1 SAMUEL

Winfred O. Neely

In the Hebrew Bible the title of 1 and 2 Samuel is simply "Samuel." This one book was named "Samuel" because he was the dominant person in the early chapters, and he anointed the first two kings of Israel, Saul and David. When the OT was first translated into Greek, the scrolls available at the time did not have enough space to include the contents of all of Samuel. Therefore the book was divided into two books in our English Bibles. Of course, the present division is not a problem; in no way does it affect the divine inspiration of these accounts. Still, one should keep in mind that these two books are one account, and they should be read and studied as such.

Author. Even though the title of the book is "Samuel," Samuel was not the author. The human author is unknown. Evidence from Samuel implies that the account was written not long after Israel was divided into the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah (cf. 1Kg 12; 1Sm 6:18; 9:9; 27:6).

Apparently the Holy Spirit led the author/narrator to consult sources such as the Book of Jashar (2Sm 1:18), and those described as "the acts of King David, from first to last … written in the chronicles of Samuel the seer, in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet and in the chronicles of Gad the seer" (cf. 1Ch. 29:29). Although the books are anonymous and therefore the human author of 1 and 2 Samuel is unknown, it is known that the divine author is the Lord.

Date. The date of the writing of 1 and 2 Samuel cannot be fixed with absolute certainty. The Talmud incorrectly identifies Samuel as the author of the books that bear his name. This, along with "eyewitness" accounts and "general antiquity of linguistic features" have caused the unlikely suggestion that the material was written either "during David’s day or shortly thereafter (c. 1025–900 BC)" (J. Carl Laney, First and Second Samuel [Chicago: Moody, 1982], 8). But the reference in 1Sm 27:6 to the kings of Judah suggests that it was written after the division of the kingdom (about 930 BC). Further, the author did not mention the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel to Assyria in 722 BC, which he surely would not have ignored in his writing, which makes it likely that the books were written before that date. Thus, "some [date] the books’ composition between 930 and 723/22 BC" (David M. Howard, Jr., An Introduction to the Old Testament Historical Books [Chicago: Moody, 1993], 145).

Purpose. These books were written to encourage people living in Judah at the time of the divided kingdom to walk with the Lord in bold faith and to honor Him in all circumstances. The narrator’s objective was to see them shun and reject evil choices, the choices of unbelief and disobedience, bad choices that leave devastating consequences in their wake. To see this purpose achieved, the narrator regarded the lives of people such as Hannah, Samuel, Saul, Jonathan, David, and others.

His purpose however, was not merely to share information but to see more Samuels, Davids, Hannahs, Abigails, and mighty men and women raised up in Israel as a result of their faith. Laney says: "The biblical record of Israel’s beginnings as a political nation are masterfully recorded to give us not only an accurate historical document, but also to present significant spiritual lessons concerning the effects of sin, the workings of the Holy Spirit, and the sovereignty of God" (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 7).

The most significant purpose of 1 and 2 Samuel is to point to the ultimate Son of David, the Messiah, using David as the central character. The story of Samuel was included since he was the prophet who anointed kings. Saul’s story was included as a foil, an example of a king not after the heart of God, unlike David. David’s story is central to both books, showing him develop from shepherd boy, to warrior, to fugitive, to king, to failure, to exile, to restoration as king. He is depicted as the ideal king. Central to his entire story is that God promised to give Him a descendant with an eternal house, kingdom, and throne (2Sm 7:12–16). This promise, called the Davidic covenant, is essential to the book, because it is the Messiah who will reign as the eternal king.

Background. The historical setting of 1 and 2 Samuel is the sunset of the judges period embodied in Samuel and the dawn of the theocratic monarchy embodied in Saul and David. Samuel, one of the greatest prophets since Moses, served as the last of the judges and facilitated the transition from the judgeship to the monarchy. The period of time covered in 1 and 2 Samuel cannot be stated with precision, but it covers approximately 150 years. If one estimates the time of the events of Hannah’s experiences in 1Sm 1 to be about 10 years, and notes that Samuel was old (1Sm 8:1) when he anointed Saul as king (60–65 years of age?), and takes into consideration the 40-year reigns of Saul and David, David’s reign ending with his death in 970 BC, one has an estimated time span of 150 years from about 1120 BC to 970 BC.

The genre of 1 and 2 Samuel is historical narrative, that is, a recounting of historical facts from the Lord’s perspective, related and relived in the form of a story for the purpose of instruction. The books belong to the part of the canon designated as the historical books. Baldwin states: "The books of Samuel are the product of highly developed literary art … purposefully selective … intending to engage the reader in an active relationship with the text" (Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, TOTC, edited by D. J. Wiseman [Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1988], 16].

The narrator recounted the history from God’s point of view. Since the Lord is the ultimate author of the account, the narrator’s perspective is the perspective of the Lord Himself.

The narrator is a skilled storyteller. One can hardly overestimate the incredible literary skill and subtlety of the narrator/storyteller of 1 and 2 Samuel. His skillful use of irony, humor, flashback, and dramatic tension and resolution is astounding.

The narrative demands our imaginative participation in the events themselves, thus helping us see how our own story by God’s grace can fit into and is a part of the big story of redemption.

Unforgettable characters, real people, dot the narrative landscape. The narrator devotes many chapters to David. Next to Moses, no other person captured Israel’s imagination like David, Israel’s greatest king, the measure by whom all subsequent kings were evaluated. He was a man after God’s own heart, and yet the Spirit of God did not hide his terrible sin recounted in 2Sm 11. More than anyone else, the Lord is met in 1 and 2 Samuel by the reader. First and 2 Samuel are truly His story, as is all of Scripture.

Samuel is the principal figure in the first eight chapters of 1 Samuel. His mother, Hannah, asked for a son in prayer, and the Lord’s answer was Samuel. Most commentators agree that David was the central character in the books of Samuel. Still, the events of these opening chapters, especially Hannah’s request for a son, may have been included, as Baldwin suggests, because Hannah’s request "was in line with the overarching will of God, who was preparing to bring into the world a man who would be his faithful representative and mouthpiece" (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 50). It also may have been important to demonstrate Samuel’s Levitical descent (1:1), since he served as a priest as well as prophet and judge (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 16). Samuel’s priestly function was clear in his instructions to Saul: "And you shall go down before me to Gilgal; and behold, I will come down to you to offer burnt offerings and sacrifice peace offerings" (1Sm 10:8). The narrative about Samuel’s birth established his credential to anoint kings, specifically Saul (who failed as king) and then David (who became the ideal king).

1:1–2. Elkanah, whose name means "God created," is mentioned first. Ramathaim-zophim is a longer form of Ramah (cf. 1:19; 2:11; 7:17). Ramah means "height" or "elevation"; Ramathaim means "two heights." In ancient Israel people built cities on hills for protection and security. The city of Ramah, about seven miles northeast of Jerusalem, was built on two adjacent heights or hills. Since it was one city, it was called Ramah; since the city was built on two adjacent hills, it was called Ramathaim (1:1).

Elkanah had two wives, Hannah ("grace") and Peninnah ("pearl"). The order of mention suggests that Hannah was his first wife and Peninnah the second. Hannah, the first wife, had a respectable prominence that Peninnah did not share.

Hannah, however, had experienced maternal tragedy; she could not have children. In the ancient world a woman’s ability to have children, especially to provide her husband with a male heir to continue his name, was considered an expression of God’s blessing (cf. Gn 16:1–16; 21:1–8; Ps 127:3–5). The narrator did not give the reason for the second marriage, but Elkanah probably did it to be sure he had a male heir.

In the OT the Lord permitted bigamy and polygamy, but these practices never received His sanction. Merrill says that Elkanah’s bigamy was "one indication of how lawless were the times in which Samuel was born" (Eugene H. Merrill, "1 Samuel," BKCOT [Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985], 433). Some commentators say a second marriage was allowed in the case of a childless first marriage—which was Elkanah’s situation—but bigamy and polygamy were still clear violations of God’s standard for marriage, which is one man and one woman for life (cf. Gn 2:18–25). Youngblood notes, "although polygamy is never explicitly condemned in Scripture, its complications and unsavory results are everywhere apparent" (Ronald F. Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel" in EBC, rev. ed., edited by Tremper Longman, III and David E. Garland [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2009], 45).

1:3. Even though he had two wives, Elkanah feared the Lord. Every year he went to Shiloh (about 25 miles northwest of the Dead Sea) to worship and sacrifice to the Lord. Males in Israel were required to go up to the place the Lord had chosen (whether at the tabernacle in Shiloh or later at the temple in Jerusalem) to participate in three annual feasts: the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Booths (cf. Ex 23:14–17, 34:23; Dt 16:16–17). Perhaps Elkanah’s annual pilgrimage was in connection with one of the annual feasts. At that time, the central sanctuary for worship (the tabernacle) and the annual celebrations were in Shiloh.

1:4–5. Elkanah’s family accompanied him to Shiloh. The annual worship was a time of celebration before the Lord. The worshiper offered his sacrifices to the Lord and shared in the peace offering along with his family. As the head of his family, Elkanah distributed portions of the offering to Peninnah and her children, but he gave Hannah a double portion of the sacrifice, showing his love and his sensitivity to her maternal plight: the Lord had closed her womb (v. 5). Hannah’s infertility was not merely a biological weakness; it was also the direct result of God’s sovereignty.

1:6. Elkanah valued Peninnah because of her fertility, but he loved Hannah. And as might be expected in a bigamous household, Peninnah envied Hannah. As her rival, she troubled Hannah. Every year Peninnah took advantage of the annual family worship celebration to provoke Hannah, slinging the mud of her barrenness in her face.

1:7–8. Hannah endured emotional trouble in her family for years. On this last occasion she wept and refused to eat. Refusing to eat on the occasion of the annual feast was like someone refusing to eat Thanksgiving dinner with the family. Elkanah attempted to comfort Hannah, but Hannah’s pain was beyond his sympathetic reach.

1:9–10. Eli the priest was sitting on a seat by the temple’s doorpost when Hannah came to pray for a child. A seat was a place of honor and authority in a society where most people sat on the ground. In the ancient world a temple was the residence of a king. In Israel the temple was the Lord’s earthly residence. The temple in Jerusalem was built during Solomon’s reign, but temple here was applied to the tabernacle and the temporary structures built up around it. The words greatly distressed literally mean "bitter of soul." Bitterness of soul is mental and emotional anguish due to suffering and pain. Hannah’s soul bitterness drove her to prayer.

1:11. Distressed Hannah prayed, making a vow. A vow is a promise made to the Lord as an act of worship. Vowing is not compulsory in worship. The making of a vow, however, is a serious matter. Once a person makes a vow, the Lord demands that the vow be honored (cf. Dt 23:21–23; Ps 50:14; Pr 31:2; Ac 18:18). Hannah is the only woman in the Bible who is said to have made a vow to the Lord.

Hannah addressed God as the Lord of hosts. The first time God is called by this particular title in Scripture is in 1Sm 1:3. It is a declaration of the Lord’s power; the NIV translates the term hosts as "Almighty." The hosts are armies consisting of angels, the stars, and redeemed people. The title implies that God has resources of infinite power that can never be exhausted. Hannah’s prayer demonstrates her understanding of God’s ability to open her womb and give her a child. The Lord of hosts was concerned about her, an obscure, afflicted woman. Hannah identified herself as the Lord’s maidservant, an expression of her humility before the Lord, and then she asked God to remember her. God remembering a person means that He will act in a special way on that person’s behalf. If her request for a son was granted, she promised to dedicate him to the Lord all the days of his life.

Hannah’s words a razor shall never come on his head bring to mind the Nazirite vow (cf. Nm 6:1–21). The phrase all the days of his life suggests that Samuel was to be a lifelong Nazirite (Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, NAC [Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996], 69), although Tsumura notes that the Nazirite vow was normally temporary (David Toshio Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, NICOT [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007], 118).

When a person made a Nazirite vow, during the time stipulated in the vow he did not cut his hair. As Baldwin notes, the Nazirite’s uncut hair would be a sign to all that he was consecrated, set apart, to the Lord (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 52). Then when the time period stipulated in the vow ended, the person cut his hair. Yet Hannah promised to give her son to the Lord, not for a specified period of time, but for all his life. The razor never coming on his head symbolized lifelong consecration. Hannah understood that walking with God means receiving from Him and giving back to Him as well.

1:12–16. As Hannah was pouring out her soul to the Lord, Eli sat, observing her. Hannah’s prayer was not audible, but as Eli saw her lips silently forming her prayer, he incorrectly concluded that she was drunk.

1:17–18. Eli offered her a word of encouragement: May the God of Israel grant your petition that you have asked of Him. Then she ate and she was no longer sad. Her circumstances were the same, but her discouragement evaporated. Hannah’s joy transformed her face.

1:19–20. Elkanah had sexual relations with Hannah and the Lord remembered her. In the biblical world names were more than simply a way of identifying a person. They were summary statements of a person’s character or summary statements of God’s work in a person’s life, a means of pointing to some aspect of God’s person or saving work. Hannah named her son Samuel, saying, because I have asked him of the Lord. The context implies that his name means "asked of God" (cf. vv. 17, 20, 27–28).

1:21–23. The following year Elkanah went up to Shiloh to worship, but Hannah did not go. She wanted to wean Samuel first before she left him in Shiloh. In those days mothers did not have resources such as baby formula to feed their babies. Therefore, breast-feeding was common, sometimes until their children were five years old.

1:24–28. The moment of promise-keeping arrived. Hannah took Samuel to Shiloh, leaving him in Eli’s care. Hannah used the oath formula As your soul lives, my lord, to underscore that she was the woman who prayed in Eli’s presence several years before. Samuel was the son of Hannah’s prayers and vows. The boy was given to the Lord, not to Eli. The parting must have been a painful experience for Hannah, but she honored her commitment. The text does not specify who worshiped at the end of v. 28. Laney suggests that he refers to Elkanah (First and Second Samuel, 19), who was present at Samuel’s presentation to Eli. The worshiper may also have been Samuel himself, even though he was probably no more than three years old. He was clearly an unusual child, and the text says the boy ministered to the Lord (2:11; cf. 2:21; 3:1).

2:1. Verses 1–10 move from prose to poetry. Some emotions and thoughts require the elevated language of poetry for adequate expression. This is the first poem in the book. It serves as an opening poetic bracket of 1 and 2 Samuel, and the closing poetic bracket is in 2Sm 22–23. Hannah’s prayer may have been made as her personal testimony to God’s power in hearing and answering her petition, (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 19–20). If so, her testimony would fit with the author/narrator’s purpose of encouraging the people of the divided kingdom to walk with the Lord in bold faith and trust Him in all circumstances (see the discussion in the introduction). Mary also quoted from Hannah’s prayer in her Magnificat (cf. Lk 1:46–55).

Reflecting on the Lord’s goodness to her, Hannah prayed. Verses 2–10 are the content of her prayer. Hannah’s prayer is a wonderful example of prayer as praise and celebration. Her gratitude was personal—my heart … my horn … my mouth (v. 1). The Lord, not Samuel, was the supreme source of her joy. Horn symbolizes God’s strength and dignity (cf. Pss 18:2; 92:10). She was delivered from disgrace and elevated to a place of honor. Delighting in the Lord’s salvation, Hannah spoke against her enemies. They were also God’s enemies because they attacked her trust in the Lord (v. 2).

2:2–3. Hannah twice stated there is no one and added nor is there any to stress the Lord’s incomparable holiness (cf. Ex. 15:11; Lv 11:44–45), uniqueness (cf. Ex 15:11), and unrivalled strength as His people’s rock (cf. Dt 32:4). The rock metaphor is common in the OT, picturing God as His people’s refuge and protection (which a rock fortress would provide), and stability (as a solid foundation for a building) (cf. Dt 32:15, 18; 2Sm 22:47). Arrogant human boasting is out of place in the presence of the incomparable God because He is omniscient, and He sees man’s heart and motivations and weighs actions in the scales of infinite justice.

2:4–5. The Lord reverses circumstances. The climax of reversal is exactly what Hannah herself had experienced: Even the barren gives birth to seven. Hannah eventually gave birth to six children, but seven is the number of completeness, signifying her life’s complete reversal. Peninnah had many children, but she disappeared from history.

2:6–9. Baldwin calls v. 6 "the most surprising couplet of all" because it "envisages the Lord bringing people back to life from the realm of the dead" (1 and 2 Samuel, 57). The word Sheol is often translated "the grave," but it can also refer to the realm of the dead, the abode of departed spirits (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 58). As Laney points out, "Sheol can also be used in a more technical sense of the place of punishment for the wicked dead awaiting resurrection and final judgment (cf. Nm 16:33; Jb 24:19; Ps 30:9; Is 38:18). In this latter sense it would be the equivalent of ‘Hades’ in the New Testament" (First and Second Samuel, 20).

Hannah also spoke of God lifting the needy from the ash heap (v. 8). In the ancient Near East the ash heap was the garbage dump outside the city gates. There people disposed of garbage, refuse, and animal wastes. It was the haunt of dogs, and people with incurable maladies. Sitting at a garbage dump was a sign of distress, pain, shame, and deep need (cf. Jb 2:7–8; Lm 4:5). Hannah also rejoiced because the Lord is able to lift the needy from the ash heap to a seat of honor when that is His sovereign choice. God can do this because the earth’s pillars belong to Him. A pillar is a metaphor for stability and support. The Lord stabilizes the earth. The word for godly ones (Hb. hasidim) means "one who is in covenant relationship with God" and is an object of the Lord’s covenant love (Hb. chesed). In contrast the wicked are reduced to silence in the darkness of a lost eternity. Victory in life is not the product of human strength.

2:10–11. Hannah’s song ends on a prophetic note. At this time in Israel’s history they did not have a king. But Hannah had insight into God’s purpose. God will exalt the horn of His anointed. This is the first time His anointed (Messiah; Hb. meshiach) is mentioned in the Bible in connection with the king. Hannah’s words point prophetically not merely to the Davidic dynasty, but to David’s greatest son, the Lord Jesus the Messiah. She likely knew the prophecies of Gn 49:10 or Nm 24:17, both of which prophesy the coming of the messianic King in Israel. Moreover, the coming of this King is central to the message of the books of Samuel (2Sm 7:12–16). This same expectation of the Messiah continued to thrive in the exilic and postexilic periods (Dn 7:13–14; 9:24–27; Hg 2:20–23; Zch 6:11–15; 9:9; 12:10; Mal 4:4–5). The poem ends with a reference to the horn and begins with a reference to "My horn" (v. 1). With her song ended, Hannah went home with Elkanah (v. 11).

2:12–17. "Eli’s family stands in striking contrast to Elkanah’s. The pious and tender considerations of 1:21ff. are completely absent" (Laurence E. Porter, "1 and 2 Samuel," in NIBC, edited by F. F. Bruce [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1979], 355). Eli’s sons (Hophni and Phinehas, cf. 1:3) in particular formed a stark contrast to Samuel, and their unfaithfulness also served to illustrate the spiritual crisis Israel was in at the time of Samuel’s birth.

