri rwOa , from rwOa , to become bright, according to v. 29; and this is probably the correct reading, as the letters might easily be transposed.

Verse 28-30. When one of the people told him thereupon of his father’s oath, in consequence of which the people were exhausted `µ[æ `ãW[ belongs to the man’s words; and `ãW[ is the same as in Judg 4:21), Jonathan condemned the prohibition. “My father has brought the land (i.e., the people of the land, as in v. 25) into trouble `rkæ[; , see at Gen 34:30): see how bright mine eyes have become because I tasted a little of this honey.

How much more if the people had eaten to-day of the booty of its enemies, would not the overthrow among the Philistines truly have then become great?” yKi ãaæ , lit. to this (there comes) also that = not to mention how much more; and `hT;[æ yKi is an emphatic introduction of the apodosis, as in Gen 31:42; 43:10, and other passages, and the apodosis itself is to be taken as a question.

1 SAMUEL. 14:31-46

Result of the battle, and consequences of Saul’s rashness.

Verse 31. “On that day they smote the Philistines from Michmash to Ajalon,” which has been preserved in the village of Yâlo (see at Josh 19:42), and was about three geographical miles to the south-west of Michmash; “and the people were very faint,” because Saul had forbidden them to eat before the evening (v. 24).

Verse 32. They therefore “fell voraciously upon the booty”-(the Chethibh `hc;[; is no doubt merely an error in writing for `hf;[; , imperf. Kal of `fy[i with Dagesh forte implic. instead of `fy[i , as we may see from 1 Sam 15:19, since the meaning required by the context, viz., to fall upon a thing, cannot be established in the case of `hc;[; with lae . On the other hand, there does not appear to be any necessity to supply the article before ll;v; , and this Keri seems only to have been taken from the parallel passage in Sam 15:19)-”and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground xr,a, , lit. to the earth, so that when they were slaughtered the animal fell upon the ground, and remained lying in its blood, and was cut in pieces), and ate upon the blood” µD; `l[æ , with which µD; lae , “lying to the blood,” is interchanged in v. 34), i.e., the flesh along with the blood which adhered to it, by doing which they sinned against the law in Lev 19:26.

This sin had been occasioned by Saul himself through the prohibition which he issued.

Verse 33-34. When this was told to Saul, he said, “Ye act faithlessly towards Jehovah” by transgressing the laws of the covenant; “roll me now (lit. this day) a large stone. Scatter yourselves among the people, and say to them, Let every one bring his ox and his sheep to me, and slay here” (upon the stone that has been rolled up), viz., so that the blood could run off properly upon the ground, and the flesh be separated from the blood.

This the people also did.

Verse 35. As a thanksgiving for this victory, Saul built an altar to the Lord. tBæ llæj; tae , “he began to build it,” i.e., he built this altar at the beginning, or as the first altar. This altar was probably not intended to serve as a place of sacrifice, but simply to be a memorial of the presence of God, or the revelation of God which Saul had received in the marvellous victory.

Verse 36. After the people had strengthened themselves in the evening with food, Saul wanted to pursue the Philistines still farther during the night, and to plunder among them until the light (i.e., till break of day), and utterly destroy them. The people assented to this proposal, but the priest (Ahiah) wished first of all to obtain the decision of God upon the matter. “We will draw near to God here” (before the altar which has just been built).

Verse 37. But when Saul inquired of God (through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest), “Shall I go down after the Philistines? wilt Thou deliver them into the hand of Israel?” God did not answer him. Saul was to perceive from this, that the guilt of some sin was resting upon the people, on account of which the Lord had turned away His countenance, and was withdrawing His help.

Verse 38-39. When Saul perceived, this, he directed all the heads of the people (pinnoth, as in Judg 20:2) to draw near to learn whereby (wherein) the sin had occurred that day, and declared, “As truly as Jehovah liveth, who has brought salvation to Israel, even if it were upon Jonathan my son, he shall die.” The first yKi in v. 39 is explanatory; the second and third serve to introduce the words, like oJ>ti , quod; and the repetition serves to give emphasis, lit., “that even if it were upon my son, that he shall die.” “And of all the people no one answered him,” from terror at the king’s word.

