1 Samuel 13:1

Ch. 1Sa_13:1-7. Revolt of the Israelites under Saul from the Philistines

1. Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel] The Hebrew cannot be thus translated. It is the common formula for denoting the age of a king at his accession, and the length of his reign. See 2Sa_2:10; 2Sa_5:4; 1Ki_14:21, &c. We must render, “Saul was [ ] years old when he began to reign, and reigned [ ] and two years over Israel.” Either the numbers were wanting in the original document, or they have been accidentally lost. 30 is supplied in the first place by some MSS. of the Sept., and is a plausible conjecture. The length of Saul’s reign may have been 22 or 32 years. He was in the prime of life when elected king, and his reign must have been of some considerable duration. But if he was only 30 years old at his accession, the events here recorded cannot have happened till at least 10 or 15 years after that event, for Jonathan, who has not been mentioned before, now appears as a stout warrior. In this case we have no account of the early years of Saul’s reign. This view appears to be preferable to the supposition that Saul was older at his accession, and that the history is continuous. See Introd. Ch. III.

The whole verse Is omitted by the older copies of the Septuagint, and possibly was not in the original text.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Sa 13:1 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel,

Ver. 1. Saul reigned one year,] i.e., Well and orderly; he reigned the two first years, till he was rejected of God, and bereft of his Spirit; for then he turned tyrant, holding the kingdom by violence, {1Sa 14:47} and ruling with rigour. Now although he reigned many years, yet the two first only are reckoned on. In God’s account, a man liveth no longer than he liveth well {a} Seneca saith of men’s lives as of ships in a storm, that they have been much tossed, but have sailed little.

{a} Sic, Qui diu vixit, nec profecit ad bonos mores, non diu vixit, sed diu fuit. - Seneca.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Sa_13:1

Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel.

The War of Independence

The sacred historian prefaces the account of the War of Independence with a statement as to Sauls age and reign. The Revised Version thus gives it: Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned two years over Israel. There is no mention of Sauls ago in the present Hebrew text, the number having been accidentally dropped in the copying; but the number thirty, which the translators of the Revised Version have adopted from an emendation of the Septuagint, is very probably correct, as thirty was the usual age for public service amongst the Jews. As to the second half of the statement, many, such as Ewald and Dean Stanley, take it to be a correct account of the period that elapsed between Sauls election and the War of Independence. According to them, the War of Independence began after Saul had reigned two years. But there are several considerations which go to show that this can hardly be accepted.

1. The abject condition of the country when the War of Independence began.

2. The age of Jonathan. Jonathan appears in the War of Independence as the captain of a thousand and one of the most heroic warriors of the nation; and as such he could hardly have been less than twenty years of age. That would make him, if Saul had only reigned two years, eighteen years of age when his father was elected king.

3. The sad deterioration in the character of Saul. The character of Saul, as displayed in the War of Independence, is in marked contrast with that portrayed in the early part of his history. As a young man in the beginning of his career, he was meek, humble, considerate, and self-restrained; but in the War of Independence he is impatient, imperious, cruel, and rash. And according to the Latin proverb, Nemo repents turpissimus est--no one becomes wicked all at once--the period of little more than a year is much too short to account for this baleful and disastrous change. As the sacred writers are in the habit of giving the age of each king, and the length of his reign--there are no fewer than thirty-seven illustrations of this in the Old Testament--it seems extremely probable that this was what was actually done in this passage. And I am convinced that the passage originally stood thus: Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign; and he reigned forty years over Israel. My reasons for thinking so are the following:--

(1) The testimony of Paul. He said to the Jews in the synagogue at Antioch, in Pisidia: And afterwards they asked for a king: and God gave unto them Saul, the son of Kish, a man of the tribe of Benjamin, for the space of forty years (Act_13:21).

(2) The simple way in which the text might be corrupted. There is the strongest ground for believing that the numbers wore originally written, not in words, but in letters which were used as numerals. (See Keil on Samuel in loc.) The Hebrew letter for forty was Mem, and for two Beth; and, as the two letters in the ancient Hebrew characters are not unlike, the copyist might easily mistake the one for the other, and put into the text the letter for two instead of the letter for forty.

(3) The period of forty years seems needful to account for all the facts of the history. It seems to explain best the age of Jonathan, the deterioration in the character of Saul, the abject condition of the country under the Philistines when the War of Independence began, and the fact that Ishbosheth, the son of Saul, was forty years of age when he began to reign at Mahanaim (2Sa_2:10). Saul might marry Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz, shortly after his confirmation in the kingdom; and from this union Jonathan might be born towards the close of the second year haul, the abject condition of the country under the Philistines when the War of Independence began, this national struggle would take place in the twenty-third year of Sauls reign. The contrast between this national gathering at Gilgal and that which took place when Saul was anointed king is very striking. Then there was a full muster, but now it is comparatively meagre. Then the people were flushed with victory, but now they are trembling with fear. Then the future was all bright, but now it is all dark, with hardly one gleam of hope. The truth seems to be that Sauls difficulty lay, not in forcing himself to act, but in restraining himself from acting for nearly the whole of the seven days. Sauls justification of himself was plausible, and might be deemed satisfactory before an earthly tribunal; but Samuel, who was inspired by the All-seeing One, treated it as altogether worthless. The kingdom, instead of descending to his eldest son, as it would have done, had he been faithful, was to be given to another whom God had chosen, and who was to be a man after His own heart. And if we are right in supposing that the War of Independence occurred in the twenty-third year of Sauls reign, David would then be a boy at Bethlehem about thirteen years of age (T. Kirk.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

THE PHILISTINES AROUSED, 1Sa_13:1-5.

1. Saul reigned one year — This verse, translated in accordance with its parallels in 2Sa_2:10; 2Sa_5:4; 1Ki_14:21; 1Ki_22:42, and 2Ki_8:26, reads thus: Saul was a year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel. All attempts to make the Hebrew text mean anything else are uncritical and do violence to the language. More literally, the Hebrew is, A son of a year was Saul at his being king; that is, upon his becoming king. So, too, in the passages referred to above, A son of forty years was Ishbosheth; A son of thirty years was David, etc. According to the Chaldee, which many have followed in their interpretation, the meaning is, Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign; that is, like a little child a year old. But this interpretation stands opposed to the usus loquendi of the language, as is seen in the passages above referred to, and others like them. It follows, therefore, that certain numerals have fallen out of the Hebrew text in both sentences, for it is evident both that Saul was more than a year old at the beginning of his reign, and that he reigned over Israel more than two years. This defect can now be supplied only by conjecture. According to Josephus, and Act_13:21, he reigned forty years; and since he had a son old enough at the beginning of his reign to command a division of his army, it would seem that he must have been at least forty years old when he began to reign. It is difficult to reconcile this with the facts and dates of David’s life, for he began to reign when thirty years old, (2Sa_5:4,) and that was after Saul’s death; and yet at the time of his victory over Goliath he must have been at least fifteen years old. Had Saul reigned twenty-five years before that event? That seems hardly possible; but we can fill up the defective text of this verse by no more authoritative numbers than those above given.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Sa_13:1. A literal rendering of the Hebrew text in this verse would stand thus—Saul was years old when he began to reign, and he reigned, and two years over Israel. The Hebrew numerals have evidently fallen out, and nearly all commentators agree that this verse, according to the custom in the history of the kings (2Sa_2:10; 2Sa_5:4; 1Ki_14:21; 1Ki_22:42; 2Ki_8:26) originally gave the age at which Saul began to reign and the number of years that his reign lasted. Some, however, understand that Saul had been publicly made king by Samuel one year before the events recorded in the preceding chapter, and that when he had reigned two years, he did what is recorded in this chapter. Bishop Hervey, who agrees with Keil and Erdmann in adopting the first-named view, says, in the Biblical Commentary, “There is no certain clue to the exact numbers to be supplied; but Saul may have been about thirty at his accession, as a scholion to the Sept. has it, and have reigned some thirty-two years, since we know that his grandson Mephibosheth was five years old at Saul’s death (2Sa_4:4): and thirty-two added to the seven and a half years between the death of Saul and that of Ishbosheth, makes up the forty years assigned to Saul’s dynasty in Act_13:21. Neither is there any clue to the interval of time between the events recorded in the preceding chapter and those which follow in this and succeeding chapters. But the appearance of Jonathan as a warrior (1Sa_13:2) compared with the mention of Saul as a young man at 1Sa_9:2 implies an interval of not less than ten or fifteen years, perhaps more.” Keil and Erdmann, however, agree in placing the acts of Saul recorded in 1Sa_13:2 immediately after the events narrated in the last chapter. As no other summoning of the people is mentioned before except that for the Ammonite war, and as a gathering of all the fighting population is implied in the last clause of 1Sa_13:2, they assume as probable that it was at Gilgal, immediately after a renewal of the monarchy, that Saul resolved at once to make war upon the Philistines.

1Sa_13:2. “Michmash.” “This town has been identified with great probability with a village which still bears the name of Muhkmas, about seven miles north of Jerusalem, on the northern edge of the great Wady Suweinit, which forms the main pass of communication between the central highlands on which the village stands, and the Jordan valley at Jericho.” (Biblical Dictionary.) “Mount Bethel.” The ancient town of Bethel was situated on very high ground, about 10 miles west of Jerusalem, in the same direction as Michmash. Mount Bethel was probably the mountain range upon which the city was situated.” “Jonathan.” Here mentioned for the first time. “A name which means, gift of Jehovah. In name and character he is the Nathaniel of this history.” (Wordsworth.) “Gibeah of Benjamin.” The residence of Saul, probably the present Tuliel-el-Ful, “a conspicuous eminence just four miles north of Jerusalem to the right of the road.” (Biblical Dictionary.)

1Sa_13:3, “Geba.” “Identified by most writers with the modern Jeba, standing on the south side of the Wady Suweinit, exactly opposite to Michmash. “Let the Hebrews hear,” etc. “Not only as a joyful message, but also as an indirect summons to the whole nation to rise.” (Keil.)

1Sa_13:5. “Thirty thousand chariots.” The immense disproportion which this number bears to the people, and the fact that the Syriac and Arabic versions read three thousand, has led most critics to suppose that there is here an error in the Hebrew manuscripts. “Solomon had only fourteen hundred chariots, which are mentioned as a large number (2Ch_1:14). Some suppose the baggage waggons are included in the number. Probably the Philistines may have engaged other nations, the enemies of Israel, to fight with them, and this supposition is confirmed by the mention of the number of the people ‘as the sand,’ etc., and also by the confusion of the army, which is mentioned in 1Sa_14:20, and which was due in part to the fact that it was composed of various nations.” (Wordsworth,).

1Sa_13:6. “When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait,” etc. “The position of matters seems to have been this: The Philistines were in possession of the village of Geba, on the south side of the Wady Suweinit. In their front across the Wady, which is here about a mile wide, and divided by several swells lower than the side eminences, was Saul in the town of Michmash, and holding also Mount Bethel—the heights on the north of the great Wady—as far as Beitin (Bethel) itself. South of the Philistine camp, and about three miles in its rear, was Jonathan, in Gibeah-of-Benjamin, with a thousand chosen warriors. The first step was taken by Jonathan, who drove out the Philistines from Geba by a feat of arms which at once procured for him immense reputation. But in the meantime it increased the difficulties of Israel, for the Philistines hearing of their reverse, and advancing with an enormous armament, pushed Saul’s little force before them out of Bethel and Michmash and down the eastern passes to Gilgal, near Jericho, in the Jordan valley. They then established themselves at Michmash, formerly the head-quarters of Saul, and from thence sent out their bands of plunderers north, west, and east (1Sa_13:17-18). But nothing could dislodge Jonathan from his main stronghold in the south. As far as we can disentangle the complexities of the story, he soon relinquished Geba and consolidated his little force in Gibeah, where he was joined by his father, with Samuel the prophet and Ahiah the priest, who, perhaps, remembering the former fate of the ark, had brought down the sacred ephod from Shiloh (1Sa_14:3). These three had made their way up from Gilgal with a force sorely diminished from desertion to the Philistine camp and flight (1Sa_13:7 and 1Sa_14:21)—a mere remnant of the people following in the rear of the little band (1Sa_13:15). Then occurred the feat of the hero and his armour-bearer (chap. 14) (Biblical Dictionary). “The people did hide themselves,” etc. “The broken ridges of the neighbourhood would afford abundant hiding-places. The rocks are perforated in every direction with crevices and fissures, sunk deep in the rocky soil, subterranean granaries or dry wells in the adjoining fields.” (Jamieson.)

1Sa_13:8. “And he tarried seven days,” etc. See note on 1Sa_10:8. “This appointment seems to have been for a trial of faith and obedience.” (Biblical Commentary.) Samuel came on the seventh day, but not until towards its close. “And he offered,” etc. The words do not necessarily imply that Saul did this with his own hand; it is quite possible that he merely commanded the priest to do it. If so, his sin was simply that of disobedience to the command of God, as given by Samuel. Dean Stanley, Dr. Kitto, and others, think that he was guilty of the double offence of usurping the office of the priest and of disobedience to the Divine word. Wordsworth observes that “Samuel does not animadvert to any such intrusion on Saul’s part.”

1Sa_13:14. “The Lord hath sought him a man.” “It is natural to infer from this that David, who of course is indicated, was already grown to man’s estate, as we know his friend Jonathan was. But as David was only thirty years old when he began to reign, the incident here related must have occurred during the last ten or fifteen years of Saul’s reign.” (Biblical Commentary.)

1Sa_13:15. “Six hundred men.” “Saul had therefore, by his hasty, disobedient conduct, not attained his purpose of holding the people together. The declaration,’ Thou hast done foolishly,’ is thus confirmed.” (Erdmann.)

1Sa_13:16-23. “The following account is no doubt connected with the foregoing, so far as facts are concerned, inasmuch as Jonathan’s brave, heroic deed terminated the war for which Saul had entreated the help of God by his sacrifice at Gilgal; but it is not formally connected with it, so as to form a compact and complete account of the successive stages of the war.” (Keil.)

1Sa_13:17. “The spoilers came out,” etc. The places here mentioned, so far as they can be identified, lay respectively on the north, west, and east—that is to say, the predatory bands sallying from Michmash ravaged through the valleys which radiate from it in those directions.

1Sa_13:19. “There was no smith,” etc. This policy of disarming the natives has often been followed. “So Porsenna allowed the Romans iron implements for agriculture only.” (Erdmann.)

1Sa_13:20. “Share, coulter,” etc. “In Isa_2:4, and Joe_3:10, the word here rendered coulter is rendered ploughshare, and the word here rendered share, from its etymology, must have that meaning; we must therefore suppose there was some difference in the two implements which cannot now be ascertained. The worn signifying mattock, or some such cutting instrument, is nearly identical with that rendered share.” (Biblical Dictionary.)

1Sa_13:21. The meaning of this verse is obscure, and the renderings of it very diverse. Gesenius and many Hebrew scholars read “And so there was dulness or notching of the edge.” “The parenthesis indicates that the result of the burdensome necessity of going to the Philistines was that many tools became useless by dulness, so that even this poorer sort of arms did the Israelites not much service at the breaking out of the war.” (Bunsen.)

1Sa_13:22. “So … there was neither sword nor spear found” “They had no weapons of defence but their rude implements of husbandry. But by means of these a bold energetic militia could do great execution; and in the well-known instances of the royalist peasantry of La Vendee or the Hays of Cramond, in Scotland, we have examples of the alert and effective manner in which a pastoral or agricultural people can arm themselves at a moment’s notice.” (Jamieson.)

1Sa_13:23 “The passage of Michmash.” The open valley between Geba and Michmash (see note on 1Sa_13:6). “It is about a mile broad at this point, but contracts in its descent eastward to the Jordan into a narrow, precipitous defile.” (Jamieson.)

MAIN HOMILETICS OF THE CHAPTER

SAUL’S FIRST ACT OF DISOBEDIENCE

I. Humiliation of a nation following distrust of God. Saul “chose him three thousand men,” etc. This band of men seems to have been intended to act as a body-guard to Saul and his son, and to form a kind of standing army for the defence of the nation. In this act Saul was only following the general custom of human monarchs, who need the arms and strength of their subjects to protect themselves and to help them to defend their country. But this was quite a new thing in Israel, and it was a humiliation for the nation. It had hitherto been their glory that their king needed no arm of flesh to protect his person, nor any standing army to defend them from their enemies. He who had legions of angels to do His bidding could well dispense with the service of a human body-guard, and so long as they continued obedient to His word there was no need of a standing army in their midst to defend them from their enemies. Even when they had through disobedience been given over for a season into the hands of the heathen, their mighty and invisible King had always raised up deliverers so soon as they had by confession and promises of amendment returned to Him. This act of Saul must have forcibly reminded the Hebrew nation that they had now indeed got what they desired—a “king like all the nations” (1Sa_8:4), and if they had reflected they would have felt humiliated in contrasting the comparative weakness of even the brave and warlike Saul with the omnipotent strength which they had rejected. But an act of distrust in Divine power is always followed by humiliation.