Hophni and Phinehas were worthless men, (lit., "sons of Belial," v. 12). To say a person is "a son of faith" or "a son of Belial" is a biblical way of characterizing a person. The narrator used the word "Belial" nine times in 1 and 2 Samuel (cf. 1:16; 2:12; 10:27; 25:17, 25; 30:22; 2Sm 16:7; 20:1; 23:6). The term does not appear to have any reference to a particular being in the OT, although in later Jewish writings Belial came to be personified as a demon. The word was also used as a designation for the devil, as in 2Co 6:15 (C. L. Feinberg, "Belial," in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, vol. 1, edited by Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975], 513).

"Belial" means "wicked," "worthless," "without use or profit," "destructive", "good-for-nothings" (Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel, 2nd ed., WBC [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1983], 25). As sons of Belial, Eli’s sons were wicked, worthless in character, utterly destructive men. They did not know the Lord, nor did they have regard for the priest’s responsibilities as they related to how offerings were to be made or consumed (cf. Lv 7:28–36; Dt 18:3). Hophni and Phinehas took whatever portion of meat their three-pronged fork brought up, thus mocking divine providence. God was to receive His portion, all the animal fat, first (cf. Lv 3:16; 4:8–10, 26, 30–31; 7:28–31; 17:6). But the priests took their portions unlawfully before the Lord received His portion, even using effort to get it. Thus their sin was very great in the Lord’s sight (v. 17).

2:18–21. In contrast to Eli’s sons, Samuel as a boy ministered before the Lord. The narrator alternated between scenes of Samuel’s growth in godliness and the moral decadence of Eli’s sons, perhaps to heighten this contrast between Samuel’s spiritual sensitivity and regard for the Lord, even as a small child, and the utter lack of both on the part of Eli’s adult sons.

The ephod Samuel wore was a priestly garment (Ex 28:4–9; 1Sm 22:18)—a close-fitting, apron-like, sleeveless linen tunic extending to the hips (G. L. Archer, "Ephod," in The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 2, edited by Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975], 332–33). His mother made him a robe every year because he was a growing boy. The robe was probably the robe of the ephod, underscoring Samuel’s place as an apprentice priest. The Lord visited Hannah, giving her five more children. The Lord gave Hannah much more than she gave Him.

2:22–26. Women had a place of service at the doorway of the tent of meeting (cf. Ex 38:8). The nature of that service is not specified. Eli’s sons perverted and reduced the service of these women to cultic prostitution. The sin of Eli’s sons spread among the people, causing them too to disobey the Lord. Eli rebuked his sons, but they would not listen. Because they crossed a moral point of no return, the Lord’s judgment of death was inevitable.

2:27–36. An unnamed man of God addressed Eli, using the prophetic formula, Thus says the Lord. This expression is used 293 times in the Hebrew Bible. Even in the dark times of the judges, the Lord had His spokespersons. Through the man of God, the Lord asked Eli a series of questions to show him that what he had done was stupid in light of God’s blessing. My sacrifice and My offering (v. 29) summarize the entire sacrificial system. Eli honored his sons above the Lord by tolerating their sinful behavior and not insisting they show appropriate deference to the Lord. The following sums up the Lord’s response: those who honor Me I will honor (lit., make heavy, have weight, be noteworthy), and those who despise Me will be lightly esteemed (lit., "made light") (v. 30). To break your strength and the strength of your father’s house is literally, "to break your arm and the arm of your father’s house." Eli would see distress in God’s dwelling, that is, in the tabernacle. This took place when the Philistines took the ark of God, and there was a tragic loss of life among God’s people (cf. 4:2, 10–11). Eli’s descendants included no one with experience, wisdom, and influence (cf. 22:14–20).

Saul later massacred the priests at Nob (cf. 1Sm 22:6–23). Only one of Eli’s descendants, Abiathar, escaped. But Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood, and transferred the priesthood to the family of Zadok, "to fulfill the word of the Lord, which He had spoken concerning the house of Eli at Shiloh" (cf. 1Kg 2:26–27; 4:2). The deaths of Hophni and Phinehas on the same day (cf. 2:34; 4:11) would show Eli that judgment on his posterity would be fulfilled. But the Lord would raise up a faithful priest to do His will (v. 35). Most commentators agree that this prophecy was realized initially in Zadok (although it may also refer to Samuel), and completely fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ (cf. Heb 2:17–18). Eli’s descendants would be reduced to poverty, begging for bread and pleading to do menial tasks at the sanctuary.

3:1–9. The Lord’s word was rare (i.e., God seldom spoke to His people), and visions were infrequent in those days, in the days of the judges. A vision is God’s word revealed to a prophet in a way that may certainly include physical sight, although the emphasis is on what is seen through other than the physical eyes, such as a vision in a dream or a state of ecstasy (J. M. Lower, "Vision," The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Vol. 5, edited by Merrill C. Tenney [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1975], 889–90). The prophet then communicated that vision to people in words. The few visions the prophets did receive in Samuel’s day were limited in impact because of the blindness of Israel’s people and leaders. God Himself was silent for the most part (cf. Pr 29:18; Am 8:11). Because of old age most of Eli’s eyesight was gone, and later he was blind (cf. 1Sm 4:15). The priest was responsible to assure that the lamps of the golden lampstand (menorah) were lit at twilight and stayed lit until dawn (cf. Ex 25:31–37; 27:20–21; Lv 24:1–4).

Samuel slept in the tabernacle complex, which apparently included both the tabernacle and auxiliary permanent buildings that had a doorpost and gates (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 47), near where the ark of God was (v. 3). The ark represented God’s presence. The statement that the lamp of God had not yet gone out (cf. 1Sm 3:3) suggests that the following episode took place sometime before dawn. When the Lord called Samuel, Samuel thought Eli was calling him. Samuel responded to the voice as a prophet responds to the Lord’s call: Here I am (as also in Gn 22:1, 11; Ex 3:4). Samuel misunderstood because Samuel did not yet know the Lord, nor had the word of the Lord yet been revealed to him (v. 7). Samuel’s lack of experience in matters pertaining to God was twofold: (1) he did not know God in his personal experience; and (2) the Lord had never spoken directly to Samuel before. Eli discerned that the Lord was calling Samuel. So he gave Samuel some instructions on how to respond to the Lord’s call.

3:10–14. Then the Lord appeared to Samuel, calling him by name twice. Several other "double calls" are recorded in Scripture (cf. Gn 22:11; Ex 3:4; Lk 10:41; Ac 9:4), each occurring at momentous times in a person’s life. The first message Samuel received from the Lord was a message of judgment on Eli’s family, who were like family to him.

3:15–18. Samuel experienced his first test as the Lord’s messenger—fear to communicate a message of judgment to someone close to him. Eli spoke tenderly to Samuel, but he also called down a curse on Samuel if he did not tell him the entire message. After hearing Samuel’s message, Eli’s attitude is commendable: It is the Lord; let Him do what seems good to Him (v. 18).

3:19–21. These verses summarize Samuel’s physical growth and devotional progress. The expression from Dan even to Beersheba means the northern extremity of Israel in Dan to the southernmost extremity in Beersheba. As a prophet of the Lord, Samuel was a divinely chosen, authorized spokesperson for God. He was the first named prophet in Israel since Moses.

4:1–4. Israel met the Philistines in battle without seeking God’s mind through Samuel, no doubt a further indication of the people’s spiritual lethargy. This battle is also significant because it records the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s judgment on the house of Eli (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 24), The Philistines were a pagan, uncircumcised people who migrated to the Mediterranean coastal region from the Aegean Islands and Asia Minor in the twelfth century BC (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 24). The Philistines were "inveterate enemies of Israel during the latter half of the period of the judges and in the early years of the Israelite monarchy" (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 70). Youngblood also notes that the Philistines are mentioned almost 150 times in 1 and 2 Samuel. The Philistine threat was pervasive in 1 Samuel. Here is the first recorded battle between Israel and their longtime enemies.

Ebenezer (about 40 miles northwest of the Dead Sea and about eight miles from the Mediterranean coast) means "stone of help." The meaning of the place’s name is ironic in this chapter. Presumptuous Israel would not experience the Lord’s help.

When the Philistines defeated Israel near Aphek, Israel’s elders decided to take into battle the ark of God, thinking that it would save them from the Philistines. Trusting the ark and not God, the elders treated the ark like a fetish, an object they hoped would bring good luck.

4:5–9. However, the ark’s presence in the camp did not mean that the Lord was obligated to grant Israel victory. Two miles away, when the Philistines heard Israel shouting with excitement about the presence of the ark, they began to fight even more strenuously, being motivated by fear of what the ark’s presence might mean for them.

4:10–11. Then the unthinkable occurred: The Philistines captured the ark of God. Six times this chapter states that the ark was taken (vv. 3, 11, 17, 19, 21–22), indicating that the author intended his readers to understand what a self-induced tragedy this was for Israel. Israel suffered devastating consequences for using the ark as a fetish instead of seeking God’s will.

4:12–18. A man from the tribe of Benjamin ran uphill for about 20 miles from the scene of the battle to Shiloh. The dust on his head and his torn clothes were symbols of grief. Eli heard the commotion, but he could not see the messenger whose clothing and hair spoke so loudly of tragedy. Eli therefore inquired. The bad news included the defeat of many Israelites, the death of Eli’s two sons, and the capture of the ark. When he mentioned the ark of God … Eli fell off the seat backward beside the gate, and his neck was broken and he died, for he was old and heavy (v. 18). The capture of the ark was too much for Eli. His death marked the end of an era.

4:19–22. Eli’s daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was pregnant. The tragic news of that day pushed her into premature labor. Dying in childbirth, she named the baby Ichabod, which means "No glory." This reflected the circumstances surrounding his birth: The glory has departed from Israel, because the ark of God was taken (v. 22). The "glory" was the visible manifestation of God’s presence dwelling among His people in the tabernacle. One of Israel’s privileges was to enjoy God’s glory, that is, His manifest presence in the tabernacle (cf. Rm 9:2–5). God was not taken away, but the capture of the ark signaled the tragic reality that the evidence of God’s glory had left His people. They would not permanently have the evidence of His divine presence with them again.

5:1–2. The Philistines took the ark of God from Ebenezer to Ashdod (a trip of about 30 miles southwest; Ashdod was near the coast, about 35 miles west of Jerusalem), treating it like a trophy of war and wrongly assuming its capture represented a victory of their god over the Lord Himself. Ashdod was one of the city-states in the Philistine Pentapolis, the five cities united in a confederation, each one under the leadership of a lord, hence the expression "the five lords of the Philistines" (cf. 6:16). The five cities were Gaza (the southernmost of the five cities, about 20 miles south of Ashdod), Ashkelon (about 10 miles south of Ashdod), Ashdod, Gath (about 10 miles southeast of Ashdod), and Ekron (the northernmost of the five cities, about 10 miles northeast of Ashdod). Dagon was the national Philistine deity, thought to be Baal’s father, and the god of fertility and grain. The Philistines dedicated temples in his honor in Gaza (cf. Jdg 16:23–31), in Beth-shan (cf. 1Sm 31:10; 1Ch 10:8–10), and in Ashdod. The Philistines placed the ark in Dagon’s temple in Ashdod as a symbol of the Lord’s defeat.

5:3–5. The next day, when the Ashdodites arose, they found Dagon fallen on his face in his own house before the ark. Fallen on his face is a posture of humiliation (and possibly worship). This showed that Dagon was an impotent god; probably being knocked over by the Lord, he could not even pick himself up.

The next morning the Ashdodites found Dagon on his face again humiliated before the Lord. This time his head was cut off along with both the palms of his hands. Youngblood notes, "In the ancient world severed heads … and hands … were battlefield trophies. The Lord had therefore vanquished Dagon" (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 77). The Lord showed His power and superiority over Dagon by knocking him down into a posture of humility and executing him in his own temple. Thus the Lord maintained His own glory. The Philistines were so shaken by this that when they saw Dagon’s head and palms on the temple’s threshold, they made the threshold of Dagon’s temple off limits, probably out of fear that something like what happened to Dagon would happen to the person who walked on the threshold.

5:6–12. God’s hand is mentioned four times in this episode (vv. 6–7, 9, 11), for His hand was heavy on the Ashdodites. They experienced His judgment in the outbreak of tumors (vv. 6, 9, 12), a Hebrew word that can mean any type of swelling, or perhaps boils (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 28). There was also emotional and mental confusion (vv. 9–11), and for some death (v. 12). The Lord demonstrated His superiority by toppling Dagon in his own house, and by plaguing the Philistines to the extent that they cried out to Him!

6:1–9. After the ark was in Philistine hands for seven months (v. 1), they consulted their pagan religious authorities: the priests and the diviners. Diviners engaged in occult practices. The specifics of their practices are not identified. According to the Mosaic law a guilt offering required a ram without spot (cf. Lv 5:15). But the Philistine priests were advised by their diviners to use golden tumors and golden mice. Mice were unclean in God’s eyes (cf. Lv 11:29). Also the ark was never to be transported on a cart (cf. Nm 4:5–15), as the Israelites would later learn in a tragic episode (cf. 2Sm 6:1–7).

Still, the Lord used the pagans’ ignorance to accomplish His purpose. Returning the ark to Israel was an admission of defeat. The golden tumors represented the physical affliction itself; the five golden mice represented the mice ravishing the land, which were possibly the source of the tumors. Rats carry bubonic plague. This may have been the plague the Philistines were experiencing (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 28). The religious leaders explained to them how to know if the plagues came from God or not. They were to use milch cows that had never borne a yoke to lead the cart with the ark. But these cows were not trained to walk in a straight path. And since they had calves, their instinct would be to return to their young. However, if the cows disregarded their natural instincts, going instead to Beth-shemesh, the Philistines would know that the Lord had sent the plagues.

6:10–18. Against their maternal instincts, the cows went directly to Beth-shemesh (about 18 miles east of Ashdod and 15 miles west of Jerusalem), showing the Philistines that the Lord was the source of their plagues.

6:19–7:1. The men of Beth-shemesh disrespected the ark of the Lord by opening it and looking inside—a clear violation of the Mosaic law that only the Levites could handle the ark, and even then not touch it directly lest they die (Merrill, "1 Samuel" 437). So the Lord struck down 50,070 men, a figure which seems high for a small town. The NIV and several Hebrew manuscripts have 70 people put to death. According to Laney, "the 50,070 is doubted even by conservative scholars and probably represents a scribal error in transmission" (First and Second Samuel, 29). The significance of this story is that Israel was not to take God’s grace for granted. It was of grace that He was present with the nation through the holy ark, and they needed to treat the ark as holy. The men of Beth-shemesh did not treat the Lord as holy and were disciplined for it.

7:2–4. For two decades the ark remained at Kiriath-jearim. Perhaps because of the ark’s "reduced status" in not being housed in the tabernacle (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 86), and no doubt because of the consequences of the people’s bad choices in worshiping idols, the nation of Israel was mourning and longing after the Lord. Samuel encouraged the people to return to the Lord. The word return means "turning from sin and idolatry and turning to the Lord." And their return was to be sincere, with all your heart. The Ashtaroth were idol goddesses, Baal’s female consorts, representing fertility and sex appeal and called holy "in a perverted moral sense" (Merrill F. Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, edited by R. K. Harrison [Chicago: Moody, 1988], 484). To serve the Lord alone meant to devote oneself completely and exclusively to Him. This was necessary if Israel was to experience divine deliverance from Philistine superior might and oppression.

Baal was the idol god of fertility, one of the chief male gods of the Canaanites, according to Unger. Baal’s domain was the sky; idolaters thought the sound of thunder was Baal’s voice. Removing the Baals involved destroying the images, breaking them, and burning them. Removing the Ashtaroth involved destroying the images and refusing to engage in the lewd idolatrous practices associated with the worship of Baal and Ashtaroth.

7:5–6. Samuel summoned all Israel to Mizpah (about six miles north of Jerusalem) for a prayer meeting. Mizpah was already a gathering place for Israel (cf. Jdg 20:1) and was on Samuel’s regular ministry circuit (1Sm 7:16). After the fall of Jerusalem, Mizpah even became the nation’s capital (2Kg 25:23) (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 79). There the people drew water from a well and poured it out, symbolizing the pouring out of their souls in repentance before the Lord (cf. 1Sm 1:15; Pss 42:4; 62:8; Lm 2:19). They confessed their fundamental problem: We have sinned against the Lord. At Mizpah Samuel became Israel’s judge—in fact, Israel’s last judge.

7:7. When the Philistines heard that the sons of Israel had gathered at Mizpah, they decided to attack. The Philistines may have reasoned that having all the Israelites in one place would be a good time to strike. Laney (First and Second Samuel, 31) notes that Israel had been defeated twice before near this site (cf. 1Sm 4:1–2; 5:1), suggesting that the Philistines might have been confident of another victory.

7:8–11. Israel begged Samuel to intercede for their deliverance. So Samuel took two steps: he offered a lamb as a burnt offering to the Lord, and he prayed for the people. While Samuel was in the process of making his offering, the Philistine army was right outside the city wall. But the Lord thundered … against the Philistines. The sound of thunder was the voice of God Himself (cf. Ps 29:3). The powerful thunder threw the Philistines into panic and confusion.

7:12–14. The use of stones as memorials of significant events in Israel already had a long history by this time. Jacob and his father-in-law Laban piled up a heap of stones to commemorate their agreement (cf. Gn 31:46–49). Joshua commanded Israel to make a memorial of 12 stones from the Jordan when Israel crossed over into the promised land (Jos 4). Samuel placed the stone between Mizpah and Shen, calling it Ebenezer, meaning "stone of help." The stone memorialized the Lord’s help up to this point in Israel’s history.

7:15–17. These verses summarize Samuel’s ministry in Israel. In his hometown, Ramah, he built an altar to the Lord, worshiping the Lord and expressing his dependence on Him.

8:1–3. The mention of Samuel’s ministry as a "circuit riding" judge served to introduce the reader "to the need—however ambiguous and contradictory—for a king" (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 88). It was now almost 1051 BC, the year that Saul became king. Many years had passed, and Samuel was an old man, perhaps 65–70 years old (Merrill, "1 Samuel," 439). Recognizing his advanced age, Samuel did something that only God should have done (cf. Jdg 2:16, 18; 3:9, 15). He appointed his sons, Joel and Abijah, to be judges over Israel. Joel means "Yahweh is God"; Abijah means "My Father is Yahweh." However, Samuel’s sons did not live up to their names; they took bribes and perverted justice, using their judgeship for financial gain. As serious as the ungodly character of Samuel’s sons was, that is not the most disturbing concern in this episode.