Verse 40-41. In order to find out the guilt, or rather the culprit, Saul proceeded to the lot; and for this purpose he made all the people stand on one side, whilst he and his son Jonathan went to the other, and then solemnly addressed Jehovah thus: “God of Israel, give innocence (of mind, i.e., truth). And the lot fell upon Saul and Jonathan dkæl; , as in 1 Sam 10:20-21); and the people went out,” sc., without the lot falling upon them, i.e., they went out free.

Verse 42. When they proceeded still further to cast lots between Saul and his son lpæn; , sc., lr;wOG; cf. 1 Chron 26:14; Neh 11:11, etc.), Jonathan was taken. f30 Verse 43-44. When Saul asked him what he had done, Jonathan confessed that he had tasted a little honey (see v. 27), and resigned himself to the punishment suspended over him, saying, “Behold, I shall die;” and Saul pronounced sentence of death upon him, accompanying it with an oath (“God do so,” etc.: vid., Ruth 1:17).

Verse 45. But the people interposed, “Shall Jonathan die, who has achieved this great salvation (victory) in Israel? God forbid! As truly as Jehovah liveth, not a hair shall fall from his head upon the ground; for he hath wrought (the victory) with God to-day.” Thus the people delivered Jonathan from death. The objection raised by the people was so conclusive, that Saul was obliged to yield.

What Jonathan had done was not wrong in itself, but became so simply on account of the oath with which Saul had forbidden it. But Jonathan did not hear the oath, and therefore had not even consciously transgressed.

Nevertheless a curse lay upon Israel, which was to be brought to light as a warning for the culprit. Therefore Jehovah had given no reply to Saul. But when the lot, which had the force of a divine verdict, fell upon Jonathan, sentence of death was not thereby pronounced upon him by God; but is was simply made manifest, that through his transgression of his father’s oath, with which he was not acquainted, guilt had been brought upon Israel. The breach of a command issued with a solemn oath, even when it took place unconsciously, excited the wrath of God, as being a profanation of the divine name. But such a sin could only rest as guilt upon the man who had committed, or the man who occasioned it.

Now where the command in question was one of God himself, there could be no question, that even in the case of unconscious transgression the sin fell upon the transgressor, and it was necessary that it should either be expiated by him or forgiven him. But where the command of a man had been unconsciously transgressed, the guilt might also fall upon the man who issued the command, that is to say, if he did it without being authorized or empowered by God. In the present instance, Saul had issued the prohibition without divine authority, and had made it obligatory upon the people by a solemn oath. The people had conscientiously obeyed the command, but Jonathan had transgressed it without being aware of it. For this Saul was about to punish him with death, in order to keep his oath.

But the people opposed it. They not only pronounced Jonathan innocent, because he had broken the king’s command unconsciously, but they also exclaimed that he had gained the victory for Israel “with God.” In this fact (Jonathan’s victory) there was a divine verdict. And Saul could not fail to recognise now, that it was not Jonathan, but he himself, who had sinned, and through his arbitrary and despotic command had brought guilt upon Israel, on account of which God had given him no reply.

Verse 46. With the feeling of this guilt, Saul gave up any further pursuit of the Philistines: he “went up” (sc., to Gibeah) “from behind the Philistines,” i.e., desisting from any further pursuit. But the Philistines went to their place, i.e., back into their own land.

1 SAMUEL. 14:47-52

General Summary of Saul’s other Wars, and Account of his Family.

Verse 47. “But Saul had taken the sovereignty.” As Saul had first of all secured a recognition of himself as king on the part of all the tribes of Israel, through his victory over the Ammonites at Jabesh (1 Sam 11:12ff.), so it was through the victory which he had gained over the Philistines, and by which these obstinate foes of Israel were driven back into their own land, that he first acquired the kingship over Israel, i.e., first really secured the regal authority over the Israelites. This is the meaning of hk;Wlm] dkæl; ; and this statement is not at variance either with the election of Saul by lot (1 Sam 10:17ff.), or with his confirmation at Gilgal (1 Sam 11:14-15). But as Saul had to fight for the sovereignty, and could only secure it by successful warfare, his other wars are placed in the foreground in the summary account of his reign which follows (vv. 47, 48), whilst the notices concerning his family, which stand at the very beginning in the case of other kings, are not mentioned till afterwards (vv. 49-51).

