Unless otherwise stated, all citations are taken from the New International Version (NIV).
1 Samuel 11 (Saul Vindicates His Leadership)
Summary: Nahash the Ammonite, a brutal tyrant, conquers an Israelite city and proposes a humiliating term of surrender: gouging out the right eye of every citizen (11:1-2). Distressed, the Hebrews send messengers for help. Saul, upon hearing this, is filled with righteous anger by the Spirit (11:6). He rallies the Israelites with a dramatic message, gathering 300,000 men who defeat the Ammonites decisively (11:8-11). This victory establishes Saul’s leadership and silences any doubts about his right to be king.
In one of the very early scrolls at Qumran (4QSama), we read a further addition that was lost in later scrolls in 10:27. There we read, “[Na]hash king of the Ammonites sorely oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites, and he gouged out a[ll] their right [e]yes and struck ter[ror and dread] in [I]srael. Not a man was left among the Israelites bey[ond Jordan who]se right eye was no[t go]uged out by Naha[sh king] of the [A]mmonites, except that seven thousand men [fled from] the Ammonites and entered [J]abesh Gilead. About a month later.”[1] If this text is valid, then it gives incredible context to the events in chapter 11. It means that Nahash had already been on a successful campaign to terrorize multiple tribes in Israel (e.g. Gad, Reuben, tribes beyond the Jordan). The survivors fled to Jabesh Gilead, and they were holding out there for protection. This sets the stage for chapter 11.
Saul starts off his career doing really well! But don’t blink, or you’ll miss the good side of Saul…
(11:1) Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh Gilead. And all the men of Jabesh said to him, “Make a treaty with us, and we will be subject to you.”
The Ammonites were the descendants of Lot’s son Ben-Ammi (Gen. 19:36-38). Here is the first opportunity for Saul to demonstrate his kingship.
Jabesh Gilead is most likely the modern day tell el-Maqlub, which is twelve miles southeast of Beth Shan (which is located on the Jordan River).[2]
“Nahash” (nāḥāš) literally means “snake” or “to practice divination” or “to look for omens.”[3] He was a vicious and tyrannical ruler.
(11:2) But Nahash the Ammonite replied, “I will make a treaty with you only on the condition that I gouge out the right eye of every one of you and so bring disgrace on all Israel.”
This sort of brutal treatment was common in the ancient Near East (Num. 16:13-14; Judg. 16:21; 2 Kings 25:7; Jer. 39:6-7; 52:10-11; Zech. 11:17). By plucking out the right eye of the people, this was effectively “incapacitating them from taking aim in battle” with a bow and arrow—not to mention being “inhuman and cruel.”[4]
(11:3) The elders of Jabesh said to him, “Give us seven days so we can send messengers throughout Israel; if no one comes to rescue us, we will surrender to you.”
The elders were clearly trying to buy some time to see if someone would come to their rescue. As individual tribes, they needed to call on others to come to their aid, lacking central leadership. Nahash didn’t mind these people sending for help for two reasons: (1) he likely didn’t think any help would arrive, and (2) seven days was “barely time enough for messengers to reach the whole land, and return.”[5]
(11:4) When the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul and reported these terms to the people, they all wept aloud.
The people lamented, feeling like they couldn’t do anything to save the men at Jabesh Gilead.
(11:5-6) Just then Saul was returning from the fields, behind his oxen, and he asked, “What is wrong with everyone? Why are they weeping?” Then they repeated to him what the men of Jabesh had said. 6 When Saul heard their words, the Spirit of God came powerfully upon him, and he burned with anger.
“Saul was returning from the fields, behind his oxen.” Monarchies aren’t made overnight. Saul was still working his own farms because the nation hadn’t raised money for the monarchy yet. The tearing apart of the cattle could be the sign that Saul was leaving his farm for being a full-time king.[6]
Saul didn’t cry and lament. Instead, he became righteously angry and took charge. The Holy Spirit came upon him filling him with this emotion and decisiveness. He began to perform his primary duty as king—to lead the people in battle (1 Sam. 8:20).
(11:7) He took a pair of oxen, cut them into pieces, and sent the pieces by messengers throughout Israel, proclaiming, “This is what will be done to the oxen of anyone who does not follow Saul and Samuel.” Then the terror of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out together as one.
There is a parallel here with the man cutting up his concubine and sending her remains to the twelve tribes of Israel (Judg. 19:29; 20:6). This was a gruesome object-lesson to show that Saul meant what he said.
(11:8) When Saul mustered them at Bezek, the men of Israel numbered three hundred thousand and those of Judah thirty thousand.
The NASB states that there were 300,000 men in Israel, but the NIV states that there were only 3,000. Regarding this distinction, see comments on Exodus 12:37.
(11:9) They told the messengers who had come, “Say to the men of Jabesh Gilead, ‘By the time the sun is hot tomorrow, you will be rescued.’” When the messengers went and reported this to the men of Jabesh, they were elated.
Saul told the men of Jabesh Gilead that they would have a showdown at “high noon” (“By the time the sun is hot tomorrow”). This lifted the spirits of the men there.
(11:10) They said to the Ammonites, “Tomorrow we will surrender to you, and you can do to us whatever you like.”
The men of Jabesh Gilead literally say, “Whatever seems good in your eyes.”[7] This could be a pun based on the demand to pluck out an eye (v.2). It could also be an allusion to the Judges account (“Everyone did what was right in their own eyes…”).
(11:11) The next day Saul separated his men into three divisions; during the last watch of the night they broke into the camp of the Ammonites and slaughtered them until the heat of the day. Those who survived were scattered, so that no two of them were left together.
They attacked first thing in the morning. The description of their scattering sounds like a complete terrorizing of the Ammonite army (“no two of them were left together”).
Public opinion changed for Saul
(11:12) The people then said to Samuel, “Who was it that asked, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’ Turn these men over to us so that we may put them to death.”
This is a complete reversal from what some of the people said earlier (1 Sam. 10:27). This dissenting view must have been public enough for all of the people to know about it. Now, the majority of the people call for the deaths of these critics.
(11:13) But Saul said, “No one will be put to death today, for this day the LORD has rescued Israel.”
Saul calls for gratitude—not revenge (cf. 1 Sam. 19:1-6; 2 Sam. 19:22). He also attributes this victory to God—not himself (“the LORD has rescued Israel”). This shows that Saul had a heart for God. The problem is that if you blink when reading the text, you’ll miss it! The rest of the narrative shows that Saul was still a massively insecure leader, and he takes a slow downturn.
(11:14-15) Then Samuel said to the people, “Come, let us go to Gilgal and there renew the kingship.” 15 So all the people went to Gilgal and made Saul king in the presence of the LORD. There they sacrificed fellowship offerings before the LORD, and Saul and all the Israelites held a great celebration.
Samuel calls for a renewal of the kingship, because not all of the people had been supportive of him being raised as a king. But now, his dissenters had become allies. It was time to publicly renew the kingship ceremony.
Concluding insights
Not all anger is unrighteous. Saul was filled with the Spirit to become angry (v.6). The real question is whether your anger is under control, which Saul’s certainly was (v.13). Saul used his anger to protect the lives of innocent people from an evil despot. Surely, that counts as righteous anger.
This event demonstrates Saul’s ability to lead the people. As leaders, we should look for opportunities to demonstrate why we should be leaders, taking the initiative to take steps of faith.
1 Samuel 12 (Samuel’s Rebuke)
Summary: Samuel appoints Saul as king before relinquishing his leadership. Before stepping down, Samuel seeks affirmation from the people that he has treated them justly (v. 3), to which they respond positively (v. 4). With Israel transitioning into monarchy, Samuel recalls their history to provide perspective for the future. He expresses concern about potential idolatry among the people (v. 21) and reassures them that God will not abandon them (v. 22). Though, he warns them of consequences if they forsake Him, including being overtaken by other nations (v. 25).
