# commentaries

text:
<e>1 Samuel: New European Christadelphian Commentary</e><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>Carelinks</p><p>PO Bo 152, Menai NSW 2234</p><p>AUSTRALIA</p><p>www:carelinks:net</p><p>Copyright © 2018 by Duncan Heaster.</p><p>All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review or scholarly journal.</p><p>First Printing: 2018</p><p>ISBN 978-0-244-72629-4</p><e>PREFACE</e><p>This commentary is based around the New European Version of the Bible, which is generally printed with brief commentary on each chapter. Charities such as Carelinks Ministries and the Christadelphian Advancement Trust endeavour to provide totally free copies worldwide according to resources and donations available to them. But there is a desire by many to go beyond those brief comments on each chapter, and delve deeper into the text. The New European Christadelphian commentary seeks to meet that need. As with all Divine things, beauty becomes the more apparent the closer we analyze. We can zoom in the scale of investigation to literally every letter of the words used by His Spirit. But that would require endless volumes. And academic analysis is no more nor less than that; we are to live by His word. This commentary seeks to achieve a balance between practical teaching on one hand, and a reasonable level of thorough consideration of the original text. On that side of things, you will observe in the commentary a common abbreviation: “s:w.". This stands for “same word”; the same original Greek or Hebrew word translated [A] is used when translated [B]. This helps to slightly remove the mask of translation through which most Bible readers have to relate to the original text.</p><p>Are there errors of thought and intellectual process in these volumes? Surely there are. Let me know about them. But finally- don’t fail to see the wood for the trees. Never let the wonder of the simple, basic Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and His Kingdom become obscured by all the angst over correctly interpreting this or that Bible verse. Believe it, respond to it, be baptized into Him, and let the word become flesh in you as it was so supremely in Him.</p><p>If you would like to enable the NEV Bible and associated material to remain freely available, do consider making a donation to Carelinks Ministries or The Christadelphian Advancement Trust. And please pray that our sending forth of God’s word will bring back glory to His Name and that of His dear Son whom we serve.</p><p>Duncan Heaster</p><p>dh@heaster:org</p>


text:
<p>Now there was a man of Ramathaim Zophim, of the hill country of Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, son of Jeroham, son of Elihu, son of Tohu, son of Zuph, an Ephraimite- </p><p>We note that this continues on from Judges-Ruth, where people from Ephraim are generally apostate. So here we have an example of a family holding on to the covenant amidst general apostacy from it. Elkanah means "God obtains" and his father "Tohu" means "depression", and he was to be taught the meaning of his name through obtaining Samuel after the years of Hannah's depression. We too are set up by God with challenges and things we need to perceive, and are led by Him to that understanding- including through the experiences of our partners.</p>


text:
<p>He had two wives; the name of one was Hannah and the name of the other Peninnah; Peninnah had children but Hannah had no children- </p><p>Issues related to barrenness are so common in the lives of the Old Testament faithful. To not have children was seen as the ultimate poverty and sign of God's lack of blessing. The equivalent in modern society may be a sense that God has not come through for us in life as we think He ought or might have done; whether or not the issue is fertility. "Hannah" means Yah's gift or grace; and like Elkanah (see on :1), she had to be brought to understand God's intention for her, and to realize that children like all blessings don't come automatically but are God's gift by grace. "Peninnah" means rubies, and perhaps <a href='B:240 31:10'>Pro 31:10</a> has her in view when saying that the virtuous woman (cp. Hannah) is worth more than rubies / Peninnah.</p>


text:
<p>This man went up out of his city from year to year to worship and to sacrifice to Yahweh of Armies in Shiloh- </p><p>Elkanah is presented as faithful to the covenant. And yet the Mosaic commandment was that every male should appear before Yahweh three times / year (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>). But he went up only once / year, and yet is presented as a righteous man. Clearly most of God's people didn't keep the law of Moses perfectly, and yet legitimate relationship with God was still possible:&nbsp; And yet the fact that was true, was therefore by His grace alone.</p><p>The two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, priests to Yahweh, were there- </p><p>Phinehas means "mouth of a serpent", Hophni is less clear, possibly "one who punches / slaps with his hands". Strange names for men who were supposed to be priests, and a reflection on Eli. "Eli" could be a variation on El, but it seems more likely to mean high / proud one. And for all his apparent humility, that was indeed his problem in the end.</p>


text:
<p>When the day came that Elkanah sacrificed, he gave to Peninnah his wife and to all her sons and her daughters portions- </p><p>The idea may be that they ate a peace offering together, presided over by Elkanah, and he shared out the portions of the sacrifice to the whole family to eat, including little children. They ate of the symbol of the covenant relationship which their parents had, and this may or may not be helpful in formulating an understanding of whether children should partake of the bread and wine in our dispensation.</p>


text:
<p>but to Hannah he gave a double portion, for he loved Hannah, but Yahweh had shut up her womb- </p><p>"But Yahweh had shut up::." may hint that Elkanah's high view of Hannah was not at that point shared by God. He gave her, literally, "the nose portion". This could be a metaphor for "double", or it could be read literally, as if the gift of this part of the animal was a symbolic sign of favouritism. We will note on 1 Samuel 2 that she says many things which seem to betray a very unspiritual and bitter heart, even though she was of a woman of faith. We note again the usage of contemporary medical understandings ["phenomenological language"], a point to bear in mind when we come to the language of demon possession used to describe mental illness in the New Testament. For infertility is not due to a literally closed womb.</p>


text:
<p>Her rival provoked her severely, to make her fret because Yahweh had shut up her womb- </p><p>We have the situation of Rachel and Leah repeated again, whereby the barren wife was loved more by the husband and was provoked by the other partner. It is commendable however that she didn't resort to trying to get her husband to sleep with another woman and bear a child symbolically for her. The way circumstances repeat in life and between persons, both contemporary with each other and historically, is typical of how God works; we are intended to see the similarities with others and take lessons and encouragement. This is what makes the Bible a living word, because the characters selected for us to meet are all designed to speak directly to us in our lives, and to confirm our deep sense that man is not alone, and nothing we pass through is in fact totally unique to us. Peninnah made Hannah "fret" (<a href='B:90 1:6'>1Sa 1:6</a>), and yet when she has Samuel she asks God to "thunder", s:w. "fret", against her enemies, clearly having Peninnah in view (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). Hannah imagines He will do this when His "anointed king" is reigning, and clearly she understood Samuel to be that. He didn't become that; and the fact he anointed David to be king rather than himself being anointed is pointed poof of the fact that her bitter expectations and hopes didn't come true as she intended. There seems no forgiveness, just a desire for judgment and to make Peninnah feel the same way as she had been made to feel; and a desire for the manifestation of the anointed King in order for her to see her enemy made to feel how she had felt, and worse.</p>


text:
<p>This went on year after year when she went up- </p><p>It is again emphasized that they made once yearly pilgrimages to the tabernacle. And yet the Mosaic commandment was that every male should appear before Yahweh three times / year (<a href='B:20 23:17'>Exo 23:17</a>). But Elkanah went up only once / year, and yet is presented as a righteous man. See on :3. This is another indication that Hannah was not the peerlessly spiritual woman which she is sometimes made out to be.</p><p>To the house of Yahweh- </p><p>The temple of Yahweh wasn't then built, so this anachronism may reflect how these historical books were rewritten under Divine inspiration, after the exile. Or it could simply be that a more permanent structure had been built for the tabernacle.</p><p>She provoked her, therefore she wept and didn’t eat- </p><p>The idea may be that she didn't eat of the peace offerings, because she didn't feel at peace neither with God nor with the rest of the family because of Peninnah being so horrible to her.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah her husband said to her, Hannah, why do you weep? Why don’t you eat? Why is your heart grieved? Am I not better to you than ten sons?- </p><p>Perhaps he alludes to the happy Naomi, for whom her daughter in law's love was better than seven sons. And he wonders why Hannah can't be like her. Weeping and not eating could be associated with fasting; but also it could be the psychological outcome of cruel teasing and provocation. Or perhaps there was a little of both. The loss of appetite associated with her depression turned into fasting before Yahweh for a child. Or as suggested on :8, it may mean she declined to partake in the eating of the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p>So Hannah rose up after they had eaten and drunk in Shiloh. Now Eli the priest was sitting on his seat by the doorpost of Yahweh’s temple- </p><p>We have just read that she didn't eat (:7,8), which I suggested may mean she declined the meat and wine of the peace offering. But now she did, because her mood had changed because she had decided to make a vow (:11) and pray for a child with a prayer believed in so strongly that she believed and felt as if she had received the answer; for that is the true nature of faith in prayer (<a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>She was in bitterness of soul and prayed to Yahweh and wept bitterly- </p><p>I suggested on :9 that what we now read may be explaining how it came about that she was not eating and drinking the peace offering again, when previously she had not been. When we read in :18 that after her vow she ate, this would be linking back to :9. Who we are as persons is effectively our prayer and plea to God. This conception of prayer explains why often weeping, crying, waiting, meditating etc. are spoken of as "prayer" , although there was no specific verbalizing of requests (<a href='B:230 5:1-2'>Psa 5:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 6:8'>Psa 6:8</a>; <a href='B:230 18:1-3'>Psa 18:1-3</a>; <a href='B:230 18:6'>Psa 18:6</a>; <a href='B:230 40:1'>Psa 40:1</a>; <a href='B:230 42:8'>Psa 42:8</a>; <a href='B:230 64:1'>Psa 64:1</a> Heb:; <a href='B:230 65:1-2'>Psa 65:1-2</a>; <a href='B:230 66:17-20'>Psa 66:17-20</a>; <a href='B:450 8:22'>Zec 8:22</a>). The association between prayer and weeping is especially common: <a href='B:90 1:10'>1Sa 1:10</a>; <a href='B:230 39:12'>Psa 39:12</a>; <a href='B:230 55:1-2'>Psa 55:1-2</a>; <a href='B:500 11:41-42'>Joh 11:41-42</a>; <a href='B:650 5:7'>Heb 5:7</a>, especially in the Lord's life and the Messianic Psalms. "The Lord has heard the voice of my weeping. The Lord has heard my supplication; the Lord will receive my prayer" (<a href='B:230 6:8-9'>Psa 6:8-9</a>) crystallizes the point.</p>


text:
<p>She vowed a vow and said, Yahweh of Armies-</p><p>Poor Hannah was driven through the sorrow of her life to coin the phrase "Yahweh of hosts" for the first time in Scripture, so strong became her sense of the strength and manifestation of Yahweh in His Angels. The close association between Angels [Yahweh's hosts] and answered prayer resulted in many of the early believers conceiving of God in terms of an Angel, as Jacob in particular did. Hannah is another example; she prayed to the Lord of Hosts (Angels) to "look on the affliction of Your handmaid"; and the Angels are God's eyes through which He looks on us. She came to pray "before the Lord" (:15)- i:e. before the Angel dwelling over the ark. Angels are associated with conception- the cases of Samson, John and Jesus quickly spring to mind.</p><p>If You will indeed look on the affliction-</p><p>She was thinking of Leah, who considered the end of her barrenness to have been Yahweh looking on her affliction (<a href='B:10 29:32'>Gen 29:32</a> s:w:). She formed her faith from considering this Biblical precedent. But the same phrase is also used of Yahweh's deliverance of Israel from Egypt (<a href='B:20 3:7'>Exo 3:7</a>; <a href='B:20 4:31'>Exo 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 26:7'>Deu 26:7</a> etc:). She reasoned that the God who had done that for His people could just as easily give her conception.</p><p>Of Your handmaid and remember me and not forget Your handmaid, but will give to Your handmaid a boy, then I will give him to Yahweh all the days of his life, and no razor shall come on his head- </p><p>She wanted not merely a child to remove her reproach amongst men, but specifically a male so she could present him as a Nazirite to God. Although they were not Levites, by promising him as a Nazirite she was effectively asking for him to be counted as a Levite. Hannah's request in <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> that God look upon her affliction and answer it was heard, and she became an inspiration to her descendant David; who often makes the same request, unashamed to be inspired by the example of a woman (s:w. <a href='B:100 16:12'>2Sa 16:12</a>; <a href='B:230 9:13'>Psa 9:13</a>; <a href='B:230 25:18'>Psa 25:18</a> and so often in the Psalms). See on :15.</p><p>It seems from :21 that they were in the habit of making a vow every year, hence Hannah decides to vow that if she has a son, she will give him to Yahweh's service.</p>


text:
<p>As she continued praying before Yahweh, Eli saw her mouth-</p><p><a href='B:580 4:2'>Col 4:2</a> alludes to the LXX of this verse, bidding us all be like Hannah and continue in prayer; I noted on :11 that her example served as a template for David, as it should for us.</p>


text:
<p>Now Hannah spoke in her heart, only her lips moved but her voice was not heard. Therefore Eli thought she was drunk- </p><p>The tacit implication is that Eli had seen drunk people in the tabernacle before. The low level of spirituality in Israel is a continued theme of the Old Testament. We also have a reflection of how unspiritual and solely "religious" was Eli; the concept of praying silently rather than out loud was totally foreign to him. There is also the implication that Eli didn't hear her voice, but God did.</p>


text:
<p>Eli said to her, How long will you be drunk? Put away your wine from you- </p><p>It's possible that most of the then existent Old Testament was rewritten under inspiration in the exile. Hannah becomes the template for the exiles; for they too were "afflicted" as she was (:11), and are described as drunk but not with wine who would be justified and their tormentors punished, surely an allusion to Hannah (<a href='B:290 51:21'>Isa 51:21</a>; <a href='B:290 51:23'>Isa 51:23</a>). See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Hannah answered, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit- </p><p>Israel in affliction in Egypt were of sorrowful spirit (s:w. <a href='B:20 6:9'>Exo 6:9</a>). As noted on :11, she clearly had God's past salvation of His people from Egypt in mind. She felt that her domestic situation was as theirs, and likewise believed that God could miraculously save her from it. We note that this is the extent of depression and desperation that is inflicted by those who goad others over their supposed spiritual inferiority and God's supposed displeasure with them. We think of those disfellowshipped or tormented by others over their marital status, to the point&nbsp; they feel driven to suicide.</p><p>I have drunk neither wine nor strong drink, but I poured out my soul before Yahweh- </p><p>It was Judah in captivity whose soul was poured out (s:w. <a href='B:310 2:12'>Lam 2:12</a>; <a href='B:310 2:19'>Lam 2:19</a>); see on :14. And David again took inspiration from his ancestor Hannah in speaking of himself likewise in <a href='B:230 42:4'>Psa 42:4</a>; see on :11.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t count your handmaid a wicked woman, for I have been speaking out of the abundance of my complaint and my provocation- </p><p>She meant, she had been speaking to God in her heart. "Wicked woman" is AV "daughter of Belial", the term used of Eli's sons. She may be implying that she was not in fact drunk as Eli's sons often were. In this case, Eli criticized her for doing what his sons did. It's a psychological classic, taking out on someone else what should be directed to ones own family.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eli answered, Go in peace, and may the God of Israel grant your petition that you have asked of Him- </p><p>Eli's unspirituality is again revealed, for he thinks that prayer is simply asking God for petitions. But in fact she had been pouring out her soul to God, telling Him all her feelings about the provocation of Peninnah (:16). Let us also not think that prayer is simply requests; read David's prayers in his Psalms, and see how few of his words are actually requests.</p>


text:
<p>She said, Let your handmaid find grace in your sight- </p><p>Corrupt and unspiritual as Eli was, she still saw him as Yahweh's representative. His acceptance of her therefore encouraged her that God likewise had accepted her.</p><p>So the woman went her way and ate, and her face wasn’t sad any more-</p><p>She ate, of the peace offerings. I suggested on :9 that the mention of the fact that she again "ate" is then explained by :10-17. Her newfound joy was because she had the faith that feels and acts as if what we asked for has been granted, even though we don't yet have it (<a href='B:470 21:22'>Mat 21:22</a>).</p><p>The LXX adds that they stayed in an inn. Hannah’s song was clearly a major influence in the mind of Mary. But there are some background similarities as well as the verbal ones. The LXX of <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> [not the Hebrew text] speaks of Elkanah and Hannah staying in a katalyma on their journey to Shiloh- the very word used of the “inn” in whose stable Mary had to stay. If we ask why Mary based her song so heavily on that of Hannah, we find a clue in considering how she was greeted by the Angel as “favoured” (<a href='B:490 1:28'>Luk 1:28</a>). The Greek kecharitomene virtually translates the Hebrew name ‘Hannah’. The record is written in Greek, but Mary was a Jewess and spoke Aramaic and Hebrew; and probably the Angel spoke to her in those languages. So the link would have been all the stronger- ‘Hail, Hannah-like one’. And this set the mind of Mary thinking about Hannah, and in the days between hearing these words and meeting Elisabeth, Mary had perceived the similarities between her position and that of Hannah. She allowed the spirit of Hannah to genuinely become hers, in perceptive obedience to the Angel’s bidding. She came to share God’s perception of her as a woman like Hannah. ‘Hannah’ comes from the Hebrew root hnn – favour. Mary is told that she has been favoured / ‘Hannah-ed’ by God (<a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a>)- as if to lead her to see the similarities between her and Hannah. And she responds magnificently, by alluding to Hannah’s song so closely. Tragically as we shall see, she later came to be more influenced by the world’s perception of both herself and her Son. The theme of joy is very great in her song- again, because she was obedient to the greeting “Hail!”, literally, ‘rejoice!’.</p><p>The points of connection between the songs of Hannah and Mary's Magnificat are really quite detailed: </p><p><a href='B:90 1:3'>1Sa 1:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:7'>Luk 1:7</a>; <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> = <a href='B:490 1:38'>Luk 1:38</a>; <a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a> = <a href='B:490 1:46'>Luk 1:46</a>; <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> = <a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a>; <a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a> = <a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:5'>1Sa 2:5</a> = <a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a>; <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a> = <a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a>; <a href='B:90 2:26'>1Sa 2:26</a> = <a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They rose up in the morning early and worshipped before Yahweh and returned home to Ramah, and Elkanah lay with Hannah his wife, and Yahweh remembered her- </p><p>The worship may imply thankfulness. As noted on :18, Hannah really believed the prayer would be heard, even though she had not yet tried to conceive again. "Remembered" doesn't mean God had forgotten. The word is often used of what man does to God, and is translated "burn [incense]" and other terms appropriate to prayer to God. There is a mutuality between God and man, which especially functions through prayer. We 'make mention' of things to God in prayer, and He respects that and in turn, in His own council of Heaven, mentions or makes a mark for us in response. This is why the Hebrew for "ask" is the same for "heard" regarding prayer and the answers to prayer. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>When the time had come, Hannah conceived and bore a son- </p><p>The time coming is applied to both the conception and the birth of the child. With respect to the conception, the idea would be that God indeed had specified a time for this in His plan for Hannah from the beginning of the world. But all the same, without Hannah's intense prayer, this would not have been actualized. And it follows therefore that there are so many potentials which aren't actualized by intense prayer.</p><p>And she named him Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of Yahweh-</p><p>"Samuel" means both 'asked of God' and 'heard of God'. This exemplifies what was discussed on :19; that God and man are in mutual relationship. What we ask, He hears in the sense of answering. Samuel's name memorialized how she had asked and had such faith in the answer coming.</p>