Saul fought successfully against all the enemies of Israel round about; against Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah, a district of Syria on this side the Euphrates (see at 2 Sam 8:3), and against the Philistines. The war against the Ammonites is described in ch. 11; but with the Philistines Saul had to wage repeated war all the days of his life (v. 52).

The other wars are none of them more fully described, simply because they were of no importance to the history of the kingdom of God, having neither furnished occasion for any miraculous displays of divine omnipotence, nor brought about the subjection of hostile nations to the power of Israel. “Whithersoever he turned, he inflicted punishment.” This is the rendering which Luther has very aptly given to [vær; ; for [vær; signifies to declare wrong, hence to condemn, more especially as applied to judges: here it denotes sentence or condemnation by deeds. Saul chastised these nations for their attacks upon Israel.

Verse 48. “And he acquired power;” lyijæ `hc;[; (as in Num 24:18) does not merely signify he proved himself brave, or he formed an army, but denotes the development and unfolding of power in various respects. Here it relates more particularly to the development of strength in the war against Amalek, by virtue of which Saul smote this arch-enemy of Israel, and put an end to their depredations. This war is described more fully in ch. 15, on account of its consequences in relation to Saul’s own sovereignty.

Verse 49-51. Saul’s family.-V. 49. Only three of his sons are mentioned, namely those who fell with him, according to 1 Sam 31:2, in the war with the Philistines. Jisvi is only another name for Abinadab (1 Sam 31:2; Chron 8:33; 9:39). In these passages in the Chronicles there is a fourth mentioned, Esh-baal, i.e., the one who is called Ish-bosheth in 2 Sam 2:8, etc., and who was set up by Abner as the antagonist of David. The reason why he is not mentioned here it is impossible to determine. It may be that the name has fallen out simply through some mistake in copying: the daughters Michal and Merab are mentioned, with special reference to the occurrence described in 1 Sam 18:17ff. Verse 50-51. Abner the general was also Saul’s cousin. For “son of Abiel” (ben Abiel) we must read “sons of Abiel” (bne Abiel: see 1 Sam 9:1).

Verse 52. The statement, “and the war was hard (severe) against the Philistines as long as Saul lived,” merely serves to explain the notice which follows, namely, that Saul took or drew to himself every strong man and every brave man that he saw. If we observe this, which is the true relation between the two clauses in this verse, the appearance of abruptness which we find in the first notice completely vanishes, and the verse follows very suitably upon the allusion to the general. The meaning might be expressed in this manner: And as Saul had to carry on a severe war against the Philistines his whole life long, he drew to himself every powerful man and every brave man that he met with.

WAR WITH AMALEK. SAUL’S DISOBEDIENCE AND REJECTION. CH. 15.

As Saul had transgressed the commandment of God which was given to him through Samuel, by the sacrifice which he offered at Gilgal in the war with the Philistines at the very commencement of his reign, and had thereby drawn upon himself the threat that his monarchy should not be continued in perpetuity (1 Sam 13:13-14); so his disobedience in the war against the Amalekites was followed by his rejection on the part of God. The Amalekites were the first heathen nation to attack the Israelites after their deliverance out of Egypt, which they did in the most treacherous manner on their journey from Egypt to Sinai; and they had been threatened by God with extermination in consequence. This Moses enjoined upon Joshua, and also committed to writing, for the Israelites to observe in all future generations (Ex 17:8-16). As the Amalekites afterwards manifested the same hostility to the people of God which they had displayed in this first attack, on every occasion which appeared favourable to their ravages, the Lord instructed Samuel to issue the command to Saul, to wage war against Amalek, and to smite man and beast with the ban, i.e., to put all to death (vv. 1-3).

But when Saul had smitten them, he not only left Agag the king alive, but spared the best of the cattle that he had taken as booty, and merely executed the ban upon such animals as were worthless (vv. 4-9). He was rejected by the Lord for this disobedience, so that he was to be no longer king over Israel. His rejection was announced to him by Samuel (vv. 10- 23), and was not retracted in spite of his prayer for the forgiveness of his sin (vv. 24-35). In fact, Saul had no excuse for this breach of the divine command; it was nothing but open rebellion against the sovereignty of God in Israel; and if Jehovah would continue King of Israel, He must punish it by the rejection of the rebel. For Saul no longer desired to be the medium of the sovereignty of Jehovah, or the executor of the commands of the God-king, but simply wanted to reign according to his own arbitrary will.