8:4–9. The intolerable situation of Samuel’s ungodly sons brought action on the part of Israel’s elders, older men who were the heads of tribes, clans, and families, and thus were invested with leadership in the nation (Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 343). Speaking on behalf of the people (they were the voice of the people, v. 7), the elders had a solution for the negative leadership of Samuel’s sons. They asked for a king. But the elders’ solution would be worse than the problem. The Lord told Samuel to do what the people asked, even though their request for a king in place of the Lord meant that Israel was rejecting the Lord himself. This was the disturbing element in the people’s request. Israel already had a perfect King, the only true God. Not only did their request involve rejection of the Lord’s rulership; it also was made for perhaps the worst of reasons. Israel wanted to be like all the nations around them. The people’s behavior was tragic, but all too typical. The Lord, however, instructed Samuel to tell them what kind of king would reign over them (v. 9).

8:10–18. The Lord specified how the king would treat the people, using memorable language to anchor His words in their minds. The conclusion was sobering: You will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the Lord will not answer you in that day (v. 18).

8:19–22. Nevertheless, the people refused to listen to Samuel, demanding a king. God granted them their request. Much later in Israel’s history, the Lord made known His sentiments about the people’s demand: "I gave you a king in My anger and took him away in My wrath" (cf. Hs 13:11). When God grants His people their fleshly demands, it spells disaster and pain for the recipients and is a manifestation of His displeasure. The old adage, "Be careful what you wish for," was true for Israel. That our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles (v. 20) indicates their hope for a king included military victory. Yet when Saul encountered Goliath (cf. 1Sm 17), Saul failed to fulfill his obligations to lead Israel into battle. When David succeeded, he demonstrated that he was qualified to be king, not Saul.

Thus the first section of 1 Samuel ends with the people rejecting the Lord as their king. This was a staggering and ultimately harmful turning point in the nation’s history, one that God warned the people they would regret. Laney’s summary is helpful here. He notes that although prophecies dating back to Moses indicate it was God’s sovereign will for Israel to have a king, they went about it at the wrong time with the wrong attitude, which was not God’s prescriptive will. However, God allowed the choice to go forward in His permissive will (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 36).

In chaps. 9–15, Saul, Israel’s first king, dominated the narrative. The narrator also introduced Jonathan, Saul’s firstborn son and crown prince of Israel. Saul and Jonathan are in contrast. Chapter 15 closes section two of 1 Samuel with God rejecting Saul as Israel’s king.

A chapter division divides this episode, but a close reading of 9:1–10:16 suggests that this is one episode.

9:1–2. Saul’s father was Kish, from the tribe of Benjamin. Kish was a mighty man of valor. Three other people in the OT are described in this way: Boaz (cf. Ru 2:1, "a man of great wealth"), Jephthah (cf. Jdg 11:1, "a valiant warrior"), and David (cf. 1Sm 16:18, "a mighty man of valor"). Kish’s genealogy points to a prominent family in the tribe of Benjamin. Saul "was outstandingly well endowed" (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 87), which is ironic since Saul later proved to be a weak leader and a coward in refusing to face Goliath. Saul’s name, which means "asked," is ironic, because in choosing Saul to be their king, the people received from the Lord what they asked. Saul looked like a king, but the narrative (especially related to the episode involving Goliath) revealed that he was not qualified for that role.

9:3–5. When Kish’s donkeys were lost, Saul searched for them in four places but was unsuccessful (v. 4; one of the places was Shalishah, also known as Baal-shalishah, about 27 miles northwest of Jerusalem). Saul was ready to call off the search for fear his father would be worried about his safety. As insignificant as this discussion appears, it seems that Saul wanted to quit searching for his father’s donkeys. In contrast, David later would be presented as one who never gave up on caring for his father’s sheep, whether they were the animals that belonged to Jesse, or the sheep (people) of Israel who belonged to his heavenly Father. This is one way in which Saul demonstrated himself to be unqualified for his role as king.

9:6–12. Saul’s servant encouraged him to consult the man of God at Zuph (probably a family name for a region occupied by the tribe of Benjamin north of Jerusalem) so that perhaps he can tell us about our journey. Saul was reluctant to consult the man of God because he did not have a gift to give him. But the servant happened to have a fourth of a shekel of silver, so he suggested Saul give that to the man of God. An explanation of a former practice in Israel interrupts the narrative flow in v. 9. To inquire of God meant to seek the Lord’s wisdom and guidance about a particular problem (cf. Gn 25:22–23; 1Kg 22:5–8; 2Kg 3:11). The difference between a prophet and a seer was that the prophet was the Lord’s spokesperson, whereas the seer was one who received a message through visions. Merrill says that a seer’s ministry was primarily involved with receiving divine revelation, whereas the prophets were primarily declarers of divine revelation, although he adds that prophets were also seers ("1 Samuel," 440–41). Perhaps this is why Laney states that while there may have at one time been a distinction between the two terms, it was not so at the time of the writer of 1 Samuel (First and Second Samuel, 38). The parenthetical statement (v. 9) also prepares the reader for the use of "seer" instead of "prophet" (vv. 11, 19) in the narrative.

The difference between a village and a city in the ancient Near East was the presence or absence of a surrounding wall. Villages did not have walls, but cities were clusters of homes and buildings surrounded by a wall. People built cities near water sources. Usually the water source was at the foot of the elevation. It was necessary to draw water from a well or spring and carry the water back up to the city. Women were generally the water carriers, a task they usually performed in the evenings (cf. Gn 24:11). Going up the city’s slope, Saul and his servant encountered some young women going down to fetch some water (v. 11). The young women spoke to Saul with a sense of urgency as they informed Saul about Samuel’s whereabouts. Hurry now … he must bless the sacrifice … go up for you will find him at once. The words bless the sacrifice are used only here in Scripture and mean "to give thanks to God for the sacrifice before it is eaten" as an expression of worship (cf. Lk 9:16; Jn 6:11).

9:13–14. The high place was outside the city, at a higher elevation. A high place was a place of worship. Generally they were associated with pagan worship. After the building of Solomon’s temple, in only one instance was this not the case. Worshiping the Lord at the high place was acceptable during Samuel’s time because Shiloh had been destroyed about 1050 BC, presumably by the Philistines, when the ark was taken (cf. 1Sm 4; Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 1183), and the temple that would be built by Solomon had not yet been constructed (cf. 1Kg 3:1–5; 2Ch 1:2–3). The high place in this episode is devoted to the worship of the Lord. There was a building there that could hold at least 30 people (1Sm 9:22).

9:15–17. The Lord Himself worked in the ordinary activities of Saul’s searching for donkeys, in his decision-making, in the information he received from the young women, working out His own purpose, and sending Saul to Samuel. The day before Saul arrived, the Lord told Samuel that he would send to him a man from the tribe of Benjamin. God told Samuel to anoint him leader over the Lord’s people. To "anoint" means "to consecrate or to set apart for a divine purpose." The act of pouring oil on the head of the anointed person also "symbolized the coming of the Holy Spirit in power" (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 101). In the OT, prophets, priests, and kings were anointed. God used people like Samuel to anoint others, but ultimately God anointed and authorized a person to exercise the ministry in question. And the word "anointed" conveys the ideas of the presence of God’s Spirit and power (cf. 10:9–10; 16:13), responsibility (cf. 15:17; 2Sm 12:7), and honor (cf. 1Sm 24:6; 26:10–11; 2Sm 1:14). The Lord expressed His compassion for His people, saying that the king will deliver My people from the hand of the Philistines. For I have regarded My people, because their cry has come to Me (vv. 16–17). Because Israel belongs to the Lord, it is not surprising that He referred to them as "My people" four times in vv. 16 and 17.

9:18–19. The action resumed in v. 18. In the gate is literally "in the middle of the gate." The city gate in the ancient Near East was more than an entrance to a city; it was the hub of the city’s social, political, and economic life. The city streets were narrow, but the open area in front of the gate gave people space to congregate for various purposes: buying and selling (cf. 2Kg 7:2), holding court to settle legal matters (cf. Ru 4:1–2), discussion (cf. Ps 69:12), and public worship and the hearing of God’s Word (cf. 2Ch 32:6; Neh 8:1–8).

9:20–21. Samuel said to Saul, For whom is all that is desirable in Israel? Is it not for you and for all your father’s household? The statement was both encouraging and troubling. Israel was waiting with anticipation for God’s rule. But Saul was their choice of a king, and not the Lord’s choice (cf. 12:1). Saul was not the first person to have a sense of inadequacy about God’s call on his life (cf. Ex 3:11; 4:10; Jdg 6:15; 2Sm 7:18; Jr 1:4–6).

9:22–27. Samuel understood the Lord’s call on Saul’s life. So he disregarded Saul’s concerns about the smallness of his tribe and clan. Samuel took Saul and his servant into the hall on the high place and gave them a place of honor at the head of those invited. As a further expression of honor, a special part of the meal was set aside just for Saul. The roof of a home in the ancient Near East was typically flat, surrounded by a wall to prevent people from falling. It was an important part of a house. It was a place of protection (cf. Jos 2:6, 8), and people had private devotions (cf. Ac 10:9) and private conversations there (cf. 1Sm 9:25). Guests could sleep on the roof, enjoying the night’s cool air (v. 26). The narrator did not record the conversation between Samuel and Saul, but perhaps they discussed the kingdom and kingdom responsibilities.

10:1. Samuel privately anointed Saul, and kissed Saul out of respect. Later, the Lord anointed Saul leader over his inheritance.

10:2–8. Three signs confirmed the Lord’s call on Saul’s life. The first sign occurred near Rachel’s tomb (probably in the vicinity of Bethlehem, a few miles south of Jerusalem, though the location is disputed), where two men informed Saul that his father’s donkeys were found. The second sign occurred at the oak of Tabor, "a landmark on the road to Bethel" (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 91), where three men gave Saul two loaves of bread. The bread was a sign of God’s provision for Saul.

The third sign occurred at the hill of God where the Philistine garrison was located. Baldwin says the Hebrew term gibeathelohim may refer to Gibeah, Saul’s city, and also that the mention of the Philistines was a reminder of the threat Saul was to remove, for which he needed divine power (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 91) Saul received that power in an unusual way when he met a procession of prophets coming down from the high place. Encountering this group, the spirit of God came on Saul, giving him the power he needed to carry out his ministry.

10:9–16. God did a work in Saul’s heart before he met the prophets. In vv. 10–13 the narrator focused on incidents associated with the third sign. When Saul met the musical procession of prophets, the Spirit of God came upon him mightily, so that he prophesied among them. Those who witnessed the occasion thought it strange that Saul was among the prophets. This did not mean that Saul became a prophet, but that only at this one time he exercised a prophetic gift. It was surprising but also a persuasive and powerful sign of God’s presence in Saul’s life.

10:17–19. Previously Saul was privately selected by Samuel as king. Now the people publicly chose Saul as their king. Samuel opened his message with the prophetic introduction, Thus says the Lord. Samuel declared that in response to the Lord’s ongoing care, love, and protection, Israel nevertheless rejected God, who delivered her from all her calamities and distresses, and insisted on having a human king in the place of God. This rebuke was a reminder that the people’s insistence on having a human king was not God’s plan for them. Indeed, no king would be able to deliver Israel from slavery, as the Lord did in Egypt, and from all their calamities and distresses. But since the people were determined to have a king, Samuel said, in effect, "Let’s get on with it," and began the process of identifying the king whose name was unknown to everyone but him.

10:20–24. So the Israelites presented themselves before the Lord by their tribes and clans in a process of elimination that would bring them to Saul. The tribe was the first and largest organizational division in Israel, and the clan was the next subdivision. Clans were subdivided into families. The tribe of Benjamin was chosen by lot. Casting a lot was a means of ascertaining God’s mind about various concerns (cf. Nm 26:55; 33:54; Jos 7:14–26; 1Ch 24:5; Pr 16:33; Lk 1:9; Ac 1:24–26). Though people cast the lot, the Lord determined the result (cf. Pr 16:33). Therefore the decision was not questioned. The casting of lots is no longer a valid practice for Christians today to determine God’s will. There is no verse that commands Christians to engage in this practice to ascertain God’s specific will. Instead, since the giving of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Ac 2), He enlightens the believer’s mind to see how Scripture bears on one’s decisions. The lot is no longer needed.

Saul was identified as the king. But ironically the people had to inquire of God about the whereabouts of their chosen. Saul was hiding among the baggage, strange behavior for the new king. Saul was the tallest man in Israel, standing head and shoulders over every one in Israel. He looked like a king, but the real issue was whether he was above everyone in his devotion and commitment to the Lord.

10:25–27. Though the people had rejected the Lord, He was gracious with them. He touched the hearts of some valiant men, who supported Saul. In contrast, some worthless men (lit., "sons of Belial"), despised Saul, apparently contemptuous of his ability to lead the people and deliver Israel from her enemies. Saul, however, wisely refused to respond to his detractors’ ungodly words and attitude at that moment, "in order not to provoke the situation" (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 41).

11:1–4. The siege of Jabesh-gilead by the Ammonites, and Saul’s deliverance of the city, gave the new king an important opportunity to establish his administration in several ways. First, his victory and deliverance of Jabesh-gilead won Saul the loyalty of another portion of his kingdom. He also proved his detractors wrong in their accusation, "How can this one deliver us?" (10:27), by delivering his people from their oppressors (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 96). Also, Saul was likely connected to the people of Jabesh-gilead by ancestry, since they too were Benjamites (Merrill, "1 Samuel," 442).

Nahash, the king of Ammon, was called the Ammonite to distinguish him from David’s father Jesse, who also bore the name Nahash (cf. 2Sm 17:25). The Ammonites descended from Ben-ammi, Lot’s son whom he fathered by his own daughter (cf. Gn 19:30–38). Jabesh-gilead was a town of Gilead, on the east side of the Jordan River, over 20 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Nahash engaged in a campaign that threatened them, so the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, Make a covenant with us. Nahash was willing, but his conditions were cold and cruel. The gouging out of the right eye was designed to incapacitate the men of war and bring reproach and shame on the nation. The men of Jabesh-gilead were concerned not with divine deliverance, but with trust in a human leader: Let us alone for seven days, that we may send messengers throughout the territory of Israel. Then, if there is no one to deliver us, we will come out to you. Confident of victory, and sure that no help would come for the city, Nahash allowed the men of Jabesh seven days to go over to the other side of Jordan to seek help.

The messenger arrived in Gibeah of Saul, three miles north of Jerusalem (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 117). Its name distinguished it from other places with the same name (cf. Jos 15:57; Jos 24:33). Gibeah of Saul and Gibeah of Benjamin were the same place. Gibeah of Saul was Saul’s birthplace and residence (cf. 1Sm 9:26; 15:34). The men of Jabesh-gilead had a close family relationship with the tribe of Benjamin (cf. Jdg 21:1–15). The people in Gibeah lifted up their voices and wept, expressing pain and grief over the plight of the men of Jabesh-gilead.

11:5–13. Saul providentially showed up at that moment (v. 5). Apparently during the monarchy’s early days Saul was still engaged in activities such as farming. The Spirit of God coming on Saul in power is the crucial and central moment in the story and was the key to Saul’s victory over the Ammonites (v. 6). God’s people are successful in war and ministry to the extent that they are under the power and energy of the Holy Spirit (cf. Zch 4:6).

Everything Saul did from this point on to v. 13 resulted from the Spirit’s work in him. The cutting up of oxen and distributing the pieces throughout the land was a call to battle with a threat: Whoever does not come out after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen (v. 7). Mentioning Samuel gave more weight to the summons.

The people responded in unison to Saul’s summons. They had a sense of God’s holy dread and reverence in connection with his summons. For the first time in Scripture the dread of the Lord was said to be on His people. In all other cases God’s dread was on the enemies of the Lord’s people (cf. 2Ch 20:29).

Bezek was on the west side of the Jordan River, about 10 or so miles west of Jabesh-gilead. Because of the proximity of Bezek to Jabesh-gilead, it was a good rallying point for the troops. There Saul counted them—a substantial number of 300,000 from Israel, and 30,000 from Judah (v. 8). The distinction made between Israel and Judah in v. 8 may be evidence of a later authorship after the actual division of the two kingdoms in 931 BC, or possibly a recognition that the division was already "incipient" at this time (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 43; Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 118).

God’s assurance of victory did not eliminate cunning as part of military strategy. The men of Jabesh-gilead gave overconfident Nahash the impression that they would surrender the next day (v. 10).

The next morning (v. 11), Saul under the Holy Spirit’s guidance employed good military strategy. He divided the company into three units and used the element of surprise, attacking the Ammonite camp during the morning watch. In ancient Israel, nighttime was divided into three watches: (1) the beginning watch, sunset to 10:00 p.m. (cf. Lm 2:19); (2) the middle watch, 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. (cf. Jdg 7:19); and (3) the morning watch, 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. or sunrise (cf. Ex 14:24).

After victory, the people wanted to put to death those who questioned Saul’s selection as king at Mizpah (cf. 1Sm 10:27). But Saul responded not a man shall be put to death this day, attributing their victory to the Lord.

11:14–15. Samuel discerned that it was a good time for the people to go to Gilgal to renew the kingdom before the Lord. Gilgal, a city in the Jordan Valley not far from Jericho, was full of historical and theological significance for Israel (cf. Jos 4:1–24; 5:1–9; 1Sm 7:16). It was there that the Israelites first camped after crossing the Jordan under Joshua. Samuel also judged there, and king Agag was put to death there (Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 477). The verb "renew" implies that the people had departed from the Lord and needed to be restored. The kingdom had to be renewed because Israel had rejected the Lord as king. Renewing the kingdom was a recommitment to the Lord Himself in view of the new theocracy under Saul.

Samuel installed Saul as Israel’s king before the Lord at Gilgal. Israel offered peace offerings. In the peace offering the worshiper gave the best part of the sacrifice to the Lord first before eating his portion (cf. Lv 3:1–16; 7:15). Then the worshiper ate his portion of the peace offering and gave the priest his portion as well (cf. Lv 7:11–18, 28–34). The sacrifice of the peace offering was a symbol of peace and fellowship with God based on the shed blood of an unblemished sacrifice. At this point, Saul was at the zenith of his ministry as king.

12:1–5. Samuel began his message to Israel by saying in essence, "I have given you what you asked for—a king." He then said he had walked before the people, which means he lived a life before them that could be observed and evaluated. Israel had observed Samuel’s life, noting that he was a man of character and integrity whose leadership was above reproach. He had not used his place in Israel to take advantage of people, nor did he enrich himself through corrupt practices. Israel attested to Samuel’s integrity before the Lord.

12:6–8. Launching into the second part of his message, Samuel noted that Moses and Aaron were not human appointments. This was an implied rebuke because the people chose Saul instead of looking to the Lord in faith. Samuel then spoke of all the righteous acts of the Lord which He did for you and your fathers (v. 7). Israel was challenged to take her stand and to remember God’s great acts on her behalf. Verse 8 is a concise recounting of Jacob’s going down to Egypt, the exodus, and the conquest of the land.