text:
<p>The man Elkanah and all his household went up to offer to Yahweh the yearly sacrifice and his vow- </p><p>It seems they were in the habit of making a vow every year, hence Hannah decides to vow that if she has a son, she will give him to Yahweh's service. LXX adds "and his tithes". It was surely clear that the tithes were being abused by Eli's family, but Elkanah still brought them. Their abuses led to men sinning against Yahweh by not bringing tithes and offerings (<a href='B:90 2:23-24'>1Sa 2:23-24</a>). But Elkanah is commended for not being amongst those made to stumble in this way. See on :25.</p>


text:
<p>But Hannah didn’t go up, for she said to her husband, Not until the child is weaned, then I will bring him that he may appear before Yahweh and stay there forever- </p><p>The idea may be that she didn't go up because she had no vow to bring, whereas Elkanah did (:21); because her fulfilment of her vow would be when Samuel was old enough to be brought to the temple and left there, as a living sacrifice. We see here Hannah's individual, personal relationship with Yahweh; her vow was different to that of her husband's. This was at a time when religion was largely a male preserve, and the woman just followed along with the husband's religion. Elkanah encouraged her to do what was right to her.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah her husband said to her, Do what seems good to you. Wait until you have weaned him, only may Yahweh establish His word. So the woman waited and nursed her son until she weaned him-</p><p>I noted on :22 that Elkanah encouraged her to do what was right to her. And this reflects how within a good, spiritual marriage, the devotions of the wife and husband may be quite different. Hence the significance of LXX "but may the Lord establish that which comes out of thy mouth". He saw Samuel as her project whilst he had his own projects for Yahweh, his vows he brought yearly; but Samuel was his wife's project.</p>


text:
<p>When she had weaned him she took him up with her, with a three-year-old bull, an ephah of meal and a bottle of wine, and brought him to Yahweh’s sanctuary in Shiloh- </p><p>The age of the bull was perhaps to represent Samuel, who would have been weaned by three years old (see on <a href='B:90 2:11'>1Sa 2:11</a>). If Samuel was only three years old when given to Eli, his later spiritual maturity and devotion is the more remarkable; for he grew up surrounded by bad examples, and only the annual visit of his parents to impart true spiritual guidance. The bread ["meal"] and wine were associated with the voluntary peace offerings. This formed the basis for the later institution of bread and wine in the breaking of bread. If we ask "And where is the animal that is devoted and eaten?" the answer would be that it represents the Lord Jesus and also ourselves, as living sacrifices (<a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a>) because we are "in Him".</p><p>The child was young-</p><p>Evidence enough that a child can still serve God.</p>


text:
<p>They killed the bull and brought the child to Eli- </p><p>The "they" is presumably Eli's sons, whom we learn usually abused the offering and took it all for themselves. But just as Elkanah still offered tithes despite the abuse of them by these men (see on :21), so Hannah offered the bull. She knew it was done to Yahweh despite the abuse of His representatives. She separated church from God, in a way which many fail to do today.</p>


text:
<p>She said, Oh my lord, as your soul lives, my lord, I am the woman who stood by you here, praying to Yahweh- </p><p>We note that she doesn't swear as Yahweh lives, as is commonly found in the Bible, but by Eli's own life. Perhaps she felt that Yahweh was no authority to Eli to make an oath by. We note that this way of swearing by the life of the person being spoken to [rather than by Yahweh] is used of men to Saul (<a href='B:90 17:55'>1Sa 17:55</a>), by Uriah to David when he knew David had slept with his wife (<a href='B:100 11:11'>2Sa 11:11</a>) and by Hannah to Eli (<a href='B:90 1:26'>1Sa 1:26</a>). In every case the implication is that the speaker didn't think that the person being addressed really feared Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>For this child I prayed, and Yahweh has given me my petition which I asked of Him- </p><p>As Yahweh gave her, so she wanted to give to Yahweh (:28). This is the irresistible motivating power of grace, once it is perceived.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have given him to Yahweh- </p><p>AV "lent". It is rendered by many versions as "given" because she seems to have totally and absolutely given Samuel to Yahweh for all his life, with no intention of getting him back. However, we can still read "lent" if she had a Kingdom perspective; she looked forward to receiving back the sacrificed relationships in the Kingdom, just as we can.</p><p>As long as he lives he is given to Yahweh. Eli worshipped Yahweh there-</p><p>This is an attempt to interpret "he worshipped Yahweh there". But I think the "he" refers to Elkanah, unless we apply it to Samuel, who was still so young. And then his worship becomes parallel with Hannah pouring out her heart to Yahweh in the next chapter, making this a repeat of the situation earlier, and continuing the theme of this lovely couple each independently pursuing their devotion to Yahweh in unique ways.</p>


text:
<p>Hannah prayed, and said: My heart exults in Yahweh!- </p><p>Prayer is largely carried out in the mind – how we ‘speak in the heart’ is effectively read as our prayer to God. We find the phrase used about how Abraham’s servant prayed, ‘speaking in his heart’ (<a href='B:10 24:45'>Gen 24:45</a>). Thus our self-talk merges into prayer; Hannah’s “prayer” appears to have been the same (<a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a>). Solomon’s prayer for wisdom is described by God as “in your heart” (<a href='B:140 1:11'>2Ch 1:11</a>). This close link between thought and prayer is developed in the Lord’s teaching in <a href='B:480 11:23-24'>Mar 11:23-24</a>: “Truly I say unto you, Whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be taken up and cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that what he says comes to pass; he shall have it. Therefore I say unto you, All things you pray and ask for, believe that you receive them, and you shall have them”. Our self-talk is to be fantasy about the fulfillment of our prayers. Yet how often do we hit ‘send’ on our requests to God, like scribbling off a postcard, and hardly think again about them?</p><p>My horn is exalted in Yahweh- </p><p>The allusion may be to the way women wore a protruding head dress which was lifted higher the more children they had. But it is righteousness which exalts the horn, and not the biological experience of childbearing; for the wicked also have horns (<a href='B:230 75:10'>Psa 75:10</a>; <a href='B:310 2:17'>Lam 2:17</a>). She may have had in view the idea that her child was to be the anointed Messianic seed (the term is used about Him in :10; <a href='B:230 89:24'>Psa 89:24</a>). But her proud assurance of this was misplaced, for it was Samuel who was chosen not to be anointed, but to anoint David.</p><p>My mouth boasts over my enemies because I rejoice in Your salvation- </p><p>Hannah had remarkable faith, as noted throughout 1 Samuel 1. But like all of us, she had weaknesses, and those weaknesses were elicited by the situation she now suddenly found herself in. Instead of rejoicing in her blessings and new stage of life, she becomes boastful and distinctly vengeful in her attitude to Peninnah. There is no appeal to the other woman to repent, no forgiveness, only an eager desire for the direct judgments upon her, now that Hannah considered herself justified by God through her having had a child. "Enemies" may be an intensive plural for her one great enemy, Peninnah. Or it may be that she felt mocked for her infertility by a whole set of people, over whom she felt she could legitimately boast in the song she is now composing and singing.</p>


text:
<p>There is none as holy as Yahweh, for there is none besides You, nor is there any rock like our God-</p><p>David in his Psalms repeatedly alludes to the song of his ancestor Hannah. He effectively quotes this verse in <a href='B:100 22:32'>2Sa 22:32</a>; although I argue throughout 1 Samuel 2 that Hannah's was apparently lifted up with pride and the vengeance of the underling who has overcome the oppressor. And there is reason to think that David had elements of this weakness too. He thought it was acceptable to be like this because Hannah had been. And that is the problem with setting bad examples. See on :5.</p><p>I explained on <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> the detailed points of contact between Mary's magnificat, and Hannah's song of praise. But Mary was spiritually discerning enough to avoid the sense of pride and vengeance which fills Hannah's song in places. The points of connection between the songs of Hannah and Mary's Magnificat are really quite detailed: </p><p><a href='B:90 1:3'>1Sa 1:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:7'>Luk 1:7</a>; <a href='B:90 1:18'>1Sa 1:18</a> = <a href='B:490 1:38'>Luk 1:38</a>; <a href='B:490 1:30'>Luk 1:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:1'>1Sa 2:1</a> = <a href='B:490 1:46'>Luk 1:46</a>; <a href='B:90 1:11'>1Sa 1:11</a> = <a href='B:490 1:48'>Luk 1:48</a>; <a href='B:90 2:2'>1Sa 2:2</a> = <a href='B:490 1:49'>Luk 1:49</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a> = <a href='B:490 1:51'>Luk 1:51</a>; <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a> = <a href='B:490 1:52'>Luk 1:52</a>; <a href='B:90 2:5'>1Sa 2:5</a> = <a href='B:490 1:53'>Luk 1:53</a>; <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a> = <a href='B:490 1:69'>Luk 1:69</a>; <a href='B:90 2:26'>1Sa 2:26</a> = <a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a>.</p><p>The evident allusions Mary makes back to Hannah’s song could be read as reflecting what had actually been wrought in Mary’s own person and experience by some kind of persecution in her childhood. And it drove her within herself. It seems that she had been deeply humbled in order for her to be highly exalted. One wonders if she had been sexually abused. If Joseph was indeed much older than her, then we can understand how it happened that this girl, mature as she was beyond her years, got attracted to an older and spiritual man. Her spirituality and intelligence [for her allusions to Scripture indicate a fine appreciation of so much] would have been enough to spark plenty of village jealousy. </p><p></p>


text:
<p>Talk no more so exceedingly proudly- </p><p>Hannah comes over as hypocritical as she has just announced that she will be speaking proudly and hardly against her "enemies" now that she has had a child.</p><p>Don’t let hardness come out of your mouth, for Yahweh is a God of knowledge, though actions be not weighed-</p><p>Hannah had reflected upon God’s omniscience; and on this basis she tells Peninnah not to be proud and not to use hard words against her, exactly because of this: “Talk no more so exceeding proudly; let not hardness [AVmg:] come out of your mouth: for the Lord is a God of knowledge, and by him actions are weighed” here and now, because He sees and knows all things (<a href='B:90 2:3'>1Sa 2:3</a> AV); even though it appears that they are not being weighed, because His judgments aren't immediately apparent (so NEV, RVmg:). The word is used of how God weighs thoughts (<a href='B:240 16:2'>Pro 16:2</a>; <a href='B:240 21:2'>Pro 21:2</a>; <a href='B:240 24:12'>Pro 24:12</a>), but here of actions. We could conclude that therefore the thought is the action, as the Lord Jesus taught; or that Hannah was over emphasizing the external rather than seeing that it is the thoughts of the heart which are the essential issue.</p>


text:
<p>The bows of the mighty men are broken-</p><p>Seeing children are as arrows (<a href='B:230 127:4-5'>Psa 127:4-5</a>), the bow may refer to the womb, in Hannah's mind. And she is now wishing her barrenness upon her enemies who had once mocked her. This is hardly the right attitude, and she repeats it in :5. But as noted on :2, this is an idea alluded to by David in his victory song of <a href='B:100 22:35'>2Sa 22:35</a>.</p><p>Those who stumbled are armed with strength- </p><p>"Stumbled" is a word mostly used about spiritual stumbling. And yet Hannah is revealed as a woman of great faith in 1 Samuel 1. But she seems now to see that part of her life as stumbling, and her arrogant boasting as spiritual strength.</p>


text:
<p>Those who were full have hired themselves out for bread- </p><p>This is an idiom for prostitution. It's as if Hannah wishes Peninnah to be divorced by Elkanah and left on the street starving and needing to sell her body for food. The past tense may simply express Hannah's intention and desire for how things would be in the future, expressed in the past tense because of her confidence and strong desire that this would happen. Yet in line with the second half of the verse, hunger is understood as the hunger of the womb. So Hannah could be saying that she wishes Peninnah to now hunger, to become desperately barren, willing to prostitute herself to get conception. This is as Hannah also wished in :4.</p><p>Those who were hungry are satisfied. Yes, the barren has borne seven- </p><p>Again we see how past tenses are used in order to express intention and an assured future. Hannah was confident she would go on to have seven children. She didn't; including Samuel she had six. She had only asked for a single child, but now she had Samuel she assumed she was going to be totally fertile. This was a presumption upon God's grace, and yet He still kindly gave her further conception. But not up to the "seven" she here confidently boasts of.</p><p>She who has many children languishes- </p><p>The languishing could be in the sense of being unable to have more children; see on :4,5. But it is also a word used of mourning the dead, which would then lead on to :6 if this is the context. It is as if Hannah wishes Peninnah's children to die, for Elkanah to divorce her and for her to become a prostitute selling her body for bread (:5). The bitterness is terrible, and sadly recalls Sarah's bitterness with Hagar. Without doubt, Sarah was wrong. And yet Hannah follows her example here, just as David will later follow Hannah's wrong example. See on :2.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up- </p><p>Hannah feels that she has been dead [useless and non existent in society without children, cp. "the deadness of Sarah's womb", <a href='B:520 4:19'>Rom 4:19</a>], and now made alive. But she seems to want the converse to happen; she wants Peninnah to now be made 'dead', perhaps in becoming barren as Hannah had been. . But she may literally have in view a desire for Peninnah and her children to die; for Sarah, whose wrong example she was unconsciously following, wanted Hagar and Ishmael dead and therefore cast them out into the desert to die.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh makes poor and makes rich. He brings low and He also lifts up- </p><p>Instead of simply exalting that she had been lifted up (s:w. :1 "exalted"), she wishes to see Peninnah brought down. This is a classic psychological reaction of the downtrodden who are now exalted; but it is not the way of the Spirit. Hannah lacked grace. However we see in these statements that the negative side of life, the bringing down, the making poor, is attributed solely to Yahweh as in <a href='B:290 45:5-7'>Isa 45:5-7</a>. Clearly Hannah didn't believe the good comes from God and the evil from some cosmic Satan figure. See on :32.</p>


text:
<p>He raises up the poor out of the dust. He lifts up the needy from the dunghill- </p><p>Despite being apparently middle class, Hannah felt as a desperate beggar at the bottom of society. Perhaps she had Job in mind, for the story of Job would have been well known to her. But he was lifted up through recognizing his pride, and Hannah doesn't appear to have done that.</p><p>To make them sit with princes and inherit the throne of glory- </p><p>This and Hannah's song and experiences are alluded to in <a href='B:230 113:7-9'>Psa 113:7-9</a>. She is presented there as representative of Israel, particularly the exiles in Babylon. Her hope was that Samuel, whose destiny she saw as tied u[ with herself, would be not only a priest [although he was not strictly a Levite] but also a prince / king reigning upon a throne of glory, a term which clearly has Messianic Kingdom overtones. This is all similar to the idea of <a href='B:230 110:4'>Psa 110:4</a>, where the Messiah was to be a king-priest, not a Levite, but a priest "after the order of Melchizedek". "He settles the barren woman in her home, as a joyful mother of children" (<a href='B:230 113:9'>Psa 113:9</a>) continues the allusion to Hannah continues; but she was representative to the "barren woman" of Israel in exile (<a href='B:290 54:1'>Isa 54:1</a>), who was to be blessed with many children (<a href='B:290 49:12'>Isa 49:12</a>; <a href='B:290 49:18'>Isa 49:18</a>; <a href='B:290 49:20'>Isa 49:20</a>; <a href='B:290 54:2-3'>Isa 54:2-3</a>; <a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>; <a href='B:550 4:27'>Gal 4:27</a>). But Samuel didn't do this; instead it was he who set up another man [David] and his family to do so.</p><p>For the pillars of the earth are Yahweh’s; He has set the world upon them- </p><p><a href='B:90 2:8'>1Sa 2:8</a>; <a href='B:100 22:8'>2Sa 22:8</a> speak as if Heaven / the sky rests on the mountains, from where earth seems to touch the heavens (<a href='B:290 13:5'>Isa 13:5</a>), with the stars stretched out in the north (<a href='B:220 26:7'>Job 26:7</a>). This reflected the geo-centric view held by people at the time. The point surely was that however people understood creation to have happened, God had done it, and in wisdom. Likewise the technically incorrect view of demons as causing mental illness is reflected in the language of the New Testament.</p>


text:
<p>He will keep the feet of His holy ones, but the wicked shall be put to silence in darkness; for no man shall prevail by strength- </p><p>The experience of Divine grace and answered prayer led her to over simplistically conclude that she was a "holy one" and Peninnah the wicked. She thinks that her pregnancy somehow empowered her to condemn Hannah to condemnation at the last day. What she says is true, but the way she expresses these Divine truths smacks of pride and inappropriate personal condemnation of others. And we who likewise hold Divine truth and experience His grace must take the lesson.</p>


text:
<p>Those who strive with Yahweh shall be broken to pieces. He will thunder against them in the sky-</p><p>Peninnah made Hannah "fret" (<a href='B:90 1:6'>1Sa 1:6</a>), and yet when she has Samuel she asks God to "thunder", s:w. "fret", against her enemies, clearly having Peninnah in view. Hannah imagines He will do this when His "anointed king" is reigning, and clearly she understood Samuel to be that. He didn't become that; and the fact he anointed David to be king rather than himself being anointed is pointed poof of the fact that her bitter expectations and hopes didn't come true as she intended. There seems no forgiveness, just a desire for judgment and to make Peninnah feel the same way as she had been made to feel; and a desire for the manifestation of the anointed King in order for her to see her enemy made to feel how she had felt, and worse.</p><p>Yahweh will judge the ends of the earth. He will give strength to His king and exalt the horn of His anointed- </p><p>She considers Samuel as becoming the anointed [the first occurrence of the word 'Messiah'] king. But her dogmatic statement here was not to come true. Samuel didn't want Israel to have a human king and Hannah appears not to appreciate this as she ought to have done. And it was his duty to anoint David to become king.</p>


text:
<p>Elkanah went home to Ramah, but the child served Yahweh before Eli the priest-</p><p>Again we note how a child can acceptably serve Yahweh. The mention of Elkanah returning leads us to wonder whether Hannah initially remained there with the three year old Samuel; see on <a href='B:90 1:24'>1Sa 1:24</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now the sons of Eli were men of Belial; they didn’t know Yahweh- </p><p>Even in the Old Testament, sin was personified as ‘Belial’. The personification of sin was known throughout the Bible. And so it is in the New Testament, as the great enemy / satan of believers. It really has to be accepted that ‘Devil’ and ‘Satan’ are used to personify sin, because if we read these words as always meaning a literal being, then we have serious contradictions. We note that it's quite possible to do religious duties as did Eli's sons, without knowing / having relationship with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>The custom of the priests with the people was that when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was boiling, with a three-pronged fork in his hand- </p><p>God was and still is intensely aware of every detail of what they did apparently in secret. He noticed that the fork had three prongs. The style of the record is as if there is a video camera trained upon the servant. And the recording is kept until today; see on :13.</p>