Nevertheless this rejection was not followed by his outward deposition.

The Lord merely took away His Spirit, had David anointed king by Samuel, and thenceforward so directed the steps of Saul and David, that as time advanced the hearts of the people were turned away more and more from Saul to David; and on the death of Saul, the attempt of the ambitious Abner to raise his son Ishbosheth to the throne could not possibly have any lasting success.

1 SAMUEL. 15:1-3

Verse 1-3. The account of the war against the Amalekites is a very condensed one, and is restricted to a description of the conduct of Saul on that occasion. Without mentioning either the time or the immediate occasion of the war, the narrative commences with the command of God which Samuel solemnly communicated to Saul, to go and exterminate that people. Samuel commenced with the words, “Jehovah sent me to anoint thee to be king over His people, over Israel,” in order to show to Saul the obligation which rested upon him to receive his commission as coming from God, and to proceed at once to fulfil it. The allusion to the anointing points back not to 1 Sam 11:15, but to ch. 10:1.

Verse 2. “Thus saith the Lord of Zebaoth, I have looked upon what Amalek did to Israel, that it placed itself in his way when he came up out of Egypt” (Ex 17:8). Samuel merely mentions this first outbreak of hostility on the part of Amalek towards the people of Israel, because in this the same disposition was already manifested which now made the people ripe for the judgment of extermination (vid., Ex 17:14). The hostility which they had now displayed, according to v. 33, there was no necessity for the prophet to mention particularly, since it was well known to Saul and all Israel. When God looks upon a sin, directs His glance towards it, He must punish it according to His own holiness. This rqæp] points at the very outset to the punishment about to be proclaimed.

Verse 3. Saul is to smite and ban everything belonging to it without reserve, i.e., to put to death both man and beast. The last clause wgwtWm is only an explanation and exemplification of wgwµræj; . “From man to woman,” etc., i.e., men and women, children and sucklings, etc.

1 SAMUEL. 15:4-9

Saul summoned the people to war, and mustered them (those who were summoned) at Telaim (this was probably the same place as the Telem mentioned in Josh 15:24, and is to be looked for in the eastern portion of the Negeb). “Two hundred thousand foot, and ten thousand of the men of Judah:” this implies that the two hundred thousand were from the other tribes. These numbers are not too large; for a powerful Bedouin nation, such as the Amalekites were, could not possibly be successfully attacked with a small army, but only by raising the whole of the military force of Israel.

Verse 5. He then advanced as far as the city of the Amalekites, the situation of which is altogether unknown, and placed an ambush in the valley. byri does not come from byri , to fight, i.e., to quarrel, not to give battle, but was understood even by the early translators as a contracted form of byri , the Hiphil of bræa; . And modern commentators have generally understood it in the same way; but Olshausen (Hebr. Gramm. p. 572) questions the correctness of the reading, and Thenius proposes to alter ljænæ byri into hm;j;l]mi Ëro[\Yæwæ . ljænæ refers to a valley in the neighbourhood of the city of the Amalekites.

Verse 6-7. Saul directed the Kenites to come out from among the Amalekites, that they might not perish with them ãsæa; , imp. Kal of ãsæa; ), as they had shown affection to the Israelites on their journey out of Egypt (compare Num 10:29 with Judg 1:16). He then smote the Amalekites from Havilah in the direction towards Shur, which lay before (to the east of) Egypt (cf. Gen 25:18). Shur is the desert of Jifar, i.e., that portion of the desert of Arabia which borders upon Egypt (see at Gen 16:7). Havilah, the country of the Chaulotaeans, on the border of Arabia Petraea towards Yemen (see at Gen 10:29). Verse 8-9. Their king, Agag, he took alive (on the name, see at Num 24:7), but all the people he banned with the edge of the sword, i.e., he had them put to death without quarter. “All,” i.e., all that fell into the hands of the Israelites. For it follows from the very nature of the case that many escaped, and consequently there is nothing striking in the fact that Amalekites are mentioned again at a later period (1 Sam 27:8; 30:1; 2 Sam 8:12). The last remnant was destroyed by the Simeonites upon the mountains of Seir in the reign of Hezekiah (1 Chron 4:43). Only, king Agag did Saul and the people (of Israel) spare, also “the best of the sheep and oxen, and the animals of the second birth, and the lambs and everything good; these they would not ban.” hn,v]mi , according to D.