Samuel sets up his argument by appealing to his integrity
Everyone has accepted Saul as the rightful king of Israel. Consequently, Samuel needs to “withdraw as the theocratic leader, though he continues to exercise his prophetic ministry.”[8] In this speech, he warns the people of God’s judgment if they turn away from him. Baldwin writes, “Samuel is seeking vindication not only of his own integrity but also of the style of rule he represented.”[9]
(12:1) Samuel said to all Israel, “I have listened to everything you said to me and have set a king over you.”
Samuel gave the people what they wanted, because God told Samuel to “listen” to the people (1 Sam. 8:7, 9, 22).
(12:2-3) “Now you have a king as your leader. As for me, I am old and gray, and my sons are here with you. I have been your leader from my youth until this day. 3 Here I stand. Testify against me in the presence of the LORD and his anointed. Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I cheated? Whom have I oppressed? From whose hand have I accepted a bribe to make me shut my eyes? If I have done any of these things, I will make it right.”
“I have been your leader from my youth until this day.” Samuel appeals to the history of his career as a prophet to reinforce his integrity. The people knew that he had lived with integrity in full view for his entire life. His leadership will stand in stark contrast to the leadership of the king.
“Testify against me.” Samuel puts his integrity on the line by asking them to testify against him, seeing if they can find any fault in his leadership with regard to stealing or oppressing the people. Again, this stands in contrast to the king.
“My sons are here with you.” It’s unclear why he mentions his wicked sons. Perhaps, he mentions them to show a contrast between his own integrity, and their selfishness. Baldwin asserts that he mentions his sons to “reinforce the fact that his ministry has covered the generations.”[10]
(12:4) “You have not cheated or oppressed us,” they replied. “You have not taken anything from anyone’s hand.”
The people testify that Samuel is innocent. This is far different than what the kings would do to them (1 Sam. 8:11-16; 14:52).
(12:5) Samuel said to them, “The LORD is witness against you, and also his anointed is witness this day, that you have not found anything in my hand.”
“He is witness,” they said.
Samuel calls Saul and God himself to the witness stand. This shows that he is completely innocent in these areas (e.g. stealing, oppressing). Youngblood argues that legal language pervades this speech—almost like taking the “stand” in court.[11]
Samuel recounts Israel’s history
(12:6) Then Samuel said to the people, “It is the LORD who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your ancestors up out of Egypt.”
Samuel points to God as the ultimate leader of the people, not himself or Saul.
(12:7) “Now then, stand here, because I am going to confront you with evidence before the LORD as to all the righteous acts performed by the LORD for you and your ancestors.”
Samuel argues that God has been a completely Righteous Ruler of the people. The problems in Israel were not God’s fault, but the people’s fault.
(12:8) “After Jacob entered Egypt, they cried to the LORD for help, and the LORD sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your ancestors out of Egypt and settled them in this place.”
God was faithful to answer the people when they “cried out to the LORD” in Egypt.
(12:9-11) “But they forgot the LORD their God; so he sold them into the hand of Sisera, the commander of the army of Hazor, and into the hands of the Philistines and the king of Moab, who fought against them. 10 They cried out to the LORD and said, ‘We have sinned; we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and the Ashtoreths. But now deliver us from the hands of our enemies, and we will serve you.’ 11 Then the LORD sent Jerub-Baal, Barak, Jephthah and Samuel, and he delivered you from the hands of your enemies all around you, so that you lived in safety.”
Samuel summarizes the repeated cycle of what happened in the judges: (1) rejection, (2) ramifications, (3) repentance, and (4) rescue. Samuel’s point is that God was always faithful to rescue the people—even when they sinned against him.
(12:12) “But when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites was moving against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to rule over us’—even though the LORD your God was your king.”
This reveals one of the motivations for why the people wanted a king: they wanted protection from Nahash the Ammonite (1 Sam. 11:1-4). Instead of trusting God as their protector, they wanted a king (compare with Gideon’s attitude in Judges 8:23).
(12:13) “Now here is the king you have chosen, the one you asked for; see, the LORD has set a king over you.”
God gave the people what they wanted.
(12:14-15) “If you fear the LORD and serve and obey him and do not rebel against his commands, and if both you and the king who reigns over you follow the LORD your God—good! 15 But if you do not obey the LORD, and if you rebel against his commands, his hand will be against you, as it was against your ancestors.”
Whether they have a king or not, it doesn’t change the fact that they need to obey God. This is what Samuel has been driving at throughout this chapter: If they disobey God without a king, they will suffer the consequences, and if they disobey God with a king, they will suffer the consequences.
Samuel brings the rain (and the pain!)
(12:16-17) “Now then, stand still and see this great thing the LORD is about to do before your eyes! 17 Is it not wheat harvest now? I will call on the LORD to send thunder and rain. And you will realize what an evil thing you did in the eyes of the LORD when you asked for a king.”
Rain in the harvest season was considered terrible (Prov. 26:1). Likewise, the “thunder” could be an allusion back to the Mosaic Covenant (Ex. 19:16; 20:18). After all, Samuel is repeatedly emphasizing the need for obedience. Youngblood writes, “Samuel’s rhetorical question… served as an ominous reminder to the people that all their hard work had the potential of being wiped out in an equally brief period of time.”[12]
“When you asked for a king.” The term “asked” (šāʾal) is a pun for Saul’s name.
(12:18-19) Then Samuel called on the LORD, and that same day the LORD sent thunder and rain. So all the people stood in awe of the LORD and of Samuel. 19 The people all said to Samuel, “Pray to the LORD your God for your servants so that we will not die, for we have added to all our other sins the evil of asking for a king.”
This rain could be judgment for their past sins.[13] It was a reminder that they should follow God’s will in the future, because their sins will not be overlooked.
(12:20) “Do not be afraid,” Samuel replied. “You have done all this evil; yet do not turn away from the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.”
The people have nothing to fear if they decide to follow the Lord.
(12:21) “Do not turn away after useless idols. They can do you no good, nor can they rescue you, because they are useless.”
Isaiah the term “useless” (tōhû) to refer to idols (Isa. 41:29; 44:9). Samuel is urging the people not to trust in worthless things (like kings!), but rather to trust in God.
(12:22) “For the sake of his great name the LORD will not reject his people, because the LORD was pleased to make you his own.”
God will be faithful to them. The question is whether the people will be faithful to God.
(12:23) “As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against the LORD by failing to pray for you. And I will teach you the way that is good and right.”
Samuel considered it sinful not to pray.
(12:24-25) “But be sure to fear the LORD and serve him faithfully with all your heart. Consider what great things he has done for you. 25 Yet if you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will perish.”
“Consider what great things he has done for you.” This is a major theme throughout Samuel’s speech. He wants to direct their attention to the goodness of God—not their new, fallible king. Moreover, Baldwin writes, “Nothing is likely to prove a more effective incentive to faithful service.”[14]
“If you persist in doing evil, both you and your king will perish.” Samuel foreshadows what will happen to Saul and the people. The term “perish” comes up again on the lips of David to refer to Saul’s judgment (1 Sam. 26:10), which eventually happened (1 Sam. 31:1-5). This speech and the accompanying miracle seem like overkill on Samuel’s behalf. But even with all of Samuel’s warnings, Saul and the people did not listen.
Concluding insights
When we move into new life situations, it is helpful to remember God’s provisions in the past.
It’s crucial to trust in God, rather than in “useless” like idols, kings, or people.
Why didn’t Saul take Samuel as his counselor in his new political cabinet? Samuel would’ve made a wonderful counselor to the king, but Saul struck out on his own. What a mistake! Baldwin’s words are worth quoting at length: “Had he realized it, Saul could have gained much by the presence of a seasoned prophet like Samuel alongside him, ready to give guidance, instruction and, if necessary, rebuke. Above all, Samuel was an intercessor who knew the Lord’s mind, and saw prayer answered. Samuel would indicate the right way, and all Saul had to do was follow. He could have leant hard on Samuel and he would have found reassurance. In the event, this was exactly what Saul could not bring himself to do.”[15]
1 Samuel 13 (Saul’s Error)
Summary: Saul began his reign at the age of 30 and ruled for 42 years (v.1). The chapter starts with Saul engaging in war against the Philistines. Saul is seen taking credit for Jonathan’s valiant efforts in battle (v.4), despite Jonathan risking his life. Samuel, in response, begins to criticize Saul’s actions and takes a lesser role in the kingdom.