12:9–11. Even though the Lord had worked in powerful and righteous ways on their behalf, they forgot the Lord their God. To forget the Lord is not a lapse of memory like forgetting one’s keys. Forgetting God in Scripture is a conscious choice to disobey God (cf. Dt 8:11), a choice to follow idols (cf. Dt 8:19). First Samuel 12:9–11 summarizes the cycle of the book of Judges up to the time of Samuel: departure from God, the Lord selling them to their enemies, the cry for help, and the divine raising up of judges. The metaphor of "selling" (v. 9) suggests the image of slaves being sold in the marketplace.

Conscious of the Lord’s call on his life, Samuel associated himself with Moses, Aaron, Jerubbaal (another name for Gideon), Bedan (i.e., Barak), and Jephthah. Verse 11 states the result of Israel turning from idolatry and trusting in the Lord: you lived in security.

12:12–18. Samuel placed Israel’s recent actions in the context of redemptive history. In addition to the corruption of Samuel’s sons, the Philistine threat on the east and the threat of Nahash from the west were reasons Israel demanded a king. But historically, they had no basis for this action. God had always defended them in the past, and would do so in their future if they depended on Him and walked with Him. What motivated them to seek a king was unbelief. But instead of judging His people, God demonstrated His "gracious, permissive will" by granting the people their request; v. 13 makes it clear that it was the Lord who has set a king over you (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 127).

Now Israel had what it asked for—a king. This was the central statement in Samuel’s message. But God was still gracious with His people. If they walked with Him, all would go well with them. But if they rebelled against Him (v. 15), then the hand of the Lord will be against you, as it was against your fathers.

Still, Israel needed to understand the gravity of their sin in asking for a king. To bring this home, Samuel challenged Israel for the second time to see this great thing which the Lord will do before your eyes. He then prayed for unseasonable rain and thunder (v. 17), which came as a visual, auditory, and tactile teaching tool, helping Israel realize that their wickedness in asking for a king was great. This was the time of the wheat harvest, which took place between May and June. It did not rain during this season; therefore thunder and rain on this occasion was a sign of God’s displeasure with Israel’s choosing a human king over having Him as their King.

12:19–25. The people sensed their alienation from God and pending death. To their long list of disobedience they had now added another one, the request for a king. Samuel then expressed the words that the Lord said so many times to His people: Do not fear. Samuel did not ignore their sin, but he told them the way forward. You have committed all this evil, yet do not turn aside from following the Lord, but serve the Lord with all your heart. He warned them of the utter stupidity of turning away from God (v. 21).

Samuel assured the people that the Lord was committed to them for His own glory. Samuel said he would pray for them; in fact he considered it a sin against the Lord not to pray for them. Although the leadership of the nation was being given to Saul, Samuel still had a role to play as pastoral prophet. He would instruct the people in the good and right way.

Samuel also challenged the people to fear and serve the Lord. Then he concluded with a warning, using a powerful metaphor. But if you still do wickedly, both you and your king will be swept away. Much as trash is swept into a pile and then swept away from the floor, so Israel and her king would be swept way with God’s judgment.

Samuel’s address was an important message spoken to Israel at a pivotal moment in her history.

13:1. This episode opens with a statement of Saul’s age and the number of years he reigned over Israel. The seemingly simple statement of Saul’s age and the length of his reign have been troubling for scholars. The source of the trouble is the lack of information concerning Saul’s age at the beginning of his reign, and the short duration of his reign stated in the Hebrew text. The NASB says Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned forty two years. The numbers "thirty" and "forty" are in italics, meaning they are not in the Hebrew text. According to Baldwin, "It seems likely that that information was missing from the start, or that it was misunderstood by later scribes who thought the numbers given could not be correct" (1 and 2 Samuel, 102–3).

In an attempt to make sense of the apparent lack of information in the Hebrew text, some translators have followed the Septuagint manuscripts and have supplied the number "thirty" for Saul’s age, and "forty" for the length of his reign. But the Hebrew text does not state Saul’s age when he began to reign. The Hebrew text says Saul reigned for two years, seeming to contradict Ac 13:21, which says Saul reigned over Israel for "forty years." Is there a contradiction between the two statements? No. Saul’s two-year reign is from God’s perspective. Saul reigned legitimately before the Lord for two years. From the perspective of the people he reigned 40 years, but for 38 of those years, he reigned in open defiance of the Lord. Others scholars share this point of view: "Thus, from God’s point of view Saul has been king only for a short period, and the exact age of Saul’s accession did not matter to the narrator, since he was already rejected by his God" (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 333).

13:2–7. Michmash was a town in the land of Benjamin about seven miles northeast of Jerusalem. For the first time the narrator mentioned Jonathan, Saul’s son. He had a military victory over the Philistine garrison in Geba, a city in Benjamin about five miles north of Jerusalem. The garrison was a military outpost including the soldiers in it. Jonathan’s defeat of the Geba garrison made Israel odious to the Philistines. The translation "odious" is not as strong as the Hebrew term, which means "a strong and disgusting stench." In addition to his 3,000 troops, Saul summoned the volunteers he had sent home (v. 2b) to Gilgal. He needed more men.

The Philistines assembled for battle in force. They had 30,000 chariots. Since Israel did not have chariots, the Philistines had a military advantage. The Philistines were like the sand which is on the seashore in abundance (v. 5). Saul and his 2,000 men were at Michmash, but when they saw the Philistine military presence they panicked and left for Gilgal. And instead of preparing for battle through prayer, Saul’s army collapsed emotionally and went into hiding in caves, in thickets, in cliffs, in cellars [cisterns], and in pits (v. 6).

13:8–9. Matters then reached a new low. After waiting seven tension-filled days (v. 8), the people remaining with Saul began to leave him. So Saul took matters into his own hands and offered a burnt offering (v. 9). But only consecrated priests were qualified to offer sacrifices to the Lord (cf. Ex 29:38–46; Lv 1:5, 7). As soon as Saul finished offering the sacrifice, behold, Samuel came (v. 10), and as a priest he could have made the offering legitimately. If only Saul would have waited a little longer in faith.

13:10–13. Samuel asked Saul, what have you done? (v. 11). Saul tried to justify his actions. But Samuel was blunt, for he said to Saul, you have acted foolishly (v. 13). To "act foolishly" means "to be deficient in moral or spiritual capacity." Usually it is used in contexts where one acts sinfully out of fear and lack of trust in the Lord (cf. Gn 31:28; 1Sm 26:21; 2Sm 24:10; 1Ch 16:9–10; 21:8). When a child of God faces an overwhelming situation and compromises his standards, sinning in the process, and tries to "rescue" himself, disaster is the outcome.

13:14. As a result of Saul’s disobedience, his kingdom would not endure. Saul would not have a dynasty. God has sought out for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has appointed him as ruler over His people (v. 14). According to Youngblood, a man after [God’s] own heart is a man "chosen by God … and therefore a man who has God’s interests at heart" ("1, 2 Samuel," 137). Baldwin agrees, saying such a person is "prepared to let the Lord’s will, as spoken by his prophet, be the guide of his life" (1 and 2 Samuel, 105). He is a man who is concerned for God’s glory and agenda. God had already chosen Saul’s replacement.

13:15–18. Saul’s troops had been reduced to six hundred men (v. 15). In the meantime, a part of the Philistine military plan was to send three companies of raiders to different places from their camp in Michmash (v. 16). They went in three directions from Michmash: one group took the road north to Ophrah, another went west to Beth-horon, and another took the road east toward Zeboim (vv. 17–18), following a common military practice of the day which allowed for more options and mobility (cf. 1Sm 11:11). Gideon did the same in Jdg 7:16 (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 139).

13:19–23. A blacksmith was a worker in iron. At this time the Philistines knew how to smelt iron. They intentionally did not allow Israel to acquire skill in iron-smelting for strategic military reasons, thinking, otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears (v. 19). Iron swords and spears were stronger and more deadly than bronze ones, not to mention wooden spears and arrows. Skill in smelting gave the Philistines another advantage over Israel. The only iron implements in Israel’s possession were farming tools. But to maintain these implements they had to go to the Philistines. For this service the Philistines charged two-thirds of a shekel (v. 21), about one-fourth of an ounce, or eighty grams. No doubt this was an inflated fee.

The Philistines secured their base in Michmash by placing a garrison of troops at the pass that led to Michmash, but the Israelites had no weapons, except for Saul and his son Jonathan (v. 22). These parenthetical verses are important because they show that, humanly speaking, Israel was outmatched! This prepares the reader for the revelation that Israel’s upcoming victory over the better-armed Philistines was the Lord’s deliverance (cf. 14:23). That Jonathan had a sword also sets the stage for the story of his courageous attack in the following chapter. The narrator was preparing to remind his readers again that one man with the Lord was a "one-man army," for as Jonathan himself would say, "the Lord is not restrained to save by many or by few" (14:6).

14:1–3. Jonathan is identified for the first time as Saul’s son. In faith Jonathan said to his armor bearer, Come and let us cross over to the Philistines’ garrison that is on the other side (v. 1). The Philistine garrison was on the pass to Michmash, on the other side of the pass, south of where Jonathan and his armor bearer were. Any armor bearer who carried the armor of a high-ranking soldier had to be a man of courage himself, and a skilled warrior. He was with the soldier as he fought in battle, protected the soldier, and if necessary gave his life for him. Meanwhile, Saul was under a pomegranate tree in Migron (v. 2, which means "precipice"). Ahijah, Eli’s great grandson, was the priest with Saul. In principle he was there to give Saul guidance from the Lord.

14:4–5. To reach the Philistine garrison, Jonathan would have to pass through two sharp, rocky, treacherous cliffs named Bozez and Seneh, on the north and south slopes of the pass at Michmash. Bozez means "slippery" or "shining," and Seneh means "thorny." Bozez reflected the sunlight, making it difficult to see, and was slippery, making one’s step unsure and difficult. Seneh was thorny, perhaps because of thorn bushes or other plants with thorns, making climbing difficult. The jagged cliffs rose up like towering pillars. The topography shows the courage Jonathan exercised in passing through these cliffs to reach the Philistine garrison.

14:6–10. Jonathan then said to his armor bearer, Come and let us cross over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; perhaps the Lord will work for us (v. 6). Jonathan added that the Lord could save by many or by few. The armor bearer responded, Here I am with you according to your desire (v. 7; lit., "according to your heart"). Jonathan’s armor bearer was committed to Jonathan’s faith commitments.

14:11–15. The Philistines mocked them saying, Behold, Hebrews are coming out of the holes where they have hidden themselves (v. 11). Overconfident, the Philistines invited Jonathan and his armor bearer to come up, not realizing that God would give them into Jonathan’s hand. The garrison was on a steep hill, requiring Jonathan to climb on his hands and feet. After passing through the dangerous crags, Jonathan and his armor bearer scaled the steep incline leading to the garrison. When they reached the garrison, Jonathan and his armor bearer killed about twenty men within about half a furrow in an acre of land (v. 14). The NIV renders this phrase as an area of about half an acre, that is, a small plot of land.

In 13:7 the men following Saul were "trembling." Now the Philistines were trembling in the camp, in the field, and among all the people (v. 15). Even a great earthquake caused a great trembling (v. 15b; lit., "trembling of God").

14:16–19. Seeing what happened in the Philistine camp, Saul’s watchmen in Gibeah said the multitude melted away (v. 16). Knowing something had happened, Saul demanded to know who was missing from the Israelite camp. The report that the missing men were Jonathan and his armor bearer (v. 17) was ominous in light of Saul’s curse that same day (cf. 14:23–24). While Saul was talking, the commotion in the Philistine camp continued to increase, so Saul told the priest Abijah, who had come to pray and consult God for the troops (cf. 14:3), withdraw your hand (v. 19). Saul’s order was a serious breach of the biblical rules of engagement in a battle. According to the Lord’s word (cf. Dt 20:1–4), before Israel engaged in battle the priest was instructed to pray for the people and offer words of encouragement with the challenge to trust the Lord. Yet Saul stopped Abijah in the middle of his required task because he thought he would lose the strategic military moment. Saul led as if the Lord was not a part of the equation.

14:20–23. Ironically, the Lord used the many swords of the Philistine military against them. The battle went so well for Israel that two groups who had refused to fight now joined in the attack. These included some Hebrews who had defected to the side of the Philistines, probably deserters who wanted to save their own skins (v. 21). And as the news of victory reached the Israelites, those who had hidden themselves in the hill country of Ephraim (v. 22) also pursued the Philistines in battle. Even these two groups of cowardly soldiers joined those with Saul and Jonathan (v. 21). The narrator attributed the deliverance that day to the Lord (v. 23).

14:24–30. Now the men of Israel were hard-pressed on that day (v. 24). On the very day of one of the greatest deliverances in Israel’s history, instead of rejoicing, singing, and dancing as their fathers and mothers did after the deliverance at the Red Sea (cf. Ex 15:20; Jdg 5:1–31), the people were hard-pressed (cf. 13:6) because Saul put the people under a "foolish oath" (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 368), cursing anyone who ate food until the evening (v. 24). Men in battle need the physical strength that food provides. Saul’s oath was rash and unnecessary, made because of his desire for revenge on his enemies. It also caused the people to commit a grievous error that night when the famished troops ate several animals with the blood (cf. v. 32). Though hungry, no man put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath (v. 26). Unaware of his father’s oath, Jonathan ate some of the honey, and he was strengthened (his eyes brightened). An unnamed person told Jonathan about the oath: Cursed be the man who eats food today (v. 28). Jonathan responded, My father has troubled the land (v. 29). Jonathan was wise, using himself as an example of the benefits of eating a little of the honey. Had the people been allowed to eat of the spoil of their enemies, the victory over the Philistines would have been even greater.

14:31–35. The narrator reported that the people were very weary (v. 31) in addition to being hungry. The weariness and hunger of the people explain the ravenous consumption of the spoil, and the eating of the meat with the blood in direct violation of Scripture (cf. Lv 3:17; 17:10–13). Hearing about the people sinning against the Lord by eating meat with the blood, Saul took measures to stop them (vv. 33–34). So for the first time Saul built an altar to the Lord. Saul seemingly did so out of expediency instead of heartfelt devotion, although some commentators say he was being "scrupulously pious" (Walter Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching [Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1990], 105) and his offering was "a propitiatory sacrifice to the Lord" (Merrill, "1 Samuel," 446).

14:36–44. Saul took some initiative in battle, desiring to go down after the Philistines at night. Saul inquired of God, but God did not answer him on that day (v. 37). On the great day of the Lord’s deliverance, He did not speak to Saul, because Saul’s relationship with the Lord was not as it should have been. Saul thought the Lord was silent because of someone’s hidden sin. Hence, he called for an investigation to identify the culprit, who was Saul himself (v. 38). Ironically Saul did something rash again, declaring that even if the culprit were his son Jonathan, he would surely die (v. 39). The lot pointed to Jonathan, and Saul pronounced the death penalty on his courageous son (vv. 40–44).

14:45–46. Jonathan was a victim of his own father’s poor leadership. The people, however, came to Jonathan’s rescue. They refused to bow to the king’s wishes, saying, as the Lord lives, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground (v. 45). The great victory the Lord accomplished through Jonathan would have been even greater had Saul used wisdom and sound judgment. Like Saul, carnal and incompetent leaders can make foolish decisions, thereby reducing divine impact.

14:47–52. These verses give the impression that in spite of some major bumps in the road such as the rejection of Saul’s dynasty, Saul was destined to have a great reign. But it was not to be so—in the very next chapter he would lose his status as the Lord’s chosen leader. According to Bergen, the probable explanation for the "puzzling" inclusion of this summary of Saul’s career at this point (vv. 47–48) is that, in the narrator’s view, Saul was no longer God’s anointed leader (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 162). Thus, his career was summarized as if he were deceased. This same reason is possibly the explanation for listing Saul’s family members (vv. 49–51).

15:1–2. Samuel reminded Saul that his purpose as king over Israel was to listen to the words of the Lord (v. 1). This meant to listen with the intent to obey. The Amalekites were the descendants of Esau (cf. Gn 36:12). The tension between them and Israel was not because of ethnic differences, but because of the Amalekites’ satanically charged animosity against the Lord and His people (cf. Nm 24:20; Dt 25:17–19). Saul’s mission was to execute the Lord’s wrath on the Amalekites for their vicious attack on Israel centuries earlier when Israel came out of Egypt (cf. Ex 17:8–16; Dt 25:17–19). Their attack was actually against the Lord and His reign (cf. Ex 17:16).

15:3–5. Samuel told Saul to utterly destroy all that the Amalekites had. The verb "destroy" (Hb. herem) means "to completely turn something over to the Lord" in judgment, in this case, the belongings of enemies. The Hebrews were not to keep these spoils, but to destroy them completely. This verb occurs several times in this chapter (vv. 3, 8, 9, 15, 18, 20). Verse 21 uses the noun zeram, devoted to destruction. Saul was not to spare any of the Amalekites, not even children and infants. Though this command is difficult to comprehend, the severity of herem underscores how serious sin is in the Lord’s eyes. "The command came from a perfectly just God and was the just execution of judgment on sin" (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 51). What God commanded turned Saul and his army into instruments of God’s wrath. This practice was restricted to the OT theocracy; it is not to be practiced today. Israel was uniquely the people and the chosen nation of God, set apart to bear His name and His witness to the world. It was vital that the Israelites not be exposed to the influence of sinful, pagan peoples who would lead them into compromise and syncretism in the worship of God (for further discussion, see Excursus: Canaanite Genocide-Killing the Seemingly Innocent at Jos 6:21).

15:6–9. The Kenites, whom Saul encouraged to leave the scene of battle for safety, were descendants of Moses’ father-in-law Jethro (cf. Ex 2:16–22; 3:1; 18:1–27; Jdg 1:16; 4:11). Unlike the Amalekites, the Kenites had treated Israel "with loyalty on their march up from Egypt" (Klein, 1 Samuel, 150). Saul defeated the Amalekites, but his obedience was partial, for he spared Agag, the Amalekite king.

15:10–12. According to Marvin R. Wilson, to regret (v. 11) indicates that God relents or changes His dealings with people according to His sovereign purposes (cf. Gn 6:6–7; Ex 32:14; Jdg 2:18; 1Sm 15:11). Wilson writes, "On the surface, such language seems inconsistent, if not contradictory, with certain passages which affirm God’s immutability … (1 Sam 15:29 contra v. 11 … Ps 110:4). When [regret] is used of God, however, the expression is anthropopathic and there is not ultimate tension. From man’s earthly, limited, finite perspective it only appears that God’s purposes have changed. Thus the OT states that God ‘repented’ of the judgments or ‘evil’ which he had planned to carry out (1 Chr 21:15; Jr 18:8; 26:3, 19; Amos 7:3, 6; Jon 3:10)" (Marvin Wilson, "regret," in TWOT, edited by R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago: Moody, 1980], 570–71). Saul’s disobedience brought sorrow to the heart of God. The next day Samuel learned that Saul was setting up a monument for himself in Gilgal (v. 12). People erected monuments in honor of the Lord, but never in honor of a human.