Kimchi and R. Tanch., are ˆfbl µyynv , i.e., animalia secundo partu edita, which were considered superior to the others (vid., Roediger in Ges. Thes. p. 1451); and rKæ , pasture lambs, i.e., fat lambs.

There is no necessity, therefore, for the conjecture of Ewald and Thenius, ˆm;v]mæ , fattened, and µr,K, , vineyards; nor for the far-fetched explanation given by Bochart, viz., camels with two humps and camel-saddles, to say nothing of the fact that camel-saddles and vineyards are altogether out of place here. In “all that was good” the things already mentioned singly are all included. hk;al;m] , the property; here it is applied to cattle, as in Gen 33:14. hz,b]min] = hz;B; , despised, undervalued. The form of the word is not contracted from a noun hz,b]mi and the participle hz;B; (Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 463), but seems to be a participle Niph. formed from a noun hz,b]mi . But as such a form is contrary to all analogy, Ewald and Olshausen regard the reading as corrupt. ssæm; (from ssæm; ): flowing away; used with reference to diseased cattle, or such as have perished. The reason for sparing the best cattle is very apparent, namely selfishness. But it is not so easy to determine why Agag should have been spared by Saul. It is by no means probable that he wished thereby to do honour to the royal dignity. O. v.

Gerlach’s supposition, that vanity or the desire to make a display with a royal slave was the actual reason, is a much more probable one.

1 SAMUEL. 15:10-11

The word of the Lord came to Samuel: “It repenteth me that I have made Saul king, for he hath turned away from me, and not set up (carried out) my word.” (On the repentance of God, see the remarks on Gen 6:6.) That this does not express any changeableness in the divine nature, but simply the sorrow of the divine love at the rebellion of sinners, is evident enough from v. 29. yy rjæaæ bWv , to turn round from following God, in order to go his own ways. This was Saul’s real sin. He would no longer be the follower and servant of the Lord, but would be absolute ruler in Israel. Pride arising from the consciousness of his own strength, led him astray to break the command of God. What more God said to Samuel is not communicated here, because it could easily be gathered and supplied from what Samuel himself proceeded to do (see more particularly vv. 16ff.). In order to avoid repetitions, only the principal feature in the divine revelation is mentioned here, and the details are given fully afterwards in the account of the fulfilment of the instructions. Samuel was deeply agitated by this word of the Lord. “It burned (in) him,” sc., wrath ãaæ , compare Gen 31:36 with 30:2), not on account of the repentance to which God had given utterance at having raised up Saul as king, nor merely at Saul’s disobedience, but at the frustration of the purpose of God in calling him to be king in consequence of his disobedience, from which he might justly dread the worst results in relation to the glory of Jehovah and his own prophetic labours. f31 The opinion that l] hr;j; is also used to signify deep distress cannot be established from 2 Sam 4:8. “And he cried to Jehovah the whole night,” sc., praying for Saul to be forgiven. But it was in vain. This is evident from what follows, where Samuel maintains the cause of his God with strength and decision, after having wrestled with God in prayer.

1 SAMUEL. 15:12

The next morning, after receiving the revelation from God (v. 11), Samuel rose up early, to go and meet Saul as he was returning from the war. On the way it was told him, “Saul has come to Carmel”- i.e., Kurmul, upon the mountains of Judah to the south-east of Hebron (see at Josh 15:55)- ”setting himself a memorial” dy; , a hand, then a memorial or monument, inasmuch as the hand calls attention to anything: see 2 Sam 18:18), “and has turned and proceeded farther, and gone down to Gilgal” (in the valley of the Jordan, as in 1 Sam 13:4).

1 SAMUEL. 15:13

When Samuel met him there, Saul attempted to hide his consciousness of guilt by a feigned friendly welcome. “Blessed be thou of the Lord” (vid., Ruth 2:20; Gen 14:19, etc.) was his greeting to the prophet; “I have set up the word of Jehovah.”

1 SAMUEL. 15:14-15

But the prophet stripped his hypocrisy at once with the question, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears, and a lowing of oxen that I hear?”