When Samuel delays in arriving to offer sacrifices to God, Saul takes matters into his own hands and performs the sacrifice himself (v.9). Big mistake. This action represents a significant overstep of his authority, blurring the lines between religious and royal duties. Saul argues convincingly for his actions, but Samuel rebukes him (v.13), highlighting Saul’s disregard for divine commands in favor of expediency. This disobedience marks the beginning of Saul’s downfall, as he is informed that another will replace him (v.15).
The Philistines had restricted Israel’s access to metallurgy (v.19). This left the Israelites with inadequate weaponry such as farming tools when they went to battle (v.22), illustrating the dire situation Israel faced in the conflict.
(13:1) Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years.
(1 Sam. 13:1) What is the correct number here? This number is missing in the original Hebrew text. The text literally states, “Saul was a son of… years when he became king, and he ruled for two years in Israel.” This is why various translations render this differently. They are trying to infer what the original text stated. Archer writes, “For some reason, the text of 1 and 2 Samuel seems to have been more poorly preserved in the Masoretic recension than any other book in the Bible.”[16] The number must be over twenty, because a number of nineteen or below would have grammatically required the plural (sanim). Archer writes, “Because the singular sanah is used here, we can tell that a numeral of twenty or more must have preceded it.”[17]
Paul gives a round number for Saul’s reign in Acts 13:21 (“forty years,” rather than forty two). Josephus states that Saul reigned for 42 years as well: “Now Saul, when he had reigned eighteen years while Samuel was alive, and after his death two [and twenty], ended his life in this manner” (Antiquities, 6.378). Bergen[18] speculates that two is the correct number for how long Saul reigned before he was disqualified as king.
(13:2) Saul chose three thousand men from Israel; two thousand were with him at Mikmash and in the hill country of Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan at Gibeah in Benjamin. The rest of the men he sent back to their homes.
Saul kept twice the number of soldiers for himself (2,000) than for Jonathan (1,000). He also sends Jonathan into battle, rather than going himself. So, he gives Jonathan half the troops and more of the danger.
(13:3-4) Jonathan attacked the Philistine outpost at Geba, and the Philistines heard about it. Then Saul had the trumpet blown throughout the land and said, “Let the Hebrews hear!” 4 So all Israel heard the news: “Saul has attacked the Philistine outpost, and now Israel has become obnoxious to the Philistines.” And the people were summoned to join Saul at Gilgal.
“Saul has attacked the Philistine outpost.” Jonathan was the one to attack the Philistines—not Saul. He is taking credit for his son’s bravery. Moreover, earlier, Saul had sent these men home (v.2). But now, he’s calling them back to war. Perhaps, Saul is vacillating now that war has actually begun.
(13:5) The Philistines assembled to fight Israel, with three thousand chariots, six thousand charioteers, and soldiers as numerous as the sand on the seashore. They went up and camped at Mikmash, east of Beth Aven.
Meanwhile, the Philistines mustered an army that outnumbered the Hebrews 10-to-1 (30,000 troops to 3,000 troops, v.2). The reference to the Philistine warriors being “as numerous as the sand on the seashore” is in direct contrast to God’s promise to bless Abraham’s descendants (Gen. 22:17).
(13:6-7) When the Israelites saw that their situation was critical and that their army was hard pressed, they hid in caves and thickets, among the rocks, and in pits and cisterns. 7 Some Hebrews even crossed the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead. Saul remained at Gilgal, and all the troops with him were quaking with fear.
This Philistine army led to a massive defection on behalf of the Israelites. They hid in caves, thickets, and even in the ground. Others fled to the other side of the Jordan River. But Saul stood his ground: “Saul remained at Gilgal.”
Saul chose not to wait on God
(13:8) He waited seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal, and Saul’s men began to scatter.
Imagine being in Saul’s shoes: A massive army is mounting against you, and your men are deserting. Furthermore, Samuel (your only hope) is running late to bring the spiritual power from God. Rather than waiting on God, Saul takes matters into his own hands. One might think that Saul had ample justification from his perspective, but this turns out to be one of the most monumental failures of his career.
(13:9) So he said, “Bring me the burnt offering and the fellowship offerings.” And Saul offered up the burnt offering.
This was a major overstep on Saul’s behalf. The king was not supposed to perform priestly or prophetic duties. Samuel had specifically told Saul to wait for him to arrive, but Saul disobeyed in the face of fear. Moreover, Saul only offers a single burnt offering, while Samuel had called for plural burnt offerings (1 Sam. 10:8).
(13:10) Just as he finished making the offering, Samuel arrived, and Saul went out to greet him.
“Just as he finished… Samuel arrived.” If only Saul had waited just a little longer, he would’ve seen God come through! Moreover, Bergen comments, “It is ironic—and symptomatic of Saul’s spiritual dullness—that the king believed he could obtain the Lord’s favor through an act of disobedience.”[19]
(13:11-12) “What have you done?” asked Samuel.
Saul replied, “When I saw that the men were scattering, and that you did not come at the set time, and that the Philistines were assembling at Mikmash, 12 I thought, ‘Now the Philistines will come down against me at Gilgal, and I have not sought the LORD’s favor.’ So I felt compelled to offer the burnt offering.”
Saul gives his reasons, excuses, and feelings for why he was “compelled” to break God’s word.
(13:13) “You have done a foolish thing,” Samuel said. “You have not kept the command the LORD your God gave you; if you had, he would have established your kingdom over Israel for all time.”
Why was God so harsh on Saul? After all, both David (2 Sam. 24:25) and Solomon (1 Kings 3:15) offered burnt offerings. In this case, God sternly judged because he had not “kept the command the LORD.” Samuel had explained himself very clearly, but Saul hadn’t been faithful. Later, Samuel tells Saul that “to obey is better than sacrifice” (1 Sam. 15:22). Baldwin writes, “What Samuel is at pains to establish once and for all is the essential difference between Israel’s monarchy and that of the nations. In Israel the Lord is king, and obedience to him must be paramount.”[20]
How could Saul have had an “eternal kingdom” if David was going to have an eternal kingdom? This could be similar to Jeroboam, who was also promised an eternal dynasty (1 Kings 11:38). Youngblood writes, “Saul’s kingdom/dynasty could theoretically have been established alongside that of David without endangering or contradicting the enduring character of the latter.”[21]
(13:14) “But now your kingdom will not endure; the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him ruler of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.”
Paul comments on this in Acts 13:22.
(13:15) Then Samuel left Gilgal and went up to Gibeah in Benjamin, and Saul counted the men who were with him. They numbered about six hundred.
Saul’s army dwindled to just 600 men—a fraction of what he had before (v.2) and a smaller fraction of the Philistines (v.5).
(13:16-18) Saul and his son Jonathan and the men with them were staying in Gibeah in Benjamin, while the Philistines camped at Mikmash. 17 Raiding parties went out from the Philistine camp in three detachments. One turned toward Ophrah in the vicinity of Shual, 18 another toward Beth Horon, and the third toward the borderland overlooking the Valley of Zeboyim facing the wilderness.
The Philistines spread out to position themselves for battle. They controlled the roads leading into Mikmash—their base of operations.
(13:19) Not a blacksmith could be found in the whole land of Israel, because the Philistines had said, “Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears!”