text:
<p>He thrust it into the pan, kettle, cauldron or pot; all that the fork brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh to all the Israelites who came there- </p><p>We notice the zoomed in focus of the camera, as it were. The fork was thrust in, and it brought up meat which the priest's took away for themselves rather than offered to Yahweh. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover, before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came and said to the man who sacrificed, Give meat to roast for the priest, for he will not accept boiled meat from you, but raw- </p><p>The order given in <a href='B:30 3:3-5'>Lev 3:3-5</a>; <a href='B:30 7:29-34'>Lev 7:29-34</a> was that the fat must be burnt to Yahweh first, before the breast and shoulder were waved or 'heaved' before Yahweh, symbolically given to Him, and only then could the priests take it. But Eli's sons were too impatient for this and just grabbed what they wanted as soon as they saw it, exactly the spirit of our age. There was no recognition that whatever they had was really God's, and given to them only as His representatives. The habit of thanking God for our meals ought to be strongly established amongst all true Christian believers.</p>


text:
<p>If the man said to him, Let the fat be burned first, and then take as much as you want; he would say, No, give it to me now, and if you don’t, I will take it by force- </p><p>Their sin was in how they saw the meat and wanted it immediately, as did Esau. They were unwilling to experience delayed gratification through firstly giving to God, however symbolically.</p>


text:
<p>The sin of the young men was very great before Yahweh, for they despised the offering of Yahweh- </p><p>The word for "offering" here is minchah, that used specifically of the bloodless offerings of flour etc. The idea may be that when people saw the larger sacrifices being abused, they didn't want to offer anything at all to God, no matter how tokenistic. They failed to perceive the difference between God and church. Disillusion with the visible people of God, especially their leadership, led to not serving God. Elkanah, as noted on 1 Samuel 1, overcame this- and he needs to be the example to many. "Despised" is the word for "blasphemed". We blaspheme God by not offering to Him, even if we blame the church. We note too that the greatest sin is to make others turn away from God.</p>


text:
<p>But Samuel ministered before Yahweh, being a child, clothed with a linen ephod- </p><p>The "but" places the child Samuel in contrast to the sons of Eli. The phrase "minister before Yahweh" is only used of the priests ministering in the holy place, where incense was offered (<a href='B:140 29:11'>2Ch 29:11</a>). We wonder how a child, who was not of the tribe of Levi, could do this, and wear a linen ephod whilst doing so. The remarkable truth seems to be that because Eli's family didn't do even the most basic work at the sanctuary, the young Samuel did it. The connection between the ephod and the robe made for him each year (:19) would suggest that his mother had the spiritual vision to realize this and try to make the appropriate priestly clothing for him. Truly this was a family who saw beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of it. See on :19.</p>


text:
<p>Moreover his mother made him a little robe and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her husband to offer the yearly sacrifice- </p><p>I suggested on :18 that the child Samuel, a non Levite, was doing the priestly work because Eli's family refused to do it, or perhaps just told him to do it. The Hebrew words for "robe" and "ephod" in :18 only occur together in the descriptions of the "robe of the ephod" worn by none other than the High Priest (<a href='B:20 28:4'>Exo 28:4</a>; <a href='B:20 28:31'>Exo 28:31</a>; <a href='B:20 29:5'>Exo 29:5</a>; <a href='B:20 39:22'>Exo 39:22</a>). The young Samuel apparently did the work of the High Priest. His example and spiritual ambition inspired David, who he was to anoint, to likewise wear such a robe and ephod (<a href='B:130 15:27'>1Ch 15:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife and said, Yahweh give you children by this woman for the petition which was asked of Yahweh. They went to their own home- </p><p>Eli is somewhat male centred. He is really addressing Elkanah, and implying that he would be blessed with more children because "this woman", his wife, had prayed and dedicated the resulting child to Yahweh. Eli tacitly recognizes that he had been wrong in assuming Hannah had been drunk; he realizes now that she had indeed been praying with a paradigm of intensity unknown to him. Eli comes over so often as genuine enough; but it was his weakness in allowing his sons to blaspheme and cause others to stumble which led to his condemnation. The challenge to us is that major weakness in one area of life is not as it were compensated for, at least it wasn't in Eli's case, by an otherwise generally reasonable and spiritual service of God.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh visited Hannah and she conceived and bore three sons and two daughters. The child Samuel grew before Yahweh-</p><p>This blessing- possibly implying quintuplets conceived at the same time- is directly connected to the blessing uttered by Eli in :20. Although Eli was condemned, Yahweh worked through him. The similarities with Sarah noted earlier in this chapter continued; for again Yahweh "visits" to grant conception. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Now Eli was very old, and he heard all that his sons did to all Israel, how they lay with the women who served at the door of the Tent of Meeting- </p><p>His great age is perhaps mentioned to imply that he had for decades heard of what his sons were doing, and had only rather lamely rebuked them rather than insisting that the abuses end. These women are the supporting women of <a href='B:20 38:8'>Exo 38:8</a> who looked ahead typically to those women who were to support the Lord Jesus, the true tabernacle which the Lord God pitched. Again, as in :17, the greatest dimension to sin is in making others stumble. "Served" is literally 'assembled in bands', as if their ministry was quite highly organized. See on <a href='B:90 3:11'>1Sa 3:11</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Why do you do such things? For I hear of your evil deeds from all the people- </p><p>Being blind, he only "heard" of these things rather than saw them. Consistently, the Biblical record has the ring of internal consistency and credibility to it. People complained to him, but he is condemned for not disciplining his sons. So we can conclude that his words here were said as a formality and half heartedly. He would only have been condemned so strongly if it had indeed been within his power to change things.</p><p>Samuel was in his 50s or 60s at the time of <a href='B:90 8:1'>1Sa 8:1</a> when he made his corrupt sons judges over Israel. Eli had become judged of Israel at age 58 (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). It seems that Samuel's later life had unfortunate parallels with that of Eli. Eli may well have had his sons Hophni and Phinehas in his 50s, because his daughter in law was pregnant at the time of his death at 98. It would seem that when Samuel was about the same age as Eli, he also had sons, who turned away from God just as had Eli's sons. And the people likewise complained (<a href='B:90 8:4'>1Sa 8:4</a> = <a href='B:90 2:23'>1Sa 2:23</a>). The fact Samuel made them judges despite their immorality would suggest he had gone the way of Eli in turning a blind eye to them. So although Eli's bad example to Samuel was apparently ignored by him and Samuel's spirituality was commendable, finally in later life it seems that example did rub off upon him.</p>


text:
<p>No my sons, it is no good report that I hear; you make Yahweh’s people disobey- </p><p>We can make others sin (<a href='B:20 23:33'>Exo 23:33</a>; <a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a>; <a href='B:110 16:19'>1Ki 16:19</a>). There is an urgent imperative here, to really watch our behaviour; e:g. to not drink alcohol in the presence of a brother whose conscience is weak. The making of others to stumble is the repeated reason given for God's wrath with this family.</p><p>Eli did rebuke his sons; but in God’s eyes he didn’t (<a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a> cp. 3:13). He said words for the sake of saying words, but in his heart he didn’t frown upon them. Eli appeared to discipline his sons. But he couldn’t have really done this from his heart, or he wouldn’t have been condemned for not controlling them. He honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”.</p><p><a href='B:90 1:21'>1Sa 1:21</a> LXX adds&nbsp; that Elkanah brought "his tithes". It was surely clear that the tithes were being abused by Eli's family, but Elkanah still brought them. Their abuses led to men sinning against Yahweh by not bringing tithes and offerings. But Elkanah is commended for not being amongst those made to stumble in this way.</p>


text:
<p>If one man sins against another, God will judge him; but if a man sins against Yahweh, who shall entreat for him?-</p><p>To sin against God's people is to sin against Yahweh, just as Saul's persecution of Christians was effectively done to the Lord Jesus. The Father and Son are so closely identified with their people, they feel all that is done to us as done to them. Man is not alone, even in the most painful sufferings at the hands of others.</p><p>We see here in this verse a hint towards the lack of the Lord's mediation available at that time. But sinners against Yahweh, such as Israel, had had a mediator- Moses. But these men had no such mediator. And yet the question is perhaps rhetorical; although Eli didn't quite understand that. The answer was: the child Samuel, who points ahead to the future mediator, the Lord Jesus (<a href='B:610 2:5'>1Ti 2:5</a>). For Eli as the high priest ought to have been the mediator, but he was precluded from doing so by his own unspirituality.</p><p>However, they didn’t listen to their father, because Yahweh intended to kill them- </p><p>And yet Eli was condemned for this. The situation was therefore of his making, but Yahweh confirmed that situation. He works in the same way today. There are a number of other passages which mention how "it was of the Lord" that certain attitudes were adopted by men, resulting in the sequence of events which He desired (<a href='B:60 11:20'>Jos 11:20</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:110 12:15'>1Ki 12:15</a>; <a href='B:140 10:15'>2Ch 10:15</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>). It is tempting to read <a href='B:70 14:4'>Jdg 14:4</a> in this context, meaning that God somehow made Samson desire that woman in order to bring about His purpose of freeing Israel from Philistine domination. The fact a man does something "of the Lord" doesn't mean that he is guiltless. In the same context of God's deliverance of Israel from the Philistines, men who did things "of the Lord" were punished for what they did (<a href='B:50 2:30'>Deu 2:30</a>; <a href='B:90 2:25'>1Sa 2:25</a>; <a href='B:140 22:7'>2Ch 22:7</a>; <a href='B:140 25:20'>2Ch 25:20</a>):&nbsp; God through His Spirit works to confirm men in the path they wish to go. And this is the huge significance of the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives today.</p>


text:
<p>The child Samuel grew and increased in favour with Yahweh and with men-</p><p>As noted on :25, Samuel is being set up as a type of the Lord Jesus, the mediator whom Eli should have been (<a href='B:490 2:52'>Luk 2:52</a> quotes this about the Lord).</p>


text:
<p>A man of God came to Eli and said to him- </p><p>The visit of the man of God to condemn Eli was the more remarkable because there "was no frequent vision" at that time (<a href='B:90 3:1'>1Sa 3:1</a>). God was making a special effort to appeal to Eli.</p><p>Thus says Yahweh, ‘Did I not reveal Myself to the house of your father when they were in Egypt, in bondage to Pharaoh’s house?- </p><p>The reference is to the calling of the tribe of Levi "out of all the tribes of Israel" (:28). "Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. But the line of Levi and Eli had potentially been rejected because of Eli's apostasy. The Divine intention was to replace them with Samuel as a prophet-priest and perhaps king (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). But this potential was only partially fulfilled by Samuel, and despite possibilities in David and Solomon, it only came to full term in the person and work of the Lord Jesus. It seems that some unrecorded appearance of God to call the tribe of Levi is being referred to.</p>


text:
<p>Did I not choose him out of all the tribes of Israel to be My priest, to go up to My altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before Me? Did I not give to the house of your father all the offerings of the children of Israel made by fire?- </p><p>I have suggested that already, the non Levite child Samuel was doing these things. And he was wearing an ephod, which I suggested on :18 was one with religious significance. Eli and his sons had passed off the work of the high priesthood to the child Samuel. And their attitude was now being confirmed, in that this meant that the calling of them and their tribe was going to be abrogated. And this is indeed the nature of condemnation; it is a giving of a person what they themselves have wanted and according to their own desires.</p>


text:
<p>Why then do you despise My sacrifice and My offering which I have commanded for My dwelling, and honour your sons above Me, to make yourselves fat with the best of all the offerings of Israel My people?’-</p><p>The danger of materialism is the assumption that we are ultimate owners of what we 'have'. When Eli and his sons kept part of God's sacrifices for themselves, he was condemned: "You trample upon My sacrifice and My offering" (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a> RVmg:). This is what we are doing by considering that anything that is God's is in fact ours- we are trampling upon that which is His. And this verse is alluded to in <a href='B:650 10:29-30'>Heb 10:29-30</a> - we can indeed trample upon God's sacrifice today.</p><p>Eli honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”. The description of Eli as being fat surely reflects his guilt (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). And yet he appeared on the surface to run his family life on a spiritual footing. His merely surface level rebuke of his sons is revealed as having a motivation in the fact he was himself benefitting from their misbehaviour.</p><p>Eli, although apparently righteous himself in many ways, was rejected specifically because "he frowned not" upon his sons' apostasy; he personally was counted as 'kicking' at God and profiteering from His sacrifices, even though he himself seems to have truly loved God (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). Because Eli wouldn't exercise discipline, he was somehow seen as committing those very things which he failed to rebuke. The man who wouldn’t discipline his wayward ox was to be treated like as if he had committed the crime the ox did, and therefore must die if the ox killed a man (<a href='B:20 21:29'>Exo 21:29</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Yahweh the God of Israel says, ‘I said indeed that your house, and the house of your father, should walk before Me forever’. But now Yahweh says, ‘Far be it from Me. Those who honour Me I will honour, and those who despise Me shall be despised- </p><p>The idea is, despised by God. To be despised by the God of all grace::. is indeed a fearsome thing. "Despised" is the word used for the sin of presumption (<a href='B:40 15:31'>Num 15:31</a>), and this is what Eli had committed. But having been told this, he could still repent; for Judah despised God's word until there was no remedy, the implication being that each time they were told what they were doing, they could have repented (s:w. <a href='B:140 36:16'>2Ch 36:16</a>). And it is the word used by Nathan to David of what he had done (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>), and he repented in response to the prophetic word of rebuke. But Eli didn't. We see here how God can make an "eternal" statement, but it is in fact conditional upon preconditions which He may not at the time specifically express. He speaks His purpose, but He can change it according to human action (Jeremiah 18).</p><p>Because of His capacity to imagine, to see possible futures, we can better sense the poignancy behind His words in places like <a href='B:290 48:18'>Isa 48:18</a>: "O that you had hearkened to my commandments!", "Oh that they would have a mind such as this always" (<a href='B:50 5:29'>Deu 5:29</a>), "O Israel, if you would but listen to me" (<a href='B:230 81:8'>Psa 81:8</a>; <a href='B:230 81:13'>Psa 81:13</a>). It's as if He could see the potentially happy future which they could've had stretching out before Him. And so we can better understand the sadness with which God had to tell Hophni and Phinehas: "I thought this, that your house, and the house of your father, would eternally serve Me: But now, the Lord, says, Be it far from Me; for them that honour Me I will honour, and they that despise Me shall be despised" (<a href='B:90 2:30'>1Sa 2:30</a>). He as it were limited His omniscience in order to enter into real time relationship with Eli and his family. Note how God opened His heart to those who had so hurt Him, at the very time they had hurt Him- just as Paul did to Corinth. Such sharing of dashed hopes with those who have dashed them seems to be part of what condemnation is all about; and, given Paul's doing this to the Corinthians, it is perhaps even a useful tool for we who cannot condemn others, but may need to walk separately from them in this life.</p>


text:
<p>The days are coming when I will cut off your arm and the arm of your father’s house so that there shall not be an old man in your house- </p><p>The father's house in view was that of Levi, who is the "father" referred to in :27,28. To cut off the arm was an idiom for removing from power. Eli was an old man and had therefore been High Priest a long time (see on :22). But this would not happen again. The implication seems to be that the cutting off of Eli and his sons (which happened at the same time) would be the point at which the house of Levi would be cut off from the priesthood. But this potential plan didn't happen, although it seems at the time that Samuel was intended to take over effectively as High Priest. But the Levitical High Priesthood did continue; it seems that Samuel didn't live up to his potential, although he does act as a priest as does David. The power of tradition trumped his potential calling, as happens so often with those called to new paradigms of service.</p>


text:
<p>In distress you would look with envy upon the wealth which I would have given Israel, but there shall not be an old man in your house forever- </p><p>Eli was told of “all the wealth which God would have given Israel”, which his behaviour had now disallowed. Knowing this, women like Hannah clearly hoped and prayed that their sons would be Messiah (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a> = <a href='B:230 89:24'>Psa 89:24</a>); for they perceived that the outworking of God’s purpose was open to change. The wealth of Israel is paralleled with there being an old man in the house / tribe of Levi; the blessing of the people would have been parallel with the blessing of Israel. But their apostasy was the poverty of Israel. And yet Hannah has spoken of the rich becoming poor and the poor rich, with her having in view how Samuel and herself were the poor who would be made rich (:7). Again we see that the priesthood of Eli could have been replaced by that of the non-Levite Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>Any man of yours whom I shall not cut off from My altar, will only blind your eyes with tears and grieve your heart; all the increase of your house shall die in the prime of life- </p><p>The original is unclear as to whether Eli's eyes would be blinded with tears, or whether any who were not cut off in violent death would be blinded. But there is also the possibility as in GNB: "Yet I will keep one of your descendants alive, and he will serve me as priest. But he will become blind and lose all hope, and all your other descendants will die a violent death". Whichever option we take, it speaks of a future which was only a potential possibility. For Eli and his sons died at the same time. I suggest that all these potential pathways of cursing upon Eli didn't quite come about as was potentially possible, just as Samuel didn't become the anointed Messianic king-priest which he might have been (:10). The unclarity of the text is purposeful because it reflects the various possible paths of judgment; the very existence of them all reflects God's extreme sensitivity to human behaviour and the various outcomes He finds appropriate to them all.</p>


text:
<p>This will be the sign to you which will come on your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall both die- </p><p>The idea of a sign to Eli was surely that he was to take note of it and then repent. But it seems the die the sons died, he also died. It was as if he refused to respond to it, and therefore was slain the same day. And so the idea of the "sign" was that it was to be immediately responded to. Eli died at a great age; God had been so patient with him, giving him so many opportunities to repent, and then at the very end of his life , on the very last day of it, he was given the fulfilment of this sign to urge him personally towards repentance. And still he refused, being concerned merely about the loss of the ark as a religious symbol.</p>