Saul replied (v. 15), “They have brought them from the Amalekites, because the people spared the best sheep and oxen, to sacrifice them to the Lord thy God; and the rest we have banned.” So that it was not Saul, but the people, who had transgressed the command of the Lord, and that with the most laudable intention, viz., to offer the best of the cattle that had been taken, as a thank-offering to the Lord. The falsehood and hypocrisy of these words lay upon the very surface; for even if the cattle spared were really intended as sacrifices to the Lord, not only the people, but Saul also, would have had their own interests in view (vid., v. 9), since the flesh of thank-offerings was appropriated to sacrificial meals.

1 SAMUEL. 15:16-19

Samuel therefore bade him be silent. hp;r; , “leave off,” excusing thyself any further. “I will tell thee what Jehovah hath said to me this night.” (The Chethibh rmæa; is evidently a copyist’s error for rmæa; .) “Is it not true, when thou wast little in thine eyes (a reference to Saul’s own words, 1 Sam 9:21), thou didst become head of the tribes of Israel? and Jehovah anointed thee king over Israel, and Jehovah sent thee on the way, and said, Go and ban the sinners, the Amalekites, and make war against them, until thou exterminatest them. And wherefore hast thou nor hearkened to the voice of Jehovah, and hast fallen upon the booty,” etc.? `fy[i , see at 1 Sam 14:32.)

Even after this Saul wanted to justify himself, and to throw the blame of sparing the cattle upon the people.

1 SAMUEL. 15:20

“Yea, I have hearkened to the voice of Jehovah rv,a serving, like yKi , to introduce the reply: here it is used in the sense of asseveration, utique, yea), and have brought Agag the king of the Amalekites, and banned Amalek.” Bringing Agag he mentioned probably as a practical proof that he had carried out the war of extermination against the Amalekites.

1 SAMUEL. 15:21

Even the sparing of the cattle he endeavoured to defend as the fulfilment of a religious duty. The people had taken sheep and oxen from the booty, “as firstlings of the ban,” to sacrifice to Jehovah. Sacrificing the best of the booty taken in war as an offering of first-fruits to the Lord, was not indeed prescribed in the law, but was a praiseworthy sign of piety, by which all honour was rendered to the Lord as the giver of the victory (see Num 31:48ff.). This, Saul meant to say, was what the people had done on the present occasion; only he overlooked the fact, that what was banned to the Lord could not be offered to Him as a burnt-offering, because, being most holy, it belonged to Him already (Lev 27:29), and according to Deut 13:16, was to be put to death, as Samuel had expressly said to Saul (v. 3).

1 SAMUEL. 15:22-23

Without entering, therefore, into any discussion of the meaning of the ban, as Saul only wanted to cover over his own wrong-doings by giving this turn to the affair, Samuel put a stop to any further excuses, by saying, “Hath Jehovah delight in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings as in hearkening to the voice of Jehovah? (i.e., in obedience to His word.)

Behold, hearing (obeying) is better than slain-offerings, attending better than fat of rams.” By saying this, Samuel did not reject sacrifices as worthless; he did not say that God took no pleasure in burnt-offerings and slain-offerings, but simply compared sacrifice with obedience to the command of God, and pronounced the latter of greater worth than the former. “It was as much as to say that the sum and substance of divine worship consisted in obedience, with which it should always begin, and that sacrifices were, so to speak, simple appendices, the force and worth of which were not so great as of obedience to the precepts of God” (Calvin). But it necessarily follows that sacrifices without obedience to the commandments of God are utterly worthless; in fact, are displeasing to God, as Ps 50:8ff., Isa 1:11ff., 66:3, Jer 6:20, and all the prophets, distinctly affirm. There was no necessity, however, to carry out this truth any further. To tear off the cloak of hypocrisy, with which Saul hoped to cover his disobedience, it was quite enough to affirm that God’s first demand was obedience, and that observing His word was better than sacrifice; because, as the Berleb. Bible puts it, “in sacrifices a man offers only the strange flesh of irrational animals, whereas in obedience he offers his own will, which is rational or spiritual worship” (Rom 12:8). This spiritual worship was shadowed forth in the sacrificial worship of the Old Testament. In the sacrificial animal the Israelite was to give up and sanctify his own person and life to the Lord. (For an examination of the meaning of the different sacrifices, see Pent. pp. 505ff., and Keil’s Bibl Archäol. §41ff.) But if this were the design of the sacrifices, it was clear enough that God did not desire the animal sacrifice in itself, but first and chiefly obedience to His own word.