II. Humiliation of a monarch following disobedience to God. God is a ruler who demands and deserves unconditional obedience. An absolute monarch ought to be so wise that all the wisdom of all his subjects put together is not equal to that which he possesses. And His goodness ought so to exceed the goodness of the best and most benevolent subjects of his realm that all his plans and purposes, and hence all his commands, will be more adapted to the welfare of every citizen than any plans which their united wisdom and benevolence could form. Unless a ruler can establish beyond doubt that he is thus immeasurably superior to all whom he desires to obey him, he has no right to demand from them unconditional obedience. But if such an one can be found, it is surely to the interest of all whom he commands to render it. God is such a King—the “King who can do no wrong,”—and as such He demands and deserves obedience to all His commands although his subjects may not always see why He so commands them. This absolute obedience was the condition upon which alone He had promised to continue to be with Israel and with Israel’s king (1Sa_12:14-15). His past dealings with the nation, as Samuel had reminded them at Gilgal, fully justified this demand upon their loyalty, and Saul’s individual experience ought to have made him deeply sensible that nothing less would be accepted by that Absolute Ruler who had placed him on the throne. That the command came to Saul through the word of Samuel made no difference—the command of a king is none the less binding because it is delivered through the mouth of a subject, and Saul knew full well that God spoke through the mouth of His prophet. Consider—

1. The root of this act of disobedience It was distrust. It is quite evident that Saul had been commanded to remain at Gilgal until Samuel should arrive, and to postpone the sacrifices which were to precede any action against the Philistines until the prophet’s arrival. There is no doubt that Saul would then have received Divine direction as to his future movements, and that the expedition against the national enemies would have been followed by signs of the Divine approval. But Samuel’s arrival was delayed until the last day of the appointed time without doubt to test Saul’s faith in the Divine word. Help on all occasions and in all extremities had been most certainly promised him on condition that he, the king, as well as his people, followed after the Lord (1Sa_12:14); and an opportunity was now afforded him of proving whether he believed the promise. By his own confession he doubted it. “Thou comest not within the days appointed, and the Philistines gathered themselves together to Michmash, therefore said I, the Philistines will come down upon me at Gilgal.” This was saying, in effect, that he doubted whether God and God’s prophet would be as good as their word. The dishonour offered to Samuel was in reality a dishonour offered to God, inasmuch as he was doubtless acting under Divine direction—a fact of which it was impossible that Saul could be ignorant. The step from distrust to disobedience is easily taken—indeed the one is almost certain to lead to the other. While there is an unshaken confidence in the character of another there will be a loyal adherence to his commands, for confidence in his character and wisdom will beget an assurance that he will only command what is just and right. And this is especially true of man in his attitude towards God; hence it is the great aim of the tempter of men to beget in them distrust of God, in order to lead them to disobedience to God. He did this with our first parents. All the questions which he put to Eve evidently had for their object the infusion into her mind of a suspicion whether, after all, God was the benevolent Being she had hitherto believed Him to be. If Saul’s confidence in God had been firm, we should have never had this record upon the page of Bible history.

2. The punishment which it brought upon Saul. At first sight it may appear a very severe one. That Saul should be rejected by God from being the founder of a kingly dynasty for a single act of disobedience may seem upon the surface to be a sentence out of proportion to the gravity of the act. But it must be remembered that disobedience to a plain command is a very great sin. Saul could not plead as an excuse that he had misunderstood what he was required to do, or that the will of God had been implied rather than expressed; he does, in fact, put in neither of these excuses. He admits that he knew what his directions were, and that he had knowingly and deliberately acted in opposition to them. As in the disobedience of the first man, the plainness of the command, “Thou shalt not eat of it” (Gen_2:17), made the eating an act of open defiance of the sovereignty of Jehovah, so it was in this case. The man who had been raised from herding cattle to be God’s vicegerent in Israel, here lifts the standard of open rebellion against his Sovereign. Then, again, an act of disobedience is aggravated by the high position of the offender. A common soldier who disobeys martial law is punished for his crime; but if the commander of the army violates it, he meets with a much more severe sentence. Men recognise the fact that the transgression of such a man deserves a heavier penalty, because his high and representative position makes his observance of law doubly obligatory. Such a man ought to be a living embodiment of obedience; he ought to show to those who are socially beneath him a life in perfect accordance with every jot and tittle of the law by which his very position implies that he is governed. Saul as king of Israel was bound by obligations above all his subjects to observe every Divine command with the strictest fidelity. Upon his acts depended to a very great extent the moral tone of the entire nation—if he treated the word of the Lord as a word to be regarded or set aside as his humour dictated, many of his subjects would surely do the same. The welfare of the Hebrew commonwealth demanded therefore that so open and glaring act of defiance should be visited with a public and severe penalty. The spirit in which Saul met Samuel’s question, “What hast thou done?” shows also that there was no repentance after the deed. The words of the prophet seem framed to beget some acknowledgment of guilt—the very sight of the man who had been the channel by which all the favours of Jehovah had come to him, and from whose mouth he had received so many messages from the Most High God was calculated to beget in him some sense of his guilt. But there is no parallel to David’s—“I have sinned against the Lord”

(2. Sam. 1Sa_12:13)—he meets Samuel’s question with words which have no ring of repentance about them—which show no sense of the greatness of the sin he had committed. When we consider all the circumstances which surround this act we can see that the sentence was not heavier than the sin.

3. Its woeful miscarriage in the immediate future. Saul’s excuse for the act was the urgency of the situation—the danger which threatened the people at the hand of the Philistines. He pleads that he had disobeyed God in order to obtain from Him a fulfilment of His promises—that he hoped by breaking His law to bring that success to his arms which had been promised only on condition of obedience. Well might Samuel say, “Thou hast done foolishly,” and the foolishness of sin was soon afterwards the bitter experience of both king and people. In nature God has certain laws, or established methods of working, by which good things come into the hand of men. But men must work in harmony with them and not in opposition to them if they would be partakers of the good. If a man expected to obtain the same results by acts which were in direct opposition to the known and established laws of the universe, he would be accounted nothing less than a madman. And there are physical laws the defiance of which all men know will not only be followed by no gain but with physical loss. No rational man thinks that he can throw himself over a precipice, for instance, and escape bodily injury and pain. Disobedience to the laws which govern matter can never bring the same results as obedience, and men never expect that it will do so. They know that if they “break” this hedge, “a serpent will bite them” (Ecc_10:8). But many a man, besides the first king of Israel, has acted as if he expected that observance and non-observance of moral law would be followed by the same results. Saul desired to defeat the Philistines, and God had promised to stand by him and his army so long as they clave to Him. But Saul here acts as though he expected to obtain the same blessing by forsaking God as by following Him! He offers a burnt offering to the Being whom he is defying, and looks for the same results as if he were walking in obedience to His word. But God’s moral laws, like his physical ones, go as straight forward as the mighty wheels in Ezekiel’s vision (Eze_1:17). Yea, they are far more fixed and unalterable, and the penalty of breaking them far more certain. God has suspended the laws of His physical universe, but never one of the laws of His moral kingdom. It is a law as firm as the throne of God, that “whatsoever a man soweth,” in moral acts, “that he shall also reap” (Gal_6:7), and men only make manifest their exceeding foolishness by expecting otherwise. When Saul found his two thousand men diminish to six hundred, and when the whole land was devastated by incursions of the heathen spoilers, both king and people knew from bitter experience that he does wisely who keeps the commandments of the Lord, and that there is no folly to compare with the foolishness of sin.

OUTLINES AND SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS

1Sa_13:8; 1Sa_13:13. The first test of faith, which Saul had to submit to, was a theocratic necessity; for Saul must first prove to the Lord by deeds that he wished to be unconditionally subject to the Lord’s will, to yield obedience to His word which was to be revealed to him by prophets, and to trust alone to His help. Such tests as Saul had to stand, are, in the life of princes and peoples, and of individuals, in the church as in every member of God’s people, a divine significance; failure to stand them leads many from the Lord, brings to naught God’s purposes, results in misfortune and destruction. The individual elements of Saul’s probation, the typical significance of which elements for all times and circumstances of the kingdom of God is obvious, are found partly in his outward position, partly in his inner life. The external position of Saul, as to time and place, was one of extreme distress.… This distressing and dangerous position gave occasion in his heart to the temptation to act contrary to God’s will and command. In the first place fear of the threatening danger seized on his heart; to fear joined itself impatience, which prevented him from waiting out the time appointed by Samuel; this produced unquiet in his mind, which drove him to take self-willed measures to help himself, and dissipated more and more his trust in God; then came sophistical calculation by his carnally obscured understanding; his heart frame towards God of immovable trust and unconditional obedience was given up. It was the root of unbelief from which all this sprang.—Lange’s Commentary.

I. Sin is not estimated by God according to its outward form, but according to the amount and extent of the principle of evil embodied in that form. There may be as much of downright rebellion against God in what men would call a little sin, as in a series of what men would call flagrant offences. And when we say of a requirement of God that it was so small a matter as to render it marvellous that God should visit its violation with a penalty, we should remember that the smaller it was the more readily ought obedience to have been rendered, and the greater the proof of a wrong disposition, when obedience was refused, even in a little thing. II. The first wrong step is always marked by a peculiarity of evil which does not attach to any subsequent offences. Men are accustomed to palliate the first offence, because it is the first; a more accurate estimate would show that this habit of judging is thoroughly erroneous and fallacious. There is more to keep a man from committing a first offence, than there is to keep him from committing a second or any other criminal act. The impression of the command is at least one degree deeper than it can possibly be after it has been trifled with. The first sin involves the taking up of a new position, and this is harder work than to maintain it. It is assuming a character of disobedience, and this requires more hardihood than to wear it when it has once been put on. It is breaking through consistency, which is a strong barrier so long as it remans unbroken; but if once broken through sin becomes easy. All these things call on us, in fairness, to reverse our judgments on first offences; they suggest that these have an aggravation about them which belong not to other sins; and we thus are the less surprised that God, whose every judgment is right, should have visited Saul’s first offence with peculiar displeasure.—Miller.

Our faith is most commendable in the last act; it is no praise to hold out until we be hard driven; then, when we are forsaken of means, to live by faith in our God is worthy of a crown.—Bp. Hall.

I. This portion of Scripture history teaches us the danger of infringing or trifling with the Divine commandments on the plea of necessity.… There are many who would hesitate at the employment of dishonest, or even questionable means for the advancement of their interests generally, who would nevertheless occasionally, and under difficult and trying circumstances, dispense with the Divine law, and plead the peculiar necessity of the case for their justification. They are too apt to suppose that such a deviation from their known duty is rendered necessary, and excusable, from the urgency of their peculiar situation.… Could there be any case of greater urgency than Saul’s? Who can pretend to show a greater or more plausible necessity for deviating from a command of God? Yet his plea was utterly vain. II. The infatuation of supposing that, while disregarding the essentials of religion, faith and obedience, he could satisfy God with its forms.… All external rites and forms are only valuable as means conducive to internal and practical piety; and, consequently, are so far from compensating for the want of this, that, without it, they become an unmeaning and unavailing service.—Lindsay.

1Sa_13:13. It may probably strike many readers that foolishness is not exactly the term they would have employed in characterising the conduct of the king. They would have thought of “presumption,” of “self-will,” of “distrust,” and other like terms, but scarcely of foolishness. But the prophet’s word is the right one after all. It goes to the root of the matter.… In his view and in that of all sacred writers, the lowest depths of human foolishness—its most astonishing and incredible manifestation—was in disobedience to the Lord’s commandment. There are two kinds of fools prominently noticed in Scripture—the fool who denies that there is any God—and the fool who does not obey God, though he does not deny His existence.… And yet, if we probe the matter closely, we shall find that there is scarcely more than an impalpable film of real difference between them.… One may as well believe there is no God as not obey Him.—Kitto.

1Sa_13:14. The phrase “a man after God’s own heart,” has no reference to the piety or virtues of private and personal character; for no mere man in that respect has come up to the standard of the Divine law. It is used solely with regard to official fidelity in the service of Jehovah in Israel (chap, 1Sa_2:35); and David was certainly entitled to be characterised as “a man after God’s own heart,” from his ardent zeal and undeviating exertions for the interests of the true religion, in opposition to idolatry.—Jamieson.

1. A man devout, not merely by fits and starts, but profoundly and habitually.

2. A man not self-willed, who would rule according to the command of God through the prophets.

3. A man who, when he had done wrong, would penitently submit to God’s chastenings, invincibly trust in God’s goodness, and faithfully strive to live more according to God’s will. (In these and similar points Saul and David might be contrasted).—Translator of Lange’s Commentary.

1Sa_13:15. Saul’s sinful act in offering sacrifice lest the people should be scattered from him, failed of its purpose. Wordly policy does not attain even its own temporal ends (See Joh_11:48). “If we let this man thus alone, the Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” They did not let Jesus alone; and therefore the Romans did come, and destroyed them.—Wordsworth.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

The history of the reign of Saul commences with this chapter;

(Note: The connection of Sa1 13:8-11 of this chapter with Sa1 10:8 is adduced in support of the hypothesis that 1 Samuel 13 forms a direct continuation of the account that was broken off in Sa1 10:16. This connection must be admitted; but it by no means follows that in the source from which the books before us were derived, 1 Samuel 13 was directly attached to Sa1 8:16, and that Samuel intended to introduce Saul publicly as king here in Gilgal immediately before the attack upon the Philistines, to consecrate him by the solemn presentation of sacrifices, and to connect with this the religious consecration of the approaching campaign. For there is not a word about any such intention in the chapter before us or in Sa1 10:8, nor even the slightest hint at it. Thenius has founded this view of his upon his erroneous interpretation of ירדתּ in Sa1 10:8 as an imperative, as if Samuel intended to command Saul to go to Gilgal immediately after the occurrence of the signs mentioned in Sa1 10:2.: a view which is at variance with the instructions given to him, to do what his hand should find after the occurrence of those signs. To this we may also add the following objections: How is it conceivable that Saul, who concealed his anointing even from his own family after his return from Samuel to Gibeah (Sa1 10:16), should have immediately after chosen 3000 men of Israel to begin the war against the Philistines? How did Saul attain to any such distinction, that at his summons all Israel gathered round him as their king, even before he had been publicly proclaimed king in the presence of the people, and before he had secured the confidence of the people by any kingly heroic deed? The fact of his having met with a band of prophets, and even prophesied in his native town of Gibeah after his departure from Samuel, and that this had become a proverb, is by no means enough to explain the enterprises described in Sa1 8:1-7, which so absolutely demand the incidents that occurred in the meantime as recorded in 1 Samuel 10:17-12:25 even to make them intelligible, that any writing in which Sa1 13:2. following directly upon Sa1 10:16 would necessarily be regarded as utterly faulty. This fact, which I have already adduced in my examination of the hypothesis defended by Thenius in my Introduction to the Old Testament (p. 168), retains its force undiminished, even though, after a renewed investigation of the question, I have given up the supposed connection between Sa1 10:8 and the proclamation mentioned in Sa1 11:14., which I defended there.)

and according to the standing custom in the history of the kings, it opens with a statement of the age of the king when he began to reign, and the number of years that his reign lasted. If, for example, we compare the form and contents of this verse with Sa2 2:10; Sa2 5:4; Kg1 14:21; Kg1 22:42; Kg2 8:26, and other passages, where the age is given at which Ishbosheth, David, and many of the kings of Judah began to reign, and also the number of years that their reign lasted, there can be no doubt that our verse was also intended to give the same account concerning Saul, and therefore that every attempt to connect this verse with the one which follows is opposed to the uniform historical usage. Moreover, even if, as a matter of necessity, the second clause of _Sa1 13:1 could be combined with Sa1 13:2 in the following manner: He was two years king over Israel, then Saul chose 3000 men, etc.; the first half of the verse would give no reasonable sense, according to the Masoretic text that has come down to us. בּמלכו שׁאוּל בּן־שׁנה cannot possibly be rendered "jam per annum regnaverat Saul," "Saul had been king for a year," or "Saul reigned one year," but can only mean "Saul was a year old when he became king." This is the way in which the words have been correctly rendered by the Sept. and Jerome; and so also in the Chaldee paraphrase ("Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign") this is the way in which the text has been understood.

It is true that this statement as to his age is obviously false; but all that follows from that is, that there is an error in the text, namely, that between בּן and שׁנה the age has fallen out, - a thing which could easily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally the numbers were not written in words, but only in letters that were used as numerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version, as our present text is given there. There is, it is true, an anonymus in the hexapla, in which we find the reading υἱὸς τριάκοντα ἐτῶν Σαούλ; but this is certainly not according to ancient MSS, but simply according to a private conjecture, and that an incorrect one. For since Saul already had a son, Jonathan, who commanded a division of the army in the very first years of his reign, and therefore must have been at least twenty years of age, if not older, Saul himself cannot have been less than forty years old when he began to reign. Moreover, in the second half of the verse also, the number given is evidently a wrong one, and the text therefore equally corrupt; for the rendering "when he had reigned two years over Israel" is opposed both by the parallel passages already quoted, and also by the introduction of the name Saul as the subject in Sa1 13:2, which shows very clearly that Sa1 13:2 commences a fresh sentence, and is not merely the apodosis to Sa1 13:1. But Saul's reign must have lasted longer than two years, even if, in opposition to all analogies to be found elsewhere, we should understand the two years as merely denoting the length of his reign up to the time of his rejection (1 Samuel 15), and not till the time of his death. Even then he reigned longer than that; for he could not possibly have carried on all the wars mentioned in Sa1 14:47, with Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah and the Philistines, in the space of two years. Consequently a numeral, say כ, twenty, must also have dropped out before שׁנים שׁתּי (two years); since there are cogent reasons for assuming that his reign lasted as long as twenty or twenty-two years, reckoning to the time of his death. We have given the reasons themselves in connection with the chronology of the period of the judges (pp. 206f.).

(Note: The traditional account that Saul reigned forty years (Act 13:24, and Josephus, Ant. vi. 14, 9) is supposed to have arisen, according to the conjecture of Thenius (on Sa2 2:10), from the fact that his son Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began to reign, and the notion that as he is not mentioned among the sons of Saul in Sa1 14:49, he must have been born after the commencement of Saul's own reign. This conjecture is certainly a probable one; but it is much more natural to assume that as David and Solomon reigned forty years, it arose from the desire to make Saul's reign equal to theirs.)

Keil & Delitzsch — Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament (1861–1891) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API. (Old Testament only.)

SECOND DIVISION

King Saul’s Government Up To His Rejection

1 Samuel 13-15

_____________________

FIRST SECTION

The Unfolding of his Royal Power in Successful Wars

1 Samuel 13-15

I. Against the Philistines. 1Sa_13:1 to 1Sa_14:46

1Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, [Saul was——years old when he began to reign, and he reigned——years over Israel].1 2[Ins. And] Saul chose him three thousand men [ins. out] of Israel, whereof [om. whereof, ins. and] two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount [the mountains of] Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; 3and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent [tents].2 And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews 4 hear.3 And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison4 of the Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. And the 5people were called together after Saul to Gilgal. And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty5 thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude; and they 6came up, and pitched in Michmash eastward from [over against] Bethaven. When [And] the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait (for the people were distressed), then [and] the people did hide [hid] themselves in caves and in thickets 7[caverns]6 and in rocks and in highplaces [hollows]7 and in pits. And some8 of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead, as for [and] Saul he [om. he] was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling.