text:
<p>I will raise up for Myself a faithful priest who will do according to what is in My heart and My mind. I will build him a sure house, and he shall minister before My anointed one forever- </p><p>Again we see various potential fulfillments here. A faithful priest was to be raised up to minister before the anointed one, the Messianic king, who apparently was potentially Samuel (see on :10). But no such faithful priest was raised up in Samuel's time, nor did he become a king. These words were reapplied therefore to Saul and David whom Samuel would anoint, although neither of them had a specific priest ministering before them. And it is David who is presented as the man after God's own heart and mind (<a href='B:90 13:14'>1Sa 13:14</a>); yet he was the anointed one and not the priest. The promise of a "sure house" could have had fulfilment in Solomon (<a href='B:110 11:38'>1Ki 11:38</a>), in contrast to God's destruction of Eli's household; and yet that also failed. So we see that none of the potential fulfillments fully came about, because of various human failures in living up to the potentials. And so these words are reapplied and reinterpreted towards fulfilment in the Lord Jesus. For all others, for whatever reason, had let the baton drop.</p>


text:
<p>Each one who is left in your house shall come and bow down to him for a piece of silver and a loaf of bread, and shall say, ‘Please put me into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a morsel of bread’-</p><p>The Lord's parable of the prodigal seems to gave this in mind. The son asks to return to the family home not with the rights of a blood descendant, but just as a labourer and servant in order to eat bread. If indeed the Lord had this verse in mind, He would be hinting that even in this case, repentance was possible. This bowing down to the faithful priest of :35 never apparently happened, and so again [as noted throughout this section] we are left with the impression that there were various potential pathways for fulfilment, different possible scenarios, which didn't all come strictly true to the letter.</p>


text:
<p>The child Samuel ministered to Yahweh before Eli-</p><p>The phrase "minister before Yahweh" is only used of the priests ministering in the holy place, where incense was offered (<a href='B:140 29:11'>2Ch 29:11</a>). We wonder how a child, who was not of the tribe of Levi, could do this, and wear a linen ephod whilst doing so. The remarkable truth seems to be that because Eli's family didn't do even the most basic work at the sanctuary, the young Samuel did it. The connection between the ephod and the robe made for him each year would suggest that his mother had the spiritual vision to realize this and try to make the appropriate priestly clothing for him. Truly this was a family who saw beyond the letter of the law to the spirit of it. See on <a href='B:90 2:18-19'>1Sa 2:18-19</a>.</p><p>The word of Yahweh was precious in those days; there was no frequent vision- </p><p>This would mean that the visit of the man of God to condemn Eli in <a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a> was the more remarkable because there "was no frequent vision" at that time (<a href='B:90 3:1'>1Sa 3:1</a>). God was making a special effort to appeal to Eli.</p>


text:
<p>At that time, when Eli was laid down in his place (now his eyes had begun to grow dim, so that he could not see)- </p><p>Blindness is repeatedly used in the Old Testament as a sign of Divine judgment. The impression is that his declining eyesight was connected with the waning of the lamp of God in the tabernacle that night (:3). We get the impression that the message he is about to receive is yet another appeal to him, as was the prophetic word of <a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and the lamp of God hadn’t yet gone out, and Samuel had laid down in Yahweh’s sanctuary where the ark of God was- </p><p>The lamp was intended never to go out. We have here the impression of the oil lamps now waning and about to go out, connecting with the impression we have of Eli's declining light as his eyesight slowly failed in :2. God's presence in the tabernacle was in decline, but this was because Eli had not made the effort to keep that light burning, passing the job to young Samuel, who lit the lamps at evening and then went to sleep. We could reason that it was when the lamp had gone out that then the prophetic word of condemnation came to Samuel. The "lamp of God" going out was representative of the end of God's relationship with His people (<a href='B:140 29:7'>2Ch 29:7</a>), and is the term used of the faithful line having a lamp of God burning in Jerusalem (<a href='B:110 15:4'>1Ki 15:4</a>). But in Eli's time, the lamp was allowed to burn out, because the priests couldn't be bothered to keep it burning. And this therefore came to represent the extinguishing of the light of Eli's household.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh called Samuel, and he said Here I am- </p><p>Notice the fascinating repetition within <a href='B:90 3:4-6'>1Sa 3:4-6</a>; <a href='B:90 3:10'>1Sa 3:10</a>; <a href='B:90 3:16'>1Sa 3:16</a>: the Angel calls Samuel’s name, and he replies “Here am I”. Then Eli calls his name for the first time, and Samuel likewise responds “Here am I”- insisting that Eli has already been calling him, when in fact it had been the Angel. Clearly the Angel spoke to Samuel with the voice of Eli! Could this imply that that Angel was Eli’s guardian? At very least it reflects how closely sensitive and understanding the Angels are to their charges on earth- they can imitate the exact intonation of their voices! By all means compare this with how the early believers were sure that what appeared to be Peter standing at the door was his Angel- they imagined that his guardian Angel looked exactly like him.</p>


text:
<p>He ran to Eli, and said, Here I am, for you called me. He said, I didn’t call; lie down again. He went and lay down- </p><p>We note Samuel's running in response to God's word, in line with the idiom of 'running' as meaning response to God's message (<a href='B:340 12:4'>Dan 12:4</a>; <a href='B:230 119:32'>Psa 119:32</a>; <a href='B:230 119:60'>Psa 119:60</a>; <a href='B:230 147:15'>Psa 147:15</a>; <a href='B:370 8:11-12'>Amo 8:11-12</a>; <a href='B:420 2:2'>Hab 2:2</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a> RV; <a href='B:600 3:1'>2Th 3:1</a> Gk:).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh called again, Samuel! Samuel arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am; for you called me. He answered, I didn’t call my son; lie down again- </p><p>See on :4. "My son" reflects how in Elkanah's absence from maybe the age of three (<a href='B:90 1:24'>1Sa 1:24</a>), Eli was effectively Samuel's father. He is the more commendable for being spiritually strong for Yahweh when his adoptive family were so far from Him.</p>


text:
<p>Now Samuel didn’t yet know Yahweh, neither was the word of Yahweh yet revealed to him- </p><p>Despite this, he was still ministering to Yahweh, even though he had no personal relationship with Him and was aware of this in that he omitted using the term Yahweh (see on :10). For that is the usual sense of "knowing" in a Hebraic sense. This is mentioned to explain why Samuel was so slow in realizing that this was a Divine prophetic call and not Eli calling him. "Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. But the line of Levi and Eli had potentially been rejected because of Eli's apostasy. The Divine intention was to replace them with Samuel as a prophet-priest and perhaps king (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). But this potential was only partially fulfilled by Samuel, and despite possibilities in David and Solomon, it only came to full term in the person and work of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh called Samuel again the third time. He arose and went to Eli and said, Here I am; for you called me. Eli perceived that Yahweh had called the child- </p><p>This perception would have been mixed with a premonition that this child was his replacement, seeing he had earlier been warned that he was as it were not hearing his own calling as high priest (see on <a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Eli said to Samuel, Go, lie down, and if He calls you, say, ‘Speak, Yahweh, for Your servant hears’. So Samuel went and lay down in his place- </p><p>Eli is to be commended for being prepared to accept that Yahweh was having a relationship with Samuel because he had failed. Many jealous people, such as Saul, would have ten wanted to destroy Samuel. But Eli wasn't like that. He comes over as completely passive, although happy to get fat on the abuses performed by his sons. But the condemnation of him is severe. He is a parade example of the significance of sins of omission.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh came and stood and called as at other times, Samuel! Samuel! Then Samuel said, Speak; for Your servant hears- </p><p>This coming and standing of Yahweh was presumably in the form of an Angel. We note Samuel omits to use the term "Yahweh", contrary to how Eli had instructed him (:9 'Speak, Yahweh, for Your servant hears’). It is noted on :7 that Samuel didn't yet know Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, Behold, I will do something in Israel which will make both the ears of everyone who hears it tingle- </p><p>Samuel as a child had to tell Eli of God's rejection of him, a message he also heard at night, and His replacement of him with someone else. This prepared Samuel for doing this very same thing years later, with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:16'>1Sa 15:16</a>); and to some extent, he too failed in ways similar to Eli, and was in a sense replaced. Whilst it's impossible to attach meaning to events at the time they happen, they potentially prepare us for later use by God if we are willing to be used.</p><p>Eli and his sons were surely unpopular, because the people complained to Eli about all the abuses going on (<a href='B:90 2:22'>1Sa 2:22</a>). The result was that they gave up offering sacrifices (<a href='B:90 2:17'>1Sa 2:17</a>). And yet Yahweh foresaw that the people would be shocked at the judgment to come upon the family. We see here how people need religion, to the point of accepting awful abuses and being deeply upset when the abusers are judged; even though they notice and complain about the abuses. This kind of thing, especially in the areas of sexual and financial abuse, is too often seen in religion gone wrong today.</p>


text:
<p>In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end- </p><p>And yet I noted in 1 Samuel 2 that there were various potential judgments upon Eli's house. But the essence of God's judgment was to be performed even if not the letter of it.</p>


text:
<p>For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knew- </p><p>The judgment was eternal not in the sense that they would experience eternal conscious punishment; but the consequences of rejection would be eternal in that they were missing out on eternity. And losing a potentially possible eternity is therefore in that sense an eternal judgment.</p><p>Because his sons brought a curse on themselves and he didn’t rebuke them- </p><p>Eli did rebuke his sons; but in God’s eyes he didn’t (<a href='B:90 2:24'>1Sa 2:24</a> cp. 3:13). He said words for the sake of saying words, but in his heart he didn’t frown upon them. Eli appeared to discipline his sons. But he couldn’t have really done this from his heart, or he wouldn’t have been condemned for not controlling them. He honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”. We too can go through the motions of spirituality without believing it. Even external acts of apparent righteousness can be sin.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli, that the guilt of Eli’s house shall not be removed with sacrifice nor offering forever-</p><p>We compare this with the observation that the blood of bulls and goats could never remove sin or guilt of itself (<a href='B:650 10:4'>Heb 10:4</a>). The guilt could only anyway be removed by faith in the future Messianic sacrifice, better than any animal offering. Again we see that the judgment upon persons was a reflection of what the position which the person themselves had arrived at. They had no desire for forgiveness nor any vision towards the future Messianic sacrifice; and so they were judged with the curse of sacrifice never removing their guilt. David surely looked back to this when he confessed that sacrifice and offering could not remove his sin, only God's grace (<a href='B:230 40:6'>Psa 40:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of Yahweh. Samuel feared to show Eli the vision- </p><p>This is a common theme, of men fearing to tell others the prophetic vision. We think of Daniel dumb with fear before telling the vision to Nebuchadnezzar. It is our own narrative almost daily, as we fear to tell others God's word as it really is, fearing their rejection.</p>


text:
<p>Then Eli called Samuel and said, Samuel, my son! He said, Here I am- </p><p>"Here" translates hinneh, a word with the same consonants as the name of his mother Hannah. It was almost as if he were saying "I am Hannah". In that moment he felt unity with his mother, in obedience to God's word.</p>


text:
<p>He said, What was it that He said to you? Please don’t hide it from me- </p><p>Surely Eli knew that this was another message of condemnation for him. But he wanted to know it, just as Zedekiah urged Jeremiah not to hide from him the message of his own damnation (s:w. <a href='B:300 38:14'>Jer 38:14</a>).</p><p>May God deal with you severely if you hide anything from me of all the things that He said to you- </p><p>This was no mere threat from Eli. We are not to hide God's word from those for whom it was intended at our hands. One theme of the history here is the critical significance of sins of omission. Omitting to discipline sons, omitting to declare God's word::. all merited severe judgment.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel told him everything- </p><p>Literally, "every word". Samuel is presented as a new Moses, for this phrase is used repeatedly about him and his mediation for Israel.</p><p>And hid nothing from him. He said, It is Yahweh- </p><p>By Eli commenting “It is the Lord”, he meant ‘It is the word of the Lord’; but he saw God as effectively His word. “The word”, the “word of the Kingdom”, “the Gospel”, “the word of God” are all parallel expressions throughout the Gospels. Our attitude to God’s word is our attitude to Him. "The word was God". David "despised the commandment (word) of the Lord::. you despised me" (<a href='B:100 12:9-10'>2Sa 12:9-10</a>). David learnt that his attitude to God's word was his attitude to God- for the word of God, in that sense, was and is God. By our words we personally will be condemned or justified- because we too ‘are’ our words.</p><p>Let Him do what seems good to Him- </p><p>This kind of fatalism isn't right. It seems a similarly faithfulness Hezekiah alludes to it in <a href='B:290 39:8'>Isa 39:8</a>: "Then Hezekiah said to Isaiah, Yahweh’s word which you have spoken is good. He said moreover, For there will be peace and truth in my days".</p>


text:
<p>Samuel grew, and Yahweh was with him, and he let none of His words fall to the ground- </p><p>The words in view are presumably the intention to raise up the non-Levite Samuel as a replacement priest and mediator for Israel. But as noted on 1 Samuel 2, God's purposes and intentions for Samuel went as far as establishing him as a Messianic king, prophet and priest who would rebuke Yahweh's enemies (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). But Samuel let the ball drop to some extent and this was not finally achieved in him. But from God's side, His words did not fail. Prophecy therefore doesn't fail or "fall to the ground" but the potential fulfillments may not come about.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel from Dan to Beersheba knew that Samuel was established to be a prophet of Yahweh- </p><p>Samuel was apparently required to speak forth his words of judgment upon Eli to all Israel, otherwise the ears of Israel could not have tingled at hearing the message (:11). This would have resulted in a difficult life for Samuel at Shiloh, with Eli and his sons aware of what he was saying about them. Perhaps the subsequent account of the death of the family in 1 Samuel 4 is now included to show how this verse came to be true. When the prophecy of Samuel about them was suddenly fulfilled, all Israel would have known that Samuel was indeed a prophet. For short term fulfillments were required in order to legitimize a prophet (<a href='B:50 18:22'>Deu 18:22</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh appeared again in Shiloh, for Yahweh revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of Yahweh- </p><p>"Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. But the line of Levi and Eli had potentially been rejected because of Eli's apostasy. The Divine intention was to replace them with Samuel as a prophet-priest and perhaps king (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>). But this potential was only partially fulfilled by Samuel, and despite possibilities in David and Solomon, it only came to full term in the person and work of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Now Israel went out against the Philistines to battle and encamped beside Ebenezer, and the Philistines encamped in Aphek-</p><p>"Ebenezer" is "rock of help", but Yahweh was no longer the rock for Israel. Eli epitomized Israel; Jeshurun like Eli (:18) had "become fat" and despised Yahweh as their rock (<a href='B:50 32:15'>Deu 32:15</a>), and so He was not a rock of defence for them (<a href='B:50 32:30'>Deu 32:30</a>; <a href='B:50 32:37'>Deu 32:37</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines put themselves in position against Israel; when they joined battle Israel was defeated by the Philistines, who killed about four thousand Israelite soldiers- </p><p>The description of the drawing up of battle lines and camps recalls the description of the conflict with the Philistines when David saved Israel by slaying Goliath. The contrast seems intentional. God's plan through Samuel and David was to salvation, whereas Eli and his sins led Israel to defeat and their own destruction.</p>


text:
<p>When the people had returned to the camp the elders of Israel said, Why has Yahweh struck us today before the Philistines?- </p><p>They realized that this was no mere bad luck, but that God was working through the Philistines. To be smitten by enemies was part of the curse for disobedience to the covenant. That was the answer, but rather look at themselves self critically and perceive their sins, the people blamed a lack of external religion- in that they blamed what had happened instead upon not having the ark with them. The ark was never presented as a talisman nor was there a command to take it with them into battle. This was purely their assumption.</p><p>Let us bring the ark of the covenant of Yahweh out of Shiloh that it may go with us and save us out of the hand of our enemies- </p><p>This is the language of Yahweh personally going with Israel and saving them out of the hand of their enemies. But as so many do today, Israel had replaced content with form, personal relationship with God with a hollow trust in wooden formalism and mere religion. For no gold box could save Israel.</p>


text:
<p>So the people sent to Shiloh and they brought from there the ark of the covenant of Yahweh of Armies, who sits above the cherubim; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God- </p><p>There is a juxtaposition between the presence of Yahweh at the ark, and the corrupt sons of Eli being present "with" the ark. The opposition may be between their being "with" the ark, but Yahweh being "above" it. Being in the presence of the ark had done those men no spiritual good, and so it was vain to suppose that being "with" it would provide salvation. His presence "above" the ark may also suggest that Yahweh and the ark were not the same thing at all.</p>


text:
<p>When the ark of the covenant of Yahweh came into the camp all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth resounded- </p><p>Such was the depth of their belief in mere religion. This is the language of deep religious joy (<a href='B:110 1:45'>1Ki 1:45</a>; <a href='B:150 3:12-13'>Ezr 3:12-13</a>; <a href='B:400 2:12'>Mic 2:12</a>). One lesson we learn is that religious passion, deep faith in the external symbols of the religion (the ark, in this case) is absolutely nothing to do with really knowing God in relationship. I have suggested that the historical records of the Bible were rewritten under inspiration in Babylon, with special reference to the events of the restoration. In this case the connection would be with the great shout and echoing land of <a href='B:150 3:12-13'>Ezr 3:12-13</a> when the rebuilt temple was dedicated. But some wept at that time; for it had not been built according to the commandments of Ezekiel 40-48, and therefore the more spiritually minded wept as they realized that the temple and kingdom had not been restored as potentially possible. The connection of the language is in that here again the people had shouted with passion and the earth had echoed- but Yahweh was not among them, and they were slain. The ark was for them just a box and not the real presence of God. They wrongly equated God with the symbolism of Him, assuming that God was with them if the ark was with them (:7).</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard the noise of the shout they said, What does the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews mean? When they understood that the ark of Yahweh had come into the camp- </p><p>Note the parallel in :7 between the ark coming into the camp, and God coming into the camp [as they understood it]. Like Israel, they wrongly equated God with the symbolism of Him, assuming that God was with them if the ark was with them. Form replaced content. The externalities overshadowed and then eclipsed the essence.</p>


text:
<p>they were afraid, for they said, God has come into the camp. They said, Woe to us! Nothing like this has happened before- </p><p>God's experience with Israel led to His humiliation before the nations. Seeing the ark represented the very presence of God, the capture of the ark was in a sense the capture of God (<a href='B:90 5:7'>1Sa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a> cp. 4:7). <a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a> comments: "He delivered his power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe". And likewise at the cross, crucifixion meant humiliation in some sense for God.</p>


text:
<p>Woe to us! Who can deliver us out of the hand of these mighty gods? These are the gods that struck the Egyptians with all kinds of plagues in the wilderness- </p><p>They refer to Yahweh in the plural, and we wonder if this too was how Israel conceived of their God. For Aaron had made the gold calf and told them that "these be your gods, O Israel, which brought you up out of the land of Egypt" (<a href='B:20 32:4'>Exo 32:4</a>). The desire to believe in a plurality of gods somehow beneath the banner of "one God" is a basic human tendency in all religious systems, and came to term in the false doctrine of the Trinity. And yet we see how jumbled was the message which had come down to the Philistines- that the Egyptians had been plagued "in the wilderness" by the multiple gods of Israel. It is a sign of Divine inspiration and purpose that the basic message about Yahweh has been accurately preserved in His word.</p>