The Philistines used overt pressure to stop the Israelites from having weapons. This embargo was effective: The Israelites only had 600 soldiers (v.15), and only two owned a sword! (v.22)
Historically, the Philistines had the ability to harness metal. Youngblood points out that Philistine metallurgy has been attested in archaeology: “Archaeologists working at many different sites have unearthed iron artifacts in bewildering number and variety dating from the period of greatest Philistine power and leading to the general consensus that the metal was introduced into Canaan—at least for weapons, agricultural tools, and jewelry—by the Philistines.”[22]
(13:20-21 NLT) So whenever the Israelites needed to sharpen their plowshares, picks, axes, or sickles, they had to take them to a Philistine blacksmith. 21 The charges were as follows: a quarter of an ounce of silver for sharpening a plowshare or a pick, and an eighth of an ounce for sharpening an ax, a sickle, or an ox goad.
The Israelites were fighting with farming equipment, and they had to pay exorbitant prices to get even these sharpened for battle. Youngblood writes, “The pym has proven to be two-thirds of a shekel in weight. If silver was the medium of exchange in v.21, the Philistines charged the Israelites an exorbitant price for sharpening and repointing their tools.”[23]
(13:22-23) So on the day of the battle not a soldier with Saul and Jonathan had a sword or spear in his hand; only Saul and his son Jonathan had them. 23 Now a detachment of Philistines had gone out to the pass at Mikmash.
They are going out to war with less men, and even fewer weapons.
Concluding insights
We need to do God’s work in God’s way. If we take shortcuts, he might choose to pull the plug on how he uses us.
We need to wait on God. Saul’s sin was that he couldn’t wait for God’s word to come to fruition. If he had only waited a little longer, he would’ve seen God come through.
1 Samuel 14 (Jonathan Defeats the Philistines)
Summary: Jonathan and his armor-bearer clandestinely approached the Philistine camp (v.1). Despite their small number, Jonathan was confident they could defeat the Philistines (v.2). They devised a plan: if the Philistines summoned them, they would fight (v.9). When this happened, they interpreted it as a sign from God (v.10), and they slew about twenty Philistine soldiers (v.14), causing widespread panic exacerbated by an earthquake (v.15). Saul’s forces then joined the fray and pursued the Philistines (v.23).
Saul rashly vowed that no one should eat until evening under penalty of death (v.24). Unaware of the oath, Jonathan ate honey (v.27). Saul’s arbitrary oath was criticized as self-serving and reckless (v.30). When Saul sought divine guidance, he vowed that the offender, even if it were his own son, would die (v.39). Through casting lots, Jonathan was identified as the oath-breaker (v.44). Saul rashly vowed to execute Jonathan, but the people intervened to spare him (v.45). Saul then continued to defend Israel against the Ammonites (v.48).
(14:1-3) One day Jonathan son of Saul said to his young armor-bearer, “Come, let’s go over to the Philistine outpost on the other side.” But he did not tell his father. 2 Saul was staying on the outskirts of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree in Migron. 3 With him were about six hundred men, among whom was Ahijah, who was wearing an ephod. He was a son of Ichabod’s brother Ahitub son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the LORD’s priest in Shiloh. No one was aware that Jonathan had left.
The contrast is striking: Jonathan is courageously taking initiative with only one other soldier, while Saul sits back and stays safe surrounded by 600 soldiers (v.3). Saul is eating fruit from a “pomegranate tree,” while Jonathan risks his life for the nation.
“Ahijah… Ahitub.” These are the priests who came from the doomed line of Eli.
(14:4-5) On each side of the pass that Jonathan intended to cross to reach the Philistine outpost was a cliff; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh. 5 One cliff stood to the north toward Mikmash, the other to the south toward Geba.
“The Philistine outpost was [on] a cliff.” The Philistines were on higher ground, which gave them a strict military advantage. Baldwin comments, “This was the last route anyone in their right mind would choose to take, hence the surprise Jonathan managed to spring on the enemy.”[24]
(14:6) Jonathan said to his young armor-bearer, “Come, let’s go over to the outpost of those uncircumcised men. Perhaps the LORD will act in our behalf. Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few.”
“Uncircumcised men.” Jonathan calls them “uncircumcised men” to reinforce the fact that they were outside of God’s covenant with Abraham. He was also reminding his armor-bearer that they were in God’s plan.
“Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few.” This statement is reminiscent of Gideon’s battle in Judges 7.
(14:7) “Do all that you have in mind,” his armor-bearer said. “Go ahead; I am with you heart and soul.”
These words must have been reassuring to Jonathan’s faith. It’s one thing to go alone, but quite another when you have a faithful friend with you.
(14:8-10) Jonathan said, “Come on, then; we will cross over toward them and let them see us. 9 If they say to us, ‘Wait there until we come to you,’ we will stay where we are and not go up to them. 10 But if they say, ‘Come up to us,’ we will climb up, because that will be our sign that the LORD has given them into our hands.”
This is similar to Gideon’s fleece in Judges 6:36-37.
(14:11-12) So both of them showed themselves to the Philistine outpost. “Look!” said the Philistines. “The Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in.”
12 The men of the outpost shouted to Jonathan and his armor-bearer, “Come up to us and we’ll teach you a lesson.”
So Jonathan said to his armor-bearer, “Climb up after me; the LORD has given them into the hand of Israel.”
The Philistines mocked these Israelite men for hiding in their holes in the ground. Their taunt is similar to Goliath’s words to David (1 Sam. 17:44).
(14:13-14) Jonathan climbed up, using his hands and feet, with his armor-bearer right behind him. The Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armor-bearer followed and killed behind him. 14 In that first attack Jonathan and his armor-bearer killed some twenty men in an area of about half an acre.
In the initial attack, Jonathan and his armor-bearer were outnumbered 10 to 1, but they still overcame them.
(14:15-16) Then panic struck the whole army—those in the camp and field, and those in the outposts and raiding parties—and the ground shook. It was a panic sent by God. 16 Saul’s lookouts at Gibeah in Benjamin saw the army melting away in all directions.
God did his part in this battle by bringing an earthquake on the Philistines that cause mass hysteria. God had promised this earlier: “The LORD your God will deliver them over to you, throwing them into great confusion until they are destroyed” (Deut. 7:23). The panic was so extreme that Saul’s men could see it from even far away.
(14:17) Then Saul said to the men who were with him, “Muster the forces and see who has left us.” When they did, it was Jonathan and his armor-bearer who were not there.
God was doing something powerful, and what was Saul doing? Counting his troops! Meanwhile, Jonathan was on the frontlines winning the war.
Saul realized that Jonathan was missing. Did he quickly rush to his aid?
(14:18) Saul said to Ahijah, “Bring the ark of God.” (At that time it was with the Israelites.)
Instead of helping Jonathan, Saul turned to the priest for the Ark—or maybe the “ephod” (NLT, NET). Regardless, Saul was going to turn to God for power and guidance, but then, he chose to leap into action instead. What a fool! He couldn’t wait long enough to get God’s power and guidance. This led to him making a foolish vow (v.24).
(14:19 NLT) But while Saul was talking to the priest, the confusion in the Philistine camp grew louder and louder. So Saul said to the priest, “Never mind; let’s get going!”
Saul couldn’t decide what he was going to do. First, he asks for the Ark, and now, he changes his mind. Baldwin notes the irony: “Saul had been sitting waiting for a lead when he should have been on the attack, and now he was on the attack when he needed to listen to the advice he had presumably requested.”[25]
(14:20) Then Saul and all his men assembled and went to the battle. They found the Philistines in total confusion, striking each other with their swords.
“Striking each other with their swords.” The darkness and the earthquake led the Philistines into total hysteria and confusion. With the panic sent by God (v.15), the Philistines turned on each other. Moreover, they were fighting in the dark at a time before soldiers wore uniforms. So, this would’ve easily led to accidental in-fighting.
(14:21-22) Those Hebrews who had previously been with the Philistines and had gone up with them to their camp went over to the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan. 22 When all the Israelites who had hidden in the hill country of Ephraim heard that the Philistines were on the run, they joined the battle in hot pursuit.