8And he tarried seven days according to the set time that Samuel had appointed9; 9but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him. And Saul said, Bring [ins. me] hither [om. hither] a [the] burnt-offering to me [om. to 10me] and [ins. the] peace-offerings. And he offered the burnt-offering. And it came to pass that, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt-offering, behold, 11Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed [at the appointed time], and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash, 12Therefore said I, The Philistines will [Now will the Philistines] come down now [om. now] upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord [Jehovah], [ins. And] I forced myself therefore [om. therefore], and offered a [the] 13burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly [ins. in that]10 thou hast not11 kept the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, which he commanded thee; for now would the Lord [Jehovah] have established thy kingdom 14upon [over] Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord [Jehovah] hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord [Jehovah] hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord [Jehovah] commanded thee.

15And Samuel arose and gat him up from Gilgal unto Gibeah12 of Benjamin. And Saul numbered the people that were present with him, about six hundred men. 16And Saul and Jonathan his son and the people that were present with them abode in Gibeah [Geba]12 of Benjamin, but [and] the Philistines encamped in Michmash. 17And the spoilers came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies: one company turned unto the way that leadeth [om. that leadeth] to Ophrah, unto the 18land of Shual; And another company turned the way to Bethhoron; and another company turned to [om. to] the way of the border13 that looketh to the valley 19of Zeboim towards the wilderness. Now there was no smith found throughout [in] all the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords 20or spears. But [And] all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen 21every man his share and his coulter and his axe and his mattock.14 Yet [And] they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, 22and to sharpen the goads. So [And] it came to pass in the day of battle15 that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan; but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found. 23And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the passage [pass] of Michmash.

1Sa_14:1. Now [And] it came to pass upon a day that Jonathan the son of Saul said unto [to] the young man that bore his armor, Come, and let us go over to the Philistines’ garrison, that is on the other side. But [And] he told not his 2father. And Saul tarried [was lying] in the uttermost part of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree in Migron,16 and the people that were with him were about six hundred 3men, And17 Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the Lord’s priest [priest of Jehovah] in Shiloh, wearing an [the] 4ephod. And the people knew not that Jonathan was gone. And between the passages [passes] by which Jonathan sought to go over unto the Philistines’ garrison there was a sharp rock on the one side and a sharp rock on the other side; and the 5name of the one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh. The forefront of the one was situate northward [The one rock was a column18 on the north] over against Michmash, and the other southward [on the south] over against Gibeah [Geba].19 6And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armor, Come, and let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; it may be that the Lord [Jehovah] will work for us; for there is no restraint to the Lord [Jehovah] to save by many or by 7few. And his armorbearer said unto him, Do all that is in thine heart; turn 8thee,20 behold, I am with thee according to thy heart.21 Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said], Behold, we will pass over unto these [the] men, and we will [om. 9we will] discover ourselves unto them. If they say thus unto us, Tarry [stand still] until we can come to you, then we will stand still [om. still] in our place and will 10not go up unto them. But, if they say thus, Come up unto us, then we will go up, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath delivered them into our hand; and this shall be a [the] 11sign unto us. And both of them [the two] discovered themselves unto the garrison of the Philistines; and the Philistines said, Behold, the Hebrews come forth [there 12are Hebrews coming forth] out of the holes where they had hid themselves. And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armorbearer and said, Come up to us, and we will show [tell] you a thing [something]. And Jonathan said unto his armorbearer, Come up after me, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath delivered them 13into the hand of Israel. And Jonathan climbed up upon [on] his hands and upon [on] his feet, and his armorbearer after him; and they fell22 before Jonathan, and 14his armorbearer slew after him. And that first slaughter which Jonathan and his armorbearer made was about twenty men, within, as it were, an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow [within about a half-furrow of a yoke of land].23 15And there was trembling in the host [camp], in the field, and among all the people; the garrison and the spoilers they also trembled, and the earth quaked, so [and] it [om. it] was [became] a very great trembling [a trembling of God].

16And the watchmen of Saul in Gibeah of Benjamin looked [saw], and behold, the multitude melted away and they went on beating down one another [om. and . . . 17another, ins. hither24 and thither]. Then said Saul [And Saul said] unto the people that were with him, Number now, and see who is gone from us. And when they had numbered [And they numbered and] behold, Jonathan and his armorbearer 18were not there. And Saul said unto Ahiah, Bring hither the ark25 of God [the ephod]; for the ark25 of God was at that time with [for he bore the ephod at that 19time before]26 the children of Israel. And it came to pass, while Saul talked unto the priest, that the noise that was in the host [camp] of the Philistines went on and [om. and] increased [increasing]; and Saul said unto the priest, Withdraw thy20hand. And Saul and all the people that were with him assembled themselves [shouted]27 and they [om. they] came [advanced] to the battle; and behold, every 21man’s sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture. Moreover [And] the Hebrews28 that were with the Philistines [ins. as] before that time, which went up with them into the camp from the country round about [om. from . . . about], even [om. even] they also turned28 [turned] to be with the Israelites that 22were with Saul and Jonathan. Likewise [And] all the men of Israel which had hid themselves in mount [the hill-country of] Ephraim when they [om. when they] heard that the Philistines fled, [ins. and] even [om. even] they also followed hare 23after them in the battle. So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] saved Israel that day. And the battle passed over unto Beth-aven.

24And the men of Israel were distressed that day.29 For [And] Saul had [om. had] adjured the people saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any [om. any] food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So [And] none of the people 25tasted any [om. any] food. And all they of [om. they of] the land came to a [the] 26wood, and there was honey upon the ground. And when [om. when] the people were come [came] into [unto] the wood,30 [ins. and] behold, the honey dropped [was flowing]; but [and] no man put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath. 27But [And] Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath, wherefore [and] he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honey-comb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes were enlightened.31 28Then answered one of the people [And one of the people answered] and said, Thy father strictly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the29man that eateth any [om. any] food this day. And the people were faint.32 Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said], My father hath troubled the land; see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of the honey. 30How much more if haply [om. haply] the people had eaten freely to-day of the spoil of their enemies which they found! for had there not been now a much greater 31slaughter [for now had not the33 slaughter been great] among the Philistines? And they smote the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon [Ajjalon]; and the people were very faint.

32And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep and oxen and calves, and 33slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with [on] the blood. Then [And] they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord [Jehovah] in that they eat with [on] the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed [acted faithlessly]; 34roll a great stone unto me this day [roll me a great stone hither34]. And Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them, Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the Lord [Jehovah] in eating with [on] the blood. And all the 35people brought every man his ox with him35 that night, and slew them there. And Saul built an altar unto the Lord [to Jehovah]; the same was the first altar that 36he built unto the Lord [to Jehovah].36 And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning-light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do [om Do] whatsoever seemeth good unto thee [ins. do]. Then said the priest [And the priest said], Let us draw near hither unto God. 37And Saul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into the hand of Israel? But [And] he answered him not that day. 38And Saul said, Draw ye near hither, all the chief [heads] of the people, and know 39and see wherein this sin hath been this day. For, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, which [who] saveth Israel, though it be37 in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die. 40But [And] there was not a man among all the people that answered him. Then said he [And he said] unto all Israel, Be ye on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side. And the people said unto Saul, Do [om. Do] what 41seemeth good unto thee [ins. do]. Therefore [And] Saul said unto the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, Give a perfect lot.38 And Saul and Jonathan [Jonathan and 42Saul] were taken; but [and] the people escaped. And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken. Then [And] Saul said to 43Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste [I tasted] a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand; 44and [om. and] lo, I must die. And Saul answered [said], God do so and more also,45for [om. for] thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid [Far be it]; as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he hath wrought with God this day. So [And] the people rescued 46Jonathan that he died not. Then [And] Saul went up from following the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own place.

II. Against the other Enemies round about—especially the Amalekites. 1Sa_14:47-52

47So [And] Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, and against the children of Amnion, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; and whithersoever he 48turned himself he vexed them. And he gathered an host [grew in strength], and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them.

49Now [And] the sons of Saul were Jonathan and Ishui [Ishwi]39 and Melchishua; and the names of his two daughters were these [om. were these], the name of the firstborn 50Merab, and the name of the younger Michal. And the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz, and the name of the captain of his host 51was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul’s uncle. And Kish was [om. was] the father of Saul, and Ner the father of Abner was the son [were sons40] of Abiel.

52And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul; and when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The connection of 1Sa_13:1 sq. with what precedes is not to be explained as a resumption here of the narrative which was dropped in 1Sa_10:16. In support of this view Thenius affirms that it is only by supposing an original immediate connection between 1Sa_13:2 and 1Sa_10:16 that the words of Samuel, 1Sa_10:7, “when these signs come to thee, undertake confidently what occasion may suggest,” have a definite reference; but there is such a reference in chap. 11 already in the deed there done by Saul. And, when the same expositor makes Saul, inspired by the patriotic hymns of the prophets, proceed straightway to free his people from the yoke of the Philistines, he takes for granted what is not suggested in the words, and puts too much into them.—Against the view that the real continuation of the narration ending with 1Sa_10:16 is not given till now (the section 1Sa_10:17 to 1Sa_12:25 containing matter foreign to the connection) Keil (Comm. p. 90, Rem. 1 [Eng. Tr., p. 122, Rem. 1]) admirably remarks that, on this supposition, it is inconceivable that Saul, who on his return from Samuel to Gibeah concealed his royal anointing from his kinsfolk (1Sa_10:16), should straightway have entered on his public career by choosing 3000 men and beginning the war against the Philistines—or further, that Saul should have had such universal, complete respect as is supposed by the people’s pouring to him as king on his call, unless he had before been publicly proclaimed king in the presence of all Israel, and had won by a public deed the recognition and confidence of the whole people—and, finally, that the narrative in 1Sa_13:1-7 requires the intermediate events of 1Sa_10:17 to 1Sa_12:25 in order to be intelligible.—But this view of the real and historical connection between 1 Samuel 13 :sq. and 1Sa_10:17 to 1Sa_12:25 does not exclude the possibility that the redactor of the book from 13 on used another authority than that employed in the previous history of Samuel, one, namely, which treated of Saul’s reign and rejection; though, on the other hand, it is more probable that the editor of the book (which is derived from several sources) here uses the same authority for Saul’s life as in chap, 9, speaking more at length of his deeds and official life, after having introduced from the source relating to Samuel what was required to continue the narrative, and set forth the historical events in their objective pragmatical connection.

1Sa_13:1. The chronological statements at the beginning of Saul’s official life correspond to the usual notices of the age and time of reign of the kings at the outset of their history (comp. 2Sa_2:10-11; 2Sa_5:4 and the many similar places in the books of Kings). We should therefore expect a different datum from that of the text: “Saul was one year old when he became king, and he reigned two years.” And the attempts to extract sense from the present text, at least the first part of the verse, must be pronounced, partly on linguistic, partly on factual grounds, utter failures; so that of Luth., Grot., Cler., v. Gerlach [Eng. A. V.]: “Saul had been king one year,” and the Chald.: “Saul was as an innocent child, when he became king.” The text (which is presupposed even in the Sept.) is certainly corrupt, in the first place, in the first half, and a number must be supplied between בֶּן and שָׁנָה. Nägelsbach supposes (Herz. XIII, 433) that a ן = 50 has fallen out after בֶּן by reason of the double Nun; to which it is no objection (Thenius) that then Saul, supposing that he reigned 20 years, would have been 70 when he went into his last battle (1Sa_31:6), but great difficulty arises from the statement of Saul’s youth (1Sa_9:2). Others, as Bunsen, Vaihinger (Herz. VIII. 8) supply a מ = 40, supposed to have fallen out from the following similar ש, which would suit both the statement in 1Sa_13:5, that Jonathan was already a stout warrior, and that in 1Sa_9:5. This first statement about Jonathan makes it impossible to accept the supplement ל = 30 (in an anonymous version in the Hexapla).—In the second half of the verse many try to retain the text “and he reigned two years over Israel” by construing it syntactically with 1Sa_13:2, and explaining, with Grotius, that Saul collected his armed band after having reigned two years. So also Clericus: “As, twelve months and some more after birth one may be said to be the son of one year and living in his second year, so, the whole of one year of reign and the greater part of the second having elapsed, one may be called a king of one year, who was reigning two years.” But 1Sa_13:1 cannot form a syntactic unit with 1Sa_13:2, unless the subject Saul were omitted in 1Sa_13:2, which would be arbitrary. Here, too, we must suppose a gap left by the omission of a numeral; and it is highly probable that כ = 20 has fallen out, so that the duration of the entire reign was given as in other cases. But the supposition (taking the text without connection with 1Sa_13:2) that Saul reigned altogether only two years, hardly deserves mention; it is shown to be absurd by the summary statement in 1Sa_14:47 of Saul’s wars.41

I. The principal war against the Philistines, 13; 1Sa_14:1-46.

1. 1Sa_13:2-7. The introduction of the war. That this war occurred in the beginning of Saul’s reign is highly probable from the statement at the end of 1Sa_13:2, that he sent the rest of the people home. For here a gathering of the whole arms-bearing population is presupposed, from which three thousand men were chosen, and it is natural to infer, since nothing has been said of any general summons of the people except for the Ammonite war (chap. 11), that on this latter followed soon the war against the Philistines narrated in 13,14.—The statement, “And Saul chose him three thousand men out of Israel,” indicates an important fact for Saul’s military rule: The formation of a standing warlike body of chosen men into a permanent disciplined army in distinction from the mass of the people, who had hitherto been summoned to war. This body of 3000 men was so divided between Saul and his son Jonathan (who is here mentioned for the first time) that the former had command of 2000, and the latter of 1000. This is indicated by the “with” (עִם), and it is therefore unnecessary to insert with Thenius a “which” (אשר) after “two thousand” (אַלְפַּיִם) “because Saul himself could have been only in one place.”42—Michmash, according to Rob. II. 328 sq. [Am. ed. I., 440–442, and see Grove in Smith’s Bib. Dict., s. v.—Tr.] the present desolate village Muchmash, 3½ hours [nearly 9 Eng. miles, but Grove says 7—Tr.] northeast of Jerusalem on the northern cliff of the narrow pass which runs between it and Geba (which was on the southern range of heights), the present Wady Suweinit. The mountain or mountain-range of Bethel, which along with Michmash was a post of the 2000 men under Saul, can be none other than the range (Jos_16:1) on which the old Bethel lay (comp. 1S. 1Sa_10:3). The ruins of Beitin, on the old site of Bethel, and surrounded by mountains, are 3¾ hours [9½ or 10 Eng. miles] from Jerusalem. The two posts were thus not far from one another, and had probably about the same altitude.—The other division, of 1000 men, was at Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul’s family, under Jonathan’s command.—The reason for the dismissal of the rest of the people was partly, no doubt, that Saul did not venture to advance against the Philistines with an undisciplined mass, and that no compact body, but only a strong garrison here marked the borders of the Philistine power and authority.

1Sa_13:3. Jonathan’s heroic deed. He smote the garrison of the Philistines in Geba. There is no reason for reading Gibeah (though the ancient vss. so have it) instead of Geba; for this reading is obviously an attempt to correct the text which (from Gibeah in 1Sa_13:2) was supposed to be incorrect. Whether this garrison was the same as that mentioned in 1Sa_10:5, which was perhaps, in consequence of the Israelites’ occupying Michmash, removed to Geba opposite, is uncertain. Jonathan with his thousand men inflicted a total defeat on this garrison of the Philistines. The word “smote,” from its ordinary military use and from the context, can here mean nothing but a “slaughter.” Saul and Jonathan’s first movement may have been concealed from the Philistine garrison by the nature of the ground, or may have been so sudden as to be like a surprise;43 and, as to the narrative, it was not necessary to go into details on the method and result of this military blow, because it is considered merely as the beginning and occasion of the decisive struggle against the Philistines. It is therefore unnecessary to regard נָצִיב as “pillar,” sign of the authority of the Philistines (Then.), or as the name of a Philistine officer whom Jonathan slew, (Ew.), or as a proper name (Sept.). Aquila has correctly ὑπόστημα, statio.—The word “saying” (לֵאמֹר) usually, where as here it is connected with blowing a trumpet, introduces what is to be publicly proclaimed after the sounding of the trumpet, comp. 2Sa_20:1; 1Ki_1:34; 1Ki_1:39; 2Ki_9:13. We might accordingly say that Saul ordered it to be proclaimed by sound of trumpet through the land: “Let the Hebrews hear.” Then would follow (from the connection) the story of Jonathan’s heroic deed. These words would in that case be the usual introduction to what was to be made known, as among us in public proclamations accompanied by musical instruments, there are first words to call attention.44 The herald would then give the event to be proclaimed simply and clearly.—But it is an equally well-supported view, that what is said is merely that Saul had the important fact proclaimed by trumpet throughout all Israel, without quoting the words of the proclamation, and that the “saying” introduces (as usual) only the words or thoughts of the subject of the sentence. That is: Saul blew the trumpet in all Israel, saying (or thinking), The Hebrews shall hear it, namely, the deed of Jonathan. We need not, therefore, in any case, with Thenius, following the Sept. ἠθετήκασιν οἱ δοῦλοι, “the slaves have revolted,”45 put “revolt” (יִפְשְׁעוּ) for “hear” (יִשְׁמְעוּ) and render: “Let the Hebrews revolt, free themselves.” Nor does the “revolting” suit the presupposed relation of the Hebrews to the Philistines. The words of Josephus, quoted by Thenius: “He proclaims it throughout the whole land, summoning them to freedom,” contain an explanatory, paraphrastic remark on what was of course understood in the public proclamation in consequence of Jonathan’s feat, and cannot therefore furnish a basis for a change of text. But that in fact the content of the proclamation was not a summons to revolt, but the statement of Jonathan’s blow, appears from 1Sa_13:4 : with the trumpet-proclamation went throughout Israel the news: Saul (that is, as chief commander, head of the military force, a part of which had inflicted the blow) has smitten the garrison of the Philistines.—At the same time the people became aware of the consequence and significance of this attack on the position of the Philistines: Israel, it is said, had become stinking, that is, suspected or hated with the Philistines (comp. 1Sa_27:12; Gen_34:20; Exo_5:21), by their purpose to shake off, arms in hand, the foreign yoke. The enkindled hate and anger of the Philistines must needs have led them to a speedy military undertaking against Israel, as is narrated in 1Sa_13:5; and Israel was thereby compelled quickly to gather all its strength against the Philistines. This military summons of the whole people is expressed by וַיִצָּעֲקיּ [called]: The people were called together (summoned) after Saul to Gilgal. Vulg., Sanctius, Luther translate incorrectly: “cried” [instead of “were called together”]. The summons took place at the same time with the trumpet-announcement. Saul went to Gilgal, the old camping-place, because the people were to assemble there, and indeed could only assemble behind the steep declivities of the hills in the broad plain which stretches to the Jordan.