text:
<p>Be strong, and behave like men, you Philistines, so that you will not be servants to the Hebrews as they have been to you. Strengthen yourselves like men and fight!-</p><p>These words are quoted about our call to likewise bravely fight against apparently impossible odds- and win (<a href='B:530 16:13'>1Co 16:13</a>). This indicates how context [contrary to what is often claimed] is not always the critical issue in interpretation. For typical of Hebrew midrash, the New Testament quotations of Old Testament phrases are often without any attention to context, just taking phrases of Old Testament scripture and applying them to some other context. When you go back and look at the surrounding context of the Old Testament quotation, there is often no relevance nor appropriacy at all (although sometimes there is).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines fought and Israel was defeated and they fled every man to his tent and there was a very great slaughter, for thirty thousand Israelite foot soldiers were killed- </p><p>The Hebrew word translated "thousand" doesn't literally mean 1,000 in every occurrence; it can refer to a grouping or family, and in a military context, to a regiment or military subdivision. But the slaughter was far greater than at the first battle. This was clearly punishment for misusing the ark of God as mere religious tokenism and as a totem for good luck and success. With what hurt must God view the similar usage of the symbol of the cross, and the taking of His Name in vain today.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of God was taken, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were killed-</p><p>As discussed on :7, the taking of the ark of God into captivity was in a sense God going into captivity. It seems the ark was taken before the men were killed. But the order is reversed in :17 to reflect how much the ark meant to Eli. And yet his love of external religion didn't mean he was thereby spiritual nor saved from his condemnation.</p>


text:
<p>A man of Benjamin ran out of the army that day and came to Shiloh with his clothes torn and earth on his head- </p><p>There may be some significance to this in that it was Benjamin who were chosen by God through Samuel as the first kingly tribe.</p>


text:
<p>When he came, Eli was sitting on his seat by the road watching, for his heart trembled for the ark of God- </p><p>The paramount importance given to the ark is continually stressed. He was worried far more about the ark than about his sons. And yet his lack of discipline of his sons led to his condemnation. His love of the religious externalities didn't save him.</p><p>When the man came into the city and reported what had happened, all the city cried out- </p><p>The record emphasizes Eli’s love for the ark; even after the shock of hearing that his sons had been killed, it was only when he heard that the ark had been taken that he had a stroke and died (:18). Likewise his daughter in law died with mourning for the ark on her lips (:22). But this love of the external things of one’s religion (see on :10) wasn’t the same as true spirituality. For all Eli’s love of the things associated with the true God, he was severely condemned for not having the glory of God and care for His people at heart (see on <a href='B:90 3:13'>1Sa 3:13</a>). It’s not difficult to love the external trappings of our religion- the church hall, the social events, the regular activities, the general ambience. But this isn’t the same as true spirituality.</p>


text:
<p>When Eli heard the noise of the crying he said, What does this noise mean? The man hurried and told Eli- </p><p>The historical records were rewritten under inspiration in exile, with the Babylonian captivity presented as having been experienced in essence in Israel's earlier history. This is a parade example, for the phrase "the noise of the crying" is used in <a href='B:300 25:36'>Jer 25:36</a> of how the shepherds of Israel (cp. Eli and his sons) would make a noise of crying at the Babylonian invasion (also in <a href='B:430 1:10'>Zep 1:10</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now Eli was ninety-eight years old, and his eyes were bad so that he could not see- </p><p>We noted on <a href='B:90 3:2-3'>1Sa 3:2-3</a> that at that point Eli's eyes had begun to grow dim, and this is associated with the waning and extinction of the oil lamp which was intended to burn always before Yahweh. Now, Eli is completely blind. The light has gone out within him and within the tabernacle.</p>


text:
<p>The man said to Eli, I am the one who came out of the army, and I fled today from the battle. He said, What happened, my son?- </p><p>Fleeing before enemies was a sign Israel had broken covenant. This is the point of the history here. Mere possession of the ark and ritual obedience was just mere religion, and was not at all associated with the real, saving presence of God amongst men. This was all so relevant to the exiles, for whom these histories were later rewritten and presented.</p>


text:
<p>The man who brought the news answered, Israel has fled before the Philistines and there has been a great slaughter among the people. Your two sons Hophni and Phinehas are dead, and the ark of God has been captured- </p><p><a href='B:90 2:34'>1Sa 2:34</a> had given Eli this very sign: "This will be the sign to you which will come on your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall both die". The idea of a prophetic sign to Eli was surely that he was to take note of it and then repent. But it seems the die the sons died, he also died. It was as if he refused to respond to it, and therefore was slain the same day. And so the idea of the "sign" was that it was to be immediately responded to. Eli died at a great age; God had been so patient with him, giving him so many opportunities to repent, and then at the very end of his life , on the very last day of it, he was given the fulfilment of this sign to urge him personally towards repentance. And still he refused, being concerned merely about the loss of the ark as a religious symbol.</p>


text:
<p>When he made mention of the ark of God- </p><p>Eli, although apparently righteous himself in many ways and loving the ark of God above all, was rejected specifically because "he frowned not" upon his sons' apostasy; he personally was counted as 'kicking' at God and profiteering from His sacrifices, even though he himself seems to have truly loved God (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). Because Eli wouldn't exercise discipline, he was somehow seen as committing those very things which he failed to rebuke. The man who wouldn’t discipline his wayward ox was to be treated like as if he had committed the crime the ox did, and therefore must die if the ox killed a man (<a href='B:20 21:29'>Exo 21:29</a>).</p><p>Eli fell off his seat backward by the side of the gate and his neck broke and he died, for he was an old man and heavy. He had judged Israel for forty years- </p><p>He honoured his sons above God, to make himself “fat with the chiefest of all the offerings”. The description of Eli as being fat surely reflects his guilt (<a href='B:90 2:29'>1Sa 2:29</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). And yet he appeared on the surface to run his family life on a spiritual footing.</p>


text:
<p>His daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was pregnant, near the time of delivery. When she heard the news that the ark of God was taken and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she went into labour and gave birth, but was overcome by her pains- </p><p>If Eli was 98 (:15) and his daughter in law was young enough to have a child, we can conclude that she was much younger than Phinehas, who was likely in his 70s. He was known for sleeping with other women, so we can assume he had had a number of relationships.</p>


text:
<p>As she was dying the women attending her said, Don’t be afraid, for you have given birth to a son. But she didn’t answer, neither did she pay any attention- </p><p>The possibility of future things continuing through her son was unimportant to her. For her, the present glory of being in the High Priestly family, even though that family had been condemned to destruction, was everything. And the ark likewise was everything for her, the quintessence of her religion, without which all was meaningless. She is similar to Eli in that the ark meant more to her than anything else (:18).</p>


text:
<p>She named the child Ichabod saying, The glory has departed from Israel, because the ark of God was taken, and because of her father-in-law and her husband- </p><p>Phinehas' wife honestly thought that her apostate husband and father-in-law were "the glory of Israel". But she was not without some spirituality, or at least religiosity, because she considered the ark to be the even greater glory of Israel (:22). As noted on :18, like Eli, she considered the ark more important than anything else, even her family. And yet this is the point- that mere love of religious symbolism is nothing at all in spiritual terms.</p>


text:
<p>She said, The glory has departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken- </p><p>The relevance to the exiles is that the shekinah glory had literally departed from Jerusalem when the Babylonians captured Jerusalem and Judah went into captivity; "departed" is the word used for the exile. The visions Ezekiel showed progressive departure of "the glory of the God of Israel" (<a href='B:330 8:4'>Eze 8:4</a>) from the temple to the East of Jerusalem and then further away to Babylon. And the painful thing for Judah was the ark was apparently lost. But the spiritually minded would have seen from the connection with the ark's previous captivity that actually the presence of God and the ark were two different things. The ark was not to be seen as a mere piece of religious and nationalistic symbolism. The loss of it was not to be mourned unduly because personal relationship with God was still possible, and that is of paramount value.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines had taken the ark of God, and they brought it from Ebenezer to Ashdod- </p><p>This continues the theme developed in 1 Samuel 4 of how having the ark as mere religious symbolism was not the same as having relationship with God. It was taken away from Ebenezer, the rock of help, for God was no longer their rock; see on <a href='B:90 6:15'>1Sa 6:15</a>; <a href='B:90 7:12'>1Sa 7:12</a>. And yet misusing it was going to bring judgment. This was relevant encouragement to the exiles as they mourned how the temple vessels had been taken to Babylon and were being misused, as in the drinking feast of Daniel 5. "Ashdod" is a form of the word translated "spoiler" or "robber" frequently used of Babylon (<a href='B:290 33:1'>Isa 33:1</a>; <a href='B:300 4:13'>Jer 4:13</a>; <a href='B:300 4:20'>Jer 4:20</a>; <a href='B:300 6:26'>Jer 6:26</a>; <a href='B:300 9:19'>Jer 9:19</a> and often). These historical records were intended to be discerned by the exiles as speaking to them:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>They took the ark of God into the house of Dagon and set it beside Dagon- </p><p>This connects with how the Babylonians took the temple vessels into the houses of their gods in Babylon.</p>


text:
<p>When the people of Ashdod arose early the next day, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>The phrase 'fell on his face to the ground before' is usually used of worship. Although the ark was indeed just a wooden box, God would not be mocked, and expressed His wish that the Philistines would quit their fish god Dagon and worship Him. See on :12.</p><p>They took Dagon and set him back in his place- </p><p>This need to "set him back in his place" connects with the mockery of idol worship found in the restoration prophets. The same phrase is used in :11. The worshippers of Dagon had to return their god to his place by themselves; but the ark was returned to its place by God working through the oxen and cart, which represented the cherubim.</p>


text:
<p>When they arose early the next morning, Dagon had fallen on his face to the ground before the ark of Yahweh and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were broken off, lying on the threshold. Only Dagon’s torso was intact- </p><p>A fish has no head, palms nor hands. The idol image was reduced to all it was- a mere fish. We saw on :3 that the phrase 'fell on his face to the ground before' is usually used of worship. It was God's intention that the Philistines come to acknowledge His supremacy, and perceive their idols for what they were, stripped of all they had added to them. "Torso" is not in the original; literally, "only Dagon was left to him".</p>


text:
<p>Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor anyone who comes into Dagon’s house will tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod, to this day- </p><p>The Philistines are therefore those who jump over the threshold, but that term is used to describe the priests of Yahweh's temple who were no better (<a href='B:430 1:9'>Zep 1:9</a> "In that day, I will punish all those who leap over the threshold, who fill their master’s house with violence and deceit"). The priests may particularly be in view, whose master was Yahweh and whose house, the temple, they had defiled by their idolatry. The idea is that the temple of Yahweh had been effectively turned into that of pagan gods- despite Josiah's apparent reforms. This whole message is a stern warning against mere tokenism in repentance and reform, and challenges to the core all our self-examination and the results thereof. These priests were filling Yahweh's house with the rewards of their violence and deceit. Typical of the prophets, Zephaniah focuses upon the apparently negligible (the personal gains arising from deceit) rather than what we might consider the more obvious issues of offering children to Moloch.</p>


text:
<p>But the hand of Yahweh was heavy on the people of Ashdod and those nearby, and He destroyed them, afflicting them with tumours- </p><p>This is the reference of <a href='B:230 78:66'>Psa 78:66</a>, which refers to how the ark was taken from Shiloh in Ephraim into the land of the Philistines, who were smitten in their private parts with tumours; but then the ark was returned, not to Shiloh in Ephraim, but to Kirjath Jearim in Judah, and thence to Jerusalem in Judah. But the question for us is the degree to which God ordered this transfer of the ark from Shiloh to Jerusalem (as the pro-Davidic author of Psalms 78 claims); or whether David manipulated it that way, and God went along with it.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Ashdod saw what was happening they said, The ark of the God of Israel must not stay with us, for His hand is severe on us and on Dagon our god- </p><p>This was a tacit recognition that the God of Israel was real, and was greater than their god Dagon. Yet like many, they preferred to trundle along undisturbed in their religious ways, even when they had been demonstrated as false and the true way offered to them. They didn't want His abiding presence to continue with them; for "stay" is the usual word used for God's dwelling or abiding amongst His people.</p>


text:
<p>They sent therefore and gathered all the lords of the Philistines together and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? They answered, Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried over to Gath. They carried the ark of the God of Israel there- </p><p>As noted on :7, they could have had the presence of Israel's God amongst them, but they chose not to. The language recalls how the Gentile inhabitants of the land asked the Lord Jesus, the true ark, to leave them- even when He had done great miracles amongst them (<a href='B:470 8:34'>Mat 8:34</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But after they had carried it there, the hand of Yahweh was against the city, causing panic, and He struck the men of the city, small and great, and tumours broke out upon them- </p><p>I suggest that this was not because God didn't want the ark nor His presence to be amongst them. He did. The punishment was because they were misusing the ark. "Tumours" were the punishment for&nbsp; disobedience to the covenant (<a href='B:50 28:27'>Deu 28:27</a>). The Philistines were being punished in this way because they had been called to accept Yahweh's covenant but had refused, as noted several times throughout this chapter.</p>


text:
<p>So they sent the ark of God to Ekron. As the ark of God came to Ekron, the Ekronites cried out, They have brought the ark of the God of Israel to us, to kill us and our people!- </p><p>Perhaps the thought was that Ekron worshipped Baal Zebub and not Dagon, and therefore the ark of Israel's God would be vanquished by that god (<a href='B:120 1:2'>2Ki 1:2</a>). But the entire Philistine confederacy knew that they were spiritually beaten before Yahweh. Literally, as in :11, “to me, to slay me and my people” (as AVmg:). The implication is that this was a message from the god of Ekron, tacitly recognizing that he was no match for Yahweh. See on <a href='B:90 6:9'>1Sa 6:9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>They sent therefore and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and they said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go back to its own place so that it does not kill us and our people. For there was a deadly panic throughout all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there- </p><p>See on :10; <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a>. The same phrase for "go back to its own place" is used in :3, where the worshippers of Dagon had to return their god to his place by themselves; but the ark was returned to its place by God working through the oxen and cart, which represented the cherubim.</p><p>God's experience with Israel led to His humiliation before the nations. Seeing the ark represented the very presence of God, the capture of the ark was in a sense the capture of God (<a href='B:90 5:7'>1Sa 5:7</a>; <a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a> cp. 4:7). <a href='B:230 78:61'>Psa 78:61</a> comments: "He delivered his power to captivity, his glory to the hand of the foe". And likewise at the cross, crucifixion meant humiliation in some sense. But the point for the exiles to understand from this record was that even in captivity, Yahweh was still alive and active, and would not be mocked. We too are to personalize the history of Israel and see it speaking to our situations.</p>


text:
<p>The men who didn’t die were struck with the tumours, and the cry of the city went up to Heaven- </p><p>A cry going up to heaven is the language of God's sensitivity to situations upon earth. The subtext is clearly that God was sensitive even to the sufferings of His Gentile enemies. And as noted on :3, it was God's desire that the Philistines repented. He was not at all heartless towards them.</p>


text:
<p>The ark of Yahweh was in the country of the Philistines for seven months- </p><p>LXX adds "And their land swarmed with mice" (as in :4). The question of course which dominated their thinking was whether their sufferings were all just coincidence, or whether this was due to Israel's God. And yet at the end of 1 Samuel 5 it is clear they recognized the supremacy of Yahweh; and yet by all means men seek to wriggle and squirm against the most evident proof, even if they are brought to admit His existence and activity, they will still seek to dismiss it later (see on :9). This is why "evidences for the existence of God" are not ultimately powerful of themselves; there has to be a movement within the heart of those experiencing them, and a conscious desire not to deny them further.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines called for the priests and the diviners, asking, What shall we do with the ark of Yahweh? Show us how we should send it back to its place- </p><p>Circumstances repeat within the lives of God's people, both over time and space. The calling of diviners for help when they were clearly beaten and revealed as having no wisdom::. all recalls the situation when seeking to interpret the visions of Pharaoh and the kings in the book of Daniel. There is the same hallmark left from the same Divine hand that was operating. And the continuities in God's operations can be perceived within our own lives, and between our lives and those of others contemporary with us. This is one advantage of meeting together in fellowship with other believers; if we talk about His hand in our lives [rather than social chit chat] we perceive that man is not alone, the same God is working and has worked in others' lives as He does in our life. See on :20.</p>


text:
<p>They said, If you send away the ark of the God of Israel, don’t send it empty; by all means return Him a trespass offering, then you will be healed and you will know why His hand has not been removed from you- </p><p>The Philistines were aware of Israel's exodus from Egypt and the judgment upon the Egyptians (<a href='B:90 4:8'>1Sa 4:8</a>). The Egyptians had given presents to Israel when they left, so that Israel were "sent out" from Egypt "empty" (s:w. <a href='B:20 3:21'>Exo 3:21</a>). It seems the Philistine elders had this in mind. They recognized they were as Egypt before Yahweh; and yet they didn't take the Divine hint to go further, and be those Egyptians who went with Israel to inherit the land. They also had some moral sense that they had sinned against Yahweh. All the time, as noted throughout 1 Samuel 5, Yahweh was seeking to bring them unto Himself; but they refused, thinking that a tokenistic offering to Him would allow them to just continue with their existing religious practices.</p>