The Hebrews seem to be distinct from the Israelites. Youngblood states that the Habiru (apirū) were “a nonethnic designation for members of disparate groups.”[26]
(14:23) So on that day the LORD saved Israel, and the battle moved on beyond Beth Aven.
This is identical to Exodus 14:30, when God rescued the people at the Red Sea.
Saul’s horrible oath
(14:24) Now the Israelites were in distress that day, because Saul had bound the people under an oath, saying, “Cursed be anyone who eats food before evening comes, before I have avenged myself on my enemies!” So none of the troops tasted food.
This foolish oath led his own men into being “faint” (v.28) and “exhausted” (v.31).
“My enemies.” This might suggest that Saul’s “motivation for fighting the Philistines was personal vengeance, not zeal for the Lord.”[27]
(14:25-26) The entire army entered the woods, and there was honey on the ground. 26 When they went into the woods, they saw the honey oozing out; yet no one put his hand to his mouth, because they feared the oath.
Imagine the exhaustion you would feel fighting all day long, and walking everywhere you went. These men needed carbs to keep their energy up. The sad part was that they had honey “oozing out” of the honey combs everywhere they looked.
(14:27-28) But Jonathan had not heard that his father had bound the people with the oath, so he reached out the end of the staff that was in his hand and dipped it into the honeycomb. He raised his hand to his mouth, and his eyes brightened. 28 Then one of the soldiers told him, “Your father bound the army under a strict oath, saying, ‘Cursed be anyone who eats food today!’ That is why the men are faint.”
Jonathan didn’t know about this oath when he ate the honey.
(14:29-30) Jonathan said, “My father has made trouble for the country. See how my eyes brightened when I tasted a little of this honey. 30 How much better it would have been if the men had eaten today some of the plunder they took from their enemies. Would not the slaughter of the Philistines have been even greater?”
Jonathan didn’t agree with the oath. In fact, he believed that it was completely non-strategic. They could’ve killed more Philistines if his foolish father hadn’t made that oath.
Will Jonathan die?
(14:31) That day, after the Israelites had struck down the Philistines from Mikmash to Aijalon, they were exhausted.
They won the battle, but they were exhausted.
(14:32) They pounced on the plunder and, taking sheep, cattle and calves, they butchered them on the ground and ate them, together with the blood.
“With the blood.” Perhaps the men wouldn’t have sinned like this, if Saul had allowed them to eat some of the honey.
(14:33-34) Then someone said to Saul, “Look, the men are sinning against the LORD by eating meat that has blood in it.”
“You have broken faith,” he said. “Roll a large stone over here at once.” 34 Then he said, “Go out among the men and tell them, ‘Each of you bring me your cattle and sheep, and slaughter them here and eat them. Do not sin against the LORD by eating meat with blood still in it.’” So everyone brought his ox that night and slaughtered it there.
“Roll a large stone over here.” The people were slaughtering the animals on the ground (v.32). Saul calls for them to slaughter them on a rock—probably for hygienic purposes.
Eating an animal with blood was actually wrong according to the law (Gen. 9:4; Lev. 3:17; 7:26; 17:10-11). But Saul’s response to the men is minimal. By contrast, Saul’s response to Jonathan breaking his personal vow is to kill his son. Saul cared more for his own word than for following God’s word.
(14:35) Then Saul built an altar to the LORD; it was the first time he had done this.
“It was the first time he had done this.” This is “probably a negative comment directed at Saul’s lack of piety.”[28]
(14:36-37) Saul said, “Let us go down and pursue the Philistines by night and plunder them till dawn, and let us not leave one of them alive.”
“Do whatever seems best to you,” they replied.
But the priest said, “Let us inquire of God here.” 37 So Saul asked God, “Shall I go down and pursue the Philistines? Will you give them into Israel’s hand?” But God did not answer him that day.
God was silent to Saul’s questions. This is a sign from the narrative that God has abandoned Saul.
(14:38-39) Saul therefore said, “Come here, all you who are leaders of the army, and let us find out what sin has been committed today. 39 As surely as the LORD who rescues Israel lives, even if the guilt lies with my son Jonathan, he must die.” But not one of them said a word.
“Let us find out what sin has been committed today.” Saul doesn’t look to himself as a sinner. He assumes that God’s silence has to do with someone else—even his own son.
“Even if the guilt lies with my son Jonathan, he must die.” Saul was willing to sacrifice his own son on the altar of his pride. This is reminiscent of Jephthah’s awful oath (Judg. 11:31, 39).
“Not one of them said a word.” The other soldiers were silent because they sided with Jonathan—not Saul.
(14:40) Saul then said to all the Israelites, “You stand over there; I and Jonathan my son will stand over here.”
“Do what seems best to you,” they replied.
Did Saul have an intuition that Jonathan was the culprit? Why did he make that specific statement about Jonathan needing to die? (v.39) Why does he immediately separate himself and Jonathan from the men? It is not unlikely that he was jealous of his own son’s accomplishments. Jonathan was the courageous leader that Saul wasn’t.
(14:41-42) Then Saul prayed to the LORD, the God of Israel, “Why have you not answered your servant today? If the fault is in me or my son Jonathan, respond with Urim, but if the men of Israel are at fault, respond with Thummim.” Jonathan and Saul were taken by lot, and the men were cleared. 42 Saul said, “Cast the lot between me and Jonathan my son.” And Jonathan was taken.
The lot falls to Jonathan.
(14:43) Then Saul said to Jonathan, “Tell me what you have done.”
So Jonathan told him, “I tasted a little honey with the end of my staff. And now I must die!”
Jonathan didn’t agree with the oath (vv.29-30), but then, why was he was willing die? This must show his tremendous loyalty to his father, or this might simply be descriptive—not prescriptive.
(14:44) Saul said, “May God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if you do not die, Jonathan.”
Saul doesn’t hesitate: He doubles down on his resolve to kill his own son! How insecure of a leader must you be to kill your own son, rather than admit your own foolishness?
(14:45) But the men said to Saul, “Should Jonathan die—he who has brought about this great deliverance in Israel? Never! As surely as the LORD lives, not a hair of his head will fall to the ground, for he did this today with God’s help.” So the men rescued Jonathan, and he was not put to death.
The men revolted against Saul’s command. The “rescued” or literally “ransomed” Jonathan.[29]
(14:46) Then Saul stopped pursuing the Philistines, and they withdrew to their own land.
Saul missed his opportunity to eliminate the Philistines.
Saul’s further battles
(14:47-48) After Saul had assumed rule over Israel, he fought against their enemies on every side: Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah, and the Philistines. Wherever he turned, he inflicted punishment on them. 48 He fought valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, delivering Israel from the hands of those who had plundered them.
God had not totally abandoned Saul. He continued to use Saul to defend Israel from Moab, Ammon, Edom, Zobah, the Philistines, and the Amalekites.
(14:49-51) Saul’s sons were Jonathan, Ishvi and Malki-Shua. The name of his older daughter was Merab, and that of the younger was Michal. 50 His wife’s name was Ahinoam daughter of Ahimaaz. The name of the commander of Saul’s army was Abner son of Ner, and Ner was Saul’s uncle. 51 Saul’s father Kish and Abner’s father Ner were sons of Abiel.
Saul still had many comrades—specifically Abner who was Saul’s cousin. Abner will become a major player in the rest of the narrative.
(14:52) All the days of Saul there was bitter war with the Philistines, and whenever Saul saw a mighty or brave man, he took him into his service.
Saul garnered some of the roughest and toughest men to his side.
Concluding insights
Jonathan demonstrates that God can use few to defeat many, if they place their faith in God.
Saul is the archetypical example of a boastful, arrogant king. He makes claims that he can’t (or shouldn’t) follow through with.
Was Saul jealous of his own son? Is this why he tried so vehemently to follow through on his own? Jonathan was the leader that Saul wasn’t (e.g. initiative, sacrificial, courageous, faithful, wise, etc.).