1Sa_13:5. To this movement of Israel answers the rapid gathering of a large army by the Philistines. Most expositors regard the number of chariots (30,000) as too large in proportion to the number of horsemen (6,000), and (comparing similar numbers in 2Sa_10:18; 1Ki_10:16; 2Ch_12:3) suppose an error of text here. According to Thenius the Codex 715 of De Rossi has (originally) simply “a thousand” (אֶלֶף).46 It is “a natural conjecture that the sign for 30, ל, has been repeated from the preceding word, and we then read ‘a thousand chariots’ ” (Bunsen). The supposition of three thousand chariot-warriors (Syr., Calov., Hez., Schulz, Maur.) is arbitrary, and unsustained by 2Sa_10:18.—The large army of the Philistines (one thousand chariots, six thousand horsemen) encamped in Michmash (which Saul had left) in front of Bethaven. The locality is disputed among modern expositors. In the first place, against Jerome who (on Hos_5:8, Bethaven, quæ quondam vocabatur Bethel) identifies Bethaven with Bethel, the distinctness of these two places is, according to Jos_7:2, to be maintained; according to this passage, Bethaven lay east from Bethel, and according to Jos_18:12 there was a “wilderness of Bethaven.” We must first inquire how we are to understand “over against” (קִדְמָת). If we assume that this expression “in geographical statements always means east” (Then)., it yet by no means follows, as Then. thinks, that Michmash was very near the Jordan, far from Gibeah. Apart from the groundless identification of Gibeah and Geba (the former, Jonathan’s position, was nine47 miles farther south), there is between Bethaven (east of Bethel) and the Jordan so considerable a distance, that Michmash may well have lain east from Bethaven, without being “very near the Jordan,” and therefore farther from Geba than the narrative permits. It is, therefore, unnecessary (with Keil), in order to meet Thenius’ objection, to render קִדְמַת “in front of” though to this there is no objection, since the constant geographical expression for “east” is מִקֶּדֶם, and the identity of the two neither has been nor can be shown (from Gen_2:14; Gen_4:16; 1Sa_13:5; Eze_39:11, the only places in which our word occurs); and so Ewald, Bib. Jahrb. X. 54 (comp. Keil on Gen_2:14). In Isa_10:29 Gibeah-Benjamin (along with Ramah) is named with Geba in such a way that the latter appears as a strong camping-place, which had to protect the two other places, and from which their territory was commanded. If, now, Saul (according to 1Sa_13:2) was posted northward at Michmash and Jonathan southward at Gibeah-Benjamin, the Philistine position at Geba would be between them; certainly the double Israelitish position was intended to embrace the Philistine garrison on both sides. Jonathan having destroyed this garrison by a coup de main, and the Philistines having marched to Michmash in great force (1Sa_13:5), Saul was obliged to abandon this position (which was now after Jonathan’s feat of no importance to him), and betake himself to the old camping-plain at Gilgal, that he might here assemble the people to war, while Jonathan kept his position at Gibeah-Benjamin (1Sa_14:16-17), whence he performed a second bold feat against the camp of the Philistines at Michmash. Thenius reads Beth-horon instead of Bethaven, on the ground that the Philistine camp would probably be pitched in the fertile region around Gibeon; but both these places lie too far west to suit this narrative, and the Philistines, in changing their camp at Michmash (1Sa_13:23), would certainly march eastward in the valley between Michmash and Geba. The people were afraid of them (1Sa_13:6-7), because they were apprehensive that the Philistines would advance from Michmash into the Gilgal-plain, and overpower them, unprepared as they were.—“And the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait (in augustiis), because the people were pressed by the Philistines.” This recognition of danger and fear of a superior force expresses itself in three ways. Partly, they hid themselves in the country this side of the Jordan in caves,48 thorn-bushes (why thick bushes (from חוֹחַ thorn) should not serve for hiding (Then.) is not obvious), in clefts of rocks, in watch-towers or castles (the word is found elsewhere only in Jdg_9:46; Jdg_9:49, where it is distinguished from migdal, “tower,” and is a high, isolated, roofed building, perhaps designed to guard against military attacks. Clericus: “fortified places; they are high places, fortified on a lofty site, as appears from the Arabic, in which the word means any lofty structure”) and in pits; partly (1Sa_13:7), they flee across the Jordan into the land of Gad and Gilead (Clericus: “regions toward the source of the Jordan, mountainous and more difficult of access for the Philistine army”), while Saul still remained at Gilgal; we see from this, as well as from the expressions down and up (1Sa_13:12-15), that this Gilgal could not have been the elevated Gilgal or Jiljalieh between Sichem and Jerusalem, which also would be impossible from the military positions here mentioned of the Philistines and of Saul; partly, they go trembling after Saul, that is, the soldiers, who were there as one body under his command (אַחֲרָיו). It thus appears that the Philistines advanced against the Israelites with rapidity and energy in strong force, to avenge themselves and establish their authority; and that among the Israelites there was great dismay and confusion.

2. 1Sa_13:8-14. Saul’s hasty offering in opposition to the divine arrangement, and, in consequence of this, his rejection by Samuel’s prophetic judicial sentence.

1Sa_13:8. Saul waited49 according to 1Sa_10:8 seven days for Samuel to come and make the offering for the people who were arming themselves for the war against the Philistines. After “which” supply “appointed” (יעד or אמר, Sept., Chald.), 2Sa_20:5. Comp. Ew. § 292 b.—But Samuel came not to Gilgal, that is, during the seventh day; the people were scattered from him partly through fear of the Philistines, partly from the failure of the hope held out by Saul that Samuel would come.

1Sa_13:9. Saul makes the offering, or causes it to be made, without waiting longer for Samuel. The fear that he would become entangled in battle before the people were thereto consecrated by offering and prayer, and apprehension of the complete dispersion and disheartenment of the people drove him (1Sa_13:12) to this disobedience and this overhaste.

1Sa_13:10. When the offering was finished, behold, Samuel came, from the context, on the same day on which Saul had waited for him in vain and made the offering. In his impatience in the presence of the prepared enemy Saul had not waited to the end of the appointed day.

1Sa_13:11-12. Samuel’s question: What hast thou done? is an earnest reproof to Saul for his self-willed violation of the divine arrangement which had been prophetically made known to him. In defence Saul pleads three things: the dispersion of the people, the danger of a sudden descent of the Philistines into the plain of Jericho, and the possibility of being obliged to go into battle without divine consecration and blessing. The Heb. phrase (ח׳, etc.) is literally “to stroke the face of Jehovah,” in order to gain His favor and grace by offering or prayer. Comp. Exo_32:11. “I forced myself,” did violence to my desire, took courage. Saul here intimates that it was only after a strong internal conflict that he determined to act contrary to the divine command.

1Sa_13:13. Two constructions may here be taken. The first clause may be conditional (לוּ = לוּא = לֹא), “if thou hadst kept,” and the second (כִּי עַתָּה = “yea, then!”) the result: “yea, then would the Lord;” or the first may be simply declarative (לֹא = “not”): “thou hast not kept,” and before the second (כִּי עַתָּה, “yea, then would the Lord have established thy kingdom”) we may supply the condition [“if thou hadst kept”] required by the sense. The latter is preferable from the whole situation, to which such liveliness of discourse better answers. Examples of such a construction, with omission of conditional protasis, are Exo_9:15; 2Ki_13:19; Job_3:13; Job_13:19. See Ew., § 358 a. The twice (beginning of 1Sa_13:13 and end of 1Sa_13:14) repeated declaration: “thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord,” indicates the ground of the similarly twice (first hypothetically—then affirmatively) repeated judgment: “thy kingdom will not be established by the Lord, nor stand.” It is therein assumed that Saul received through Samuel a divine direction, and that he had recognized Samuel’s arrangement as a direction from God given him through the mouth of the legitimate mediator, which Samuel, as Prophet of the Lord, was. The content of the divine direction was this: Saul was to await the arrival of Samuel, who, not arbitrarily, but in accordance with his other (here unmentioned) prophetic work, determined the time at which the battle was to begin under the consecration and direction of the representative of the invisible King of Israel. Comp. 1Sa_10:8 : “that I may show thee what thou art to do.” Saul had thus been directed to await the divine directions, and by his action here transgressed the fundamental law of obedience to his King; unquiet and impatient, self-willed and fleshly, he fails to stand the trial which lay in this command, and sets himself outside of the relation of unconditional obedience to the will of God, the humble fulfilment of which was the condition of the establishment and continuance of His kingdom. Samuel recognized with his prophetic look the disposition of heart which was at the bottom of Saul’s conduct, on account of which neither he nor his house could be the permanent bearer of the kingdom. Samuel’s judgment is therefore not hasty, unjust, harsh, as it has been thought, but the expression of the divine righteousness and holiness, as whose organ he stood over against Saul; and his conduct towards Saul corresponds exactly to his position (as we have heretofore seen him) as instrument of Israel’s God-king. Samuel’s judicial sentence signifies the rejection of Saul; negatively, it is the denial of what would have occurred, if Saul had fulfilled the required condition, the permanent establishment of His kingdom, positively it is the announcement that the Lord had chosen another as theocratic king in his stead. Back of this judicial act of Samuel stands as its motive the truth, brought to light by Saul’s conduct, that Saul had forfeited the royal office committed to him; for the theocratic king must be, at the head of God’s people, in full accord with the royal will of God. Cleric.: “Yea, the authority of the prophet, rather, of God Himself, was maintained—which, if Saul could with impunity neglect the most important commands, would afterwards have been despised by the obstinate people impatient of the yoke, and by the king himself.”

1Sa_13:15, The 600 men, all that remained to Saul, shows that he could not in any case have avoided what he wished to avoid. The declaration, “thou hast acted foolishly,” is thus confirmed. Saul’s conduct was foolish because it of necessity produced the opposite of that which he was to gain by obedience and trust in God.

3. 1Sa_13:15-23. Samuel’s “going up” from the plain of Gilgal to the elevated (Gibeah-Benjamin, Saul’s home, is stated simply as a fact, and the reason not given. That Saul also went thither from Gilgal (Then.) is not necessarily supposed in the word “numbered.” The mustering of his remaining troops is best placed in Gilgal; he there reviewed them in order now to march against the Philistines. The number of warriors was reduced to 600. Saul had therefore, by his hasty, disobedient conduct, not attained his purpose of holding the people together (1Sa_13:11).

1Sa_13:16. Here the two positions on the opposite heights of Geba and Michmash, a deep gorge between them running eastward into the plain, are clearly and distinctly marked. The camp of Saul and Jonathan is said to be in Geba (the present Jeba, to be distinguished from Gibeah-Benjamin), without mention of Saul’s march to Geba; the words “were encamped” rather introduce us into the midst of the situation. Between the words “from Gilgal” and “Gibeah-Benjamin” [1Sa_13:15] the Sept. (not understanding the passage) inserts: “and the rest of the people went up after Saul to meet him after the men of war, they having come from Gilgal.” So with some modification the Vulg.: et reliqui populi ascenderunt post Saul obviam populo qui expugnabant eos venientes de Galgala. But such a filling out is not needed in order to understand the connection. The author’s task is not to give a complete, detailed history of this war, but to set forth from the theocratic point of view, in respect to Saul’s conduct and God’s dealing, what occurred. Having in respect to the former given a detailed account of the scene at Gilgal, without mentioning that Saul had gone from Michmash to Gilgal (which is assumed in 1Sa_13:4), it was sufficient, taking it for granted that Saul had moved from Gilgal to Geba, to state the fact that the camp of the Israelites was then in Geba, and thereby to indicate the new scene, in which in the following context the condition of subjugation of the Israelites by the Philistines under the divine permission is set forth. In this simply theocratic sporadic description, which corresponds to the cut-up nature of the land on which this occurrence took place, and to the immediate vicinity of hill and valley, we have from 1Sa_13:2 on a series of distinct pictures, without statement of their historical-geographical connection: 1) Michmash—Gibeah-Benjamin and Geba (1Sa_13:2-3); 2) Michmash—Gilgal (1Sa_13:4-15); 3) Gibeah-Benj. and Geba-Benj.—Michmash. The historical-geographical situation is as follows: At first the Israelitish army in two divisions lay on the one side in Michmash, on the other, side in Gibeah-Benjamin. From this point Jonathan smote the garrison or camp of the Philistines in Geba. In consequence of this the Philistines—who controlled the plain—collected their forces. Saul left Michmash and marched down to Gilgal in order there to gather Israel to the conflict against the Philistines, while the latter occupied Michmash deserted by Saul. While Samuel remained at Gibeah-Benjamin, Jonathan’s former position, Saul and Jonathan took position over against the Philistines in Geba; that is, at the place where Jonathan had broken up the Philistine garrison.

1Sa_13:17-23. The oppression of Israel by the Philistines. In 1Sa_13:17-18 the devastation of the Israelitish territory by Philistine raids is described. From the camp of the Philistines at Michmash went forth “the spoiler” (הַמַּשְׁחִית). The Article denotes that part of the army to which was assigned the task of plundering and devastation, and thus inciting to battle. There were three bands (רָאשׁים—as in 1Sa_11:11).One of the bands took the road to Ophra, to the land of Shual. Ophrah was in the territory of Benjamin (Jos_18:23), five Roman miles [1 Rom. mile=about 1618 English yards] east of Bethel (Onom.), conjectured by Rob. II. 338 [Am. ed. I. 447] to be the present Taiyibeh.50 This band therefore moved northward. Shual, “Foxland,” is probably the same with Shaalim, 1Sa_9:4. The second party went towards Bethhoron (Jos_10:11), that is, westward. The third band moved in a south-easterly direction. This Zeboim (צבעים) is to be distinguished from the Zeboim (צביים) of Deu_29:22; Gen_14:28; according to Neh_11:34 it was a city inhabited by Benjamites, and therefore in the Benjamite territory. The direction is given by the added words: “towards the wilderness,” for this wilderness is doubtless no other than that of Judah, which extended east from Jerusalem. While, therefore, the Israelites under Saul and Jonathan held a strong point on the heights, the Philistines plundered the plains and valleys where they had the control,

1Sa_13:19-20. Here they deprived the Israelites of arms; for “there was no smith found in all the land.” The Philistines had broken up the smithies—for they said: “lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.” Only the implements necessary for agriculture were allowed them—to sharpen which they must go to the Philistines. So Porsenna allowed the Romans iron implements for agriculture only. Before “the Philistines” the Sept. inserts “the land of,” which is merely an explanation of an unusual expression. The people signifies the land or territory (Ew. § 281d). The meaning of the names of implements in 1Sa_13:20 cannot be determined with certainty. The first (מַחֲרֶשֶת) from its etymology may be any cutting instrument. The fourth (מַחֲרֵשָׁתוֹ) Jerome renders sarculum, “hoe.” The second (אֵת) is, as in Mic_4:3; Isa_2:4, “ploughshare,” or “coulter.” The third (קַרְדּם) is “axe” or “hatchet.”

1Sa_13:21 shows the consequence (וִהָיְתָה) of the Hebrews having no smiths, and having to go to the Philistines to sharpen their tools. And there was dulness—properly notching of edges to the shares, etc.; or, there came edge-dulness to the shares. (פּצירָה from a stem which in Arab, means “cleave.” As the Art. here and its absence in פים are both strange; and the st. abs. stands instead of the st. const., it is probable that the text is corrupt, and (with Keil) to be read הַפְצִיר הַפִּים, Inf. Hiph. and rendered “so there occurred dulness of the edges,” etc.) Bunsen says excellently: “The parenthesis indicates that the result of the burdensome necessity of going to the Philistines was that many tools became useless by dulness, so that even this poorer sort of arms did the Israelites not much service at the breaking out of the war.” And to set the goads.—“To set” corresponds to “to sharpen,” and completes the picture of the Hebrews’ dependence on the Philistines in respect to agricultural implements. The previously mentioned implements (including the trident or fork) needed sharpening; the ox-goad needed new setting. The translation of De Wette: “when, namely, the edges …… were dulled ……” is certainly not tenable (Then.). On the other hand, neither this parenthesis, which describes the consequence of the oppression, nor the difference in the lists of implements, is so remarkable as to require the following of the text of the Sept. (Then. and Böttcher).