15:13–16. Saul’s statement that he carried out the command of the Lord (v. 13) was untrue and inaccurate. In 15:1, Samuel told Saul to "listen (from the verb shama) to the words (lit., "voice," qol) of the Lord." Ironically, in v. 14, Samuel asked, what then is this bleating [lit., "voice," qol] of the sheep in my ears, and the lowing [also qol] of the oxen which I hear? ("hear" is also from the verb shama, as in 15:1). By this ironic word play, the author clearly indicated that Saul had failed to do what Samuel and the Lord required, in spite of Saul’s insistence to the contrary. Saul attempted to deflect his disobedience by piously declaring that the people spared the best of the sheep and oxen, to sacrifice to the Lord your God; but the rest we utterly destroyed (v. 15).

15:17–19. In light of everything that the Lord had done for Saul, his disobedience was foolish and inexcusable. Saul himself was in a greedy, lustful frenzy. Samuel asked him, Why then did you not obey the voice of the Lord, but rushed upon the spoil? (v. 19). Saul rushed on the spoil like a predatory animal seizes its victim. The verbs "rushed" and "did" in v. 19 are in the second person singular, indicating that Samuel was singling out Saul himself as the guilty party.

15:20–23. Saul blamed the people for the partial disobedience. He said, the people took … the choicest of the things devoted to destruction [herem]. But the narrator wrote in v. 9, "Saul and the people spared Agag." Then Samuel uttered an unforgettable statement to communicate to Saul the error of his way. Samuel began with a question to probe Saul’s thinking: Has the Lord as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord? (v. 22). The question implied that the Lord delights in obedience to His Word far more than sacrifices. Samuel then said, Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed better than the fat of rams. Samuel then identified the nature of Saul’s sin. Rebellion is as the sin of divination, and insubordination is as iniquity and idolatry (v. 23a). Divination was the sin of consulting mediums and witches (which Saul later did [cf. 1Sm 28:3–25], even though he had removed them!). Iniquity was the twisting of sin, and idolatry involved replacing God with false gods as objects of worship. Saul’s sins of rebellion, willful disobedience, and insubordination bore similarities to these other sins in that they removed God from His rightful place in a person’s life (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 172–73). Saul’s disobedience had serious consequences. Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He has also rejected you from being king (v. 23b). Not only would Saul not have a dynasty, but the Lord also had rejected Saul himself as king. In God’s eyes Saul’s reign ended when Samuel spoke these words to him.

15:24–31. Saul admitted, I have sinned. Then he stated that fear was the source of his disobedience. Instead of listening to the voice of God, he had listened to the voice of the people. Because Saul rejected God’s words, God would reject him from being king. Rejection is mentioned twice in v. 23 and twice in v. 26. When Saul took hold of Samuel’s robe and tore it (v. 27), Samuel used the tearing action as a disturbing object lesson for Saul. Samuel said, The Lord has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today (v. 28).

Samuel used a striking term for God in v. 29, calling Him the Glory [or Eminence] of Israel. He is immutable and His plans do not change. The rejection of Saul and the giving of the kingdom to his neighbor were as fixed as God’s unchangeable nature. Image control was the only reason Saul wanted Samuel to return with him (vv. 30–31).

15:32–35. Samuel then executed God’s judgment on Agag, the Amalekite king. Agag thought, Surely the bitterness of death is past. But Samuel’s words to Agag showed that because Agag was an evil man, he would suffer the same fate as his many victims. The narrator wrote that Saul’s disobedience grieved Samuel, just as God regretted making Saul king (v. 35; cf. 1Sm 16:11). These two statements (vv. 11 and 35) form an inclusio, bracketing the action of vv. 11 through 35, showing that both the Lord and Samuel were grieved over Saul’s rebellion (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 52). Rebellion against the Lord’s voice grieves Him, resulting in disastrous consequences for the disobedient. Saul’s rejection opened a new period in the history of the monarchy in Israel.

Chapter 16 begins one of the most engaging sections of the Old Testament. The author focused attention primarily on David, the main subject of the books of Samuel, until the end of 2 Samuel. In essence, the stories of Samuel and Saul were included as prologue to the story of David. Next to Moses, no one captured Israel’s imagination like David.

Although rejected, Saul did not relinquish the throne; he held on to power for years until the day he committed suicide on Mount Gilboa. The Lord, however, prepared David to be the next king of Israel, using the demonically influenced Saul to shape David. Years would pass before David reached the throne over all Israel, but in the process David learned to trust the Lord in times of despair, fear, and pain. David’s experiences under Saul are some of the most moving and instructive accounts in the OT.

16:1–3. Although Samuel continued to grieve over Saul’s disobedience, God was ready to do something new. This is a momentous point in the narrative, bringing onto the scene the central character of the rest of 1 Samuel and all of 2 Samuel. Saul did not have God’s will, interests, and glory at heart, so God selected a person who did—a shepherd boy who became the shepherd of all of Israel (cf. 2Sm 5:2, Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 119). God selected as king the youngest son of Jesse of Bethlehem, called Jesse the Bethlehemite (v. 1). When Samuel expressed his apprehension to the Lord about doing what God had just told him to do, the Lord did not dismiss Samuel’s fears. He told Samuel how to proceed.

16:4–5. The elders were a group of older and experienced men who were responsible for the leadership of the city. Consecrating oneself meant "to set oneself apart to God." Consecration involved ceremonial cleansing and abstaining from certain foods and sex with their wives. Consecration was necessary because of the solemnity of the occasion before the Lord. Samuel invited two groups of people to the sacrifice: the elders of Bethlehem and Jesse and his sons.

16:6–7. Observing Eliab, Jesse’s eldest son (cf. 1Ch 2:13), Samuel concluded, Surely the Lord’s anointed is before Him. Samuel may have thought of Saul’s impressive physical appearance, but that is not what the Lord was seeing. He was looking at the heart. He chooses His servants based on their inner lives, not on how they look.

16:8–10. All seven of Jesse’s sons passed before Samuel from the oldest to the youngest, but the Lord had not chosen any of them.

16:11–13. This posed a problem for Samuel, so he asked, Are these all the children? Jesse responded that he had one more son, the youngest in the family. He was tending the sheep, and his father did not even mention his name. So David was sent for, and he was God’s choice. David was ruddy, that is, he was tan from working and living outdoors, and he was handsome. How much David’s family understood about what happened is not important. Samuel anointed David as king and then went home to Ramah.

16:14. In contrast to the Spirit of God coming on David (v. 13), the Spirit of God departed from Saul (v. 14). The Spirit of God did not indwell believers in the OT era the way He does today. When a person today receives Christ as his Lord and Savior, the Spirit of God comes to indwell that person forever (cf. Jn 14:16–17; 1Co 12:13). But there was more evidence that the Lord had rejected Saul from being king. An evil spirit from the Lord terrorized him. Rather than suggesting that the Lord’s Spirit could at times be evil, the Hebrew phrase is better translated, "a spirit of evilness (or disaster)," in this case probably a spirit whose mission is judgment upon Saul (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 427). The terror brought upon Saul was not just fright, but of partial incapacitation. This raises questions about God’s morality and sovereignty. The Bible teaches here and elsewhere (see for example Jb 1–2) that God governs even the powers of darkness through His providence without being morally culpable for their actions (a profound mystery indeed). God’s sovereignty over such a spirit served two purposes. First, it was surely an act of judgment against Saul for his rebellion against God. Second, David’s music would provide relief for Saul from the spirit’s torment. This would also lead Saul to retain David, resulting in David gaining important experience in how to lead as a king by being exposed to Saul.

16:15–18. Saul’s servants knew the source of his problem, so they proposed music as a solution. Providentially, one of Saul’s servants knew about David, who already had a good reputation. He was described as a skillful musician, a mighty man of valor, a warrior, one prudent in speech, and a handsome man; and the Lord is with him (v. 18). The presence of God in David’s life was observable.

16:19–23. The way Saul asked for David suggests that Saul knew of young David’s occupation. So he said to Jesse, Send me your son David who is with the flock. Thus David attended (lit., "stood before" in order to serve) Saul. Saul admired David, but it was short-lived. For the time being, however, David became Saul’s armor bearer. An armor bearer was a special assistant to a king or a prominent military person. His main task was to carry the king’s armor. In times of danger and battle, the armor bearer stood with the king or prince; the armor bearer was available to carry out the king’s orders and wishes. Being close to the king, David would gain some insight into what was involved in being a king. Unknown to Saul, God in His providence placed David—God’s choice for king—in his presence as his musician and his armor bearer. It is likely that David learned a considerable amount about what it meant to function as king during this time.

The plan of Saul’s servants worked for the moment. When David played, the evil spirit would depart from Saul (v. 23).

The account of David and Goliath is one of the longest and best-known Bible stories. Its inclusion here is to answer the question raised in the previous chapter at the anointing of David, where it says, "Man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart" (16:7). What did the Lord see in David that was not present in his brothers or in Saul? The answer to that question is in the story of David and Goliath.

17:1. Preparing for battle against Israel, the Philistines camped on the south side of "the valley of Elah" a few miles southwest of Jerusalem (Merrill, "1 Samuel," 448) in Ephes-dammin (which means "boundary of blood" because of blood spilled there in battles).

17:2–4. Saul and his men assembled on the north side of the valley of Elah. The valley’s plain was between the two armies.

A Philistine champion named Goliath appeared on the scene (v. 4). The word "champion" means "a man between two," that is, between two armies. Sometimes a champion from each army would fight, and the war’s outcome was decided by which champion won the battle. This approach minimized bloodshed. Goliath was six cubits and a span in height. A cubit was approximately 18 inches, and a span was half a cubit. So Goliath was nine feet, nine inches in height. The Lucian recension of the LXX from the third century AD, a Dead Sea Scroll version of 1 Samuel (called 4QSama) and Josephus (Ant. 6.171) all predate the Hebrew Masoretic Text, providing an ancient witness to Goliath being "four cubits and a span" in height, or about six feet nine inches tall.

If this is the preferred reading (and there is much evidence to suggest that it is), then Saul although shorter than the giant, was closer in size, standing a head taller than the rest of the Israelites (1Sm 9:2), perhaps six-feet-five-inches. (The height of the average Israelite male at this time was no more than five-feet six-inches tall.) Clearly it would be more logical that Saul should have been the one to fight the Philistine. He also was one of the few Israelite soldiers to have bronze armor similar to Goliath’s (cf. 17:38–39) since bronze was rare in those days. By any measure, Saul was the obvious choice to fight the Philistine.

In addition, the people believed Saul’s job as king was to "go out before us and fight our battles" (8:20). His failure to engage Goliath—his apparent cowardice in running away from him with the other soldiers (cf. 17:24)—is included by the writer to prove that Saul was unfit for duty as Israel’s king, and that David was (see the comments below). For this understanding of the Goliath episode, see J. Daniel Hays, "Reconsidering the Height of Goliath," JETS 48 (December 2005): 713–14. This story is more about David vs. Saul than David vs. Goliath!

17:5–7. Armor covered a warrior’s chest and abdomen. Goliath’s bronze armor weighed five thousand shekels of bronze, that is, about 126 pounds. Goliath’s shin guards were bronze. Between his shoulders, meaning on his back, was a bronze javelin. A javelin was like a spear, but was shorter and lighter. Goliath had a spear shaped like a weaver’s beam, which suggests that it was thick and easily handled. The head or point of the spear weighed six hundred shekels of iron, or about 15 pounds of iron. Goliath had a shield-carrier walk in front of him. Shields were large enough to protect a warrior, so Goliath’s shield was about nine feet in height. Goliath also had a sword in his sheath (cf. v. 45). Viewing this giant must have been terrifying to the Israelites.

17:8–11. Goliath challenged Israel to battle twice a day for forty days (v. 16). The events of chap. 17 cover a period of almost one and a half months. When Saul and all Israel heard Goliath’s challenge, terror seized them—they were dismayed and greatly afraid. Their fear demonstrated a serious lack of trust in God and His covenant promises.

17:12. Jesse, David’s father, is identified here as an Ephrathite from Bethlehem (cf. 16:1). Ephrath was the ancient name of Bethlehem (cf. Gn 35:19; 48:7), and so an Ephrathite was an inhabitant of Bethlehem.

17:13–16. The three eldest sons of Jesse are mentioned again as they were in chap. 16. These men were old enough to engage in battle (cf. Nm 1:3). Their failure to engage Goliath shows the reason the Lord did not select one of them to be king. David served in Saul’s court, but Saul permitted him to go back and forth (v. 15) between the court and David’s home to look after his father’s sheep.

17:17–19. Jesse sent David to the front line to learn of the welfare of his brothers and to take them some food. Jesse’s words that Saul … and all the men of Israel are in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines (v. 19) are ironic, because Saul and his army were in a standoff that would reach 40 days by the time David arrived on the scene of the battle.

17:20–23. About the time David arrived at the camp, providentially Goliath approached with his taunt against God’s people. He repeated what he said earlier, and this time David heard the giant’s words.

17:24–25. During the previous 40 days, Saul gave incentives for someone to answer Goliath’s challenge. To be free in Israel meant that a person did not have to pay taxes and was exempt from military service. These are hefty incentives even by 21^st century standards!

17:26–30. David asked, Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should taunt the armies of the living God? Calling him uncircumcised was not merely addressing a physical characteristic but indicated that Goliath was a pagan and, unlike Israel, did not have any covenant promises upon which to rely. David understood the spiritual heart of the matter: Goliath’s taunt was not merely about Israel, but the God of Israel. Eliab, David’s oldest brother, became angry at David’s words. Perhaps Eliab was upset that his little brother had more faith and courage than he did.

17:31–33. The word that someone in Israel’s camp had challenged Goliath reached Saul’s ears, so he sent for David. Saul was not impressed with David’s youth and lack of military training, thinking the youthful David was no match for Goliath who had been trained in the art of combat since he was a youth.

17:34–37. David’s response to Saul was admirable. David, the teenaged shepherd, had had some major private victories in his life. In David’s day fierce animals such as lions and bears roamed the countryside. But when a lion attacked David’s flock and took a lamb, David pursued it. Most people would just take a loss instead of going after a lion, but not David. He attacked the lion and rescued the sheep from its mouth. If the lion decided to fight back, David would grab it by its beard (its mane, v. 35) and kill it. Unlike Saul, who was introduced as one who was reluctant to expend the effort to find his father’s donkeys (cf. 1Sm 9:5), David was portrayed as ferociously protective, steadfast, and courageous in caring for his father’s sheep—a detail included to indicate David’s suitability for being Israel’s "shepherd" rather than Saul. David considered the Philistine as posing a similar threat as the predatory beasts he encountered. The Lord had delivered David from the lion and the bear, and He would deliver David from Goliath.

17:38–39. Saul tried to prepare David for battle by outfitting him with his own armor. However, David had not used Saul’s armor in battle, so he took the armor off. David would trust in God, not human devices, to accomplish the task.

17:40. David selected five smooth stones from the brook and put them in his shepherd’s bag. Since the text gives no reason for David taking five stones, it is speculation to try to determine the significance of his choice; perhaps he took extra stones in case he missed. Then he held a sling … in his hand. This was not a child’s slingshot, but a deadly weapon that was used by ancient armies, consisting of a pouch or pocket attached at each side to two long cords (Klein, 1 Samuel, 179). A master slinger could sling a tennis-ball sized stone that traveled at the speed of well over one hundred miles an hour, faster than most professional baseball pitchers can throw a fastball today. David then approached the Philistine.

17:41–42. Looking at David, Goliath drew the wrong conclusion about him. The giant believed he could easily kill this youth … he disdained David.

17:43–47. In antiquity warriors talked to each other before they fought, lacing their speeches with curses and expletives. Goliath threatened to feed David to the vultures and wild beasts (v. 44). But David’s response was different. He battled in God’s name. David’s goal was the glory of God, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel (v. 46).

David’s miraculous victory over Goliath would point the nations to God and serve an evangelistic purpose. David’s purpose was also to help God’s people see that human weaponry alone was not the means of deliverance, because the battle is the Lord’s (v. 47). Goliath was not fighting against David; he was defying God. Since the battle belonged to the Lord, He would give Goliath into David’s hands.

17:48–54. Suddenly, the talking stopped. David ran quickly toward the battle line (v. 48) in contrast to Saul and the others running away (cf. v. 24). David put his hand into his bag and took from it a stone and slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead. And the stone sank into his forehead (v. 49). Goliath was defeated in a matter of a few seconds.

Goliath was out cold, but he was not dead. So David took Goliath’s own sword and cut off Goliath’s head (v. 51). Seeing Goliath dead, the Philistines fled. Israel decisively defeated the Philistines on this day. After chasing the Philistines, the Israelites went through their camps and plundered them, taking useful goods and animals (v. 53). David took Goliath’s head … to Jerusalem.

17:55–58. The narrator went back to an earlier part of the story when David was going out to face Goliath. Saul questioned Abner, the commander of his army, about David’s father. Saul’s questioning seems strange in light of Saul having earlier asked Jesse’s permission to keep David at his court. After the battle Abner took David to Saul. The chapter ends with Saul questioning David about who his father was. A likely explanation for this scene is that because Saul did not ask David for his name, but the name of his father, he wanted to make sure of David’s family so he could properly reward Jesse (cf. v. 25; Laney, First and Second Samuel, 50). Merrill suggests another possibility, that Saul’s questioning may reflect that David’s earlier service had been intermittent, and it may have been several years since Saul had last seen him (Merrill, "1 Samuel," 448–49). Whatever the case, the Lord used David instead of Saul because David learned lessons from past victories (vv. 34–36), understood the nature of the threat (v. 26), and recognized that each battle is the Lord’s (v. 47).

The dramatic narrative shows why the Lord had David anointed: the youth had a distinct quality that made him more suitable to be king than either Saul or his brothers. This quality was that David cared more for the honor of God than his own safety or security. When applying this passage today, it is best not to allegorize it with discussions of how to overcome the giants in life. Rather it is appropriate to ask, what kind of people does God choose to use? The answer, of course is, people who care more about honoring the Lord than preserving their own safety and security.

A number of scenarios unfolded in this chapter. David was divinely moved closer to the throne he would occupy when Saul made him a permanent member of his court. But according to Chisholm, the hatred and jealousy of Saul show that the road to the throne would not be easy for David; it "will consume the story until Saul’s death and even then will not be completely resolved" (Robert Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2013], 122). Yet, Chisholm continues, this posed no conflict for the narrator, whose description of events showed that everyone else loved David—even Saul’s own son and daughter (Chisholm, 1 & 2 Samuel, 122).