1 Samuel 15 (Saul Fails to Destroy the Amalekites)
Summary: Samuel commands Saul to completely destroy the Amalekites due to their past hostility towards Israel during their exodus from Egypt (Ex. 17:14-16; Deut. 25:17-19). God explicitly instructs Saul to eradicate the entire Amalekite society. The Kenites, who showed kindness to Israel during their journey from Egypt, are spared (v.6). However, when Saul engages the Amalekites in battle, he spares King Agag and the valuable plunder (vv.7-9). This disobedience disappoints God, leading Him to regret making Saul king.
Saul believes he has fulfilled God’s command (v.13), justifying his actions by claiming that the plunder was intended for God (v.15). He argues with Samuel, insisting he followed God’s instructions (vv.20-21). Samuel emphasizes that obedience is the higher command, more significant than sacrifices (v.22). Saul’s failure marks a turning point in his kingship. Eventually, he admits his sin (v.24), influenced by a desire to please people (v.25). When Saul hesitates, Samuel executes King Agag (v.33).
This passage underscores the authority of prophets over kings in Israel. Unlike other cultures where kings are supreme, in Israel, the king is subordinate to God’s will (“Lex Rex versus Rex Lex”).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yTpU_keBog&t=722s
(15:1) Samuel said to Saul, “I am the one the LORD sent to anoint you king over his people Israel; so listen now to the message from the LORD.”
Samuel reminds Saul of where he received his kingship from: God. Now, he urges him to listen to God’s words.
(15:2) “This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt.”
The Amalekites had been brutal to the Israelites as they escaped from Egypt (Ex. 17:8-16; Num. 24:20; Deut. 25:17-19).
(15:3) “Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
Samuel uses the term “totally destroy” (ḥāram) throughout this text. This is divine judgment on the Amalekites for what they did to Israel (Ex. 17:8-16; Num. 24:20; Deut. 25:17-19).
Saul defeats the Amalekites
(15:4-5) So Saul summoned the men and mustered them at Telaim—two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand from Judah. 5 Saul went to the city of Amalek and set an ambush in the ravine.
Saul starts off well, summoning his army and ambushing the Amalekites. The large number of soldiers could be mentioned in order to show that Saul had no excuse for failing to fulfill the command.[30]
(15:6) Then he said to the Kenites, “Go away, leave the Amalekites so that I do not destroy you along with them; for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.” So the Kenites moved away from the Amalekites.
This corporate capital punishment was discriminating based on what these people did. The Amalekites were judged for their cruelty, but the Kenites were spared for their “kindness.”
(15:7-9) Then Saul attacked the Amalekites all the way from Havilah to Shur, near the eastern border of Egypt. 8 He took Agag king of the Amalekites alive, and all his people he totally destroyed with the sword. 9 But Saul and the army spared Agag and the best of the sheep and cattle, the fat calves and lambs—everything that was good. These they were unwilling to destroy completely, but everything that was despised and weak they totally destroyed.
“Havilah to Shur.” This was all Ishmaelite territory, stretching from Arabia to Egypt.[31]
Youngblood understands this language (“totally destroyed all…”) to be hyperbolic: “The description of the total destruction of ‘all’ the people (v.8) is hyperbolic, since the Amalekites as a whole survived to fight again (cf. 30:1).”[32] For more on this subject, see our earlier article “What about the Canaanite Genocide?”
“Saul and the army spared… the best of the sheep and cattle.” Samuel killed the people and spared the livestock for his own personal advantage. Baldwin comments, “The Amalekite people were dispensable, but it was a pity to destroy excellent stock!”[33]
Saul was unwilling to execute Agag, the king, and he wanted to profit off of this war by taking the good sheep and cattle. God wanted the Amalekites to be judged, but they decided to pick and choose what they believed to be valuable.
God’s response to Saul’s sin
(15:10-11) Then the word of the LORD came to Samuel: “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the LORD all that night.
(1 Sam. 15:11) Does God have regrets? (cf. Gen. 6:6) In this same chapter, we read that God “will not lie or change his mind” (v.29). Instead, the word “regret” (nāḥam) can be translated as “consoling himself” (Gen. 27:42). The root word reflects the idea of “breathing or sighing, deeply,” and it “suggests a physical display of one’s feelings—sorrow, compassion or comfort.”[34] This word is used for God in a number of instances (Ex. 32:14; 1 Sam. 15:11; Jer. 26:3). This passage is not addressing the intellectual knowledge of God; it is describing his “emotional pain.”[35]
“He has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Turning away from God’s word is to turn away from God himself.
Why was Samuel crying out to God all night long? Surely, Samuel cried out to God for many reasons. Baldwin[36] thinks that Samuel’s “theology being put in question.” Samuel knew God doesn’t change his mind (v.29), and yet, God was removing Saul from leadership. Perhaps, this is why Samuel talked to God all night long. In addition, Samuel was worried about the state of the nation of Israel. With Saul removed from leadership, Samuel knew that the nation would fall. Finally, Samuel was personally saddened by the whole situation, and this was an emotional cry of the heart. The final verse of this chapter gives us insight: “Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him” (v.35).
(15:12) Early in the morning Samuel got up and went to meet Saul, but he was told, “Saul has gone to Carmel. There he has set up a monument in his own honor and has turned and gone on down to Gilgal.”
“He has set up a monument in his own honor.” Saul didn’t set up an altar to God—but to himself!
(15:13) When Samuel reached him, Saul said, “The LORD bless you! I have carried out the LORD’s instructions.”
Saul knew that he had sinned (v.20, 24). He must be keeping up appearances by speaking to Samuel with such sweet words, trying to appear as if everything is just fine.
Saul also refers to the “command” (singular, NASB) of the Lord, which might be a subtle way of him trying to cover himself. He carried out part of God’s “commands” (plural), but not all of them.[37]
(15:14) But Samuel said, “What then is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?”
This is a pretty funny way of challenging Saul’s claim to be faithful. If Saul had really carried out the commands of the Lord, then why is Samuel hearing all of the animals?
(15:15) Saul answered, “The soldiers brought them from the Amalekites; they spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to the LORD your God, but we totally destroyed the rest.”
“They spared [them] to sacrifice to the LORD.” This is another lie: They weren’t sparing them for the Lord, but for themselves. Later, we learn that Saul gave into the pressure of the people (v.24).
“The Lord your God.” This is a subtle shift. Saul is realizing that he is on the wrong side of the theological fence. Baldwin writes, “The little word ‘your’ speaks volumes about Saul, who does not speak of ‘our God.’”[38]
(15:16) “Enough!” Samuel said to Saul. “Let me tell you what the LORD said to me last night.”
“Tell me,” Saul replied.
“Enough” is literally translated “stop” or “be still.”[39] Samuel is done hearing Saul’s excuses. In a sense, Samuel is saying, “Quiet! It’s my turn to talk.” To be more accurate, as a prophet, Samuel tells Saul that it’s God’s turn to talk.
(15:17-19) Samuel said, “Although you were once small in your own eyes, did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. 18 And he sent you on a mission, saying, ‘Go and completely destroy those wicked people, the Amalekites; wage war against them until you have wiped them out.’ 19 Why did you not obey the LORD? Why did you pounce on the plunder and do evil in the eyes of the LORD?”
“Did you not become the head of the tribes of Israel?” Saul blames the people for what happened, but Samuel blames Saul. After all, wasn’t Saul the king?[40]
Samuel reminds Saul that he was a nobody until God anointed him. But now, Saul thought he could call the shots, disobeying God’s will.
(15:20-21) “But I did obey the LORD,” Saul said. “I went on the mission the LORD assigned me. I completely destroyed the Amalekites and brought back Agag their king. 21 The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God at Gilgal.”
Saul is living in denial and trying to blame shift what happened. He’s still sticking with the story that he had good religious motives (i.e. having more sacrifices for the Lord). But Saul gives himself away again: “In order to sacrifice them to the LORD your God.” Bergen comments, “Saul’s sin was the sin of Achan, who had also spared the choicest of ḥerem plunder from destruction (cf. Josh 7:21). Achan and his family died for his sin; Saul’s sin would bring him misery and death and would cause his family’s loss of kingship.”[41]
(15:22) But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
Rebelling against God cannot be covered up by religious rituals.