1Sa_13:21 reads thus in the Sept: “and the vintage was ready to be gathered, and the tools were three shekels to the tooth, and to the axe and the scythe there was the same rate.” In their conjectural restoration of the original text according to the Greek, Then. and Böttch. proceed eclectically,51 and translate: “And there happened sharpening of the edges to the shares and the spades at three shekels a tooth (that is, a single piece), and so for the axe and the sickle, yea, for the setting of the ox-goad” (Böttch. who differs from Then. as to the names of the implements, renders the second half: “and so for the sickles and the axes, and for the setting of the prong.”) Against this (conjectural) fixing of the text are: first, the unintelligibleness and confusion of the Greek text, on which this emendation is founded; then, the obviously wrong conception of the Heb. by the Sept. in the beginning of 1Sa_13:21; further, the untenableness of the rendering “single piece” for ὀδόντα, שֵׁן [tooth], which is not supported (Then.) by Theodoret’s remark “Symmachus renders odonta ploughshare, and Aquila plough,” for this means merely that odonta was understood of this or that implement, not that it meant a single piece in reference to price; finally (Keil), “the then value of money,” according to which “three shekels for sharpening an axe or a sickle would be an unheard-of price.”—From this whole section it appears that, while the Philistines held the lowlands, the Hebrews carried on their tillage on the highlands and in the gorge of the Jordan.—In 1Sa_13:22 Sept. has “in the days” for “in the day,” and after “battle” inserts “of Michmash,” and so Then. and Ew.; but this is not necessary.52 Referring to 1Sa_13:19 it is said: There was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan. In consequence of the above-mentioned measure of the Philistines, the entire force with Saul and Jonathan, 600 in number (to this force the phrase “all the people” is from the context to be referred) was unprovided with arms. This is not in contradiction with the narrative of the battle and victory of Israel over the Ammonites (chap. 11); for there we have not a regular army, but a sudden rising of the people, and, even though arms were gotten by that victory, it does not thence follow that the comparatively small force that remained with Saul and Jonathan must have been regularly furnished with arms, inasmuch as the Philistine plan of disarming the Israelites was a permanent one, and necessarily resulted in a general lack of arms. These arms were found only with Saul and Jonathan.

1Sa_13:23. מַעֲבַר מ׳ is the passage or pass of Michmash. From Beeroth (Bireh) extends a deep valley, the present Wady es Suweinit, south-east and then east, opening into the valley towards Jericho. On the heights opposite lay southward Geba (Jeba) northward Michmash (Muchmas). Eastward from these camps of the Israelites and Philistines several side-Wadys opened into the deep Wady, partly from the north-west, partly from the south-west, by which the passage was formed. Comp. Rob. Pal., II. 327 sq. [Am. ed., I. 440 sq.]., and Later Bibl. Researches, 378 sq. [Am. ed., III. 289 sq.]. “The ridges between these (the side-Wadys) terminate in elevated points projecting into the great Wady; and the easternmost of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two garrisons of Israel and the Philistines.” Towards the pass of Michmash (north, therefore, over against the Israelites) the Philistines sent forward a post, a van-guard, as protection against the Israelites, who might else have slipped up unperceived through the side-Wadys or the pass formed by these, and surprised the Philistine camp. The strategical movement here indicated precisely accords with the ground where Robinson has pointed out the pass. It is hence unnecessary (with Ew. and Bunsen) to read מֵעֵבֶר and translate: “The van-guard of the Philistines was thrown forward beyond the camp of Michmash,” though this in fact was done, since a force was thrown forward from the camp eastward towards the pass.

For  HISTORICAL AND THEOLOGICAL and HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL sections, see 1Sa_14:1 ff.

Footnotes:

[1][1Sa_13:1. The translation of Eng. A. V. is untenable, and that given in brackets is the only possible one. The numerals have fallen out, and can be only approximately restored. The plu. שׁנים would indicate that the period of Saul’s reign was less than ten years, but, in the present corrupt state of the text, no such inference can safely be drawn. The omission of this verse in the Sept. may have been from its absence in their MS., or from their inability to make sense of it, or from clerical inadvertence. It is better to leave the numerals blank, and explain in a note that they have fallen out. Some, however, think (Hitzig, Maurer, Thenius, Wellhausen) that the numbers were designedly left out by the author.—Tr.]

[2][1Sa_13:2. Here the Heb., in accordance with universal O. T. usage, has the plural.—Tr.]

[3][1Sa_13:3. The Syr., Arab., Vulg., Chald., here sustain the Mas. text. The reading of the Sept. is discussed by Erdmann. Wellhausen proposes to read: “and Saul blew the trumpet throughout the land, and the Philistines heard, saying, The slaves revolt (פִּשְׁעוּ),” the words “saying, etc.” being taken as a gloss.

[4][1Sa_13:4. A different Heb. word from that used in 1Sa_14:1, though from the same verbal stem. It is used also in 1Sa_10:5; 1Sa_13:3; 2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14; 1Ch_11:6. Ewald renders “officer,” distinguishing נָצִיב (Sept. Νασίβ) from נְצִיב.—Tr.]

[5][1Sa_13:5. This number is generally regarded as too large. Some suppose baggage included (Patrick), some the chariot-soldiers (Cahen and others, comp. 2Sa_10:18), others suppose an error of text and read 3 for 30 (Clarke, Syr., Arab.), or 300 (Bib. Comm.). Still other conjectures are given in Poole’s Synopsis.—Tr.]

[6][1Sa_13:6. The lexicons generally render “thickets,” as Eng. A. V. and Erdmann; Fürst renders “clefts,” and Ewald reads חורים “caves.” But Chald. has “fortresses,” Syr. and Vulg. “secret places,” and Sept. “enclosures” or “holes.” Of the modern versions Luther and Diodati have “clefts,” Spanish follows Vulg., the French (of Martin), Port., Dutch agree with Eng. A. V. Other German versions give “hedges,” “thorn-bushes,” “clefts.” The renderings of the ancient versions make Ewald’s reading probable, and this sense accords better with the context.—Tr.]

[7][1Sa_13:6. So the ancient versions. The moderns generally render “towers” (so Erdmann), which is supported by the Arab, sarhun. The word occurs only three times in O. T., twice rendered in Eng. A. V. “hold” (Jdg_9:46; Jdg_9:49) and here “high-place,” which, as is remarked in Bib. Comm., is an unfortunate rendering, liable to be confounded with the places of religious worship.—Tr.]

[8][1Sa_13:7. Literally, “Hebrews went over,” so Syr., Chald., Vulg. The Sept. has οἱ διαβαίνοντες (הָעוֹבְרִים) and Symmachus οἱ ἑκ τοῦ πέραν. The mas. text does not suit the context, that of Sept. is against Heb. usage, and that of Symmachus (מֵעֵבֶר) is unsupported. Wellhausen proposes ועברוּ מעברוֹת הירדן “and they crossed the fords of the Jordan,” which gives a good sense with a very slight change in the letters. Throughout this narrative the Hebrews (apparently recreant Israelites) seem to be distinguished from the Israelites (who followed Saul).—Tr.]

[9][1Sa_13:8. This word is not in our Heb. text, but אמר is found in several MSS. and printed editions; others have שם which De Rossi suggests has fallen out from resemblance to the two initial letters of the following word שׁמוּאֵל. On the critical objections to this section, 1Sa_13:8-15 a, see Erdmann’s Introduction.—Tr.]

[10][1Sa_13:13. Several MSS. and printed eds. insert ו and Sept. has ὅτι.—Tr.]

[11][1Sa_13:13. Hitzig proposes unnecessarily to point לֻא instead of לֹא.—Tr.]

[12][1Sa_13:15-16. It is somewhat surprising that Samuel goes to Gibeah (1Sa_13:15), while Saul is found in Geba (1Sa_13:16) without previous mention of his having gone thither. Instead of Geba the ancient vss. have Gibeah, and are followed by Eng. A. V. and Erdmann. Robinson (quoted in Bib. Comm.) thinks Geba correct. A good sense is gotten by connecting 7 a with 15 b. The readings of the Sept. are discussed by Keil and Erdmann.—Tr.]

[13][1Sa_13:18. It is objected, but without sufficient ground, that the word שקף (“stretches towards, looks, overhangs”) cannot be used of “border.” The Sept. has “hill” (גבעה).—Tr.]

[14][1Sa_13:20. No satisfactory rendering has yet been given of this ver. and the following. The names of the instruments are given differently in different versions, there is doubt about the meanings of the names, the Sept. has a different text in 1Sa_13:21, and the initial words of this ver. in the Heb. and the connection of the two verses are yet obscure. The simplest reconstruction of the text would be to consider 1Sa_13:21 as an erroneous repetition of 1Sa_13:20, and omit all except the last two words (of the Heb.); but this would not account for the difference in form of the two verses, and is rendered difficult by the retention in all the versions of 1Sa_13:21 in full. In order to exhibit the differences of the Heb. and the Sept., we set them here down together, giving the latter conjecturally:- וְהָיְתָה הַפְּצִירָה פִים לַמַּהֲרֵשׁוֹת וְלָאֵתִים וְלִשְׁלשׁ קִלְּשוֹן וּלהַקַּרְדֻּמִּים וּלְהַצִּיב הַדָּוְבָן.—H. הַצִּיב אֶחָד בָּם [וּלַמַּהֲרֵשָׁה] וְהָאֵתִים שָׁלשׁ שֶׁקֶל לַשֵּׁן וְלַקַּרְדּם (or לַמַחֲרֵשוֹת) וְהָיָה הַבָּצִיר נָבוֹן לִקְצוֹ.—G. The translation of the Greek is: “And the vintage was ready, and their tools were three shekels to the tooth, and for the axe and the sickle there was the same rate (or character).” The Sept. thus substantiates in the main the consonants of the Hebrew, but gives no clear sense; the price of sharpening tools, three shekels to the tooth (adopted by Aquila and Thenius) is enormous, and the reference to the harvest, while it is suggestive, is unclear. The Heb., on the other hand, offers a meaningless repetition in 1Sa_13:21, and the ungrammatical הפ׳, the compound שׁ׳ל׳) and the disconnected two last words present great difficulties. A sense may be gotten by putting the three first words of 1Sa_13:21 at the beginning of 1Sa_13:20, and considering the names in 1Sa_13:20 as repeated from 1Sa_13:21. But, before stating this reading, let us look at the names of implements. The first, which is the same in both verses (except apparently in the Chald.), is rendered “share” (Sym., Vulg.) “scythe” (Syr.), “cutting-tool” (Ch.), “ox-goad” (Theod.), and is probably best given as “share” or “coulter,” though the authority for “scythe” is good. The second name is probably “spade” or “hoe” (so Chald. (?), Sym., Vulg., Kimchi, Winer, Ewald, comp. Isa_2:4); Saalschütz (Arch. I., 103–105) prefers “sickle,” from Isa_2:4. The third name is undoubtedly “axe.” The fourth name (which is almost identical in form in the Heb. with the first), is rendered “trident” (Aq.), “bident” (Sym.) “scythe” (Sept.) “goad” (Syr.) “coulter” (Vulg.), and is apparently a repetition by mistake of the first name, or of the last word in 1Sa_13:21; if it be the correct reading it is best rendered “coulter.” In 1Sa_13:21 the third name is usually given as “trident,” but by Syr. as “scraper.” The words are suspicious and may perhaps be properly read לְשַׁלֵּב ק׳ (or לִלְטשׁ). In the beginning of 1Sa_13:21 the second word must drop its Article (perhaps repeated from preceding word), and take the construct, form.—The following reading, then, might be proposed: “And there was bluntness of edges to the shares and hoes, and all Israel went down to the Philistines to sharpen every man his share and his hoe, and to sharpen the point of his axe, and to fix his goad.” This rendering would account for the Sept. treatment of the latter half of 1Sa_13:21, for the repetitions of names, and for the Chald. rendering (“goad”) of the first name in 1Sa_13:20. It would be necessary to suppose that the dislocation of the words took place very early, before the Sept. translation was made. But such dislocation is hard to account for, and it might be better to suppose a parenthesis and read: “And all Israel went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his share and his hoe and his axe and his coulter (for there was bluntness of edges to the coulters and hoes and tridents and axes) and to fix the goad” which is very unsatisfactory, but perhaps the best that the present text permits.—Tr.]

[15][1Sa_13:22. Sept. here inserts “of Michmash,” which is supported by the construct. form מ׳, but is against Heb. usage, which would give “the day of Michmash” (Wellhausen). There is here a duplet, מלחמת and מכמש. On the alleged contradiction between 1Sa_13:22 and 1Sa_13:2 see Exegetical Notes.—Tr.]

[16][1Sa_13:2. Sept. Μαγδών, Syr., Geb’un, Vulg., Magron. The word means “threshing-floor,” Arab. mijran.—Tr.]

[17][1Sa_13:3. This verse may be taken as an independent parenthetical sentence.—Tr.]

[18][1Sa_13:5. Thenius thinks this word (which is not in Sept.) superfluous, and probably a repetition of the following word; but Syr., Chald., and Vulg., read apparently as the Mas. text.—Tr.]

[19][1Sa_13:5. So the Heb.; but the versions have “Gibeah,” which, says Stanley, is plainly a mistake.—Tr.]

[20][1Sa_13:7. So Syr., Chald., Vulg. (perge quo cupis), but the Sept. has “do all that thy heart inclines to,” and this is adopted by Erdmann. The Heb. expression is somewhat hard, but not impossible. Syr. read לֵךְ “go,” instead of לָךְ “to thee.”

[21][1Sa_13:7. Sept.: “as thy heart is my heart,” which is better. The Heb. phrase alone may mean “according to thy desire,” but this would require a verb before it.—Tr.]

[22][1Sa_13:13. Sept. ἐπέβλεψαν = וַיִּפְּנוּ.—Tr.]

[23][1Sa_13:14. For this unintelligible reading Thenius ingeniously proposes בְּחִצִּים וּבְצוּר הַשָּׂדְה “with darts and stones of the field,” from which both Heb. and Sept. may be constructed.—Tr.]

[24][1Sa_13:16. For וַיֵּלְךְ read (with Sept.) הֲלֹם; so Erdmann.—Tr.]

[25][1Sa_13:18. The improbability of the ark’s being in the field, the impropriety of the phrase “bring the ark,” and the general use of the ephod in inquiring of God (as in 1Sa_30:7) recommend the Sept. reading “ephod,” the Heb. word for which differs only slightly from that for “ark.” Erdmann retains “ark.”—Tr.]

[26][1Sa_13:18. For the same reasons the Sept. reading is adopted here. The Heb. וּבְנֵיּ is an error for עִם בְּנֵי, or ‎לפני ב׳; the latter is adopted by Erdmann (“the ark was in the presence of Israel”), who otherwise follows the Heb.—Tr.]

[27][1Sa_13:20. So Syr., Vulg., Then., Erdmann (Qal); Chald. and Sept. as Eng. A. V. (Niphal).—Tr.]

[28][1Sa_13:21. Sept. incorrectly δοῦλοι. Note here the contrast between Hebrews and Israelites. The Eng. A. V. has correctly “turned” (סָבְבוּ), but renders the same word (סָבִיב as it incorrectly stands in the Heb. text) again “round about.”—Tr.]

[29][1Sa_14:24. For the insertion of Sept. see Exeget. Notes.—Tr.]

[30][1Sa_14:26. This verse is little more than a repetition of the preceding. Syr. in Walton (but not in Lee) omits 26 a. Sept. reads: “And Jaal was a wood abounding in bees, on the face of the field, and the people went into the place of bees, and lo, they went on talking,” where they read דבר for דבש; but Wellhausen’s emendation: "And there was honey on the ground, and the people went into the wood, and bees were moving” is doubtful. The passage is difficult.—Tr.]

[31][1Sa_14:27. So the Qeri instead of Kethib “saw.”—Tr.]

[32][1Sa_14:28. A parenthetical clause, apparently inserted by mistake from 1 Samuel 14:31.—Tr.]

[33][1Sa_14:30. This word should have the Art. in the Heb.—Tr.]

[34][1Sa_14:33. Read הֲלֹם (Sept.) instead of הַיִוֹם.—Tr.]

[35][1Sa_14:34. Sept. “what was in his hand.”—Tr.]

[36][1Sa_14:35. Literally: “It (or as to it) he began to build an altar to Jehovah,” an obscure phrase.—Tr.]

[37][1Sa_14:39. The masc. pron. (referring to a fem. noun) may be defended as having an indefinite reference. According to Thenius the Sept. read יַעֲנֶה (ἀποκριθῆ).—Tr.]

[38][1Sa_14:41. For discussion of the text of this passage see Exeget. Notes.—Tr.]

[39][1Sa_14:49. “For ישוי the Sept. read איש־בשם=אש־בעל=אשיו=ישיו” (Wellhausen). Ishyo was equivalent to Ishbaal at a time when the name Baal (lord) was used of the God of Israel. Afterwards, from repugnance to the false Baal-worship, Bosheth was substituted for Baal.—Tr.]

[40][1Sa_14:51. The change to the plural is rendered necessary by 1Sa_9:1 and 1Ch_9:36.—Tr.]

[41][Some suppose that the numerals, being unknown to the editor (who lived long afterwards), never were in the text. But neither the omission of 1Sa_13:1 in Sept. nor the resemblance of שתי (for שני) to שנים requires this supposition, which on general grounds is not probable.—Tr.]

[42][Thenius (following Sept.) renders “2000, which were partly in Michmash, partly in Bethel.”—Tr.]

[43][One of the translators who has visited the spot points out that the attention of the garrison would naturally be directed to Saul’s force at Michmash, which was very near them on the north; and thus Jonathan, who was several miles distant on the southwest, could more easily effect a surprise.—Tr.]

[44][Bib. Comm. compares our Oyez, oyez.—Tr.]

[45]The untrustworthiness of this is shown by the δοῦλοι, which has arisen by confounding עִבְרִים with עבדים.

[46][So De Rossi states in his Var. Lect., and also mentions that Bochart, Capellus and Ηoubigant favor the reading of Syr., Arab., 3,000, Wordsworth suggests that the Philistines hired chariots from other nations (1Ch_19:6-7). Rashi, Radak, Ralbag say nothing.—Tr.]

[47][Gibeah was not nine miles southwest of Geba, but about four miles; see the maps of Robinson and Porter, and Erdmann’s statement on 1Sa_14:16.—Tr.]

[48][On these names see “Textual and Grammatical,” in loco.—Tr.]

[49]The Hiph. of Qeri, וַיּוֹחֶל, is clearly formed after Hiph. in 1Sa_10:8, and Kethib, רייחל (Niph. or Pi) is to be retained. [On this section, 1Sa_13:8-15 a, see Erdmann’s Introduction.—Tr.]

[50][Mr. Grove thinks this uncertain (Smith’s Bib. Diet. s. v.).—Tr.]