In v. 22, bwOf is not to be connected as an adjective with jbæz, , “more than good sacrifice,” as the Sept. and Thenius render it; it is rather to be taken as a predicate, “better than slain-offerings,” and jbæz, is placed first simply for the sake of emphasis. Any contrast between good and bad sacrifices, such as the former construction would introduce into the words, is not only foreign to the context, but also opposed to the parallelism. For lyiaæ bl,j, does not mean fat rams, but the fat of rams; the fat portions taken from the ram, which were placed upon the altar in the case of the slain-offerings, and for which bl,j, is the technical expression (compare Lev 3:9,16, with vv. 4, 11, etc.). “For,” continued Samuel (v. 23), “rebellion is the sin of soothsaying, and opposition is heathenism and idolatry.” yrim] and rxæp; are the subjects, and synonymous in their meaning. µs,q, ha;F;jæ , the sin of soothsaying, i.e., of divination in connection with the worship of idolatrous and demoniacal powers.

In the second clause idols are mentioned instead of idolatry, and compared to resistance, but without any particle of comparison. Opposition is keeping idols and teraphim, i.e., it is like worshipping idols and teraphim. ˆw,a; , nothingness, then an idol or image (vid., Isa 66:3; Hos 4:15; 10:5,8).

On the teraphim as domestic and oracular deities, see at Gen 31:19.

Opposition to God is compared by Samuel to soothsaying and oracles, because idolatry was manifested in both of them. All conscious disobedience is actually idolatry, because it makes self-will, the human I, into a god. So that all manifest opposition to the word and commandment of God is, like idolatry, a rejection of the true God. “Because thou hast rejected the word of Jehovah, He hath rejected thee, that thou mayst be no longer king.” Ël,m, = Ël,m, hy;h; (v. 26), away from being king.

1 SAMUEL. 15:24-25

This sentence made so powerful an impression upon Saul, that he confessed, “I have sinned: for I have transgressed the command of the Lord and thy words, because I feared the people, and hearkened to their voice.” But these last words, with which he endeavoured to make his sin appear as small as possible, show that the consciousness of his guilt did not go very deep. Even if the people had really desired that the best of the cattle should be spared, he ought not as king to have given his consent to their wish, since God had commanded that they should all be banned (i.e., destroyed); and even though he has yielded from weakness, this weakness could not lessen his guilt before God. This repentance, therefore, was rather the effect of alarm at the rejection which had been announced to him, than the fruit of any genuine consciousness of sin. “It was not true and serious repentance, or the result of genuine sorrow of heart because he had offended God, but was merely repentance of the lips arising from fear of losing the kingdom, and of incurring public disgrace” (C. v. Lapide). This is apparent even from v. 25, but still more from v. 30. In v. 25 he not only entreats Samuel for the forgiveness of his sin, but says, “Return with me, that I may pray to the Lord.” The bWv presupposes that Samuel was about to go away after the executing his commission. Saul entreated him to remain that he might pray, i.e., not only in order to obtain for him the forgiveness of his sin through his intercession, but, according to v. 30, to show him honour before the elders of the people and before Israel, that his rejection might not be known.

1 SAMUEL. 15:26-29

This request Samuel refused, repeating at the same time the sentence of rejection, and turned to depart. “Then Saul laid hold of the lappet of his mantle (i.e., his upper garment), and it tore” (lit. was torn off). That the Niphal [ræq; is correct, and is not to be altered into tae [ræq; , “Saul tore off the lappet,” according to the rendering of the LXX, as Thenius supposes, is evident from the explanation which Samuel gave of the occurrence (v. 28): “Jehovah hath torn the sovereignty of Israel from thee to-day, and given it to thy neighbour, who is better than thou.” As Saul was about to hold back the prophet by force, that he might obtain from him a revocation of the divine sentence, the tearing of the mantle, which took place accidentally, and evidently without any such intention on the part of Saul, was to serve as a sign of the rending away of the sovereignty from him.