18:1–5. Jonathan, Saul’s son, admired David, having observed his courageous faith. Saul no longer allowed David to return home to care for his father’s sheep (cf. 16:19; 17:15), probably because David was now old enough to serve in the army. Saul had earlier made David his armor bearer (cf. 16:21), and now Saul put David in command of the army (v. 5). Then Jonathan made a covenant with David (v. 3). A covenant in Scripture was a solemn promise that bound the parties to its provisions. So strongly did Jonathan love David that merely expressing his friendship was not enough. Jonathan also recognized that David, not he, was the true heir to Israel’s throne. Evidently these two realities led Jonathan to make this covenant of friendship, a friendship that demanded loyalty. The friendship between these two godly men lasted for the rest of their lives. Jonathan gave David his robe … armor … sword … bow … and belt (v. 4), symbolic gestures of respect and friendship. Saul set David over his soldiers, and David’s promotion pleased everyone. The shepherd boy’s courageous faith fired the entire nation’s imagination.

18:6–9. The women from all Israel’s cities sang and danced in the streets with tambourines as they welcomed their men home. Centuries earlier, the same kind of celebration occurred after the miraculous crossing of the Red Sea (cf. Ex 15:20–21). Tsumura states, "Women in Israel celebrated a victory with singing and dancing and instruments," and adds Jdg 11:34 as an example (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 476). The women sang that Saul had slain his thousands (v. 7a). However, Saul had not actually killed thousands in battle; this was poetic liberty. Then the women sang their second line: And David his ten thousands (v. 7b). Hearing that, Saul became very angry, for this saying displeased him; and he said [thought], they have ascribed to David ten thousands, but to me they have ascribed thousands. Now what more can he have but the kingdom? (v. 8). From now on Saul would view David through the lens of envy, jealously, and suspicion (v. 9), and with good reason. Saul had failed miserably in his role as king, namely, to lead his warriors in battle (cf. 8:20). Where he failed, David succeeded, and even at this early stage there was a widespread recognition of his abilities. David, who was the true, anointed king (cf. 16:13), could have begun to exercise his kingly role at this point and the people would have welcomed it—and Saul knew it. Thus his reaction was not simply one of envy. It included fear of being displaced as king.

18:10–11. Saul yielded to this fear and jealousy. As in 16:14, 23, an evil spirit from God afflicted Saul yet again (for the theology of this, see the comments on 16:14). Saul tried to kill David twice, but he was not successful.

18:12–16. Saul feared David because the Lord was with David but had departed from the king. Fearful of David, Saul demoted him, assigning him military leadership over a thousand (v. 13), thereby regularly putting David’s life at risk. In spite of his demotion, David prospered in all his ways because the Lord was with him (v. 14).

18:17–19. Saul should have given his older daughter Merab to David after he slew Goliath (cf. 17:25), but Saul did not keep his word. Instead he offered Merab in marriage to David, provided David fought the Lord’s battles. Saul used the cloak of marriage and zeal for the Lord to hide his dark purpose to set David up to be killed in battle by God’s enemies. A date was set for the marriage, but when the time came the marriage was cancelled. Then Saul gave Merab to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife. Even though David was humble, not feeling worthy to become the king’s son-in-law, Saul’s behavior was inexcusable. Merab and Adriel had five sons.

Years later, in a severe act of judgment on "Saul and his bloody house" (cf. 2Sm 21:1), seven of his descendants were hanged by the Gibeonites (cf. 2Sm 21:7–9). Saul had sinned by putting some of the Gibeonites to death in his zeal to rid Israel of pagans, even though Israel had a long-standing treaty with the Gibeonites (cf. Jos 9:3–27). Five of those who died were the sons of Merab and Adriel (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 123–24). All five were executed by hanging (cf. 2Sm 21:7–9). They were executed "before the Lord" (2Sm 21:9), indicating that the judgment was ultimately His.

18:20–22. The name Michal, which means "who is like God?" is the feminine form of "Michael." When Saul heard about Michal’s love for David, he was pleased. However, he was pleased not for his daughter and David, but because he designed to use his daughter’s love as a snare to David. Saul hid his true thoughts and feelings about David in words of praise and with an invitation to become his son-in-law.

18:23–27. David could not afford Michal’s dowry, the amount of money a man gave to the parents of his bride when he married her. Saul, however, was willing to be "flexible" by accepting the grisly dowry of one hundred Philistine foreskins (v. 25). When victors defeated enemy soldiers in battle, sometimes they cut off their heads, taking them as victory trophies. Saul’s request for foreskins instead of heads or other body parts may have something to do with the Philistines being uncircumcised, and were often called by that "title" (cf. 1Sm 14:6; 17:26; Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 486). In any case, Saul was hoping that with the danger involved in David’s seeking to secure the grisly dowry, the Philistines would kill David in the process. David had an allotted time to secure the foreskins, but before the time was up, David and his men killed not only one hundred Philistines but two hundred (v. 27). David walked into the king’s chamber with his dowry, so Saul had no choice but to give his daughter Michal to David in marriage.

18:28–30. Saul became even more afraid of David when he realized the Lord was with David (repeated three times in this chapter, vv. 12, 14, 28), and that his daughter loved David. The very actions Saul plotted against David contributed to his success because the Lord was with David.

19:1–7. If there was any lingering doubt that David was God’s choice as Israel’s next king, and thus enjoyed divine protection, chap. 19 would lay that doubt to rest. Saul’s fear of David grew to a new level of homicidal intent when, "dropping all ruses, Saul now explicitly ordered Jonathan and all his servants to ‘kill David’　" (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 206). Saul wanted Jonathan involved in the vicious plot to murder David because Saul knew his son was close to David. However, Jonathan’s attitude toward David contrasted with his father’s. For the first time David learned from Jonathan himself about Saul’s intentions to have David killed. Jonathan reasoned with his father Saul, urging him not to kill him. Listening to Jonathan, Saul vowed in the Lord’s name that David shall not be put to death (v. 6). Thus, the Lord protected David through Jonathan’s intervention.

19:8–10. While David was playing his harp to soothe Saul, the king hurled his spear at David in another attempt to kill him, but he missed. The Lord protected David through Saul’s miss and through David’s skill in escaping Saul’s presence. Saul failed to keep his vow (v. 6). (Regarding the evil spirit from the Lord, see the comments on 16:14.)

19:11–17. David’s house was a part of the city’s wall complex. Escape through the window put him outside the city, out of the messengers’ immediate sight and reach. The Hebrew word for household idol (v. 13) is teraphim. These were idols kept in a home, and used for divination purposes and misguided worship. Possessing them was thought to promote fertility. The OT denounced the use of teraphim (cf. 2Kg 23:24; Ezk 21:21; Zch 10:1–2). Michal used these idols to mislead her father’s men to think David was in bed. She put a quilt of goats’ hair at its head to look like David’s hair, and covered it with clothes, presumably David’s (v. 13). When Saul sent a second group to take David, Michal told them that David was sick (v. 14). Saul then sent a third group to David’s house, demanding that they bring David on his sickbed so Saul could execute him. In humor the narrator wrote that when the messengers entered the house, they found the household idol was on the bed with the quilt of goats’ hair at its head (v. 16). When Michal claimed she helped David because he threatened her life (the sense of v. 17), she lied again in order to protect herself from Saul. The Lord protected David through the warning, deception, lying, and slick behavior of Michal. In response to this event David composed Ps 59 (see the comments on the heading for the psalm there).

19:18–23. The narrator emphasized David’s escape (vv. 10, 12, 17–18) and constant flight (vv. 10, 12, 18; cf. 20:1). He and Samuel stayed in Naioth, near Ramah (v. 18, cf. 20:1). It is uncertain as to whether Naioth is a proper name or a common noun. It may refer to the compound in Ramah where Samuel’s company of the prophets (cf. 20) lived (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 201). If so, it would seem to have been a safe place for David to hide from Saul. Three times Saul sent messengers to take David (vv. 20, 21 [twice]). But then the unexpected happened: The Spirit of God came on all three groups of Saul’s emissaries. Then when Saul himself went to apprehend David, God’s Spirit came on him.

19:24. Saul then stripped off his royal clothes (v. 24). This bizarre incident, in which Saul lay incapacitated by the Holy Spirit for 24 hours, may have been to keep him from committing "some dreadful crime" against David (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 133), or the result of God’s Spirit working in Saul to bring him to repentance (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 43–44), or both. Bergen says that Saul’s removal of his royal clothes in the presence of God’s Spirit was a powerful image of God’s rejection of him as king (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 211). The word naked (v. 24) does not necessarily mean that Saul removed all of his clothes, but just his outer garments (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 499). God protected David by His Spirit coming on Saul’s men and on Saul himself, showing that the Lord uses different ways and means to protect His servants.

20:1–4. Leaving Naioth, David asked Jonathan, What have I done? What is my iniquity? And what is my sin before your father, that he is seeking my life? According to vv. 2–3, Jonathan was unaware of the events recorded in chap. 19. David’s oath, as the Lord lives and as your soul lives, voiced words that captured the sentiments of people who felt death’s razor edge: there is hardly a step between me and death (v. 3). If Saul was trying to kill him, this meant David would need to leave Saul’s court, his wife, and the comfort of home and become a fugitive.

20:5–6. David and Jonathan used the occasion of the new moon to ascertain Saul’s true intentions. David would be expected to accept the king’s invitation to the celebration, so his absence would give Saul the opportunity either to accept David’s reason gladly and excuse him, or fly into a rage at the snub, revealing to Jonathan the true depth of Saul’s intent to do David harm—and Saul’s past actions gave a clue as to his response (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 147). When the new moon appeared, people celebrated the beginning of a new month by worshiping the Lord. On such an occasion David was expected to eat with the king. But since David did not feel safe with Saul, he wanted to hide himself until the third evening, perhaps meaning that David wanted to wait until he was sure the observance was over, since in some months the new moon festivities lasted for two nights (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 505). In any case, David felt matters would be made clear by then. The pretext for David’s absence was his family’s annual celebration that took place at this particular new moon.

20:7–9. As stated above, Saul’s reaction to David’s three-day absence would reveal Saul’s intention. Saul’s anger would confirm David’s statements about Saul’s intent to do him harm. David asked Jonathan to deal kindly with him because Jonathan had made a covenant of friendship with David (cf. 18:3). To deal kindly meant "to show covenant fidelity, loyalty" in the context of a covenant agreement. David expressed humility, referring to himself as Jonathan’s servant. The covenant of friendship between Jonathan and David had a vertical dimension as well as a covenant before the Lord. Jonathan’s actions in the next section of the chapter exemplify the loyalty of his and David’s covenant friendship before the Lord. On the nature of covenanted friendship, see the comments on 18:1–5.

20:10–11. Jonathan and David developed a plan so that if Saul’s intentions were as David asserted, Jonathan could communicate Saul’s evil plans to David.

20:12–13. Jonathan emphasized his commitment to inform David if Saul planned to harm him. The formula Jonathan employed was used when a person called down on himself or others a curse or other dire consequences from God for failure to do something specific. And may the Lord be with you as He has been with my father. Jonathan realized that David would be king, and he desired that the Lord be with David as king. He departed from the present tense (is) for his father’s kingship because he also realized that the Lord was no longer with his father as king.

20:14–15. Jonathan asked David to show the lovingkindness (chesed, loyal love, love based on covenant fidelity) of the Lord to him so that he would not die. The practice of a new king killing all potential rivals to the throne was a way of securing power (cf. Jdg 9:5–7; 1Kg 2:19–25, 28–34, 36–46; 15:28–30; 16:10–11; 2Kg 11:1–3). He asked David not to take his life when he came into power. Jonathan said to David, You shall not cut off your lovingkindness from my house forever, not even when the Lord cuts off every one of the enemies of David from the face of the earth.

20:16–17. The narrator summarized what occurred between Jonathan and David. If the stipulations of the covenant were not carried out, then instead of saying, "May the Lord require it of David," Jonathan said, May the Lord require it at the hands of David’s enemies. Jonathan was so concerned for David that he distanced from David the notion of God’s judgment.

20:18–23. The new moon began the next day. After hiding for three days, David was to remain by the stone Ezel. This prominent stone was a location marker. Baldwin cites the Targum as saying that Ezel, which means "stone of departure," was a "sign stone," and adds that it was an "unmistakable place" (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 136). Jonathan said he would shoot three arrows, and if they went to David’s side, that would mean David was safe and he could return to Saul’s court. However, if Jonathan told the lad, the arrows are beyond you (v. 22), that would mean David must flee.

20:24–29. Saul noticed David’s absence, but he did not say anything. He reasoned that David was not present because of ritual uncleanness (v. 26). The meal was a sacrificial meal and required consecration such as the washing of clothes, physical cleansing, and abstinence from sexual activity between husband and wife. For the first of many times Saul referred to David as the son of Jesse, using the designation in a pejorative sense (v. 27, cf. vv. 30–31; 22:7, 8, 13; 28–29). Jonathan explained, lying, that David’s family invited him home to Bethlehem to join in a sacrifice.

20:30–31. Saul used vulgar language to show disrespect to Jonathan and his mother. In his anger Saul attacked his own son, calling him a traitor for siding with David, thereby bringing shame on himself and on his mother. The Lord had rejected Saul from being king; yet he tried to poison Jonathan’s mind with the thirst for power, trying to convince him that David was a threat to his future reign.

20:32–34. Saul tried to murder his own son with his spear just as he had tried to murder David (cf. 19:8–10). Jonathan did not even eat food on the second day of the new moon. Not eating on such an occasion was a sign of grief and sorrow over something painful in one’s life.

20:35–38. The next morning, when Jonathan shot some arrows past a lad (as he and David had planned, see above on 20:18–23), Jonathan said, Is not the arrow beyond you? (v. 37). This meant that Saul planned to murder David. Then when Jonathan told the lad, Hurry, be quick, do not stay! this meant David must flee.

20:39–42. In one of the most moving scenes in the Bible David fell on the ground and bowed three times, and he and Jonathan kissed each other, not indicating any sexual encounter but as the common cultural expression of deep friendship between men (cf. Rm 16:16; 1Co 16:20; 2Co 13:12; 1Th 5:26; 1Pt 5:14). God’s young warriors wept, but the narrator adds, but David wept the more (v. 41). David would see Jonathan briefly only once more (cf. 1Sm 23:16–18) before Jonathan’s death on Mount Gilboa (cf. 1Sm 31:2). Michal, David’s wife of his youth, would be given to another man, and David did not see her and reclaim her until some years later (cf. 2Sm 3:12–16).

This section is not random but is included to demonstrate David’s training to be the ideal king. Being a fugitive, or living his life on the run, was designed to teach David how to sit on the throne. Hence, such difficult times taught him the lessons of kingship.

21:1–2. Nob was "the city of the priests" (cf. 1Sm 22:19) in Benjamin, about two miles east of Jerusalem. The tabernacle, the house of God, was there. Nob may have replaced Shiloh as the central place of worship. This explains why David stopped there first. Ahimelech means "the king’s brother." David was alone in that he was not surrounded by high-ranking people from Saul’s court. Someone of David’s stature usually traveled with a royal entourage, including bodyguards.

21:3–4. David lied to Ahimelech about his presence in Nob. One commentator finds "attractive" the explanation that David was referring to the Lord as the king (v. 2) not Saul (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 213), and thus he spoke truly. But there is nothing in the text to commend that view. Others point out that David was probably unsure if he could trust Ahimelech, who was the brother of Saul’s spiritual adviser, Ahijah (cf. 1Sm 14:3; 22:9) (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 529; Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 137). But again, this is conjecture, and hardly justification anyway for David’s lie, which would lead to the slaughter of the priests (cf. 22:6–23). Some young men were with David. Consecrated bread, or bread of the Presence (cf. v. 6), was bread baked specifically for use in the tabernacle. Twelve loaves were baked and replaced each Sabbath, and the bread removed from the table was to be eaten only by the priests (cf. Lv 24:5–9). Consecrated bread was available for consumption at that time because the priest had recently removed it from the golden table, replacing it with fresh bread. But since David was in need, the priest made an exception, and gave some of the bread to David and his young men. The Lord Jesus agreed with Ahimelech’s decision to act for the greater good (cf. Mt 12:1–7).

21:5–6. David asserted that he and his men met the ceremonial requirements necessary to eat the bread of the Presence.

21:7. One of Saul’s servants, Doeg the Edomite, was detained at Nob that day. Edomites were Esau’s descendants (Gn 25:19–23; 36:9). Given the history of Edomite opposition to the Lord and His people (Nm 20:14–21; 24:18; Ob 1), the mention of Doeg "introduces a note of villainy into the narrative" (Eugene H. Peterson, First and Second Samuel [Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1999], 111).

21:8–9. David lied again about why he did not have a sword. The only sword available was the sword of Goliath, whom David slew in the valley of Elah. What a reminder to David of the Lord’s power to bring victory against incredible odds!

David’s visit to Ahimelech the priest taught him a lesson about the need for integrity and honesty, albeit in a grave fashion. Although at first it seems as if his lie (21:2) brought him personal safety, afterward it led to the slaughter of the priests in the city of Nob (22:9–19). Upon seeing the deadly damage he had caused, David expressed regret for what he had done and took responsibility for it (22:22–23).

21:10–15. Saul did not pursue David in Philistine territory, so David went there for a respite. But in Gath, the hometown of the slain Goliath whose location is uncertain (Unger, The New Unger’s Bible Dictionary, 459), David feigned loyalty to King Achish. Achish’s servants, however, recognized David (v. 11). Realizing that Achish’s officials knew who he was, David was fearful of his life. To get himself out of this predicament, he pretended to be insane. His strategy worked. Verse 15 implies that David may have talked to some people and convinced them to take him to Achish. They did not know who David was. In connection with his experience at Gath, David composed Pss 34 and 56. The lesson David learned is that he could depend on the Lord’s faithfulness in protecting him even when he behaved in a fearful and desperate manner.

22:1–2. Adullam was a town about 25 miles southwest of Jerusalem. The Judean wilderness was a part of the region. The cave of Adullam ("refuge") became David’s hiding place. This cave experience may have prompted David to compose Ps 47. In light of the practice of murdering all potential rivals to one’s throne, the lives of David’s entire family were now in jeopardy, so they joined David at Adullam. In addition to his father’s household, more people join David. These were in distress … in debt, and discontented (v. 2). The word distress means "to suffer overwhelming external pressure," often brought on by enemies (cf. Is 51:13). The men who came to David were distressed by the circumstances of life, stemming perhaps from Saul’s oppression or other circumstances.

Debt means "having a creditor." A creditor in the OT was a person who loaned money to the poor and charged interest on the loan for financial gain. Creditors took advantage of God’s people with financial difficulties. Interest on the loan meant the creditor might take the person’s home, vineyard, olive groves, and so forth (cf. Neh 5:1–13). This was a violation of God’s Word for a person in Israel to charge interest on a loan to one of God’s people (cf. Ex 22:25; Lv 25:35–38; Ezk 18:7). Furthermore, at the end of every seven years the remission of all debts was to be granted in Israel to all of God’s people who owed a lender (cf. Dt 15:1–11; Neh 10:31). This was the Lord’s safety net for those who became poor through financial setbacks (cf. Lv 25:35–38). Creditors took advantage of these men, charging them exorbitant interest, making heartless demands on them, refusing to grant forgiveness of debts in the seventh year, and perhaps even trying to force them and their children into slavery, driving them to even more financial ruin and heartache.