[51]Rejecting the הַבָּצִיר [vintage] of the Greek, and reading הָפְצִיר [sharpening], which they connect with הַפִּים [the edges], and instead of לִשְׁלשׁ קִלְּשׁוֹן [tridents] read בִּשְׁלשָׁה שְׁקָלִים לַשֵּׁן וְכֵן [at three shekels to the tooth, and so].

[52]On the form מִלְחֶמֶת see Ewald, Grammar, §188 c.

Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

6. The First Failure of Saul and Its Results

CHAPTER 13

1. The failure of Saul (1Sa 13:1-9)

2. Samuel’s sentence (1Sa 13:10-14)

3. Israel’s deplorable condition (1Sa 13:15-23)

Omit the first verse of this chapter as it does not belong into the text. In self-confidence Saul has dismissed the greater part of the people; only 2000 remained with him and 1000 with his son Jonathan. Saul is now passing through a test. Hath he true faith which counts and depends on God? Is he obedient to His word as given by the prophet? Jonathan appears here for the first time. His name means “the Lord hath given.” He is the opposite from his poor father; the son is a man of real faith and zeal for God. In smiting the garrison of the Philistines he manifested that faith. He counted on God and in dependence on Him he acted. And what did Saul do? “And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, let the Hebrews hear.” It was not the action of faith but the result of his own proud heart. Significant it is that he avoids the word Israel. The Lord never speaks of “My people the Hebrews,” their original, national name; it is always “My people Israel.” He leaves out the God of Israel. It all reveals the character of Saul. Then Saul gets the credit of having smitten the garrison of the Philistines, and when they gathered in all their strength the people are paralysed by fear, and instead of advancing in the name of Jehovah they seek the caves, the thickets, the rocks, the high places and the pits. And some of the Hebrews even crossed the Jordan. Saul remains in these demoralized conditions at Gilgal, followed by some of the people trembling. It is all unbelief; like king, like people. They fear the Philistines and distrust Jehovah. And Saul at Gilgal! He might have remembered the captain of the Lord’s hosts and sought His presence and help. All shows the chosen king knew not the Lord. Samuel’s word to him (chapter 10:8) was not forgotten by Saul. He waits, but not long enough. The test is on. The people stay a few days and then begin to scatter. They have no faith; neither has the king. True faith waits on God and trusts in Him. Faith knows that man’s extremity is God’s opportunity. Saul makes an outward effort to be obedient, while in his soul he knows no subjection to the Lord and to His way. At last the breaking point is reached. He intrudes into the priestly office. The burnt offering, without any meaning under these circumstances, is brought by Saul and immediately after, perhaps before the seven days had fully expired, Samuel appears.

The king’s own words reveal once more his character and they are his condemnation. He was tested and the test revealed a heart which did not fear the Lord, had no confidence in Him and is disobedient to His word. And Samuel delivers his message. Sentence is pronounced. Another, a man after the Lord’s own heart, is to take his place. And the deplorable condition of Israel! The Philistines speak also of them as Hebrews. Instead of being dependent upon the Lord for everything, they were the slaves of their oppressors, dependent upon them. This is the place into which unbelief can put the people of God.

Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CHAPTER X V I I I

SAUL AND SAMUEL AT GILGAL

1Sa_13:1-23.

THE first thing that claims our attention in connection with this chapter is the question of dates involved in the first verse. In the Authorized Version we read, "Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, Saul chose him three thousand men." This rendering of the original is now quite given up. The form of expression is the same as that which so often tells us the age of a king at the beginning of his reign and the length of his reign. The Revised Version is in close, but not in strict, accord with the Hebrew. It runs, ''Saul was thirty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel." A marginal note of the Revised Version says, ''The Hebrew text has, Saul was a year old, The whole verse is omitted in the unrevised Septuagint, but in a later recension the number thirty is inserted." There can be no doubt that something has been dropped out of the Hebrew text. Literally translated, it would run, ''Saul was a year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel." A figure seems to have dropped out after ''Saul was" and another after "he reigned." A blot of some kind may have effaced these figures in the original manuscript, and the copyist not knowing what they were, may have left them blank. The Septuagint conjecture of ''thirty" as Saul's age is not very felicitous, for at the beginning of Saul's reign his son Jonathan was old enough to distinguish himself in the war. Judging from probabilities, we should say that the original may have run thus: "Saul was forty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned thirty and two years over Israel." This would make the length of Saul's reign to correspond with the duration of Saul's dynasty as given in Act_13:21. There it is said that God gave to the people Saul "by the space of forty years." If to the thirty-two years which we suppose to have been the actual length of Saul's reign we add seven and a half, during which his son Ishbosheth reigned, we get in round numbers as the duration of his dynasty forty years. This would make Saul about seventy-two at the time of his death.

The narrative in this chapter appears to be in immediate connection with that of the last. The bulk of the army had gone from Jabesh-Gilead to Gilgal, and there, under Samuel, they had renewed the kingdom. There they had listened to Samuel's appeal, and there the thunderstorm had taken place that helped so well to rivet the prophet's lessons. Therefore the bulk of the army was disbanded, but two thousand men were kept with Saul at Michmash and near Bethel, and one thousand with Jonathan at Gibeah. These were necessary to be some restraint on the Philistines, who were strong in the neighbourhood and eager to inflict every possible annoyance on the Israelites. Saul, however, does not seem to have felt himself in a position to take any active steps against them.

But though Saul was inactive, Jonathan did not slumber. Though very young, probably under twenty, he had already been considered worthy of an important command, and now, by successfully attacking a garrison of the Philistines in Geba, he showed that he was worthy of the confidence that had been placed in him. It is interesting to mark in Jonathan that dash and daring which was afterwards so conspicuous in David, and the display of which on the part of David drew Jonathan's heart to him so warmly. The news of the exploit of Jonathan soon circulated among the Philistines, and would naturally kindle the desire to retaliate. Saul would see at once that, as the result of this, the Philistines would come upon them in greater force than ever; and it was to meet this expected attack that he called for a muster of his people. Gilgal was the place of rendezvous, deep down in the Jordan valley; for the higher part of the country was so dominated by the enemy that no muster could take place there.

So it seemed as if the brilliant achievement of Jonathan was going to prove a curse rather than a blessing. In all kinds of warfare, we must be prepared for such turns in the order of events. When one side shows a great increase of activity, the other does the same. When one achieves an advantage, the other rouses itself to restore the balance. It has often happened in times of religious darkness that the bold attitude of some fearless reformer has roused the enemy to activity and ferocity, and thus brought to his brethren worse treatment than before. But such reverses are only temporary, and the cause of truth gains on the whole by the successful skirmishes of its pioneers. Many persons, when they see the activity and boldness which the forces of evil manifest in our day, are led to conclude that our times are sadly degenerate; they forget that the activity of evil is the proof and the result of the vitality and activity of good. No doubt there were faint-hearted persons in the host of Israel who would bring hard accusations against Jonathan for disturbing the equilibrium between Israel and the Philistines. They would shake their heads and utter solemn truisms on the rashness of youth, and would ask if it was not a shame to entrust a stripling with such power and responsibility. But Jonathan's stroke was the beginning of a movement which might have ended in the final expulsion of the Philistines from the territories of Israel if Saul had not acted foolishly at Gilgal. In this case, it was not the young man, but the old, that was rash and reckless. Jonathan had acted with courage and vigour, probably also with faith; it was Saul that brought disturbance and disaster to the host.

The dreaded invasion of the Philistines was not long of taking place. The force which they brought together is stated so high, that in the number of the chariots some commentators have suspected an error of the copyist, 30,000 for 3,000, an error easily accounted for, as the extra cipher would be represented by a slight mark over the Hebrew letter. But, be this as it may, the invading host was of prodigiously large dimensions. It was so large as to spread a thorough panic through the whole community of Israel, for the people ''hid themselves in caves, and in thickets, and in rocks, and in high places, and in pits." Not content with such protection, some of them, crossed the Jordan, and took refuge in Gilead and in Dan, not far from Jabesh-Gilead, where another enemy had been so signally defeated. Saul had remained in Gilgal, where he was followed by a host of people, not in any degree impressed by what God had done for them at Jabesh-Gilead, not trying to rally their courage by the thought that God was still their King and Defender, but full of that abject fear which utterly unnerves both mind and body, and prepares the way for complete disaster. How utterly prostrated and helpless the people were is apparent from that very graphic picture of their condition which we find towards the end of the chapter: "There was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make to themselves swords or spears; but all the Israelites went down to the Philistines to sharpen every man his share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock." It requires little effort of imagination to see that the condition of the Israelites was, humanly speaking, utterly desperate. An enormous array of warriors like the Philistines, equipped with all the weapons of war, and confident in their prowess and their power, pouring upon a land where the defenders had not even swords nor spears, but only clubs and stones and such-like rude resources for the purposes of conflict, presented a scene the issue of which could not have been doubtful on all human calculations.

But surely the case was not a whit more desperate than that of their forefathers had been, with the sea before them, the mountains on either side, and the Egyptian army, in all its completeness of equipment, hastening to fall upon their rear. Yet out of that terrible situation their Divine King had delivered them, and a few hours after, they were all jubilant and triumphant, singing to the Lord who had triumphed gloriously, and had cast the horse and his rider into the sea. And no one can fail to see that the very gravity of the situation at the present time ought to have given birth to a repetition of that spirit of faith and prayer which had animated Moses, as it afterwards animated Deborah, and Gideon, and many more, and through which deliverance had come. On every ground the duty incumbent on Saul at this time was to show the most complete deference to the will of God and the most unreserved desire to enjoy His countenance and guidance. First, the magnitude of the danger, the utter disproportion between the strength of the defending people and that of the invading host, was fitted to throw him on God. Second, the fact, so solemnly and earnestly urged by Samuel, that, notwithstanding the sin committed by the people in demanding a king, God was willing to defend and rule His people as of old, if only they had due regard to Him and His covenant, should have made Saul doubly careful to act at this crisis in every particular in the most rigid compliance with God's will. Thirdly, the circumstance, which he himself had so well emphasized, that the recent victory at Jabesh-Gilead was a victory obtained from God, should have led him direct to God, to implore a similar interposition of His power in this new and still more overwhelming danger. If only Saul had been a true man, a man of faith and prayer, he would have risen to the height of the occasion at this terrible crisis, and a deliverance as glorious as that which Gideon obtained over the Midianites would have signalized his efforts. It was a most testing moment in his history. The whole fortunes of his kingdom seemed to depend on his choice. There was God, ready to come to his help if His help had been properly asked. There were the Philistines, ready to swallow them up if no sufficient force could be mustered against them. But weighed in the balances, Saul was found wanting. He did not honour God; he did not act as knowing that all depended on Him. And this want of his would have involved the terrible humiliation and even ruin of the nation if Jonathan had not been of a different temper from his father, if Jonathan had not achieved the deliverance which would not have come by Saul.

Let us now examine carefully how Saul acted on the occasion, all the more carefully because, at first sight, many have the impression that he was justified in what he did, and consequently that the punishment announced by Samuel was far too severe.

It appears that Samuel had instructed Saul to wait seven days for him at Gilgal, in order that steps might be properly taken for securing the guidance and help of God. There is some obscurity in the narrative here, arising from the fact that it was on the first occasion of their meeting that we read how Samuel directed Saul to wait seven days for him at Gilgal, till he should come to offer burnt-offerings and to show him what he was to do (1Sa_10:8). We can hardly suppose, however, that this first direction, given by Samuel, was not implemented at an earlier time. It looks as if Samuel had repeated the instruction to Saul with reference to the circumstances of the Philistine invasion. But, be this as it may, it is perfectly clear from the narrative that Saul was under instructions to wait seven days at Gilgal, at the end, if not before the end, of which time Samuel promised to come to him. This was a distinct instruction from Samuel, God's known and recognized prophet, acting in God's name and with a view to the obtaining of God's countenance and guidance in the awful crisis of the nation. The seven days had come to an end, and Samuel had not appeared. Saul determined that he would wait no longer. "Saul said, Bring hither a burnt-offering to me, and peace-offerings. And he offered the burnt-offering."

Now, it has been supposed by some that Saul's offence lay in his taking on him the functions of priest, and doing that which it was not lawful for any but priests to do. But it does not appear that this was his offence. A king is often said to do things which in reality are done by his ministers and others. All that is necessarily involved in the narrative is, that the king caused the priests to offer the burnt-offering. For even Samuel had no authority personally to offer sacrifices, and had he been present, the priests would have officiated all the same.

The real offence of Saul was that he disregarded the absence of God's prophet and representative, of the man who had all along been the mediator between God and the king and between God and the people. And this was no secondary matter. If Saul had had a real conviction that all depended at this moment on his getting God's help, he would not have disregarded an instruction received from God's servant, and he would not have acted as if Samuel's presence was of no moment. The significant thing in Saul's state of mind, as disclosed by his act, was that he was not really bent on complying with the will of God. God was not a reality to Saul. The thought of God just loomed vaguely before his mind as a power to be considered, but not as the power on whom everything depended. What he thought about God was, that a burnt-offering must be offered up to propitiate Him, to prevent Him from obstructing the enterprise, but he did not think of Him as the Being who alone could give it success. It was substantially the carnal mind's view of God. It says, no doubt there is a God, and He has an influence on things here below; and to keep Him from thwarting us, we must perform certain services which seem to please Him. But what a pitiful view it is of God! As if the High and Lofty One that inhabiteth eternity could be induced to bestow or to withhold His favour simply by the slaughter of an animal, or by some similar rite!

But this was Saul's idea. "The sacrifice must be offered; the rite must be gone through. This piece of outward homage must be paid to the power above, but the way of doing it is of little moment. It is a sacred form, no more. I am sorry not to have Samuel present, but the fault is not mine. He was to be here, and he has not come. And now these frightened people are stealing away from me, and if I wait longer, I may be left without followers. Priests, bring the animal and offer the sacrifice, and let us away to the war!"

How different would have been the acting of a man that honoured God and felt that in His favour was life! How solemnized he would have been, how concerned for his own past neglect of God, and the neglect of his people! The presence of God's prophet would have been counted at once a necessity and a privilege. How deeply, in his sense of sin, would he have entered into the meaning of the burnt-offering! How earnestly he would have pleaded for God's favour, countenance, and blessing! If Jacob could not let the angel go at Peniel unless he blessed him, neither would Saul have parted from God at Gilgal without some assurance of help. "If Thy presence go not with me," he would have said, "carry us not up hence." Alas, we find nothing of all this! The servant of God is not waited for; the form is gone through, and Saul is off to his work. And this is the doing of the man who has been called to be king of Israel, and who has been solemnly warned that God alone is Israel's defense, and that to offend God is to court ruin!

When Samuel came, Saul was ready with a plausible excuse. On the ground of expediency, he vindicated his procedure. He could not deny that he had broken his promise (it was a virtual promise) to wait for Samuel, but there were reasons exceedingly strong to justify him in doing so. Samuel had not come. The people were scattered from him. The Philistines were concentrating at Michmash, and might have come down and fallen upon him at Gilgal. All very true, but not one of them by itself, nor all of them together, a real vindication of what he had done. Samuel, he might be sure, would not be an hour longer than he could help. There were far more people left to him than Gideon's band, and the God that gave the victory to the three hundred would not have let him suffer for want of men. The Philistines might have been discomfited by God's tempest on the way to Gilgal, as they were discomfited before, on the way to Mizpeh. O Saul, distrust of God has been at the bottom of your mind! The faith that animated the heroes of former days has had no control of you. You have walked by sight, not by faith. Had you been faithful now, and honoured God, and waited till His servant sent you off with his benediction, prosperity would have attended you, and your family would have been permanently settled in the throne. But now your kingdom shall not continue. Personally, you may continue to be king for many years to come; but the penalty which God affixes to this act of unbelief, formality, and presumption is, that no line of kings shall spring from your loins. The Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart, and the Lord hath commanded him to be captain over His people.

What a solemn and impressive condemnation have we here, my friends, of that far too common practice - deserting principle to serve expediency. I don't like to tell a lie, someone may say, but if I had not done so, I should have lost my situation. I dislike common work on the Sabbath day, but if I did not do it, I could not live. I don't think it right to go to Sunday parties or to play games on Sunday, but I was invited by this or that great person to do it, and I could not refuse him. I ought not to adulterate my goods, and I ought not to give false statements of their value, but everyone in my business does it, and I cannot be singular. What do these vindications amount to, but just a confession that from motives of expediency God's commandment may be set aside? These excuses just come to this: It was better for me to offend God and gain a slight benefit, than it would have been to lose the benefit and please God. It is a great deal to lose a small profit in business, or a small pleasure in social life, or a small honour from a fellow-man; but it is little or nothing to displease God, it is little or nothing to treasure up wrath against the day of wrath. Alas for the practical unbelief that lies at the bottom of all this! It is the doing of the fool who hath said in his heart. There is no God. Look at this history of Saul. See what befell him for preferring expediency to principle. Know that the same condemnation awaits all who walk in his footsteps - all who are not solemnized by that awful, that un- answerable, question, "What shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world and lose his own soul?"

Great offence has often been taken at the character here ascribed to the man who was to fill the throne after Saul - "The Lord hath sought Him a man after His own heart." Was David, the adulterer, the traitor, the murderer, a man after God's own heart? But surely it is not meant to be affirmed that David was such a man in every aspect, in every particular. The point on which the emphasis should rest must surely be that David was such a man in that feature in which Saul was so wanting. And undoubtedly this was eminently true of him. That which stood out most fully in the public character of David was the honour which he paid to God, the constancy with which he consulted His will, the prevailing desire he had to rule the kingdom in His fear and for His glory. If God was but a form to Saul, He was an intense reality to David. If Saul could not get it into his mind that he ought to rule for God, David could not have got it out of his mind if he had tried. That David's character was deformed in many ways cannot be denied; he had not only infirmities, but tumours, blotches, defilements, most distressing to behold; but in this one thing he left an example to all of us, and especially to rulers, which it would be well for all of us to ponder deeply: that the whole business of government is to be carried on in the spirit of regard to the will of God; that the welfare of the people is ever to be consulted in preference to the interests of the prince; that for nations, as for individuals, God's favour is life, and His frown ruin.