text:
<p>Then they said, What should the trespass offering be, which we should send to Him?</p><p>The real existence of Yahweh and His claim upon them is recognized.</p><p>They said, Five golden tumours and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines, for the same plague struck you all and your lords-</p><p>The trespass offering was to be in the form of the judgments experienced for the trespass, mice (see on :1) and tumours. This was some kind of recognition that the judgments experienced were just.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore you must make images of your tumours and your mice that are destroying the land, and give glory to the God of Israel; perhaps He will lift His hand from you, your gods and your land- </p><p>Giving glory to God meant repentance and acceptance He was right and they were wrong, and that they had stolen what was His (exactly the same context in <a href='B:60 7:19'>Jos 7:19</a>). They were not far from the Kingdom of God. They very well perceived what had happened, and the path required to reconciliation with Yahweh. And yet in :9 we see their return to the idea that maybe this was all coincidence. As noted on <a href='B:90 5:12'>1Sa 5:12</a>, God was seeking their repentance and coming to Him. The exiles were likewise asked to repent and give glory to God (s:w. <a href='B:300 13:16'>Jer 13:16</a>); they too were guilty of mere religious tokenism toward Yahweh and His ark and presence; they were no better than these Philistines, but just as there was a path to repentance for the Philistines, so there was for the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>Why do you harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? When He had done wonders among them, didn’t they send the people away and they departed?- </p><p>The Philistine logic equates the ark with God's people. They argued that the ark must be sent away just as the people were sent away. The argument also clearly recognizes Yahweh as supreme over them, as He was over Egypt. But then we come in :9 to the slipping back into secular thinking, wondering if after all this was all chance and coincidence. It's like the atheist confronted with empirical evidence for God, being forced to accept it, and yet slipping back into the hope this just all coincidence.</p><p>Hebrew thought and language tends not to use abstract terms but rather uses language which alludes to physical body parts- e:g:&nbsp; to be stubborn is to be 'hard hearted' (<a href='B:90 6:6'>1Sa 6:6</a>), 'look' becomes 'to lift up the eyes' (<a href='B:10 22:4'>Gen 22:4</a>), anger is 'to burn in the nostrils' (<a href='B:20 4:14'>Exo 4:14</a>), to reveal something is to 'unstop someone's ears' (<a href='B:80 4:4'>Rth 4:4</a>), stubbornness is to be 'stiff necked' (<a href='B:140 30:8'>2Ch 30:8</a>), to prepare oneself is to 'gird up the loins' (<a href='B:300 1:17'>Jer 1:17</a>), to determine to go somewhere is 'to set one's face' (<a href='B:300 42:15'>Jer 42:15</a>; <a href='B:490 9:51'>Luk 9:51</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore prepare a new cart, and get two milk cows which have never been yoked; tie the cows to the cart and bring their calves home from them- </p><p>The language of chariot ["cart"], calves and the ark of Yahweh's glory upon it recalls the cherubim of Ezekiel's visions. The exiles were being bidden believe that the prophecies of restoration could easily be fulfilled, just as they had been in these historical precedents.</p>


text:
<p>Put the ark of Yahweh on the cart and put the jewels of gold, which you are sending Him for a trespass offering, in a chest beside it- and send it away- </p><p>They had opened the ark because they wanted to get the jewels they imagined were hidden within it, and perhaps they really were there. Maybe when Hophni and Phinehas were slain, they were bearing the breastplate, which was then put within the ark or associated with it. But now they learned their lesson, not to open the ark. Rather, the jewels of gold which were the images of the tumors and mice were not to be placed within the ark, it was not to be opened again, but rather placed beside it in a separate chest. It was as if the "jewels" they made were appropriate penitence for seeking to steal Yahweh's jewels. "And send it away" alludes to the Egyptians sending the Israelites away with jewels.</p>


text:
<p>If it goes up to its own territory, to Beth Shemesh, then He has done us this great evil; but if not, then we shall know that it is not His hand that struck us; it was a chance that happened to us- </p><p>And yet the preceding verses speak of making a trespass offering to Yahweh and finely appreciating the nature of their sin and the appropriate repentance for it. We noted on <a href='B:90 5:10'>1Sa 5:10</a> their acceptance of Yahweh's supremacy over their gods. But as discussed on :1, in the face of every rational, empirical evidence for the one true God and His ways, men must still of themselves choose to come out of denial and believe. By all means men seek to wriggle and squirm against the most evident proof, even if they are brought to admit His existence and activity, they will still seek to dismiss it later.</p>


text:
<p>The men did so, and took two milk cows, tied them to the cart and shut up their calves at home- </p><p>The natural desire of the cows would be to return to their calves and not run away from them.</p>


text:
<p>They put the ark of Yahweh on the cart, and the chest with the mice of gold and the images of their tumours-</p><p>The cameraman of Divine inspiration is as it were zoomed in close up, so that we see the Philistines carefully doing these things.</p>


text:
<p>The cows went straight towards Beth Shemesh; they went along the highway, lowing as they went, and didn’t turn aside to the right hand or to the left, and the lords of the Philistines went after them to the border of Beth Shemesh-</p><p>The drivers of an ox cart would go before it, not follow behind it. In this they were being further humbled, that they were not in fact in control, and were potentially being led by God's Spirit in this makeshift imitation of the cherubim::. to the people of Israel. But they failed to follow. And again, the lesson was for the exiles, that they too should follow God's cherubic leading back to their God and their land. Just as Ezekiel's visions of the cherubim tried to teach them. The cows going "straight" is to be connected with the straight feet of the cherubim, and how they too travelled in a straight path (<a href='B:330 1:7'>Eze 1:7</a>; <a href='B:330 1:9'>Eze 1:9</a>; <a href='B:330 1:12'>Eze 1:12</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>The people of Beth Shemesh were reaping their wheat harvest in the valley, and when they looked up and saw the ark, they rejoiced to see it- </p><p>This was a priestly city, which internally corroborates with the statement in :15 that the Levites were immediately present to offer sacrifice. It is this kind of internal consistency which to me is the greatest argument for a Divinely inspired Bible. This verse is the clear fulfillment of <a href='B:230 126:5'>Psa 126:5</a>: "They that sow in tears shall reap in joy". But that is specifically a song of degrees or ascents, a prophecy of the restoration of the exiles. The restoration was to be modelled upon historical precedents such as these. And this is why these historical records were rewritten under inspiration for the encouragement of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>The cart came into the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh and stood there beside a great stone. The people split the wood of the cart and offered up the cows for a burnt offering to Yahweh- </p><p>The cart came to Joshua / Jesus. Perhaps this too had intentional meaning for the exiles, who were to return at a time when there was a priest called Joshua (<a href='B:440 1:1'>Hag 1:1</a>; <a href='B:440 2:4'>Hag 2:4</a>; <a href='B:450 3:1'>Zec 3:1</a> etc:). "The field of::." may suggest he was a Levite or priest who had a "field" as permitted by the law.</p><p>I will suggest on <a href='B:250 10:9'>Ecc 10:9</a> that Solomon in his apostacy later cynically refers to this incident: "Whoever splits wood may be endangered thereby". The same phrase is used. They split wood and sacrificed with joy that the ark had returned to them; but then they looked inside the ark and were slain. And so, Solomon reasons, wisdom and Yahweh worship are pointless. But of course the point was that they were disobedient. The ark was indeed a blessing, but they abused it through harnessing its return to their own self interest and love of wealth, just as Solomon did.</p>


text:
<p>The Levites took down the ark of Yahweh and the chest with the jewels of gold and put them on the great stone, and the men of Beth Shemesh offered burnt offerings and sacrificed sacrifices to Yahweh that day-</p><p>See on :13. We noted on <a href='B:90 5:1'>1Sa 5:1</a> how the ark had been taken away from Ebenezer, the rock of help. For Yahweh was no longer their rock. Its return to a great rock / stone (:14) was therefore showing that God was eager to restore relationship with His people and undo what had gone so wrong between them; just as was the case at the restoration. But as the exiles refused to make use of it, so now also.</p>


text:
<p>When the five lords of the Philistines had seen this. they returned to Ekron the same day- </p><p>I discussed on :9 how they had previously been forced to accept the empirical evidence before them for the existence of Yahweh and His supremacy and claims upon them. But then they slipped back to the suspicion that it was all chance and coincidence. But now, they return to Ekron with this further demonstration that Yahweh is for real, and there was no question of chance coincidence. But they still refused to believe, just as so many today. Again we have to observe how men must still of themselves choose to come out of denial and believe. By all means men seek to wriggle and squirm against the most evident proof, even if they are brought to admit Yahweh's existence and activity; but they will still seek to dismiss it later. Being trounced by the power of argument and observed reality is still not enough to make men believe, because belief must ultimately be a human choice and not forced upon a man by the weight of empirical evidence alone.</p>


text:
<p>These are the golden tumours which the Philistines returned for a trespass offering to Yahweh: one for Ashdod, one for Gaza, one for Ashkelon, one for Gath and one for Ekron-</p><p>We wonder if this alludes to the fact that the Philistines had labelled them.</p>


text:
<p>The number of golden mice was according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, fortified cities and country villages. The great stone on which they put the ark of Yahweh remains to this day in the field of Joshua of Beth Shemesh- </p><p>Again we get the impression that they perceived very well the complete nature of their guilt, and their desire to demonstrate that their every village had to be covered by this admission of trespass against Yahweh, and seeking to do something about it. But see on :9.</p>


text:
<p>But God struck down some of the men of Beth Shemesh because they had looked into the ark of Yahweh. He killed seventy of the men, and the people mourned, because Yahweh had struck the people with a great slaughter- </p><p>I suspect this was because they wanted to find any more jewels which the Philistines might have placed there. In the face and presence of the things of the supreme glory of Jehovah of Israel, they scavenged around in a spirit of petty materialism- just as men gambled for the clothes of Jesus at the foot of His cross. "Seventy" follows some manuscripts, whilst others give a figure of 50,070. Remember that "thousands" in Hebrew can refer not to the literal number but to groups, regiments, families etc. The idea may be the men of 70 families.</p><p><a href='B:330 7:19'>Eze 7:19</a> defines “silver and gold” as Israel’s stumblingblock- moreso than idols. They just so loved wealth. The men of Bethshemesh looked into the ark to see if there were any more jewels left in it (<a href='B:90 6:19'>1Sa 6:19</a> cp. 6,15); they trampled upon the supreme holiness of God in their crazed fascination with wealth. The early corruption of Christianity was due to false teachers who like Balaam "loved the wages of unrighteousness" (<a href='B:680 2:15'>2Pe 2:15</a>); they taught false doctrine "for filthy lucre's sake" (<a href='B:630 1:11'>Tit 1:11</a> AV). Time and again the NT warns against elders who would be motivated by the love of "filthy lucre" rather than the Lord Jesus and His people (<a href='B:610 3:3'>1Ti 3:3</a>; <a href='B:610 3:8'>1Ti 3:8</a>; <a href='B:630 1:7'>Tit 1:7</a>; <a href='B:670 5:2'>1Pe 5:2</a>). The Greek translated " filthy lucre" is hard to understand; it doesn't just mean 'money'. It suggests profit that is somehow filthy, morally disgusting. This is what money turns into, in God's eyes, when men so love it.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Beth Shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?- </p><p>This was to be David's later feelings when Uzzah was slain for not being respectful to the ark (<a href='B:100 6:9'>2Sa 6:9</a>). Circumstances repeated, and David failed to learn the lesson. We wonder if indeed David consciously repeated the words of the men of Beth Shemesh. I suspect he didn't, but rather his words are recorded in a similar way, to show to us readers the similarity. We are intended to learn from history, even though so few do. This is why so much of the Bible is history. We note from <a href='B:90 7:3'>1Sa 7:3</a> that at this time, the Israelites were generally following other gods. They considered Yahweh one of many gods, and at this point, they wanted no more to do with Him because He seemed to them an unreasonable God.</p><p>To whom shall He go from us?-</p><p>By reasoning like this they were repeating the very attitudes and words of the Philistines. As David failed to perceive the similarities between his position in <a href='B:100 6:9'>2Sa 6:9</a> and that of the men of Bethshemesh, so they had failed to learn from the lesson of the Philistines. And ended up saying the same words as they did (<a href='B:90 5:11'>1Sa 5:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>They sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kiriath Jearim saying, The Philistines have brought back the ark of Yahweh; come down and take it up to your place- </p><p>This repeats the attitude of the Philistines, seeking other towns to take custody of the ark. As noted on :20, all concerned failed to perceive that history was repeating, and they were not learning the lessons. This is perhaps the greatest tragedy of history, of the entire Divine-human encounter.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Kiriath Jearim came and fetched up the ark of Yahweh and brought it into the house of Abinadab on the hill, and sanctified Eleazar his son to keep the ark of Yahweh- </p><p>We assume they were Levites, and Abinadab and Eleazar are common Levitical names. "On the hill" is rendered "Gibeah" in <a href='B:100 6:3-4'>2Sa 6:3-4</a>. <a href='B:60 15:57'>Jos 15:57</a>; <a href='B:60 15:60'>Jos 15:60</a> mention Gibeah as a village not far from Kirjath-jearim.</p><p></p>


text:
<p>The ark stayed for a long time in Kiriath Jearim, twenty years, and all the house of Israel lamented after Yahweh-</p><p>This lamenting after Yahweh may have been the result of 20 years of work by Samuel, at a time when they were oppressed by the Philistines (<a href='B:90 13:19-22'>1Sa 13:19-22</a>). The "twenty years" period doesn't bring us to any significant event; it doesn't bring us to the time of David or his bringing of the ark to Zion in 2 Samuel 6. It may therefore mean that it took 20 years for Israel to come to the repentance of :3,4, and that is the significant end of this 20 year period.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If you do return to Yahweh with all your heart- </p><p>Returning to Yahweh with all the heart was the appeal also made to the exiles. The same word for "return" is used about both repentance and also their literal return to the land. This is the phrase used of how an Israel who had broken covenant were to return to Yahweh with all their heart (<a href='B:50 30:1-2'>Deu 30:1-2</a>; <a href='B:50 30:10'>Deu 30:10</a>).</p><p>Then put away the foreign gods and Ashtaroth from among you and direct your hearts to Yahweh, and serve Him only, and He will deliver you out of the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>This worship of other gods would explain their attitude in <a href='B:90 6:20'>1Sa 6:20</a> "Who is able to stand before Yahweh, this holy God?":&nbsp; They considered Yahweh one of many gods, and at that point, they wanted no more to do with Him because He seemed to them an unreasonable God:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the people of Israel removed the Baals and Ashtaroth and served Yahweh only- </p><p>Yahweh is "one", and this simple reality requires that He is served "only". This is an outcome of believing in one God. At baptism, we changed masters, from 'sin' to 'obedience'. It may seem that we flick back and forth between them. In a sense, we do, but from God's perspective (and <a href='B:520 6:16-20'>Rom 6:16-20</a> describes how God sees our baptism), we don't. The recurring weakness of natural Israel was to serve Yahweh and the idols (<a href='B:90 7:4'>1Sa 7:4</a>; <a href='B:120 17:41'>2Ki 17:41</a>; <a href='B:430 1:5'>Zep 1:5</a>). For the new Israel in the first century, the temptation was to break bread with both the Lord Jesus and the idols (<a href='B:530 10:21-22'>1Co 10:21-22</a>). But there is no lack of evidence that this was actually counted as total idol worship in God's eyes; thus the prophets consistently taught the need for wholehearted devotion to Yahweh, and nothing else. In essence, we have the same temptation; to serve God and mammon, to have a little of both, to be passive Christians; to flunk the challenge of the logic of devotion.</p><p>Baal and Ashtaroth referred to here are not simply two separate gods. "Baals" is masculine plural, and "Ashtaroth" is feminine plural. The idea is, all the gods of whatever gender.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpah and I will pray for you to Yahweh- </p><p>"Mizpah", 'watchtower', was an appropriate place for Samuel the prophet to have a base. The gathering was intended for repentance, but also as a strategic beginning of a campaign against the Philistines. See on :6.</p>


text:
<p>They gathered together to Mizpah and drew water, poured it out before Yahweh and fasted on that day. They said there, We have sinned against Yahweh- </p><p>Samuel's language and teaching was absorbed by David, who spoke of pouring himself out like water in repentance (<a href='B:230 22:14'>Psa 22:14</a>; <a href='B:230 62:8'>Psa 62:8</a>); and the same figure is used by the exiles in <a href='B:310 2:19'>Lam 2:19</a>, perceiving the relevance of this history for themselves, as intended. But Samuel had in turn picked up this image from his mother Hannah (<a href='B:90 1:15'>1Sa 1:15</a>). We see here the passage of thought and imagery through the generations of spiritual people. And that passage can continue to us in our hearts. For who has not repented to the point of feeling poured out like water.</p><p>Samuel judged the people of Israel in Mizpah-</p><p>This could be a general statement, for Mizpah means "watchtower" and would have been an appropriate place for a prophet to issue his judgments from. But this information may specifically refer just to Samuel at that time, judging the people in the sense of warning them of their condemnation, which elicited their repentance.</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistines heard that the Israelites had gathered together at Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. When the Israelites heard it, they were afraid because of the Philistines- </p><p>Repentance meant that God was with them. But they feared whether He really was with them enough to defeat the Philistines, because there was that nagging doubt as to whether they had really been forgiven. This is so typical of God's people of all times.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites said to Samuel, Don’t cease to cry to Yahweh our God for us, that He will save us out of the hand of the Philistines!- </p><p>Their desperate plea to Samuel reflects their recognition that prayer was the critical factor. This desperate request for Samuel's continued prayer in fact reflects a level of genuine faith and spirituality, even though as noted on :7, their faith was not total.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel took a suckling lamb and offered it for a whole burnt offering to Yahweh, and Samuel cried to Yahweh for Israel, and Yahweh answered him- </p><p>The desperate crying of the suckling lamb was to reflect the crying of Samuel to Yahweh. They were to be living sacrifices (<a href='B:520 12:1'>Rom 12:1</a>), offered "whole", every part of the offering was to be given to Yahweh, none went to the priests, the entire animal was consumed.</p>


text:
<p>As Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, the Philistines drew near to fight against Israel, but on that day Yahweh thundered with a great thunder upon the Philistines, and confused them; and they were struck down before Israel- </p><p>The pathetic bleating of the lamb elicited the mighty thunder of God's voice in response, so awful that the Philistines were paralyzed with fear because of it. This was an abiding illustration of the power of prayer, just as incense [prayer] in the book of Revelation elicits the pouring forth of bowls from Heaven upon the earth. But the Divine response had to be followed up on the ground- Israel had to go forth and strike down the paralyzed Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines and killed them, all the way to Beth Kar- </p><p>David's victory over Goliath led to the same kind of victory over the Philistines. Israel chasing their enemies was a blessing for obedience to the covenant. But until recently they had been disobedient. Their sincere prayer and repentance was counted as obedience to the covenant, and these blessings flowed from it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel took a stone and set it between Mizpah and Shen, and called it Ebenezer, saying, Yahweh helped us until now- </p><p>The ark had been taken into captivity from Ebenezer (<a href='B:90 5:1'>1Sa 5:1</a>), the rock of help, for God was no longer their rock. But the revival of the name Ebenezer was therefore showing that God was eager to restore relationship with His people and undo what had gone so wrong between them; just as was the case at the restoration.</p>


text:
<p>So the Philistines were subdued and they came no more within the border of Israel- </p><p>This may not be literally the case, but the sense may be that they didn't come and permanently settle within the borders as they had before.</p><p>The hand of Yahweh was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel- </p><p>This doesn't mean that they didn't invade Israel, but rather that Yahweh's hand was against them. That potential wasn't always made use of during Samuel's life.</p>


text:
<p>The cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel, from Ekron to Gath, and Israel recovered its border out of the hand of the Philistines. There was peace between Israel and the Amorites- </p><p>And yet Gath seems to have remained in Philistine control. For Goliath was from there, and David took refuge in Philistine controlled Gath. So the idea may be that the border was restored up until Gath and Ekron.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life- </p><p>Seeing Samuel lived into the reign of Saul, we can assume that his judging in the sense of teaching and saving the people [the idea of 'judging' in Hebrew] continued into Saul's reign.</p>