Samuel did not yet know to whom Jehovah would give it; he therefore used the expression [ære , as [ære is applied to any one with whom a person associates. To confirm his own words, he adds in v. 29: “And also the Trust of Israel doth not lie and doth not repent, for He is not a man to repent.” jxæn, signifies constancy, endurance, then confidence, trust, because a man can trust in what is constant. This meaning is to be retained here, where the word is used as a name for God, and not the meaning gloria, which is taken in 1 Chron 29:11 from the Aramaean usage of speech, and would be altogether unsuitable here, where the context suggests the idea of unchangeableness. For a man’s repentance or regret arises from his changeableness, from the fluctuations in his desires and actions. This is never the case with God; consequently He is laer;c]yi jxæn, , the unchangeable One, in whom Israel can trust, since He does not lie or deceive, or repent of His purposes. These words are spoken the oprepw>v (theomorphically), whereas in v. 11 and other passages, which speak of God as repenting, the words are to be understood anqrwpopaqw>v (anthropomorphically; cf. Num 23:19).

1 SAMUEL. 15:30-31

After this declaration as to the irrevocable character of the determination of God to reject Saul, Samuel yielded to the renewed entreaty of Saul, that he would honour him by his presence before the elders and the people, and remained whilst Saul worshipped, not merely “for the purpose of preserving the outward order until a new king should take his place” (O. v.

Gerlach), but also to carry out the ban upon Agag, whom Saul had spared.

1 SAMUEL. 15:32

After Saul had prayed, Samuel directed him to bring Agag the king of the Amalekites. Agag came ˆd;[mæ , i.e., in a contented and joyous state of mind, and said (in his heart), “Surely the bitterness of death is vanished,” not from any special pleasure at the thought of death, or from a heroic contempt of death, but because he thought that his life was to be granted him, as he had not been put to death at once, and was now about to be presented to the prophet (Clericus).

1 SAMUEL. 15:33

But Samuel pronounced the sentence of death upon him: “As thy sword hath made women childless, so be thy mother childless before women!” hV;ai is to be understood as a comparative: more childless than (other) women, i.e., the most childless of women, namely, because her son was the king. From these words of Samuel, it is very evident that Agag had carried on his wars with great cruelty, and had therefore forfeited his life according to the lex talionis. Samuel then hewed him in pieces “before the Lord at Gilgal,” i.e., before the altar of Jehovah there; for the slaying of Agag being the execution of the ban, was an act performed for the glory of God. 1 SAMUEL 15:34,35 After the prophet had thus maintained the rights of Jehovah in the presence of Saul, and carried out the ban upon Agag, he returned to his own home at Ramah; and Saul went to his house at Gibeah. From that time forward Samuel broke off all intercourse with the king whom Jehovah had rejected. “For Samuel was grieved for Saul, and it repented the Lord that he had made Saul king,” i.e., because Samuel had loved Saul on account of his previous election; and yet, as Jehovah had rejected him unconditionally, he felt that he was precluded from doing anything to effect a change of heart in Saul, and his reinstatement as king.

III. SAUL’S FALL AND DAVID’S ELECTION.

Although the rejection of Saul on the part of God, which was announced to him by Samuel, was not followed by immediate deposition, but Saul remained king until his death, the consequences of his rejection were very speedily brought to light. Whilst Samuel, by the command of God, was secretly anointing David, the youngest son of Jesse, at Bethlehem, as king (1 Sam 16:1-13), the Spirit of Jehovah departed from Saul, and an evil spirit began to terrify him, so that he fell into melancholy; and his servants fetched David to the court, as a man who could play on stringed instruments, that he might charm away the king’s melancholy by his playing (1 Sam 16:14-23). Another war with the Philistines soon furnished David with the opportunity for displaying his heroic courage, by the defeat of the giant Goliath, before whom the whole army of the Israelites trembled; and to attract the eyes of the whole nation to himself, as the deliverer of Israel from its foes (1 Sam 17:1-54), in consequence of which Saul placed him above the men of war, whilst Saul’s brave son Jonathan formed a bond of friendship with him (1 Sam 17:55-18:5).

But this victory, in commemorating which the women sang, “Saul hath slain a thousand, David ten thousand” (1 Sam 18:7), excited the jealousy of the melancholy king, so that the next day, in an attack of madness, he threw his spear at David, who was playing before him, and after that not only removed him from his presence, but by elevating him to the rank of chief captain, and by the promise to give him his daughter in marriage for the performance of brave deeds, endeavoured to entangle him in such conflicts with the Philistines as should cost him his life. And when this failed, and David prospered in all his undertakings, he began to be afraid of him, and cherished a lifelong hatred towards him (1 Sam 18:6-30).