William Robertson Nicoll, ed., The Expositor's Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1887–1910) — public domain. 65 of 66 books (1 Corinthians is not separately keyed, as that volume carries no machine-parseable verse references); section-level commentary keyed to the opening verse. Introductory and overview sections not keyed to a specific passage are excluded.

13:1–16:13 Saul’s fall from power involved a threefold sequence, as had his rise to power (see study note on 9:1–11:15): (1) He offered the sacrifices himself and did not wait for Samuel (13:1-14); (2) he made a rash oath that put Jonathan’s life in danger (14:1-46); and (3) he failed to obey God by eliminating the Amalekites and their belongings (15:1-35).

13:1 For the kings of Israel and Judah, Scripture normally records the age of ascension and the length of reign (e.g., 2 Sam 5:4-5; 1 Kgs 14:21). • thirty years old: The number represents a plausible age for Saul’s ascension. The Hebrew text and most Greek manuscripts omit the number , making it difficult to know the original wording. • reigned for forty-two years: See NLT textual note. Most scholars agree that something has fallen out of the original manuscript, most likely due to a copyist’s error. The majority of English translations have forty-two based on the approximate number in Acts 13:21.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Before he took upon him the state of a King.

While these things were done.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

We are not told wherein it was that the people of Israel offended God, so as to forfeit his presence and turn his hand against them, as Samuel had threatened (Sa1 12:15); but doubtless they left God, else he would not have left them, as here it appears he did; for,

I. Saul was very weak and impolitic, and did not order his affairs with discretion. Saul was the son of one year (so the first words are in the original), a phrase which we make to signify the date of his reign, but ordinarily it signifies the date of one's birth, and therefore some understand it figuratively - he was as innocent and good as a child of a year old; so the Chaldee paraphrase: he was without fault, like the son of a year. But, if we admit a figurative sense, it may as well intimate that he was ignorant and imprudent, and as unfit for business as a child of a year old: and the subsequent particulars make this more accordant with his character than the former. But we take it rather, as our own translation has it, Saul reigned one year, and nothing happened that was considerable, it was a year of no action; but in his second year he did as follows: - 1. he chose a band of 3000 men, of whom he himself commanded 2000, and his son Jonathan 1000, Sa1 13:2. The rest of the people he dismissed to their tents. If he intended these only for the guard of his person and his honorary attendants, it was impolitic to have so many, if for a standing army, in apprehension of danger from the Philistines, it was no less impolitic to have so few; and perhaps the confidence he put in this select number, and his disbanding the rest of that brave army with which he had lately beaten the Ammonites (Sa1 11:8-11), was looked upon as an affront to the kingdom, excited general disgust, and was the reason he had so few at his call when he had occasion for them. The prince that relies on a particular party weakens his own interest in the whole community. 2. He ordered his son Jonathan to surprise and destroy the garrison of the Philistines that lay near him in Geba, Sa1 13:3. I wish there were no ground for supposing that this was a violation or infraction of some articles with the Philistines, and that it was done treacherously and perfidiously. The reason why I suspect it is because it is said that, for doing it, Israel was had in abomination, or, as the word is, did stink with the Philistines (Sa1 13:4), as men void of common honesty and whose word could not be relied on. If it was so, we will lay the blame, not on Jonathan who did it, but on Saul, his prince and father, who ordered him to do it, and perhaps kept him in ignorance of the truth of the matter. Nothing makes the name of Israel odious to those that are without so much as the fraud and dishonesty of those that are called by that worthy name. If professors of religion cheat and over-reach, break their word and betray their trust, religion suffers by it, and is had in abomination with the Philistines. Whom may one trust if not an Israelite, one that, it is expected, should be without guile? 3. When he had thus exasperated the Philistines, then he began to raise forces, which, if he had acted wisely, he would have done before. When the Philistines had a vast army ready to pour in upon him, to avenge the wrong he had done them, then was he blowing the trumpet through the land, among a careless, if not a disaffected people, saying, Let the Hebrews hear (Sa1 13:3), and so as many as thought fit came to Saul to Gilgal, Sa1 13:4. But now the generality, we may suppose, drew back (either in dislike of Saul's politics or in dread of the Philistines' power), who, if he had summoned them sooner, would have been as ready at his beck as they were when he marched against the Ammonites. We often find that after-wit would have done much better before and have prevented much inconvenience.

II. Never did the Philistines appear in such a formidable body as they did now, upon this provocation which Saul gave them. We may suppose they had great assistance from their allies, for (Sa1 13:5), besides 6000 horse, which in those times, when horses were not so much used in war as they are now, was a great body, they had an incredible number of chariots, 30,000 in all: most of them, we may suppose, were carriages for the bag and baggage of so vast an army, not chariots of war. But their foot was innumerable as the sand of the sea-shore, so jealous were they for the honour of their nation and so much enraged at the baseness of the Israelites in destroying their garrison. If Saul had asked counsel of God before he had given the Philistines this provocation, he and his people might the better have borne this threatening trouble which they had now brought on themselves by their own folly.

III. Never were the people of Israel so faint-hearted, so sneaking, so very cowardly, as they were now. Some considerable numbers, it may be, came to Saul to Gilgal; but, hearing of the Philistines' numbers and preparations, their spirits sunk within them, some think because they did not find Samuel there with Saul. Those that, awhile ago, were weary of him, and wished for a king, now had small joy of their king unless they could see him under Samuel's direction. Sooner or later, men will be made to see that God and his prophets are their best friends. Now that they saw the Philistines making war upon them, and Samuel not coming in to help them, they knew not what to do; men's hearts failed them for fear. And. 1. Some absconded. Rather than run upon death among the Philistines, they buried themselves alive in caves and thickets, Sa1 13:6. See what work sin makes; it exposes men to perils, and then robs them of their courage and dispirits them. A single person, by faith, can say, I will not be afraid of 10,000 (Psa 3:6); but here thousands of degenerate Israelites tremble at the approach of a great crowd of Philistines. Guilt makes men cowards. 2. Others fled (Sa1 13:7): They went over Jordan to the land of Gilead, as far as they could from the danger, and to a place where they had lately been victorious over the Ammonites. Where they had triumphed they hoped to be sheltered. 3. Those that staid with Saul followed him trembling, expecting no other than to be cut off, and having their hands and hearts very much weakened by the desertion of so many of their troops. And perhaps Saul himself, though he had so much honour as to stand his ground, yet had no courage to spare wherewith to inspire his trembling soldiers.

Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

CHAPTER XIII

Saul chooses a body of troops, 1, 2.

Jonathan smites a garrison of the Philistines, 3, 4.

The Philistines gather together an immense host against Israel,

5.

The Israelites are afraid; and some hide themselves in caves,

and others flee over Jordan, 6, 7.

Samuel delaying his coming, Saul offers sacrifice, 8, 9.

Samuel comes and reproves him, and Saul excuses himself, 10-12.

Samuel shows him that God has rejected him from being captain

over his people, 13, 14.

Samuel departs; and Saul and Jonathan, with six hundred men

abide in Gibeah, 15, 16.

The Philistines send out foraging companies, and waste the land,

17, 18.

Desolate state of the Israelitish army, having no weapons of

defence against their enemies, 19-23.

NOTES ON CHAP. XIII

Verse 1. Saul reigned one year] A great deal of learned labour has been employed and lost on this verse, to reconcile it with propriety and common sense. I shall not recount the meanings put on it. I think this clause belongs to the preceding chapter, either as a part of the whole, or a chronological note added afterwards; as if the writer had said, These things (related in 1Sa 12:1-25) took place in the first year of Saul's reign: and then he proceeds in the next place to tell us what took place in the second year, the two most remarkable years of Saul's reign. In the first he is appointed, anointed, and twice confirmed, viz., at Mizpeh and at Gilgal; in the second, Israel is brought into the lowest state of degradation by the Philistines, Saul acts unconstitutionally, and is rejected from being king. These things were worthy of an especial chronological note.

And when he had reigned] This should begin the chapter, and be read thus: "And when Saul had reigned two years over Israel, he chose him three thousand," tic. The Septuagint has left the clause out of the text entirely, and begins the chapter thus: "And Saul chose to himself three thousand men out of the men of Israel."

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

(1) Saul reigned one year.—The only possible literal translation of the Hebrew of this verse is, “Saul was the son of one year (i.e., one year old); he began to reign, &c.” In several places in the Books of Samuel the numbers are quite untrustworthy (we have another instance of this in the 5th verse of this chapter). The present verse, however, is an old difficulty, the corruption or gap in the text dating from a far back period. The English translation is simply a probable, but conjectural, paraphrase. The Chaldee and some of the Rabbis thus strangely interpret it: “Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign”—that is, was as innocent as a one year old child, &c. The Syriac and others paraphrase much as our English Version. The LXX. omit the verse altogether. The Speaker’s Commentary thus literally translates the Hebrew, marking with a—where a number probably originally stood: “Saul was—years old when he began to reign, and he reigned—and two years over Israel.” On the whole, the usually accepted meaning is that Saul had reigned one year when the events related in the last chapter took place, and after he had reigned two years he chose out the 3,000 men, and did what is related in this chapter.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Saul reigned one year,.... "Or the son of a year in his reigning" (s); various are the senses given of these words: some interpret them, Saul had a son of a year old when he began to reign, Ishbosheth, and who was forty years of age when his father died, Sa2 2:10, others, who understand the words of Saul himself, think there is an "ellipsis" or defect of the number, and that it may be supplied, that Saul was the son of thirty or forty years, or whatsoever age he may be supposed to be at when he began his reign; others take the words in a figurative sense, that he was like a child of a year old, for purity and innocence; so the Targum,"as the son of a year, in whom there are no faults, so was Saul when he reigned;''or he was but a year old, reckoning from the time he was turned into another man, and had another heart, which was immediately after he was anointed king at Ramah by Samuel; or he was but a year old with respect to his kingdom: the inauguration of a king is "natalis imperil", the birthday of his kingdom, and therefore the words are well enough rendered by us, "Saul reigned one year"; which is to be reckoned either from his unction at Ramah, or rather from his election at Mizpeh, to the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal:

and when he had reigned two years over Israel; which the Jewish chronologers (t) make to be the whole of his reign, which is not probable, considering the many things done in his reign, the many battles he fought with all his enemies on every side of him, and his long persecution of David; and there were no less than three high priests in his reign; Josephus says (q) he reigned eighteen years in the lifetime of Samuel, and twenty two years after his death, in all forty; which agrees with Act 13:21. Some interpret it he reigned two years well, and the rest in a tyrannical way; or that at the end of two years, when David was anointed, the kingdom was not reckoned to him, but to David; and to this purpose Dr. Lightfoot writes, that he had been king one year from his first anointing by Samuel at Ramah, to his second anointing by him at Gibeah (Gilgal I suppose he means); and he reigned after this two years more, before the Lord cast him off, and anointed David; and the time he ruled after that was not a rule, but a tyranny and persecution (r); but the sense Ben Gersom gives is best of all, that one year had passed from the time of his being anointed, to the time of the renewal of the kingdom at Gilgal; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, then he did what follows, chose 3000 men, &c. In the first year of his reign was done all that is recorded in the preceding chapter; and when he had reigned two years, not two years more, but two years in all, then he did what is related in this chapter.

(s) "filius anni Saul in regnando ipsum", Montanus. (t) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 13. p. 35. Juchasin, fol. 11. 1. (q) Antiqu. l. 6. c. 14. sect. 9. (r) Works, vol. 1. p. 55.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

The text of this verse, omitted by the Septuagint, is held to be corrupt, and the numerals denoting Saul’s age at his accession as well as the duration of his reign, are thought to be omitted or faulty. Saul may have been about 30 at his accession, and have reigned some 32 years, since we know that his grandson Mephibosheth was five years old at Saul’s death 2Sa 4:4; and 32 added to the seven and a half years between the death of Saul and that of Ishbosheth, makes up the 40 years assigned to Saul’s dynasty in Act 13:21. Neither is there any clue to the interval of time between the events recorded in the preceding chapter, and those which follow in this and succeeding chapters. But the appearance of Jonathan as a warrior 1Sa 13:2 compared with the mention of Saul as “a young man” 1Sa 9:2, implies an interval of not less than ten or fifteen years, perhaps more. The object of the historian is to prepare the way for the history of David’s reign. He therefore passes at once to that incident in Saul’s reign, which led to his rejection by God, as recorded in 1Sa 13:13-14.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Of one year. That is, he was good, and like an innocent child, and for two years continued in that innocency. (Challoner) (St. Gregory) (Worthington) --- Israel. This verse is omitted in some copies of the Septuagint. It is extremely difficult to explain. Some translate Hebrew, "Saul was a son of one year old," &c. (Symmachus) Others, "Saul begot a son the first year of his reign, (Raban) Isboseth, who was 40 years old when his father died, after governing all that while. (Serarius) --- Syriac and Arabic, "In the first or second year of the reign of Saul....he chose," &c. Hardouin supposes that the people dated their years by his reign only so long. Some think that the Hebrew is imperfect; and an ancient interpreter has, "Saul was 30 years old, when he began," &c. (Calmet) --- The Rabbins and may commentators assert, that the reign of Saul lasted only two years. (Tirinus) --- But some of them explain this, as if he reigned alone only that term before he was rejected, when he could only be regarded as an usurper. Others, that he obtained the whole power for two years, after the death of Samuel. Usher concludes that, during the incursions of the Philistines, he could hardly be said to reign, and these commenced after he had been king two years. We might also translate, "Saul was the son of the year of his reign, (when he was confirmed at Galgal) and in the second year....he chose," &c. (Calmet) --- Perhaps the first translation, though somewhat mystical, may be the most literal, shewing that for one year Saul continued to act with the most engaging affability and moderation. But in the second he threw off the yoke, and was, in his turn, rejected by the Lord, as we shall soon behold. (Haydock) --- Scaliger seems to prefer allowing that the numeral letters have been omitted by some transcriber, and that we should read, Saul was 30 years old. This, and similar variations, he attributes to the compendious method of using numeral letters; (Kennicott) an inconvenience very frequently attending all manuscripts, both sacred and profane. (Taylor)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

Reigned one year, i.e. had now reigned one year, from his first election at Mizpeh, in which time these things were done, which are recorded 1Sa 11; 1Sa 12, to wit, peaceably, or righteously. Compare 2Sa 2:10.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Saul's War against the Philistines

1. The age of Saul at his accession has fallen out of the text and also one of the two numbers representing the length of his reign. Our present text is 'Saul was.. years old when he began to reign, and he reigned.. and two years.' We have no means of recovering the former number. For the latter Keil, with great probability, conjectures 22: see on 2Sa_2:10 and Intro. § 9.

2. Michtnash] still retains its ancient name; it is a village 9 m. from Jerusalem, and is just N. of a narrow pass leading to Geba; hence it was a thoroughly well-chosen strategic position; cp 1Sa_14:4.

3. And the Philistines.. Hebrews hear] The text is probably corrupt. Driver emends to 'And the Philistines heard saying The Hebrews have revolted,' and puts 'And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land' at the beginning of 1Sa_13:4.

4. Gilgal] Cornill would read 'Gibeah' here.

5. Thirty thousand] LXX has '3,000'; the chariots were less in number than the horsemen; cp. 2Sa_10:18; 1Ki_10:26.

6. The people did hide themselves] The prompt action of the Philistines quite quenched the ardour of the undisciplined peasants with Saul.

8. Saul at Gilgal would be anxious lest the Philistines should seize Geba and the heights. Samuel had appointed] The reference is probably to 1Sa_10:8.

9. It is, to say the least, doubtful whether Saul offered the sacrifice with his own hands, or whether he caused it to be offered. At any rate, his offence was not in his offering sacrifice, but in his unwillingness to obey the directions of God and of God'srepresentative, the prophet. It must be admitted that Saul's position was a difficult one; but this single act was really an index to a weakness in his character: see, however, on 1Sa_14:24.

14. After his own heart] David's actions were by no means all of them the actions of an ideal character; but he is presented in the narratives as maintaining on the whole an attitude towards God very different from that of Saul: cp. 1Sa_16:1.

16. Abode in Gibeah] Saul with his reduced numbers was compelled to abandon the other two positions and to concentrate his forces at Gibeah.

17. The spoilers] i.e. bands sent out to ravage the country immediately concerned in the insurrection. This unwise weakening of the Philistine forces gave the Israelites their opportunity. Ophrah] a town in Benjamin.

Shual] Position unknown, as is also that of Zeboim in the next v.

18. Beth-horon] on the border of Benjamin and Ephraim, was on the direct road from Michmash to Philistia.

21. Yet they had, etc.] RM proposes, 'When the edges of the mattocks.. and of the axes were blunt.' We can hardly imagine that the text as it stands is to be taken literally after the narrative of 13f.

23. To the passage] RV 'unto the pass.'

J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

WAR AGAINST THE PHILISTINES (ver. 1-14:46).

Saul"s age and length of reign. Saul reigned one year. This verse literally translated is, "Saul was one year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel." In its form it exactly follows the usual statement prefixed to each king"s reign, of his age at his accession, and the years of his kingdom (2Sa_2:10 2Sa_5:4; 1Ki_14:21 1Ki_22:42, etc.) The rendering of the A.V is too forced and untenable to be worth discussing. As we have seen before, the numerals in the Books of Samuel are not trustworthy; but the difficulty here is an old one. The Vulgate translates the Hebrew literally, as we have given it; the Septuagint omits the verse, and the Syriac paraphrases as boldly as the A.V: "When Saul had reigned one or two years." The Chaldee renders, "Saul was as innocent as a one-year-old child when he began to reign." In the Hexaplar version some anonymous writer has inserted the word thirty, rashly enough; for as Jonathan was old enough to have an important command (ver. 2), and was capable of the acts of a strong man, (1Sa_14:14) his father"s age must have been at least thirty-five, and perhaps was even more. As regards the length of Saul"s reign, St. Paul makes it forty years, (Act_13:21) exactly the same as that of David (1Ki_2:11) and of Solomon; (1Ki_11:42) and Josephus testifies that such was the traditional belief of the Jews ("Antiq.," 6:14, 9). On the other hand, it is remarkable that the word here for years is that used where the whole number is less than ten. The events, however, recorded in the rest of the book seem to require a longer period than ten years for the duration of Saul"s reign; thirty-two would be a more probable number, and, added to the seven and a half years" reign of Ishbosheth, (see 2Sa_5:5) they would make up the whole sum of forty years ascribed by St. Paul to Saul"s dynasty. It is quite possible, however, that these forty years may even include the fifteen or sixteen years of Samuel"s judgeship. But the two facts, that all the three sons of Saul mentioned in 1Sa_14:49 were old enough to go with him to the battle of Mount Gilboa, where they were slain; and that Ishbosheth, his successor, was forty years of age when his father died, effectually dispose of the idea that Saul"s was a very short reign.