text:
<p>He went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah; and he judged Israel in all those places-</p><p>There were later schools of the prophets in Bethel and Gilgal and we wonder whether Samuel founded them. This work covered at least 28 years of his life, a great example of "keeping on keeping on". This circuit was fairly localized, forming a circle with a circumference of about 35 miles.</p>


text:
<p>He always returned to Ramah where his home was, and there he judged Israel. He built there an altar to Yahweh- </p><p>Although from Ephraim, Samuel clearly acted as a priest, making offerings at various points in his life, as well as doing the priestly duties "before Yahweh" from a child. He was potentially set up to be prophet, priest and anointed, Messianic king (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>), but it seems he failed to live up to the potential. Instead, he anointed David to be prophet, priest and anointed king. And he too failed, as did Solomon, and so the potential came to ultimate term in the Lord Jesus. We note that Samuel also judged or taught Israel at Ramah, his home. This was about four miles from "Gibeah of Saul". For Saul to have not recognized nor known Samuel speaks much of how Saul was totally not a religious, spiritual person.</p>


text:
<p>When Samuel was old he made his sons judges over Israel-</p><p>Samuel was in his 50s or 60s at the time of <a href='B:90 8:1'>1Sa 8:1</a> when he made his corrupt sons judges over Israel. Eli had become judged of Israel at age 58 (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). It seems that Samuel's later life had unfortunate parallels with that of Eli. Eli may well have had his sons Hophni and Phinehas in his 50s, because his daughter in law was pregnant at the time of his death at 98. It would seem that when Samuel was about the same age as Eli, he also had sons, who turned away from God just as had Eli's sons. And the people likewise complained (<a href='B:90 8:4'>1Sa 8:4</a> = <a href='B:90 2:23'>1Sa 2:23</a>). The fact Samuel made them judges despite their immorality would suggest he had gone the way of Eli in turning a blind eye to them. So although Eli's bad example to Samuel was apparently ignored by him and Samuel's spirituality was commendable, finally in later life it seems that example did rub off upon him:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second Abijah; they were judges in Beersheba- </p><p><a href='B:130 6:28'>1Ch 6:28</a> gives the name of the firstborn as Vashni, meaning "weak", rather than Joel as in <a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>, meaning "Jehovah is God". But this could be a scribal error. If we stick with "Vashni", we have an example of how character and personal history became reflected in the names by which men were remembered by. We note they were judges in Beersheba, a long way from Ramah and the small circuit of towns judged by Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>His sons didn’t walk in his ways, but turned aside after money, taking bribes and perverting justice- </p><p>This is described in terms of breaking the law of Moses (<a href='B:20 23:6'>Exo 23:6</a>; <a href='B:20 23:8'>Exo 23:8</a>; <a href='B:50 16:19'>Deu 16:19</a>). But the fact they took bribes and perverted justice says much about the general state of spirituality within Israel. Unlike Eli, Samuel could declare his personal innocence (<a href='B:90 12:4'>1Sa 12:4</a>); and his own personal "ways" are declared here to be of integrity. Nor was there any abuse of the sanctuary, for the sons were operating in Beersheba (:2), quite far from Samuel in Ramah and the surrounding towns where his ministry was focused.</p>


text:
<p>Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel to Ramah- </p><p>"Israel" was far larger than the small circuit of towns around Ramah where Samuel judged, and Beersheba where his sons judged. So it could be argued that the "elders of Israel" were using the local situation in Beersheba as a pretext for demanding Samuel's blessing upon their idea of having a human king.</p>


text:
<p>and they said to him, Look, you are old and your sons don’t walk in your ways; now appoint a king to judge us like all the nations- </p><p>They were hinting that the situation was Samuel's fault because his sons didn't walk in his ways. It may also have been somewhat of an exaggeration to cite Samuel's age as a reason, for he lived many years after this; and Eli had become judge of Israel at 58 and judged until his death at 98 (<a href='B:90 4:15'>1Sa 4:15</a>; <a href='B:90 4:18'>1Sa 4:18</a>). The previous judges of Israel were rarely hereditary and had instead been specifically raised up by God. So their case was weak. The truth was that they wanted to be "like all the nations". This is the term used about the attitude of the Jews who were therefore taken into exile (<a href='B:330 20:32'>Eze 20:32</a>). Again we see how the history here has been rewritten to show similarities with the exiles. "The nations" in Canaan believed that their king was the representative of their god Baal, and Israel wanted a king "like" that, on that basis. The request for a king was not therefore a total rejection of Yahweh, at least technically, although it seems connected with idolatry in :8. But they rejected the judges, 'saviours', whose role was intended to be teachers as we see from Samuel, because they wanted a warrior to be their military figurehead. They wanted a military leader and not a spiritual leader to be their judge.</p>


text:
<p>But this displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. Samuel prayed to Yahweh-</p><p>God did "give" them a king (s:w. <a href='B:90 12:13'>1Sa 12:13</a>). In essence, we often get what we ask for. But the critical thing, therefore, is to desire the right things. In the end, we get the essence of what we desire, and God's response to prayer is part of that. Our desires are therefore critical. Instead of arguing back with them, Samuel takes their request to Yahweh in prayer. And this is often all we can do in the face of bad behaviour and unreasonable demands from others.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, Listen to the people in all that they tell you; they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not be king over them- </p><p>The idea of :7,8 is that ‘They didn’t reject you, they rejected me, but they rejected you, in that you are with Me’. A parade example of God manifestation or representation by a man. God comes over as sensitive to Samuel's feeling that he himself had been rejected, and we feel Him as it were putting His arm around Samuel and comforting him in his rejection; by saying that it was essentially all about a rejection of Him rather than Samuel personally. We learn if nothing else that God is sensitive to a person's feelings of rejection.</p>


text:
<p>As they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt to this day, in forsaking Me and serving other gods, so they also do to you- </p><p>This connects their desire for a king with idolatry. As noted on :5, "the nations" in Canaan believed that their king was the representative of their god Baal, and Israel wanted a king "like" that, on that basis.</p><p>Israel sinned not only by worshipping idols but by thereby omitting to worship God as He required ("forsaking Me and serving other gods"). Sins of omission are our greatest temptation. So let us really realize: none of us sins or is righteous unto ourselves. There are colossal ramifications of our every sin and our every act of righteousness on others.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore listen to their voice, but protest solemnly to them and show them what the king who shall reign over them will do-</p><p>Yahweh gave them a king in His wrath (<a href='B:350 13:11'>Hos 13:11</a>). He was angry with them as was Samuel, and expressed that anger by answering their prayer for a human king: "I gave you a king in My anger, and have taken him away in My wrath". As explained on <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>, Israel's rejection of God for a human king made God "hate" them. It was effectively a divorce from Him; this is how seriously God sees our turning to visible human help rather than to Him. God so respected human freewill decisions that even when His wife wanted to go off with another man, He "gave" her this; and even worked through the system of human kingship in order to continue some level of relationship with Israel, such was His love for them. God sees a connection between His giving of a king, and His taking away of a king. Before they had a king, they were exclusively His. So the taking away of their king was in fact not simply a punishment, but in wrath He remembered mercy, and hoped that this would in fact be the path back towards their accepting Him as their king. So often we see God's hope for restoration expressed within and next to His angry statements of judgment. His anger is therefore unlike human anger; there is always the love which seeks longer term restoration.</p><p>He allows us our freewill; and yet seeks to persuade us against our requests. But God never forces. And here we see in this 'protestation' a parade example of this. He was willing to work through a human kingship, as He was through a physical temple, which He also didn't want. And yet by making use of such Divine concessions to human weakness, we make the path of true spirituality so much harder.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel told all the words of Yahweh to the people who asked for a king- </p><p>The name "Saul" means "asked for". It is very similar to "Samuel", "asked of God" (<a href='B:90 1:20'>1Sa 1:20</a>). Samuel was called to be a prophet, priest and anointed king (see on <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>), but he apparently failed to live up to this potential and was potentially replaced by Saul. He too failed, as did David and Solomon later, with all the potentials only coming finally true in the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>He said, This is what the king who shall reign over you will do: he will take your sons and appoint them to serve with his chariots and to be his horsemen, and they will run before his chariots- </p><p>Israel were told three times that Saul would have many chariots (<a href='B:90 8:11-12'>1Sa 8:11-12</a>). If they were spiritually aware, they would have realized that by multiplying horses and chariots, he was going to be a King who ruled in studied disobedience to the Mosaic Law (<a href='B:50 17:16-20'>Deu 17:16-20</a>). They were given the spiritual potential to grasp this. But they were already hard bitten in their rebellion, and this potential spiritual help went unheeded (although God still gave it to them potentially, even at a time when it seemed pointless. He is so ever willing to coax His people back!).</p>


text:
<p>he will appoint them to be captains of thousands and captains of fifties; he will assign some to plough his ground and reap his harvest, and to make his weapons of war and the equipment for his chariots- </p><p>The captains of thousands and fifties were originally appointed by God; and yet now they were hearing that Saul was going to appoint them. If they were truly spiritually minded, they would have perceived that such a king and situation was not for them. And yet it seems the more the point was made, the deeper was their insistence upon the path they had chosen. This is sadly typically human.</p>


text:
<p>He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks and bakers- </p><p>To take a daughter is a phrase elsewhere translated 'marry::. daughters' (<a href='B:10 19:14'>Gen 19:14</a>), and whenever the word "take" is used in connection with "daughters" the reference is usually to marriage. The idea could be that like many monarchs of the time, Saul would 'marry' his female slaves. They were then unable to marry anyone else, might never have children by him, and would be condemned to a dumb life of servitude as cooks, bakers etc. "Perfumers" seems a strange example to give, until we realize that this is the word for "apothecary", the word used of how apothecaries were to work in the tabernacle making the oils and incense for tabernacle service (<a href='B:20 30:25'>Exo 30:25</a>; <a href='B:20 30:33'>Exo 30:33</a>; <a href='B:20 30:35'>Exo 30:35</a>; <a href='B:20 37:29'>Exo 37:29</a>; <a href='B:130 9:30'>1Ch 9:30</a>). What was clearly a service to God was going to be reappropriated to Saul. For he effectively was going to replace God as the master of their devotions and service.</p>


text:
<p>He will take your fields, your vineyards and your olive groves, even their best, and give them to his servants- </p><p>As we learn from the later incident with Naboth's vineyard, a man's fields were his inheritance from Yahweh. To sell them or be willing to give them to another was therefore a rejection of their inheritance.</p>


text:
<p>He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage to give to his officers and his servants- </p><p>As noted on :13, the king was to replace Yahweh to them. Instead of tithing to Yahweh, they would be tithing to their king.</p>


text:
<p>He will take your male and female servants and your best young men and your donkeys, and put them to his work- </p><p>The repeated stress upon "the best" recalled how "the best" was to be given to Yahweh, both specifically as the firstfruits, and also to fulfil the spirit of the entire law (<a href='B:40 18:12'>Num 18:12</a>; <a href='B:40 18:29'>Num 18:29</a>). Indeed "the best" was to go to the Levites (<a href='B:40 18:30'>Num 18:30</a>). But to give "the best" to a human king, who was not a Levite, was going to preclude serving Yahweh with "the best", and the Levites also would suffer. They were therefore being told that effectively, this king was going to 'play God', and not merely be His representative on earth. Knowing this, their persistence in their choice was indeed a rejection of Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you will be his servants- </p><p>Again, the king was to replace Yahweh to them. Instead of tithing to Yahweh, they would be tithing to their king. These warnings were only perceptible by those who were aware of the law of Moses and were already tithing as required. And so it is that people are confirmed in the path they wish to go; if they are ignorant of God's word or not already practicing it, then in situations like these they are confirmed further down the path to spiritual disaster.</p>


text:
<p>You will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen, but Yahweh will not answer you in that day-</p><p>Now it was as if Samuel on Yahweh's behalf was crying out to the people, and they were refusing to listen (:19). And so their later crying out to Him would likewise go unheard. His response to us is related to our response to His word. If His word abides in us, we therefore will ask what we will according to that word, and be heard (see on <a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>). We may also note that although the people cried out at the abuses of Saul, many of them still preferred him to David and were fiercely loyal to him. Just as people are to abusive spiritual and secular leaders. These historical records help us see our human nature in the mirror. Samuel is alluding to <a href='B:50 17:15'>Deu 17:15</a>, "You shall set him king over you, whom Yahweh your God shall choose". The same word for "choose" is used. Despite their desire to choose their own king, and God disagreeing with it, He and not they chose the king. He intervened to as it were make them obedient, even in this wrong choice they had made. We marvel at His grace. For Saul's choosing was totally of God and not man.</p>


text:
<p>But the people refused to listen to Samuel; they said, No; but we will have a king over us- </p><p>According to <a href='B:350 13:10'>Hos 13:10</a>, they also asked for a new system of princes to replace the judges: "Where is your king now, that he may save you in all your cities? And your judges, of whom you said, ‘Give me a king and princes?". Often in Hosea, God appeals to Israel to let Him be their ‘king’. But there is a Hebraism whereby a husband is called the ‘king’ of his wife. God’s appeal was reflected in Hosea’s desire for Gomer to as it were re-marry him, to let him truly be her king / husband. And yet she felt like Israel: “What then should a king do [for] us?” (<a href='B:350 10:3'>Hos 10:3</a>). She was so selfish that she didn’t see anything in it for her… when so much love was being offered to her. We will note on <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a> that Israel's desire for a human king was a rejection of God as their king / husband, and had been tantamount to adultery. Israel's demand for a king as recorded in 1 Samuel graciously omits to record that they also asked for "princes", even though they had already had "judges" raised up by God. They wanted a king and a royal family, to be the equivalent to the Divine "judges" or saviours whom He had raised up. So often the Divine record reflects God's grace.</p>


text:
<p>so that we may be like all the other nations, and so that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles- </p><p>They may be alluding to the appointment of Joshua to "go out before" the people (s:w. <a href='B:40 27:17'>Num 27:17</a>). Quasi spiritual or Biblical allusion is typical of people in this situation. They are blind to reason because the flesh has hardened their hearts, and they are confirmed in that by God's Spirit acting upon them. The people wanted a king to "go out before us and fight our battles" (<a href='B:90 8:20'>1Sa 8:20</a>), but they were disappointed in Saul ultimately. For it was effectively David who went out before the people to fight their battles (s:w. <a href='B:90 18:13'>1Sa 18:13</a>; <a href='B:90 18:16'>1Sa 18:16</a>). And David was only successful because he recognized that it was Yahweh who 'went out before' to fight his battles (s:w. <a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>), rather than any human king or leader.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them before Yahweh- </p><p>Samuel hereby acts as a mediator after the pattern of Moses. Yahweh of course knew the words spoken, so the repeating or mediating of the words of the people was therefore perhaps in the form of intercession for them. Or perhaps he was simply sharing them with Yahweh, just as David shares his situation with Yahweh in prayer, as Hezekiah did, and as we should. This openness before God, sharing our situation and the words we have heard, is for our benefit; it serves as a reminder that indeed God hears every word.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, Listen to them and give them a king. Samuel said to the men of Israel, Every man is to go back to his town- </p><p>It could appear that Samuel didn't immediately tell them God's agreement. Perhaps this was because he still hoped they might yet repent of their choice. There is a strong manifestation of Yahweh in Samuel at this time. Samuel was to give them a king, but that was on behalf of Yahweh, for it was He who at this time gave them a king in His anger (<a href='B:350 13:11'>Hos 13:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>There was a man of Benjamin whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, son of Zeror, son of Becorath, son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour- </p><p>The Hebrew phrase "might man of valour" is usually employed about military prowess. Kish had presumably got a name for himself in previous conflicts with the Philistines; "Kish" means "bow" so perhaps he was famed as an archer. The relevance to the exiles was that the "mighty men of valour" had not saved Jerusalem and had been taken into captivity (s:w. <a href='B:120 24:14'>2Ki 24:14</a>), because they had not learned the lesson taught by Samuel's mother Hannah, that the valour of the mighty is brought down before God, and the humble and weak exalted (s:w. <a href='B:90 2:4'>1Sa 2:4</a>):&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He had a son whose name was Saul, an impressive young man; there was not among the people of Israel a more impressive person than he. From his shoulders and upward he was taller than any of the people- </p><p>The name "Saul" means "asked for"; for the people had asked for him (<a href='B:90 8:10'>1Sa 8:10</a>). It is very similar to "Samuel", "asked of God" (<a href='B:90 1:20'>1Sa 1:20</a>). Samuel was called to be a prophet, priest and anointed king (see on <a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>), but he apparently failed to live up to this potential and was potentially replaced by Saul. He too failed, as did David and Solomon later, with all the potentials only coming finally true in the Lord Jesus.</p><p>It was as if God understood the spirit of what the people wanted, and gave it to them. All confirmation that we are given the essence of what we really desire, no matter how well or not we verbalize it. So the essence is to watch our desires. "Impressive young man" is literally "a chosen young man", and indeed he had been chosen by God, exactly in accordance with their desires. The word is used about David (<a href='B:230 89:19'>Psa 89:19</a>). God's potential plan for Saul was transferred to him. And from thence to Solomon and finally to the Lord Jesus. This is how God works to this day, transferring potentials from one to another when the first option fails.</p>


text:
<p>The donkeys of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost. Kish said to Saul, Take now one of the servants with you and go to look for the donkeys- </p><p>Donkeys were the animal of nobility at the time (<a href='B:70 5:10'>Jdg 5:10</a>; <a href='B:70 10:4'>Jdg 10:4</a>; <a href='B:70 12:14'>Jdg 12:14</a> cp. <a href='B:450 9:9'>Zec 9:9</a>). The idea may be that Kish too had had the potential to be a leader but lost / failed it. Or that Saul was unconsciously seeking to be king but couldn't find it in his own strength. Yet the donkeys were found by God for Saul, even though he himself failed to find them. The idea may be that Saul was indeed lacking in spiritual qualification to be king, but Yahweh was prepared to make up for this, because He wanted Saul to realize the potentials He had given him. See on :6:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He passed through the hill country of Ephraim and the land of Shalishah, but they didn’t find them. Then they went through the land of Shaalim and they weren’t there; he went throughout the land of the Benjamites, but they didn’t find them- </p><p>If as suggested on :3 the donkeys were a symbol of leadership or kingship, Saul was being taught that finding them was to be of God's grace or gift, and not any amount of human strength. "Shalishah" is literally 'the land of threes', and tripilisms were to occur throughout Saul's subsequent experience. Three signs, three men meeting him, etc. were all to be signs to him that God was working with him quite separate to his own qualification or human strength in seeking for it. See on :13.</p>