Some of the disenfranchised poor joined David. Discontented is literally "bitter of soul," and "bitter" here means "the emotional response to a destructive, heart-crushing situation" (Hamilton, "Bitter," TWOT, 528). Life had hurt them deeply under Saul’s reign and they needed the Lord’s intervention. David became the leader of the distressed, the indebted, and the discontented. Some of these troubled people became leaders in David’s administration, and some of them became his mighty men. The transformation of this group was a credit to David’s leadership under God, and a reminder to the Church today that under godly leadership the Lord can transform marginalized people of the world to become mighty men and women of God.

22:3–4. Apparently David and his family had relatives in Moab, because Ruth the Moabitess was David’s great-grandmother (cf. Ru 4:18–22). Therefore, it made sense for David to go to Moab to seek protection for his parents from Saul. Mizpah (about six miles north of Jerusalem) may have been the royal residence of Moab’s king. David then went to a place called the stronghold. The Hebrew word for "stronghold" is metsuda, from which the English word "Masada" is loosely transliterated. The location of the stronghold is not specified, but it is quite likely identified with the site in Israel known today as Masada, not far from the western shore of the Dead Sea on the top of a rock plateau that rises steeply 1,200 feet above the surrounding desert. A narrow, snake-like path traverses the eastern side of the fortress up to the summit. From the plateau a person can see in every direction for miles. It was and is a suitable stronghold.

22:5. Having joined David, the prophet Gad told him to go to Judah. Hereth, a group of forested mountains in Judah, was a good place for David and his men to hide.

22:6–8. Saul was sitting under a tamarisk tree when word came to him that David was in Judah. This deciduous tree could grow to 30 feet in height, and its leaves gave shade. Saul appealed to his officials’ baser instincts, calling them Benjamites, underscoring tribal loyalty to him since he too was a Benjamite. He told them the son of Jesse would not give them fields or vineyards, that is, economic power, nor would he make them commanders of thousands and commanders of hundreds, that is, men with military influence (v. 7). Saul even suspected his own men, accusing them of being in conspiracy against him.

22:9–10. Doeg exploited Saul’s paranoia to gain some favor with him. Doeg reported that he had seen David with Ahimelech the priest, who inquired of God for David. But Doeg left out that David lied to Ahimelech.

22:11–17. Saul misconstrued Ahimelech’s aid to David as treason, and the king was further angered when Ahimelech spoke up in defense of David (vv. 14–15). Saul ordered the execution of the Lord’s priests, but Saul’s servants refused to put them to death.

22:18–19. Saul therefore ordered Doeg the Edomite to kill the priests. Doeg killed 85 priests, and even murdered everyone in Nob, including women, children and infants (v. 19). Doeg’s slaughter of the priests is one of the most disturbing massacres in the OT.

22:20–23. Abiathar, one of Ahimelech’s sons, escaped and informed David about Saul’s massacre of the priests. Even though Doeg was the actual murderer, Saul was the one who gave the order. David understood the damage he had done with his lie and took responsibility for the massacre (v. 22). The Lord’s prophet Gad was with David, and now the Lord’s priest Abiathar was with him (cf. 23:9–10; 30:7; 1Ch 15:11–15). David would compose Ps 52 about Doeg’s treachery.

23:1. Though David was a fugitive, people still looked to him for godly leadership and help. Keilah, a walled city with double gates and bars (v. 7) located about 18 miles southwest of Jerusalem, would be difficult for an enemy to capture. Siege warfare would be necessary. However, the threshing floors were outside the city, making them difficult to protect them. So the Philistines began plundering the threshing floors, stealing the wheat and killing the workers.

23:2–5. David asked God if he should attack the Philistines to deliver Keilah and the Lord said "Yes." Making sure about the Lord’s direction, David asked the Lord again, and He assured David of victory over the Philistines. David’s men were with him, but it was David who led the charge.

23:6–12. Learning that David was in Keilah, Saul assumed that God had delivered him into his hand (v. 7). So he and his men went down to the city to besiege it, hoping to trap David and his men. Aware of Saul’s plan, David sought God’s mind through the use of Abiathar’s ephod, a garment that had attached to it a pouch containing the Urim and Thummim (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 232), which would be consulted to ascertain the mind and will of God (see comments on Ex 28:30).

David was concerned that another city might be destroyed on his account (v. 10; cf. 22:14–19). God then informed David that Saul would come down to attack the city (v. 11). This information was important for David because there were about six hundred men with him (v. 13); he needed assurance that leaving Keilah was justified. Though the Lord used David to save Keilah, God told him the unappreciative citizens of Keilah planned to turn David and his men over to Saul (v. 12). Herein, David learned another significant lesson of leadership: leaders trust God alone for deliverance and not the people who they have served.

23:13–14. David and his men were on the run again, hiding from Saul. Saul gave up the pursuit momentarily, not knowing where David went. Ziph (about 22 miles south of Jerusalem) was an elevated town surrounded by part of the Judean desert. Saul sought David every day, but God did not deliver him into his hand. From the time Saul looked at David with suspicion until the day of Saul’s death, God’s protection of David is one of the major themes of 1 Samuel.

23:15–18. Providentially, David’s best friend, Jonathan, arrived and encouraged him in God. "Encouraged him" is literally "strengthened his hand." David was fearful. But Jonathan encouraged David, saying, Do not be afraid (v. 17). Jonathan knew that the kingdom belonged to David. Jonathan would not be king; he assumed he would be second in command. Jonathan then made a third covenant with David, a covenant that pertained to Jonathan’s place in David’s kingdom. This once again confirmed David’s rightful kingship, even at the hand of the heir of Saul.

23:19–23. Some Ziphites told Saul that David was hiding near Jeshimon, a stretch of desert leading to the Dead Sea on the east side of the Judean mountains. These mountains were filled with caves, and other elevated rock formations, suitable as hiding places. Saul used pious language to hide his murderous envy of David (v. 21).

23:24–28. David was in Maon, an elevated town seven miles south of Hebron, surrounded by another section of the Judean desert in the Arabah. The Arabah is an arid valley that runs about 120 miles south from the Dead Sea to the Gulf of Aqabah on the Red Sea. Saul and his men caught up with David and his men in the Arabah. As Saul and his men were about to capture David and his men, a messenger reported to Saul that the Philistines had attacked Israel (v. 27). This report caused Saul to stop pursuing David. Thus, the Lord, in His providence, brought about a Philistine attack to deliver David from Saul’s hand. In memorial, David and his men named the place where they were almost killed the Rock of Escape, that is, the place where they escaped from Saul (v. 28).

The theme of revenge connects chaps. 24–26. In chaps. 24 and 26, David spared Saul instead of avenging himself. These incidents not only show David’s respect for the Lord and "the Lord’s anointed" (24:6), they also reveal that although David was God’s choice as Israel’s next king, "he was not a usurper who took the life of the preceding king" (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 70). Between these two episodes is an account about David being kept from taking vengeance on an unsavory character, Nabal. Under the pressure of losing his life, feeling the sting of contempt, David learned on three different occasions the important lesson of forgoing revenge, even when the subjects (Saul and Nabal) deserved to feel his wrath. By so doing, David kept his hands unstained from shedding their blood, and allowed God the opportunity to deal with his enemies (cf. 25:26). In the words of Rm 12:19, David learned, "Never take your own revenge … but leave room for the wrath of God, for it is written, ‘Vengeance is Mine, I will repay,’ says the Lord."

23:29–24:3. Engedi was a desert town about 30 miles southeast of Jerusalem on the western shore of the Dead Sea. The region had hills and mountains full of rocks and caves, inhabited by wild goats. A spring of water was there. Hence it was named Engedi, "fountain of the wild goats." In David’s day Engedi was uninhabited. Pursuing David, Saul came to sheepfolds, pens where sheep were kept and protected (24:3). Nearby was a cave where Saul went in to relieve himself. "To relieve himself" is literally, "to cover his feet" (with a garment), a euphemism for eliminating bodily wastes. Saul was alone in the cave, needing privacy.

24:4–5. David’s men saw this as a divine opportunity for him to take Saul’s life. But instead of taking Saul’s life, David cut off the edge of Saul’s robe secretly. Evidently Saul had laid his robe aside while he was relieving himself. Then David’s conscience bothered him, (lit., "David’s heart struck him"), that is, he felt guilty for cutting off a piece of Saul’s clothing.

24:6–7. Respecting Saul’s position, David was not willing to kill Saul, though his men were. But David showed strong leadership in the cave, persuading his men not to harm Saul. In view of all that Saul had done to David, it is amazing that David resisted the temptation to take Saul’s life. In some respects entrusting vengeance to God, instead of taking matters into his own hands, required a greater act of faith than slaying Goliath! Unaware of what had transpired, Saul left the cave.

24:8–10. David then acted in a way that must have shocked his men. Leaving the protection of the cave, David called to Saul, and prostrated himself before the king as an expression of humility. David was gracious. The idea to kill David did not result from someone convincing Saul that David was seeking to harm him. When David said that he had pity on Saul (v. 10), he was speaking of a compassionate feeling expressed toward a person who is in trouble. Saying he would not stretch out [his] hand against … the Lord’s anointed indicated that David recognized that God had placed Saul on the throne. Therefore, David would trust the Lord to make him king and not strike Saul, taking matters into his own hands.

24:11–12. David had visible evidence to prove to Saul that he had compassionately spared the king’s life. David held the edge of Saul’s garment for Saul to see. David wanted to convince Saul of three truths: there was no evil in David’s hands, David was not rebelling against Saul and his kingdom, and David had not sinned against Saul (v. 11; cf. 20:1), even though Saul was on the hunt to take David’s life.

24:13. David uttered a proverb, a short and concise saying that had been in circulation in Israel a long time: Evil comes from evil persons. David’s actions indicated that he was not an evil person. If his heart were evil, he would have taken Saul’s life in the cave.

24:14–15. David used two metaphors to highlight his lack of worth even to be pursued by Saul. He referred to himself as a dead dog and then as a single flea. So David committed himself to the Lord to judge his case and deliver him from Saul.

24:16–22. Unlike other times, Saul now addressed David as my son David, not as "the son of Jesse." David was the king’s son-in-law. Even Saul in his alienation from God understood that a man does not send his enemy away unharmed. Saul admitted that he knew David would be Israel’s king and the kingdom would be established in his hand (v. 20). Sometimes when a new regime came to power, the more heartless kings would execute the sons and other claimants to the throne from the old regime. Saul asked David to promise that he would not cut off Saul’s descendants (v. 21), and David took that oath. Later, however, three of Saul’s sons fell to the Philistines (cf. 31:2), the remaining son, Ish-bosheth, was executed by others in his own camp (cf. 2Sm 4:5–12), and seven of Saul’s grandsons were executed in an act of judgment from the Lord (2Sm 21:1–9; see comments on 1Sm 18:17–19). But David showed great kindness to Saul’s crippled son Mephibosheth (cf. 2Sm 9:1–13).

25:1. Samuel, the greatest prophet in Israel since Moses, died and all Israel … mourned. His death marked the end of an era. Then David went to the wilderness of Paran, in the east-central region of the Sinai Peninsula (Gn 21:20–21). The location of David’s stay is disputed. The Hebrew text reads "Paran," while the NIV follows the LXX and says it was in the "Desert of Maon" (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 72). Bergen favors the Paran reading, stating that the narrator was deliberately presenting David’s life as a parallel to the history of Israel. Thus David’s stay in Paran is reminiscent of Israel’s journey in the region five centuries earlier (cf. Nm. 10:12; 12:16; Bergen 1, 2 Samuel, 243).

25:2–3. One of the inhabitants of Maon, seven miles south of Hebron, was a businessperson whose business was in Carmel ("God’s vineyard"). Carmel was a region in Judah, to be distinguished from Mount Carmel, the range of mountains in the northwest of Israel along the Mediterranean coast. In Israel’s agricultural society wealth was measured in livestock and land. This man had three thousand sheep and one thousand goats. Sheep-shearing occurred annually between April and May. Wool was a valuable commodity, used to make clothes among other items. Sheep-shearing was a festive time, a time of rejoicing and celebration.

The man’s name was Nabal ("fool," in Scripture this word means godless, morally contemptible, cf. Ps 14:1; a fitting name for this character). Nabal had a wife named Abigail, which means "the joy of her father." She was intelligent (literally, "good of understanding," contrasting her goodness with Nabal’s evil) and beautiful. Beauty and brains mixed well in Abigail. Her husband, on the other hand, was harsh and evil in his dealings. Nabal was a Calebite, part of a clan in Judah, from the same tribe as David. As a descendant of Caleb, Nabal certainly did not reflect his noble ancestry.

25:4–8. The wilderness was a dangerous place: robbers roamed the wilderness, engaging in sheep stealing and murdering of shepherds. David and his men provided security for Nabal’s shepherds, who have been with us (v. 7); his men had protected the shepherds and Nabal’s sheep from robbers and wild animals. At this festive moment, David asked for a token of appreciation for his labor. So he sent ten young men (v. 5) to ask Nabal to give them goods that Nabal had on hand. David was not operating a protection racket. Rather, when Nabal’s men accepted the protection that David had provided, they made him contractually obligated to provide for David and his men.

25:9–13. In response, Nabal referred to David as the son of Jesse (v. 10), the pejorative term Saul used for David. He accused David indirectly of breaking away from Saul, his master. Obsessed with his possessions, Nabal referred to his own goods as my bread … my water … my meat that I have slaughtered for my shearers (v. 11). Treating David’s men with contempt, Nabal refused to give them provisions to fulfill his contractual obligation for their protection of his property. David and 400 angry men prepared to execute vengeance on Nabal and his household while 200 remained with the baggage. The Hebrew word translated baggage (v. 13) means tools, farm implements, armor, containers, and other equipment necessary to live in the wilderness.

25:14–17. One of the young men told Abigail how Nabal had scorned David’s men. He used a meaningful metaphor to communicate to her how David’s men protected them: they were a wall to us both by night and by day (v. 16). The young man called Nabal a worthless man (lit., "a son of Belial"; see the comments on 2:12).

25:18–22. Abigail sprang into action and prepared food to take to David and his men. She did not tell her husband what she was going to do because Nabal was obstinate and unreasonable. It would have been a waste of time to talk to him. David was angry because Nabal had exploited him, so he called down God’s judgment on his enemies (v. 22). It can be argued here that David was responding in undue anger. Tsumura says David had "lost control" of his feelings and needed "God’s gracious intervention" to keep him from violence (Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, 585). Baldwin concurs, saying that although David spared Saul, in the case of Nabal he had "no second thought about incurring blood-guilt" (Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel, 150).

25:23–25. Abigail met David in one of the Bible’s great male-female encounters. Before David opened his mouth, the smart and beautiful woman had dismounted her donkey and fell on her face at his feet. The first words she spoke were, On me alone, my lord, be the blame (v. 24). Then she wisely asked for permission to speak. Her words are some of the wisest words in Scripture. Her words in vv. 24–31 are the longest recorded speech by a woman in the OT (though see the song of Deborah and Barak in Jdg 5). She explained to David that her husband’s name summed up who he was. Nabal ("fool") was his name, and folly was in him (v. 25).

25:26–31. Abigail reminded David of the Lord’s providential work in his life, noting that the Lord had restrained him from shedding blood. She was probably referring to David’s having spared Saul’s life in the cave. She reminded him that vengeance is the Lord’s (v. 26), a lesson David learned in chap. 24, one that would be reinforced in chap. 26, and one that he was in the process of learning under different circumstances in this chapter. Not to take vengeance on the king is one thing, but it is altogether another test of godly resolve not to take vengeance on a fool who has held one in contempt.

Abigail asked that the gift (lit., "blessing"), she brought be given to the young men who accompany my lord (v. 27; lit., "who walk at the feet of my lord"). She then asked David for forgiveness of her transgression even though her husband was in the wrong. She based her request on several facts. (1) The Lord will make for David an enduring house, that is, a dynasty (v. 28). Abigail spoke prophetically of David life; years would pass before God would promise a dynasty to David (cf. 2Sm 7:8–17). (2) David was fighting the Lord’s battles. (3) No evil would be found in David all his days. This statement could have been a subtle warning to David not to commit an evil against Nabal, rather than a prophecy (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 248), since David did commit evil later in the case of Bathsheba. (4) The Lord will protect David. (5) The Lord will destroy David’s enemies (v. 29). She explained that this destruction of the Lord would be like His using a sling against them. This imagery would have resonated with David, who slew Goliath with a stone and a sling. (6) Taking vengeance against Nabal and his innocent household would be a guilty load on David’s conscience after he became king. Abigail ended her reasoned request for forgiveness with a request: When the Lord shall deal well with my lord, [i.e., "when you become king,"] then remember your maidservant (v. 31). "To remember" means "to act in a special way on a person’s behalf."

25:32–35. David recognized that the Lord providentially sent Abigail to keep him from avenging himself. Of credit to David is that he listened to Abigail and granted her request. Her intervention demonstrated that she was a wise woman.

25:36–38. When Abigail returned home, Nabal was intoxicated. Abigail did not talk with him until the next morning, when she told sober Nabal what happened. The news was so shocking that his heart died within him so that he became as a stone. He may have had a massive heart attack or stroke. Then ten days later the Lord struck Nabal and he died.

25:39–42. David blessed the Lord for pleading his cause and for preventing him from taking vengeance into his own hands. David asked Abigail to marry him. While polygamy was not God’s ideal for marriage (David already had Ahinoam as his wife, v. 43; see comments on 1:1–2 for a discussion of polygamy), Abigail married a man she could respect.

25:43–44. Saul had given Michal, his daughter and David’s first wife, to another man, Palti. Legally Michal was still David’s wife, and so years later, David got Michal back.

The kingship lesson David learned in his encounter with Nabal and Abigail is that, as king, he was not to carry out personal vengeance but to trust the Lord to defend him. He was to fight the Lord’s battles (v. 28), while also allowing the Lord to fight his battles.

This second account of David sparing Saul’s life shows once again that David would not take by force what was to be his inevitable victory in his struggle with Saul. Interestingly, the roles were reversed here, with David stalking Saul (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 182).

26:1–5. The Ziphites informed Saul again (cf. 23:19–20) about David’s whereabouts. They told Saul that David was hiding on the hill of Hachilah (v. 1), some 15 miles southeast of Hebron and overlooking the desert surrounding the Dead Sea. David, a wise military leader like Moses and Joshua, sent out scouts to see if Saul was approaching.