Vers. 1-7.

The great antagonism.

The facts are

1. Saul, entering on the military organisation of his kingdom, forms a select force under the command of himself and Jonathan.

2. The defeat of the Philistine garrison by Jonathan is announced to allIsrael.

3. This first success arouses the hostility of the Philistines, who threatenIsrael with overwhelming numbers.

4. The effect of this display of force is to dishearten the followers of Saulwho waited at Gilgah The presence of the Philistines within the borders of Israel was inconsistent with the privileges originally granted, and was a perpetual source of danger and annoyance. One of the ends contemplated in seeking a king was to clear the promised land of foes. The normal state of the people of God was only realised when the land was the exclusive home of the descendants of Abraham. The reformation, in slow yet steady progress, created the ambition and effort to cast out the enemy. Saul"s movements, therefore, were a correct expression of national feeling, and in harmony with the high purpose of Israel"s existence. In this attempt to subdue the great enemy of the kingdom we have a historic representation of the great conflict which is ever being waged between the spiritual kingdom and the evils which largely hold possession of the world; and in the varying experience of Israel we see shadows of truths that find expression in Christian times.

I The EXISTENCE OF THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST INVOLVES A CONFLICT WITH A WATCHFUL, POWERFUL FOE FOR THE POSSESSION OF THE EARTH. The separate existence of Israel, combined with the promise made to Abraham, (Gen_15:7) and the spiritual purpose to be wrought out for the glory of God, rendered war with the Philistines at this time inevitable. The existence of Christ"s kingdom in the actual separation to himself of those who form his Church, combined with his right to be King of every land and heart, and the prediction that he shall have the uttermost parts of the earth for his possession, involves ceaseless strife with men, spirits, customs, laws, principles, purposes, and all else, visible and invisible, that is incompatible with his full and blessed sway. Light is not more opposed to darkness, life to death, purity to corruption, than Christ and his holy rule are opposed to much that now governs human society.

II The EARLY EFFORTS OF THE FAITHFUL ARE ENSAMPLES FOR FUTURE CONDUCT, AND THE TRIUMPHS WON ARE AN EARNEST OF WHAT MAY BE ON A LARGER SCALE. The early efforts of Saul and his followers were characterised by faith in their mission as people of God, loyalty to the Divine cause they represented, courage and self-denial for the good of the land, unity of aim and concentration of strength. They had-a right to believe in success, because the promised land was for Israel, and not for the idolatrous Philistine. The victory at Geba was a pledge of coming events. The war against sin has been carried on ever since the first promise cheered the heart of our fallen ancestor. But we may regard the exertions of the early Christian Church as the first organised effort, under the laws of the kingdom of Christ, for the extirpation of all sin and evil. The early Christians were fine examples of clear and deep conviction that they were the servants of Christ, and had a Divine mission to work out in an antagonistic world. And the splendid triumphs won, though, compared with the area of sin, as small as.was the capture of Geba relatively to the whole possessions of the Philistines, are an indication of what awaits the Church if only, laying aside internal strifes, worldly policies, self-indulgence, she will but brace her energies to the perfecting of the conquests already made. Novelties we need not; the old weapons, the old spirit, the old consecration, the old singleness of aim, will pull down strongholds still.

III The ANTAGONISM MAY GROW IN INTENSITY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SUCCESS. Up to a given point success in war arouses more thoroughly the energies of the defeated. The acquisition of Geba made Israel more than ever detestable to the Philistines, and developed their resources. The same effect was produced by the triumphs of Pentecost. (Ac 4) Subsequently rulers took counsel, being afraid "whereunto this would grow", (Act_5:24) unless more severe measures were taken to suppress it. It was the necessarily aggressive spirit of Christianity, combined with its growing influence, that aroused the fierce, persecuting spirit of ancient Rome. The more a pure Christianity is urged on men, the more do evil passions arise in resistance. It is probable that there are seasons when the "principalities and powers" of the unseen world combine in all fierceness to arouse human antagonism to the gospel. The bitter hostility and outspoken defiance of the present day are in instructive coexistence with Christian efforts and triumphs surpassing in range any recorded in history.

IV HOPE OF FINAL VICTORY DEPENDS MORE ON OUR FAITH IN GOD THAN ON THE WEAKNESS OF THE FOE. The followers of Saul became disheartened when they heard of the tremendous efforts of the Philistines. As Peter on the sea looked away from Christ at the waves, and began to sink, so these men lost hope when, forgetting the "mighty God of Jacob," they fixed attention on the forces of the enemy. It was not a question of few or many Philistines, but of faith in their God. The faintheartedness of Israel finds its counterpart in modern times. The vast area over which evil reigns, the desperate vices that enchain thousands, the extent to which society is impregnated with principles alien to the gospel, the utter absorption of millions in matters purely material, the fierce assaults made on the supernatural character of Christianity, and the growing positiveness and intellectual licence of many who fight under the stolen banner of "science these signs of power are brooded over, and the heart sinks for fear. This faintheartedness is as irrational as it is sinful. Is Christ a living Saviour? Is he the Lord of all? It is a simple question of fact. If not, then our Christianity is a delusion; we are without hope in the world, and life is an insoluble, awful, heart piercing enigma. But if he is, then who are men, or what are their resources? They are but creatures of a day, and their strength perishes. He must reign. On his own head his crown shall flourish.

General lessons:

1. Every Christian should inquire how far he, in loyalty to Christ and full conviction of his triumph, is doing his part in the common work of the Church.

2. It is a matter of inquiry how far we may be impeding the progress ofChristianity by compromising with the world in hope of lessening antagonism.

3. It should guide our conduct to remember that the severest holiness oflife, blended with the tenderest love, has ever accomplished the most enduring spiritual work.

4. It will tend to nourish faith in the sufficiency of God if we, by thoughtand prayerfulness, habituate ourselves to actual fellowship with him.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Saul and Jonathan's life-guard, ver. 1, 2. Jonathan smites a garrison, and the people are called together, ver. 3, 4. The Philistines come up, and the Israelites are terrified, ver. 5-7. Saul sacrifices, ver. 8-10. Is reproved by Samuel, ver. 11-14. The people diminished, plundered, and disarmed, ver. 15-23.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The Invasion of the Philistines

v. 1. Saul reigned one year, literally, "A son of [probably forty] years was Saul when he became king"; and when he had reigned two years over Israel (he was king, as nearly as can be estimated, twenty-two years),

v. 2. Saul chose him three thousand men of Israel, evidently from the total number of those who were able to bear arms; whereof two thousand were with Saul in Michmash, some eight miles northeast of Jerusalem, and in Mount Bethel, the range on which the old Bethel lay, and a thousand were with Jonathan, the valiant son of Saul, in Gibeah of Benjamin; and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent, he dismissed them to their homes.

v. 3. And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, on the hill near his home town, 1Sa 10:5, thereby taking the offensive against the invaders; and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear; the Israelites, especially those living west of Jordan, should know of Jonathan’s heroic exploit, arouse themselves to action against the oppressors, and fight for their freedom.

v. 4. And all Israel heard say that Saul, who is named as the chief commander of the military forces of Israel, had smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines, literally, "was ill-smelling," Gen 34:30, said of one who is thoroughly despised and hated. And the people were called together after Saul to Gilgal, summoned to the old mustering-place to make ready for the campaign against the Philistines.

v. 5. And the Philistines gathered themselves together, they quickly mobilized an army, to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, or, one thousand, as the text seems originally to have had, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude; and they came up, from the lowlands of Philistia, and pitched in Michmash, where Saul had first been stationed, eastward from Beth-aven, literally, "over against, in front of, Beth-aven," which itself was east of Michmash, Jos 7:2.

v. 6. When the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait, in a most difficult and dangerous position, (for the people were distressed, oppressed by the enemy, who robbed and plundered as they chose,) then the people did hide themselves in caves, and in thickets, secluded places in thorny undergrowth, and in rocks, in clefts and caves of the hills, and in high places, strongly built towers in lonely situations, and in pits.

v. 7. And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead, the territory of the two and one half tribes. As for Saul, he was yet in Gilgal, in the lowlands near Jordan, and all the people, the soldiers summoned to duty against the oppressors, followed him trembling, literally, "they trembled after him," utterly lacking in the spirit necessary to throw off the yoke of the tyrants. It was a time of trial for Saul and for all Israel, a period such as comes upon all Christians from time to time, to test their faith.

Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

1Sa 13:8-10

(with 1Ti 1:16)

King Saul had been expressly charged to await the coming of the prophet to offer an offering in Gilgal. It was a trial of fidelity and obedience. If Saul really believed that the direction was from God, and if he was really anxious to obey God, he would have waited. The seven days ran their course, and there was no sign of Samuel’s approach. The king’s resolution gave way. He offered the burnt offering, and scarcely had he done so when Samuel came.

I. Saul fell on this occasion through the operation of a principle which is natural to all of us—the principle of impatience.

How many errors, faults, and sins in our lives spring out of this source. We scarcely ever do a thing in a hurry without having afterwards to regret it. Impatience is always a waste of time; it almost always has to be made up for; sometimes, too often—and this is far worse—it cannot be made up for. Sometimes out of a little momentary act of haste springs a misunderstanding never to be cleared up, a quarrel never to be reconciled, an injustice never to be repaired.

II. Most of all is this working of the mind seen, as it was seen in King Saul, when there is not only a lurking imprudence, but also a lurking disobedience. Saul showed the strength of his impatience by letting it interfere with and overbear a plain command of God. In the hurry and eagerness, the impatience and the fretfulness, which too often drive us on, the sense of right is easily put aside and suppressed.

III. If Christ were like us in this prevailing habit of impatience, what would become of us? What a temptation there would be to close our day of grace, which, alas! for so many of us is rather a day of mischief! If He dealt with us as the very best of us deal with one another, there is not a man upon earth who would live to grow up. But the patience of Christ still calls us to repentance. Seeing Him as He is, we shall gradually become like Him, till at last the impatience of man is lost in the longsuffering of Christ.

C. J. Vaughan, Memorials of Harrow Sundays, p. 397.

1Sa 13:9

Saul is an instance of a man whom God blessed and proved, whom He put on his trial, and who, like Adam, was found wanting. If he had waited one hour more before offering the sacrifice, he would have been saved this sin; in other words, he would have succeeded in his trial instead of failing. He was disobedient, and in consequence he forfeited God’s favour. We are, like Saul, favoured by God’s free grace; we are all tried in one way or another, and many of us fall like Saul.

I. How many are there who, in distress of any kind, in want of means or of necessaries, forget, like Saul, that their distress, whatever it is, comes from God; that God brings it on them, and that God will remove it in His own way if they trust in Him; but who, instead of waiting for His time, take their own bad way, and impatiently hasten the time, and thus bring on themselves judgment.

II. Again, how many are there who when in unpleasant situations are tempted to do what is wrong in order to get out of them, instead of patiently waiting God’s time.

III. How many are there who, though their hearts are not right before God, yet have some sort of religiousness, and by it deceive themselves into the idea that they are religious. Saul in his way was a religious man, in his way, but not in God’s way; he considered his very disobedience an act of religion. He offered sacrifice rather than go to battle without a sacrifice. Thus he deceived himself, and thus many men deceive themselves now, not casting off religion altogether, but choosing their religion for themselves and fancying they are religious without being obedient.

IV. How many are there who bear half the trial God puts upon them, but not the whole of it, who go on well for a time and then fall away. Saul bore on for seven days, and fainted not; on the eighth day his faith failed him. It is not enough to get through one temptation well; through our whole life we are on trial.

V. How many are there who, in a narrow, grudging, cold-hearted way, go by the letter of God’s commandments, while they neglect the spirit. Saul fulfilled Samuel’s directions literally and rigidly, but not in the spirit of love. With a word Samuel reproved and convicted, silenced, and sentenced him.

Plain Sermons by Contributors to "Tracts for the Times," vol. v., p. 188 (see also J. H. Newman, Parochial and Plain Sermons, vol. viii., p. 33.

Reference: 1Sa 13:13.—A. Blomfield, Sermons in Town and Country, p. 219.

1Sa 13:13-14

I. The impression which Saul makes upon the average reader, at least at first, is beyond all question a favourable impression. He had many of those qualifications which always go to make a man popular. (1) His personal appearance was such as commands admiration from a large number of people in all generations. He was before all things a soldier. (2) To his personal appearance and martial habits Saul added undoubted courage and resolution. (3) He had higher qualities even than these, or he would never have been regarded with the affection he inspired first in Samuel and then in David. He was both modest and generous, and his reign was on the whole, and in the civil or political sense, a benefit to his country.

II. When we turn to the character of David, we find in it dark traits which the Bible makes no attempt to disguise. And yet, in contrast with Saul, he has on him from the first the notes of God’s special approval. We must therefore ask, What was especially wanting in Saul? Saul gives no evidence of having upon and within him the permanent influence of religion, of having anything that we could call the fear and love of God in his heart. David, in spite of his grievous faults, had on his heart and conscience continually the impress of the majesty, the tenderness, the encompassing presence, of God. It is better to have our part with David than with Saul, with a loyalty to God that is not always consistent rather than with an outward propriety that is never really loyal.

H. P. Liddon, Family Churchman, July 21st, 1886 (see also Penny Pulpit, No. 1161).

References: 1Sa 13:13, 1Sa 13:14.—Bishop Harvey Goodwin, Parish Sermons, 3rd series, p. 136; S. Wilberforce, Sermons before the University of Oxford, 1863, p. 63; Preacher’s Monthly, vol. v., p. 352.

1Sa 13:14

This expression clung to David, as "The Friend of God" became the title of Abraham. Yet no words have given rise to so many fierce invectives; none perhaps carry on their front more serious difficulties. We must remember in connection with this title and David’s apparent unworthiness of it: (1) That it is plain by a reference to the context that the title "after God’s own heart" was only comparative, not absolute. By the side of Saul, David was the man who attracted the favour of God. (2) The title was given him in his early days, before his life had become overcast with the cloud of sin and error. (3) David’s repentance was far more deep than appears on the surface of the narrative. (4) It is most necessary to bear in mind, in considering the career of David, the severity of punishment which followed upon David’s sin.

R. Winterbotham, Sermons and Expositions, p. 67 (see also Contemporary Pulpit, vol. iii., p. 364).

References: 1Sa 13:14.—R. D. B. Rawnsley, A Course of Sermons for the Christian Year, p. 300. 1Sa 13:19.—J. M. Neale, Sermons in Sackville College, vol. ii., p. 31. 1Sa 13:19, 1Sa 13:20.—Clergyman’s Magazine, vol. viii., p. 342. 1Sa 13:20.—Spurgeon, Morning by Morning, p. 62.

1Sa 13:22

The history of the relations of the Jews with their neighbours and their foes is typical of the existing relations of the Christian and the world. This history is therefore a personal matter to all of us. The wretched Hebrews had been disarmed by the Philistines, their most persistent foes. The very implements of husbandry had to be taken for repairs to the anvil of the enemy. It is impossible to imagine a more hopeless state of affairs: all the instruments of warfare on one side; all forethought, all prudence, all resolution, on one side. We see the triumphant scorn of the heathen, the sullen despair of the Israelite, and we reflect with wonder that to this state God’s people had fallen.

I. We may expect that Satan will strive to disarm us. We may also expect that in some cases he will succeed. With this history before our eyes, it need not surprise us if Christians sharpen their ploughshares at Satan’s workshops. It need not surprise us if the maxims of business, if the rules of prudence, if the conventionalities of society, are not much influenced by the rule of life laid down by Christ, but are dictated by a selfish, exclusive spirit.

II. This state of the Hebrews is easily accounted for. They had been idolatrous, depraved, and torn by civil strife. They were also wrapped up in money-making. They were busy in everything but the chief concern of life. We see here revealed the extent and the nature of the power of sin. Sin may be so persisted in as to render recovery hopeless. Satan disarms us, and there is neither sword nor spear in our hand.

III. With every one of us the process of arming or disarming is daily going on. Christ is above, but He sees us here below, and will buckle His own armour upon us. He will give us the armour with which He foiled the tempter, the armour with which He withstood and defeated every temptation that can befall His people.

F. Case, Short Practical Sermons, p. 62.

Reference: 1Sam 13, 1Sam 14—Parker. vol. vi., p. 323.

The Sermon Bible, ed. William Robertson Nicoll (1888–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

General Information:

Samuel has renewed Saul's kingdom at Gilgal and Samuel has reminded the people to follow the Lord.

Saul was thirty years old ... over Israel

The text of this verse in ancient copies seems to have been mutilated, so modern versions have many different translations. They are all attempts to represent the most probable meaning of the original text.

chose three thousand men

"chose 3,000 men" (See: Numbers)

Two thousand were with him

"2,000 men were with him" (See: Numbers)

Michmash

name of a city (See: How to Translate Names)

Gibeah of Benjamin

Gibeah is a town. See how you translated this in 1 Samuel 10:26.

The rest of the soldiers he sent home

"He sent the rest of the soldiers home"

translationWords

Saul (OT)

reign

Israel

chosen one

Bethel

Jonathan

Benjamin

send

tent

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

One year was Shaul in his reign. Our Rabbis, of sainted memory, said, [Shaul was] like a one year old, who did not experience the taste of sin. It may also be interpreted, "Shaul was a year in his reign," i.e., in the first year in which he was made king, though he actually ruled over Yisroel two years, in the first year, immediately, "Shaul chose for himself three thousand [men]."

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.