Does God delight in sacrifices or not? See comments on “Common Jewish Objections to Jesus” under “Are blood sacrifices important for atonement and forgiveness?”
(15:23) For rebellion is like the sin of divination, and arrogance like the evil of idolatry. Because you have rejected the word of the LORD, he has rejected you as king.”
Rebellion to authority is on par with occult worship (cf. Deut. 18:10). Youngblood makes an interesting observation: “For the sake of clarity in English, the NIV has transformed the metaphors of v.23a into similes. In neither line is ‘like’ represented in the Hebrew text, which is thus all the more blunt.”[42] Samuel is making a direct connect—not a simile.
At the end of Saul’s life, he quite literally falls into the “sin of divination” by visiting the witch at Endor (1 Sam. 28). This is how sin operates in our lives. When we disagree with God in one area, the same logic leads us to disobey in areas we never imagined.
(15:24) Then Saul said to Samuel, “I have sinned. I violated the LORD’s command and your instructions. I was afraid of the men and so I gave in to them.”
Saul’s repentance is not dissimilar to Pharaoh’s “repentance” in the Exodus (Ex. 10:16-17). Saul was “afraid of the men.” We should fear God—not people. Solomon writes, “Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe” (Prov. 29:25).
(15:25-26) “Now I beg you, forgive my sin and come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD.”
26 But Samuel said to him, “I will not go back with you. You have rejected the word of the LORD, and the LORD has rejected you as king over Israel!”
Like Hophni and Phineas, God’s judgment was irreversible.
(15:27-28) As Samuel turned to leave, Saul caught hold of the hem of his robe, and it tore. 28 Samuel said to him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom of Israel from you today and has given it to one of your neighbors—to one better than you.”
When Saul later falls into the sin of divination, Samuel repeats this judgment, telling him, “The LORD has torn the kingdom out of your hands and given it to one of your neighbors—to David” (1 Sam. 28:17).
(15:29) “He who is the Glory of Israel does not lie or change his mind; for he is not a human being, that he should change his mind.”
God won’t change his judgment toward Saul. Later, in the Psalms, God won’t revoke his blessing toward David: “But I will not break off My lovingkindness from him, nor deal falsely in My faithfulness… Once I have sworn by My holiness; I will not lie to David” (Ps. 89:33, 35 NASB).
(15:30-31) Saul replied, “I have sinned. But please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.” 31 So Samuel went back with Saul, and Saul worshiped the LORD.
“Please honor me before the elders.” The nation was falling apart, and all Saul could think about was looking good in front of the elders and the nation. Saul was “unwilling to lose face and wants Samuel’s presence in order to make it appear as if nothing has happened.”[43] Samuel agrees to follow him home—whereas, earlier, Samuel refused to do so (v.26). As we read the rest of the text (vv.32-35), Samuel and Saul actually split ways.
Again, Saul refers to the Lord as “your God.” This is the third time that Saul notes that God was no longer with him.
Samuel kills Agag
(15:32-33) Then Samuel said, “Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.” Agag came to him in chains. And he thought, “Surely the bitterness of death is past.” 33 But Samuel said, “As your sword has made women childless, so will your mother be childless among women.” And Samuel put Agag to death before the LORD at Gilgal.
Agag must have thought that his life would be spared. After all, if the Israelites were going to kill him, they would’ve done it by now. He was dead wrong! The language (šāsap) “seems to suggest that Agag was cut to pieces.”[44]
As far as we know, Samuel never killed anyone. But he was willing to fulfill the orders that he himself gave to Saul (v.3).
(15:34) Then Samuel left for Ramah, but Saul went up to his home in Gibeah of Saul.
Samuel and Saul split ways. Ramah and Gibeah were only 10 miles away, but Saul and Samuel never saw each other again.
(15:35) Until the day Samuel died, he did not go to see Saul again, though Samuel mourned for him. And the LORD regretted that he had made Saul king over Israel.
The term “mourned” (ʾbl) is the term for mourning over a dead person.[45] In Samuel’s mind, Saul was “as good as dead.” Even though Samuel loved Saul, he loved God’s word more. God announced the destruction of Saul’s kingdom, and the rest of the book describes how God would bring this to fruition.
Concluding insights
Samuel followed through with God’s word—even though it deeply troubled and grieved him. Sometimes, God will call on us to speak a hard word—even if it grieves us to do so (2 Cor. 7:8-9). Samuel persisted in confronting Saul until the truth came out.
Saul did not follow through with God’s word. He lied, shifted the blame, and did everything that he could to appear righteous. Sometimes people are so blind to the truth that they think that they’re following it. Other times, they know that they are in the wrong, but they will stop at nothing to justify themselves. God takes rebellion to his word very seriously.
1 Samuel 16 (David is Anointed)
Summary: God sends Samuel on a covert mission to find Jesse’s son David (v.1). Samuel arrives in Bethlehem incognito under the pretext of offering a sacrifice to avoid suspicion. Jesse’s sons are presented as potential candidates, but God selects David based on his heart, not his outward appearance (v.7). Samuel anoints David with oil as God’s chosen one (v.13), after which the Spirit departs from Saul (v.14). David is providentially brought to Saul to play the harp, which soothes Saul’s troubled spirit (v.22-23). This pivotal chapter marks a significant shift: God’s favor transitions from Saul to David, signaling a turning point in the narrative of 1 Samuel.
(16:1) The LORD said to Samuel, “How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him as king over Israel? Fill your horn with oil and be on your way; I am sending you to Jesse of Bethlehem. I have chosen one of his sons to be king.”
God doesn’t tell Samuel to stop grieving, but only asks him “how long” he will grieve.
(16:2) But Samuel said, “How can I go? If Saul hears about it, he will kill me.”
The LORD said, “Take a heifer with you and say, ‘I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.’”
Samuel had authority over Saul, but he was also afraid of Saul’s violence. He had to travel incognito, offering a sacrifice while he was there (Lev. 3:1).
(1 Sam. 16:1ff) Is it morally right to lie (cf. Josh. 2:4)?
(16:3) “Invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what to do. You are to anoint for me the one I indicate.”
This sacrifice was “invitation only.”[46] Only Jesse’s family was allowed to be there.
(16:4-5) Samuel did what the LORD said. When he arrived at Bethlehem, the elders of the town trembled when they met him. They asked, “Do you come in peace?”
5 Samuel replied, “Yes, in peace; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Consecrate yourselves and come to the sacrifice with me.” Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons and invited them to the sacrifice.
Samuel’s reputation of killing Agag may have preceded him. This might be why the elders of the city “trembled” and wanted to know if Samuel had “come in peace.”
(16:6-7) When they arrived, Samuel saw Eliab and thought, “Surely the LORD’s anointed stands here before the LORD.”
7 But the LORD said to Samuel, “Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.”
Samuel may have thought that a man’s height and stature was important. After all, Saul was a tall man (1 Sam. 9:2), and Samuel mentioned this fact to the people (1 Sam. 10:23-24). But God tells Samuel that he needs to look at the heart of the man—not at his height (cf. 1 Kings 8:39; 1 Chron. 28:9; Isa. 11:3; 55:8-9; Lk. 16:15).
(16:8-10) Then Jesse called Abinadab and had him pass in front of Samuel. But Samuel said, “The LORD has not chosen this one either.” 9 Jesse then had Shammah pass by, but Samuel said, “Nor has the LORD chosen this one.” 10 Jesse had seven of his sons pass before Samuel, but Samuel said to him, “The LORD has not chosen these.”
“Seven sons.” Chronicles states that Jesse had seven sons in total—not eight (1 Chron. 2:13-15). Baldwin[47] thinks that it is very plausible that one of the sons died young.