26:6–8. Two people were with David: Ahimelech the Hittite and Abishai the son of Zeruiah, Joab’s brother. More than one person in the OT was named Ahimelech. Ethnically this Ahimelech was a Hittite, though his name was Semitic. Some Gentiles had identified with God’s people, embracing the Lord and His word.

At night David and Abishai, his nephew, passed around a number of Saul’s soldiers who were in a sound asleep from the Lord (v. 12) and arrived at the very center of the camp where Saul was asleep, along with Abner (v. 7). Saul’s spear is mentioned six times in this episode (vv. 7–8, 11–12, 16, 22), which is significant because it was no doubt the same spear Saul had hurled at David twice before in an attempt to kill him (cf. 18:10–11; 19:10). Taking Saul’s spear also demonstrated David’s refusal to kill the king and gain the throne by murder (Laney, First and Second Samuel, 75).

Again Saul was in a vulnerable position. In fact Abishai interpreted the occasion as the Lord delivering Saul into David’s hand (v. 8). Abishai was willing to take Saul’s life with one blow. He said a second strike would not be required because the first one would be fatal.

26:9–11. But David restrained Abishai from striking Saul, because Saul was the Lord’s anointed. David was confident that the Lord would deal with Saul as He dealt with Nabal.

26:12. David spared Saul’s life for the second time. The reason no one saw David is that God had sent a sound sleep on them.

26:13–16. At a safe distance David called out to Abner and the people. David mocked Abner and his men for their failure to protect Saul when his life was in jeopardy. Then David presented evidence that he had been in their camp. He showed him Saul’s spear and his water jug, both of which were at Saul’s head (v. 16).

26:17–19. David pleaded with Saul as he did in chap. 24, raising essentially the same questions. Why then is my lord pursuing his servant? For what have I done? Or what evil is in my hand? (v. 18). If the Lord had moved Saul against David, David was ready to make an offering so that forgiveness and reconciliation could occur. But if the pursuit was simply man’s doing, they were cursed … before the Lord, David said, because they have driven me out of the land and from among God’s people, the inheritance of the Lord (v. 19). Further, they were encouraging him to turn to idolatry (by saying, Go, serve other gods), which was a sin against the Lord.

26:20. David reminded Saul of the incongruity of the king of Israel pursuing him. David spoke of himself as if Saul were pursuing a flea, and he compared Saul’s search for him as being like hunting a partridge in the mountains, not an activity befitting a king.

26:21. For the third time Saul admitted, I have sinned (cf. 15:24, 30), but this was not a heart confession. Saul’s next request was stunning: Return, my son David, for I will not harm you again because my life was precious in your sight this day. Saul also admitted, Behold, I have played the fool. Likely Saul was sincere in his penitence. But he was so erratic and paranoid, that after each episode of repentance, he would revert to his hatred and desire to kill David.

26:22. Unimpressed, David simply said, Behold the spear of the king! and then invited one of Saul’s men to come and reclaim it. Apparently David did not return the water jug, a valuable item for anyone living in the desert as Saul and David were.

26:23–25. Even though the Lord had delivered Saul into David’s hand, David refused to lift up his hand against the Lord’s anointed. Saul admitted that David would accomplish much and would succeed. This is the last time Saul would speak with David.

This completes the trilogy of stories in which David learned that a king is not to exact vengeance on his foes. It appears that David was always clear in not seeking revenge against the Lord’s anointed but needed to learn that vengeance was also inappropriate for a king when dealing with evil fools like Nabal. When he became king, David was notable in his graciousness toward those who opposed him.

27:1. In spite of God’s providential work on his behalf, David was fearful. He was under more pressure than when he first fled from Saul (chap. 20). He had his wives to think about and the wives and children of his men. They could not go on indefinitely moving from place to place under the threat of death in the desert. As long as David was in the land, Saul would continue to pursue him.

27:2–4. This time when David went to Achish … king of Gath, he was not alone (cf. 21:10). He had six hundred men with him. Counting their wives and children, the number of people with David may have been well over 1,000. When Saul learned that David had fled to Gath, he no longer searched for him, perhaps reasoning that the Philistines would kill him.

27:5–6. The narrator did not explain Achish’s reason for being open to receiving David and his people. Perhaps Achish thought that David was now willing to join the Philistines. Achish’s offer of asylum to David obligated David and his men to be available to go to war against the Philistine’s enemies. David asked Achish to grant him a place in one of the cities in the country. As a king of a city-state, Achish had the authority to grant land to whomever he chose, so he gave the city of Ziklag to David. Ziklag was part of the tribal allotment of Judah (cf. Jos 15:31), and is thought to be about 22 miles south of Gath (though there is a lack of certainty on its precise location). This was one of the cities in the tribal inheritance the Lord had granted to Judah centuries earlier (cf. Jos 15:31). The narrator noted, Ziklag has belonged to the kings of Judah to this day.

27:7. Unknown to David, his time as a fugitive was coming to an end. After his year-and-four-month stay in the land of the Philistines, David would become the king of Judah. Still, David would learn some valuable lessons of kingship during his stay among the Philistines.

27:8–10. David and his men raided three different groups of people, all of whom were enemies of God and His people. When David attacked them, he killed them all and took away their sheep … cattle … donkeys … camels, and the clothing (v. 9). From time to time David gave reports to Achish. David lied to Achish, leading him to think that he was raiding places in Israel—the Negev (south country) of Judah, and the Negev of the Jerahmeelites, and … the Negev of the Kenites. Raiding these places was acceptable to Achish because He considered these Israelite peoples his enemies. The text makes no statement about David’s lies to Achish. Bergen says that while lying is wrong, David’s "conscious use of deceit" was "the lesser of two evils" because it saved Israelite lives and fulfilled military assignments to put these people to death that had been left undone since the days of Moses (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 262). Moreover, David may have felt justified in lying because he was acting in a time of war against a pagan enemy of Israel.

27:11–12. David did not leave anyone alive among the groups he attacked because survivors might tell Achish about David’s covert actions. This would have resulted in devastating consequences for David and those with him. While this seems to be a self-serving motive for such extensive massacres, the complete destruction of Canaanite peoples was likely justified in that David was completing God’s command to Joshua that Israel had never completed (for further discussion, see Excursus: Canaanite Genocide—Killing the Seemingly Innocent at Jos 6:21). Achish remained unaware of David’s covert operations. David was shrewd, fighting the Lord’s battle under the cover of loyalty to the Philistines.

In a sense, David’s time in Gath prepared him for a significant part of his role as king, namely, to be the military leader of Israel. Fighting with his band of mighty men developed his leadership and military skills.

Chapters 28 and 31 deal with Saul, and chaps. 29 and 30 deal with David. Saul reached a new low when he consulted the medium of En-dor because he was afraid of going into battle against the Philistines (chap. 28), while David was providentially delivered from going to war with the Philistines (chap. 29). And when David did go to war, he defeated the Amalekites and recovered everything that was taken (chap. 30). Meanwhile, Saul and his sons died in a battle on Mount Gilboa, and Saul committed suicide (chap. 31).

These concluding chapters of 1 Samuel show that a life of disobedience to the Lord leads to ruin, and a life of faith and obedience to the Lord leads to blessing.

28:1–2. With misguided confidence in David, Achish informed David that he and his men should join the Philistines in battle against Israel. This put David in a dilemma because he did not intend to fight against his own people, Israel. The narrative will revisit David’s dilemma later, in chap. 29.

28:3. On the eve of a battle between Saul and the Philistines two significant events were underway. (1) The nation mourned for Samuel. If Saul wanted Samuel’s counsel about how to proceed in the battle, such counsel was no longer available. (2) Instead of executing the Lord’s mandated death penalty on the mediums and spiritists in Israel, Saul had expelled them from the land. The mediums and spiritists were those who tried to communicate with and consult the dead about issues and problems faced by the living. The Lord had condemned these people and strictly forbade His people from engaging in such occult practices (cf. Lv 19:31; 20:6, 27; Dt 18:10–11; Is 8:19).

28:4–5. The Philistine armies set up camp in Shunem (about 15 miles southwest of the Sea of Galilee) in the valley of Jezreel, on the southwestern slopes of the hill of Moreh. And Saul’s men camped in Gilboa (a string of foothills called "Mount Gilboa"), six miles south of Moreh. Looking down into the valley of Jezreel from Mount Gilboa, Saul and his men were able to see the Philistine army’s camp, size, equipment, chariots, and movements. The sight of the Philistine army filled Saul with fear.

28:6. Terrified, Saul sought God’s mind for counsel about the battle. Saul sought God through several valid means of communication—dreams, Urim, and prophets. But the Lord did not speak to him through any of these means.

28:7. Isolated by heaven’s silence, a fearful Saul decided to consult a medium. Since he had driven all mediums out of the land, Saul asked his servant where he could find one. The servant had a ready answer: Behold, there is a woman who is a medium at En-dor. En-dor means the "fountain of Dor." En-dor was north of the Philistine camp, which meant that Saul had to cross enemy lines several miles to consult with the medium.

28:8. Passing through enemy lines, disguised, and under the cover of darkness, Saul reached the medium’s house and told the woman to conjure up for me … and bring up for me whom I shall name to you.

28:9–14. Ironically, the medium herself related that Saul had expelled the mediums from the land, indicating that she thought she was being trapped. Saul vowed that the woman would not be punished.

When Saul asked the woman to bring up Samuel (v. 11), the unexpected happened. She actually saw Samuel. The mediums and spiritists were not actually consulting the dead. Their work was a demonic sham, and they knew it. This event, however, was a special occasion in which God Himself allowed Samuel actually to appear. The medium cried out when this happened, indicating that she had not anticipated it, and that Samuel himself actually appeared (v. 12). Realizing that it was Samuel, the woman understood that she had been deceived, and that the inquirer was Saul himself. The woman described to Saul what she saw, and Saul knew it was Samuel (v. 14).

28:15–18. Samuel said to Saul, Why have you disturbed me by bringing me up? Saul rationalized his actions to Samuel. (1) He was greatly distressed. (2) The Philistines were fighting against him. (3) God had departed from him. (4) God would not answer him. Then Samuel asked Saul why he consulted him when the Lord had departed from him and had become his enemy (v. 16). The Lord would not answer Saul because of his disobedience years before in not destroying the Amalekites (cf. 1Sm 15).

28:19–23. So Samuel announced that in judgment the Lord would give Saul, his sons, and the army into the Philistines’ hands. God would not protect them. Fearful and weak, Saul fell to the ground (v. 20). Then in stunning irony, the medium spoke encouraging words to Saul and encouraged him to eat (v. 22).

The narrative places emphasis on the word listen (cf. vv. 21–23). Though Saul failed to listen to the Lord, he did listen to the voice of his men and of the medium.

28:24–25. The description of the medium’s preparation of a meal for Saul and his servants was ironic. It was like a ceremonial royal meal for a king who had just learned his kingship was lost (Klein, 1 Samuel, 273).

29:1–3. On the eve of a major battle with the Israelites, the Philistine lords wanted no part of David and his men. These commanders no doubt knew of David’s prowess, and they may have remembered an earlier incident in which the Hebrews who had gone over to the Philistines turned on them in battle and started fighting for Israel (cf. 14:21). The Philistine leaders referred to them in a pejorative manner, as these Hebrews (v. 3). Brueggemann suggests that the term on Philistine lips referred to scavengers, down-and-outers who are a menace to society (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 197). The leaders questioned King Achish about the presence of the Hebrews with their troops on the eve of battle. Achish trusted David, but David did not support Achish at all. Instead, he had been raiding and exterminating people sympathetic to the Philistine cause.

29:4–5. But the Philistine commanders considered David a threat. To make their point, they even quoted the lyrics of the song that galled Saul. For the third time, these lyrics are quoted in 1 Samuel (cf. 18:7; 21:11). The Philistine commanders may have quoted this verse to remind Achish that David was so skilled at killing Philistines that his deeds were "celebrated in both song and dance among the Israelites" (Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, 271). These leaders may also have quoted the verse as evidence to Achish that David and Saul were linked in solidarity, thus making it unlikely that David would fight against Saul (Brueggemann, First and Second Samuel, 198). From the narrator’s standpoint, this threefold repetition may also serve as a reminder of David’s fitness for kingship as opposed to Saul’s, and of God’s blessing on David’s life and exploits.

29:6–7. Possibly Achish had an interest in the God of Israel, because he used God’s name in his oath, as the Lord lives. Still, Achish’s oath indicated how well David deceived him.

29:8. David’s response is an enigma. Was David mocking Achish without Achish being aware of it? He asked Achish, What have I done? David knew that Achish had not found out anything that would prevent David from fighting, because David had killed all those who could have passed on information about his covert operations. Perhaps David was "acting" again.

29:9–11. Providentially working through the distrust of the Philistine leaders, the Lord delivered David from his dilemma, in which he would have to fight against God’s people, Israel. The Lord providentially arranged these events in David’s life so that he and his men were able to respond to the ensuing crisis in chap. 30.

30:1–2. David and his men marched about 80 miles south from the Jezreel Valley close to the Sea of Galilee to the Philistine city of Ziklag, where they had left their goods and families. In the three days it took them to get there, the Amalekites had raided the city and carried off everyone. Ziklag’s relative isolation made it vulnerable to such raids. As David and his men approached their home away from home, they saw it had been burned to the ground. The Amalekites also took their wives and children. But the narrative includes a comforting detail, without killing anyone (v. 2). David and his men, however, were not aware of this fact.

This account reminds the reader that even though David had been providentially delivered from having to fight against Israel, plenty of enemies still opposed him (Peterson, First and Second Samuel, 130). Peterson points out a contrast in leadership. Both David and Saul knew their lives were on the line. But at about the same time that Saul was consulting with a witch, David was praying to God and consulting the "biblically sanctioned ephod" (Peterson, First and Second Samuel, 130) see comments on the ephod on 30:7–8).

30:3–6. David and his men wept until they were so tired they could no longer cry. David’s two wives were taken captive and his pressure increased, because for the first time his own men spoke of stoning him (v. 6). David’s next act was an example of godly courage. With nothing visible in Ziklag to encourage him, David strengthened himself in the Lord his God, meaning that David drew strength from knowing that he was doing God’s will and obeying God’s Word.

30:7–8. In contrast to Saul, David had access to the ephod (see description at 2:18–21 and 23:6–12). And in contrast to Saul, the Lord answered David. The Lord told David to pursue the enemy, assuring David that he would rescue everyone.

30:9–10. David and his six hundred men traveled 16 miles south from Ziklag to the brook Besor. The Hebrew word translated here as "brook" actually means "a wadi," a dry stream or riverbed that has water only during the rainy season. At the wadi Besor, two hundred of David’s men were so exhausted they could not continue.

30:11–14. David and his men "happened" to find a half-dead, abandoned Egyptian servant in the field. After feeding the man, David interrogated him. The Egyptian gave David valuable information about the Amalekite raiders (vv. 13–14).

30:15. The man agreed to take David to the place where the Amalekites were, provided David swore to spare his life and not to return him to his master. Apparently David agreed with these terms. The Lord providentially brought about the meeting with the abandoned sick man to advance His purpose.

30:16–17. The Amalekites were spread out, celebrating their victory by drinking and dancing. David slaughtered all the Amalekites except 400 men who escaped on camels.

30:18–20. David recovered everything including his two wives, just as the Lord had said (cf. v. 8). Since David was the leader who expressed his trust in the Lord to bring about this recovery, David’s men gave the spoil a name: This is David’s spoil (v. 20).

30:21–25. Some wicked and worthless men in David’s band did not want to share the spoils with the 200 men who stayed behind and guarded the baggage (v. 22). David responded that spoils must be shared with the 200 because the Lord had granted all of them the victory, not just the combatants. This incident was the origin of a statute in Israel concerning spoils of victory (vv. 24–25), which the narrator noted was still in force. This indicates that the account was written many years after David had become king; but the point here is that David was "performing the judicial functions of a king" (Klein, 1 Samuel, 284), even though he had not yet ascended to the throne. David’s strong and godly leadership influenced Israel even before his official coronation as king.

30:26–31. David remembered those who helped him when he was a fugitive from Saul. He shared some of the spoils with the people of more than a dozen towns in Judah where the people assisted him.

The leadership lesson David had learned was how to lead even when no one was following. A godly king was to find strength in God even when others would no longer support him. Moreover, he was to not allow the selfish motives of wicked men to have influence but to care for all his flock.

31:1–2. The battle recorded in chap. 31 was going on at the same time as the events recorded in chap. 30. The men of Israel fled from the battlefield at the floor of the Jezreel Valley to their previous camp on Mount Gilboa (about 20 miles southwest of the Sea of Galilee), but they did not make it. The Philistines slew them on the eastern slopes of Mount Gilboa. Then the Philistines overtook Saul and his sons, and killed Saul’s three sons—Jonathan (David’s best friend), Abinadab, and Malchi-shua.

31:3–6. The piercing power of an arrowhead wounded Saul badly. Fearing abuse and torture from the Philistines, Saul asked his armor bearer to kill him. But the armor bearer refused to execute Saul’s dying orders (v. 4). Therefore, Saul took his own life. Saul’s armor bearer followed Saul in his final act, committing suicide as well (v. 6). This was a devastating loss of the Israelite leaders and soldiers to the Philistines.

31:7. After this defeat, two groups of Israelites panic. Both groups abandoned their cities—those who lived near the scene of the battle and those on the other side of the Jordan River. The Philistines came and moved into those abandoned cities, an indication of the impressive nature of their victory (Youngblood, "1, 2 Samuel," 290).

31:8. Stripping the defeated slain of whatever valuables they had was a common practice in ancient war. In the process of stripping the slain, the Philistines found the greatest spoils in their victory—the dead bodies of Saul and his three sons.

31:9–10. The Philistines beheaded Saul and took his weapons. They sent them throughout the land of the Philistines to celebrate the victory in their idolatrous houses of worship and among the Philistine populace. In the ancient world victory in war was thought to be a result of the work of the victors’ god(s). The Philistines fastened Saul’s desecrated and disgraced body to the wall of Beth-shan (v. 10) for everyone to see, to complete his humiliation.

31:11–13. At great risk to themselves, the valiant men of Jabesh-gilead (a city located about 21 miles southeast of the Sea of Galilee and east of the Jordan River) walked all night (about 12 miles one way) and took the bodies of Saul and … his sons from the wall of Beth-shan (v. 12). The Philistines probably mutilated their corpses so badly that in an effort to honor Saul and his sons in death, the men of Jabesh-gilead burned their bodies. But they did it in a way that their bones were not reduced to ashes. They buried their bones under the tamarisk tree at Jabesh (v. 13). The men of Jabesh-gilead were motivated by gratitude for Saul’s previous deliverance of that city in his first act as king (cf. 11:1–11). They gave Saul and his sons a respectful burial, an important need in Israel. Even in the midst of Saul’s tragic influence, there was still some godly courage and respectful gratitude in Israel.