Jesse brings his seven sons to stand in front of Samuel for a prophetic inspection. Samuel somehow knew that God has not chosen them, and he must’ve wondered why none of them were chosen. Yet, as it turns out, Jesse has an eighth son (1 Sam. 17:12).
(16:11) So he asked Jesse, “Are these all the sons you have?”
“There is still the youngest,” Jesse answered. “He is tending the sheep.” Samuel said, “Send for him; we will not sit down until he arrives.”
“There is still the youngest.” The “youngest” (haqqāṭān) literally means the “smallest.”[48] David stood in sharp contrast to Saul, who was quite tall. Jesse must’ve been perplexed over the idea that his youngest son David could be a kingly candidate—especially since he was also a shepherd. Perhaps this is why Jesse didn’t bring up his name in the first place.
“He is tending the sheep.” The concept of the King (Messiah) being a shepherd becomes a major theme throughout the rest of the Old and New Testament (Ezek. 34; Jn. 10).
(16:12) So he sent for him and had him brought in. He was glowing with health and had a fine appearance and handsome features. Then the LORD said, “Rise and anoint him; this is the one.”
David’s face was “ruddy” (NASB) or “glowing with health.” That is, his cheeks had a reddish hue (ʾadmônî). David was handsome, but that is not why God chose him (v.9). Of course, David wasn’t passed over because he was handsome either. Rather, God saw a heart of faith in David.
(16:13) So Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers, and from that day on the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David. Samuel then went to Ramah.
“Anointed him… the Spirit of the LORD came powerfully upon David.” God wanted David’s father and brothers to witness what he was doing. Later, Isaiah associates “anointing” with the Holy Spirit (Isa. 61:1).
Once Samuel anointed David, Samuel’s career effectively comes to an end. Youngblood writes, “Although [Samuel] makes additional appearances later on, he no longer plays an active role in the books that bear his name. The anointing of David was the capstone to Samuel’s career.”[49] Like Jesus, David was declared to be the king, but there was a gap of time before he was recognized as the king.
Meanwhile, Saul loses the Spirit and God’s anointing as king…
(16:14) Now the Spirit of the LORD had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the LORD tormented him.
God began working through David—not Saul (cf. 1 Sam. 18:12). God brought this spirit to Saul as a form of judgment, and Saul needed to turn to David for relief. Later, this same evil spirit encouraged Saul to turn violent toward David (1 Sam. 18:10; 19:9).
(1 Sam. 16:14) Why would God send an evil spirit to Saul? (c.f. 18:10) In our text above, God sent this spirit as a form of judgment. Indeed, given the wide semantic range of the term “tormenting” (rāʿâ), Bergen[50] holds that this could even refer to an “angel of judgment.” This was not a capricious judgment. Rather, Saul had brought himself under judgment because he broke God’s law.
God has two types of wills: a directive will and a permissive will. God’s directive will can be defined as God actively doing something. By contrast, God’s permissive will can be defined as God allowing something to take place. For example, we might say that God is “signing off” on something, permitting it to occur.
While these categories exist in God’s character, Scripture often blurs the lines in explaining events. Often times in Scripture, demonic activity appears to be directly caused by God, but other passages make it clear that God was merely permitting this. For instance, 2 Samuel 24:1 explains that God caused David to number the people, but 1 Chronicles 21:1 explains that it was Satan who moved him. In Luke 22:31, we see that Satan has to ask “permission” to attack humans. Therefore, if he wants to do something, this is only possible if God permits him in his sovereignty. Likewise, 1 Kings 20:23 explains, “The Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets.” This passage attributes the coming of an evil spirit directly and solely to God. However, in context, the evil spirit actually volunteered to do this (v.21), and God gave him permission to do it (v.22). Moreover, Satan was the one to afflict Job (Job 1-2), but at the end of the book, Job’s friends are said to comfort him “for all the adversities that the Lord had brought on him” (Job 42:11).
In conclusion, God often uses language to explain that he was causing a demonic event, so that he can communicate his sovereignty and control over Satan. Kaiser notes, “Scriptural language frequently attributes directly to God what he merely permits.”[51] By claiming that he caused it, he is securing his authority over all things—even if he wasn’t directly causing all things. To the original audience (who was terrified of the demonic), this was probably a comforting message—even if it difficult for modern people to comprehend as we take for granted the sovereignty of God over the demonic.
(16:15-18) Saul’s attendants said to him, “See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you. 16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the lyre. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes on you, and you will feel better.” 17
So Saul said to his attendants, “Find someone who plays well and bring him to me.”
18 One of the servants answered, “I have seen a son of Jesse of Bethlehem who knows how to play the lyre. He is a brave man and a warrior. He speaks well and is a fine-looking man. And the LORD is with him.”
Why would music have an effect on an evil spirit? Tsumura notes that ancient cultures used “music against demons,” but in this case, he merely believes that this had “therapeutic power” on Saul’s condition.[52] Likewise, Evans refers to this as “music therapy.”[53] Other passages note that musical instruments were associated with the prophets (1 Sam. 10:5; 2 Kings 3:15).
(16:19) Then Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, “Send me your son David, who is with the sheep.”
David turns from a shepherd to the armor bearer of the king overnight. Saul didn’t realize that this servant would actually become the next king of Israel.
(16:20) So Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine and a young goat and sent them with his son David to Saul.
Jesse wanted David to bring gifts for the king (Prov. 18:16).
(16:21) David came to Saul and entered his service. Saul liked him very much, and David became one of his armor-bearers.
Saul begins his relationship with love toward David, but Saul’s pride would later poison this love toward the young man.
(16:22) Then Saul sent word to Jesse, saying, “Allow David to remain in my service, for I am pleased with him.”
Saul tells Jesse that he wants David to work for him full-time.
(16:23) Whenever the spirit from God came on Saul, David would take up his lyre and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.
See comments on verse 18.
Concluding insights
Saul is unaware of the fact that God had departed from him, and he moved on to David (v.14). People who are caught in unbelief and sin are often the last to know that God’s Spirit has departed from them. Of course, as believers in the new covenant, we are never separated from the Holy Spirit; we are sealed (Eph. 1:13-14; 4:30). But God’s power can depart from us.
God looks for people’s character—not appearance (v.7). Incidentally, elders are raised up by God based on their character—not their appearance (1 Tim. 3; Titus 1).
[1] Cited in Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 634.
[2] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 636.
[3] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 636.
[4] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 103.
[5] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 104.
[6] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 136.
[7] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 639.
[8] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 106.
[9] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 106.
[10] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 106.
[11] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 646.
[12] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 649.
[13] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 649.
[14] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 108.
[15] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 109.
[16] Gleason Archer Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 314.
[17] Gleason L. Archer, New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Zondervan’s Understand the Bible Reference Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982), 170.
[18] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 148.
[19] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 150.
[20] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 113.
[21] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 657.
[22] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 659.
[23] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 660.
[24] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 115.
[25] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 116.
[26] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 663.
[27] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 158.
[28] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 667.
[29] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 668.
[30] See footnote. Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 168-169.
[31] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 169.
[32] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 674.
[33] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 122.
[34] Walter Kaiser, More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 40.
[35] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 170.
[36] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 123.
[37] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 676.
[38] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 123.
[39] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 676.
[40] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 123-124.
[41] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 172.
[42] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 677.
[43] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 124-125.
[44] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 175.
[45] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 679.
[46] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 683.
[47] Joyce G. Baldwin, 1 and 2 Samuel: An Introduction and Commentary, vol. 8, Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1988), 130.
[48] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 179.
[49] Ronald F. Youngblood, “1, 2 Samuel,” in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992), 686.
[50] Robert D. Bergen, 1, 2 Samuel, vol. 7, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1996), 182.
[51] Walter C. Kaiser, More Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 132.
[52] David Tsumura, The First Book of Samuel, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 2007), 429.
[53] Mary J. Evans, 1 & 2 Samuel, ed. W. Ward Gasque, Robert L. Hubbard Jr., and Robert K. Johnston, Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2012), 81.