text:
<p>When they reached the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant who was with him, Come, let us return, lest my father stop caring about the donkeys and be anxious for us- </p><p>This indicates at least some humanity in Saul. He is presented as a secular, unspiritual man who has all the same not a bad person. Out looking for lost animals, he was met by God and called. He was encountered by God without previously searching for Him, just as he was when he returned from working in the fields and found Jabesh under attack (<a href='B:90 11:5'>1Sa 11:5</a>). The call of God comes in the midst of everyday life. Just as the disciples were casting their net into the sea, the Lord Jesus called them. Simon of Cyrene was coming out of the fields when he was pressganged into carrying the Lord's cross, and likely came to faith in Him because of it. The call of God is presented here as being of Divine grace alone. It's not that these men were searching for God, but rather He was in search of man. It's not so much that we know God, but rather than we are known of Him (<a href='B:550 4:9'>Gal 4:9</a>). Nowhere is God's personal grace clearer than when we reflect upon our calling; and that is especially true for those who were called through being born into a believing family.</p>


text:
<p>The servant said, Look now, in this city there is a man of God, and he is a man who is held in honour. All that he says comes true. Now, let us go there; perhaps he can tell us which way to go- </p><p>There is quite a theme of servants bringing blessings or good news (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 16:16'>1Sa 16:16</a>; <a href='B:90 25:14'>1Sa 25:14</a> cp. <a href='B:10 41:10'>Gen 41:10</a>; <a href='B:120 5:3'>2Ki 5:3</a>). This may be to reflect God's interest in the significance of the lowly. The servant doesn't even know Samuel's name, and Saul is ignorant completely about the presence of any man of God, nor did it occur to him to go there. We note the extensive search for the donkeys and the concern to find out their fate from a man of God. See on :7. This would be understandable if as suggested on :3 they were symbols of leadership or even kingship. "Which way to go" could imply they were lost.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to his servant, But if we go, what shall we bring the man? For the food is finished from our bags and there is no gift to bring to the man of God. What do we have?- </p><p>Again we see Saul's unspirituality. He assumed that one had to pay a man of God before getting a consultation. They were still far from home and were now without food. As noted on :6, this reflects the earnestness of Saul's desire to find the donkeys; see on :3.</p>


text:
<p>The servant replied, I have a quarter of a shekel of silver. I will give that to the man of God to tell us our way-</p><p>The need to be told their way, when they had given up searching for the donkeys, could mean that they were actually lost. Most people didn't travel far from their birthplaces. This is the same phrase as in :6, and it only recurs in the Bible in <a href='B:300 42:3'>Jer 42:3</a>, where the Jews after the captivity ask Jeremiah to ask God to show / tell them the way to go. But when told, they refused to walk in it. This confirms our frequent observation that these historical records were rewritten for the instruction of the exiles.</p>


text:
<p>(In earlier times in Israel when a man went to inquire of God he would say, Come and let us go to the seer, for he who is now called a prophet was before called a seer)- </p><p>This clarifying note would be appropriate if as I have suggested these records were rewritten during the exile. Perhaps too the record is clarifying that a "man of God" or prophet was a seer of Divine visions, and not a person caught up in cultic, ecstatic "prophecy" as known amongst the Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to his servant, Good. Let us go. So they went to the city where the man of God was- </p><p>There is a strange repetition here of Samuel's command that Israel were to "go" to their own "cities" (<a href='B:90 8:22'>1Sa 8:22</a> s:w:). It's as if Saul obeyed this by going to Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>As they went up the hill to the city they found young girls going out to draw water and they asked them, Is the seer here?- </p><p>The water may have been necessary for the religious service Samuel was doing there. In <a href='B:90 7:6'>1Sa 7:6</a> he had used the drawing and pouring out of water to symbolize the pouring out of hearts in repentance, and it cannot be coincidence that drawing water is again featuring in his work. We note that Saul was not present at such gatherings. In this case he was being asked himself to pour himself out to Yahweh in repentance.</p>


text:
<p>They answered, He is. Look, he is ahead of you. Hurry now, for he has come today into the city because the people have a sacrifice today in the high place- </p><p>This implies that Saul was ignorant of the sacrifices. Samuel travelled on a circuit, enabling the people to come and sacrifice. He acted as a priest although he was not a Levite and was a prophet. So Saul would later surely realize it had been of God's providence that he happened to be in the town when Samuel was there running a feast.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as you have come into the city you will immediately find him, before he goes up to the high place to eat. The people will not eat until he comes, because it is he who blesses the sacrifice. Afterwards, those who are invited eat. Now therefore go up, for at this time you should find him-</p><p>Their language was to make the point that Saul had not found the donkeys (:3 s:w:), but instead he had found Samuel; and through Samuel, God had found him. Although Saul knew nothing about these things, he was to find that he was in fact amongst those invited (:22,24). "Invited" is the common word for "call". The whole account here is a parade example of God's calling of men, always taking the initiative, and bursting into the lives of otherwise secular people. Standing on a street distributing New Testaments, we are the vehicles for that same call of God into the lives of men and women on the street.</p>


text:
<p>They went up to the city. As they came into the city, Samuel came out toward them, to go up to the high place- </p><p>The old Yiddish verse came powerfully true: "And going out to meet Him / I met Him coming toward me". But we note that Samuel is presented as coming toward them, on his way up to the high place. The impression therefore is that somehow they were walking away from the high place. And Samuel met them head on, and they turned around and followed him.</p><p>The Lord Jesus called men, arresting them with His radical call in the very midst of daily life, just when they were throwing a net into the sea, at the most utterly inconvenient moment, even the most humanly inappropriate moment- such as being on the way to your father’s funeral. The Son of God was actually acting as His Father had done. Gideon was called whilst in the middle of threshing wheat in a time of famine (<a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>), Saul whilst he was out looking for lost cattle (<a href='B:90 9:10'>1Sa 9:10</a>) and again whilst he was coming home from work one evening (<a href='B:90 11:5'>1Sa 11:5</a>); David whilst he was looking after the sheep; Samuel whilst he was asleep; Amos whilst he was leading the flocks to water (<a href='B:370 7:14'>Amo 7:14</a>); and see too <a href='B:110 11:29'>1Ki 11:29</a>; <a href='B:110 19:16'>1Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 9:1-13'>2Ki 9:1-13</a>; <a href='B:120 9:18'>2Ki 9:18</a>. In other words, the call of God comes to us right in the midst of ordinary, mundane life. Of this there can be no doubt. And the Lord Jesus called men in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>Now Yahweh had revealed to Samuel a day before Saul came, saying- </p><p>What we hear in the ear, that we must preach on the housetops (<a href='B:470 10:27'>Mat 10:27</a>). This is built on the language of <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a>; <a href='B:90 9:25'>1Sa 9:25</a>, where God speaks in Samuel’s ear, and then he speaks that word to Saul on the housetop. The Lord is saying that in essence, we are all in Samuel’s position; we hear the word of this world’s salvation, the word about “the Kingdom” as it was for Saul, and that very fact is in itself the imperative to overcome our natural reservations and share it with those for whom it is intended- even if, as with Saul, we consider them unlikely and unspiritual hearers.</p><p>"Revealed" in <a href='B:90 3:7'>1Sa 3:7</a>; <a href='B:90 3:21'>1Sa 3:21</a>; <a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a> is the word used of how Yahweh had revealed Himself to the tribe of Levi and called them to be His priests (<a href='B:90 2:27'>1Sa 2:27</a>), and Eli as it were was in the loins of his father Levi, according to the principle of <a href='B:650 7:10'>Heb 7:10</a>. But the line of Levi and Eli had potentially been rejected because of Eli's apostasy. The Divine intention was to replace them with Samuel as a prophet-priest and perhaps king (<a href='B:90 2:10'>1Sa 2:10</a>), revealing Himself to him, although he was not a Levite. But this potential was only partially fulfilled by Samuel, and despite possibilities in David and Solomon, it only came to full term in the person and work of the Lord Jesus.</p>


text:
<p>Tomorrow about this time I will send you a man out of the land of Benjamin, and you must anoint him to be prince over My people Israel, and he will save My people out of the hand of the Philistines, for I have looked on My people, because their cry has come to Me-</p><p>Their request for a human king was, as God Himself mightily demonstrated to them, an utter rejection of Him, and He grieved because of it. And yet when God gave them a King, He expresses His decision in quite a different tone; as if He had compassion upon their humanity, their wrong desire to have a human king. He is indeed compassionate to us even in moral failure, and here exhibits amazing understanding of the human condition. And that is even more enhanced through the work and mediation of His Son. Here God speaks as if the gift of Saul was akin to the provision of Moses, to save poor Israel from their unwarranted persecution. For God looking upon His people because of their cry is the language of His gracious deliverance of His weak, idolatrous people from Egypt. Actually, Saul was slain by the Philistines- in His foreknowledge, the Almighty knew all about Saul. But in His pure grace, He doesn't reflect this in the way He speaks at this time.</p>


text:
<p>When Samuel saw Saul, Yahweh said to him, Here is the man of whom I spoke to you! He will have authority over My people- </p><p>Saul didn't recognize Samuel when they met (:18), so Samuel might have been disappointed that the chosen man was not one of his various protégés amongst the people he ministered to. But he would have recalled the chilling prophecy he had given Israel of the kind of man this was, or would become. It would have been hard for Samuel to be civil to him, especially seeing he so strongly disagreed with Israel having a king. But presumably he was also aware that God was going to try to work through this man, and that his words of prediction need not come true if the man repented.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul came near to Samuel in the gate and said, Please tell me where the seer’s house is- </p><p>It is unclear whether this means that they were in Ramah, Samuel's home, or whether this was one of the towns which Samuel visited on his circuit. If indeed it was Ramah, then this was only 5 miles from Gibeah of Saul. That Saul didn't know anything much about Samuel nor did he recognize him when they met::. is all a tacit reflection of his lack of interest in spiritual things.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel answered Saul, I am the seer. Go up before me to the high place, for you shall eat with me today. In the morning I will let you go and will tell you all that is in your heart- </p><p>"Let you go" reflects how Saul was somehow under arrest by God, as it were detained before Yahweh. When he was earnestly seeking to now get home to his worried family as quickly as possible. It was the offerers who ate of their own sacrifices after Samuel's blessing. Saul had not sacrificed and yet he was invited to eat of the meat offered. This was only done by the Levites, and Saul was a Benjamite. All through, he is being shown God's grace, although sadly he refused to be permanently convicted by it. And perhaps he is being invited to act as a Levite, as Samuel did, although he was not from the tribe of Levi. In this case, the hope was that he would become a king-priest. For Saul to go in front of Samuel to the high place would have been a mark of extreme respect, perhaps implying that Saul was to replace Samuel's role as a non-Levitical priest. So much potential was lost by Saul, as it is in the lives of so many. Wasted potential is the tragedy of the cosmos.</p>


text:
<p>As for your donkeys which were lost three days ago, don’t worry about them; they have been found. To whom has all the desire in Israel turned? Is it not to you and all your father’s house?- </p><p>This could equally be translated to mean that all that is desirable in Israel is for Saul and his father's house, and so he therefore need not worry about losing a few donkeys. Saul was being shown that God knew all about his situation; and knew how long he had been searching. The implication may be that Samuel had found the donkeys (hence Samuel later he insists he never stole donkeys, <a href='B:90 12:3'>1Sa 12:3</a>); on :3 I suggested they represented kingship or leadership. They had been found by Samuel, by God, and were now being given to Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Saul answered, Am I not a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? And is not my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? Why then do you speak to me like this?- </p><p>Benjamin was indeed the smallest of the tribes according to <a href='B:10 49:27'>Gen 49:27</a>, but that tribe had been made even smaller and humiliated within Israel by the fairly recent events of Judges 19-21. This could be genuine humility, or the standard expression of 'humility' which almost goes with the territory of being given a great promotion. Kish is introduced as a mighty man of valour (:1), and I suggested on :3 that the donkeys had significance as the animals of leadership or even kingship. These questions are left open by the record, to exercise our thinking. Was Saul initially humble, or only on a surface level?</p>


text:
<p>Samuel took Saul and his servant and brought them into the guest room, and made them sit in the best place among the guests, about thirty people-</p><p>We see reflected here the very small scale of Samuel's efforts. He came to this town to enable the people to offer peace offerings; after he blessed the offering, the offerers then ate their own offering. But only 30 people did this, and as with Hannah and Elkanah, it is likely that there were married couples amongst those 30. For many years Samuel made his circuits, encouraging the people in their devotion to Yahweh. But only 30 [at the most] offered peace offerings. The impression from the record is that most of Israel were far gone in idolatry and secularism, at least until they faced a real crisis from their neighbours.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to the cook, Bring the portion which I gave you, telling you to set it aside- </p><p>Samuel clearly had been told that the king to be anointed was coming to him, and he absolutely believed this, to the point of making very detailed plans. "The cook" is literally the slaughterer. We get the impression that although Samuel was not a Levite, in practice he pretty much took over from Eli as high priest, and this "cook" who dealt with the sacrifices was effectively his Levite, an assistant with the sacrifices.</p>


text:
<p>The cook took up the thigh and what was on it and set it before Saul- </p><p>AV "the shoulder and that which was upon it". This is the imagery of <a href='B:290 9:6'>Isa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:290 22:22'>Isa 22:22</a> "The government shall be upon his shoulder", again hinting that Saul was to be king.</p><p>Samuel said, Here is what has been kept for you! Eat it because it has been kept for you for this occasion since I said, ‘I have invited guests’. So Saul ate with Samuel that day-</p><p>This could be an intensive plural for the one great guest.</p>


text:
<p>When they had come down from the high place into the city, he talked with Saul on the housetop- </p><p>What we say to the Lord Jesus in His ear in the bedroom in the darkness, will be openly spoken by the Lord Jesus at the judgment (<a href='B:490 12:2-3'>Luk 12:2-3</a>). God dwells in darkness (<a href='B:20 20:21'>Exo 20:21</a>; <a href='B:110 8:12'>1Ki 8:12</a>). Speaking in the bedroom in secret with the knowledge we will be openly rewarded is the language of prayer (<a href='B:470 6:6'>Mat 6:6</a>). Our private relationship with the Lord now, praying to Him in our bedroom, meditating about Him there, will then be spoken out loud. But there is a related statement from the Lord: What we hear from Him in the ear, we must speak openly (<a href='B:470 10:26-27'>Mat 10:26-27</a>; after the pattern of Isaiah in <a href='B:290 22:14'>Isa 22:14</a>). Putting these passages together, we get the picture of us speaking to God through Christ, talking in His ear, as one might whisper something very personal into a friend's ear, in the darkness of our bedroom. And then the Lord whispers back in our ear, i:e. His revelation to us (through the word) is very personal and not perceived by others; but we must openly, publicly act upon it. And this private relationship we have with the Lord in our prayer life will then be revealed openly at the judgment. God told Samuel " in his ear" about Saul's future, and although the message must have been hard to relay to Saul, Samuel did so, on the housetop (<a href='B:90 9:15'>1Sa 9:15</a>; <a href='B:90 9:25'>1Sa 9:25</a>). The similarities with the Lord's words are too close to be accidental. Surely He saw each of us as passing through the essential experience of Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>They arose early, at daybreak, and Samuel called to Saul on the housetop, Get up, that I may send you away. Saul arose, and they went outside together- </p><p>"Called" translates the same Hebrew word used for "invited" in :25. Consistently we have the language of Divine calling. Saul is presented as being absolutely obedient to Samuel and the Divine calling- at this stage.</p>


text:
<p>As they were going down to the outskirts of the city Samuel said to Saul, Tell the servant to go on ahead of us (and he did so), but you stay here first, so that I may tell you the message of God-</p><p>"Message" translates the standard Hebrew dabar for "word". "Tell you" is better "make your hear / be obedient". The same phrase is used of how Israel at Sinai were made to hear the word of God (<a href='B:50 4:10'>Deu 4:10</a>) as a condition for entering covenant with Him. The subsequent activity of God's Spirit upon Saul was indeed to potentially make him hear / be obedient to the word of God to him. Only the day before he had been out looking for lost donkeys, with not a real thought for Yahweh. And now God was seeking to make him obedient to the word of the Kingdom. But as Saul's subsequent life demonstrates, although God through His Spirit does seek to make us obedient to His word, He will never ultimately force us.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel took a vial of oil and poured it on his head and kissed him and said, Hasn’t Yahweh anointed you to be prince over His inheritance?-</p><p>The significance of the kiss was maybe to simply show this secular man that actually, God really loved him. He really wanted Saul to work out well, and was not at all predestining him to failure. He was reminded that he was only prince over God's inheritance; the kingdom was always to be God's, and not Saul's. And yet he later reasoned with Jonathan as if the kingdom was theirs and not God's. All his angst about David becoming king would have not been an item had he believed that the Kingdom is God's and not ours. An inheritance was all a man had, and was more important to him than his own life. And we God's people are His inheritance::. We are no mere plaything within the boundless function of an omnipotent being.</p>


text:
<p>When you have departed from me today you will find two men by Rachel’s tomb, in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah, and they will tell you, ‘The donkeys which you went to seek have been found, and your father has stopped caring about the donkeys, and is anxious for you, saying, What shall I do for my son? ’- </p><p>This detail would be relevant for the exiles, for whom this history was apparently rewritten. For <a href='B:300 31:15'>Jer 31:15</a> seems to imply that as the exiles of Judah were marched into captivity from Jerusalem, they passed Rachel's tomb and wept there for their lost children:&nbsp;The idea was that not only Samuel but others were also prophets in Israel, and these were the men whom Saul ought to be associated with when he became king.</p>


text:
<p>Then you will go on from there and you will come to the oak of Tabor. Three men will meet you there, going up to God to Bethel, one carrying three young goats, another carrying three loaves of bread and another carrying a bottle of wine-</p><p>Saul was to be further introduced to the faithful within Israel, whom Samuel hoped he would associate with. Perhaps these faithful men also had Divine revelation about Saul as Samuel had had, or maybe he got word to them of his plans for Saul:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>The priests were God’s representatives, and for a man to ‘appear before the Lord’ effectively referred to his appearance before the priest. When we read of “men going up to God at Bethel”, the ‘house of God’ (<a href='B:90 10:3'>1Sa 10:3</a>), we aren’t to think that God Himself lived in a house in Bethel. The reference is to the priests, His representative, being there.</p>


text:
<p>They will greet you and give you two loaves of bread, which you will accept from them- </p><p>A symbolic gift of food [for two loaves is not much] reflected acceptance of the person receiving the food, and even acceptance of them as a leader.</p><p>The extent of God’s activity for us is simply huge. Just consider all the apparently insignificant details added in to God's plan for making Saul king here and in :3. One of this, two of that, three of those::. why such detail? It's the same question as to why is the cosmos so vast, the range of plant and animal life on earth so huge and varied. Perhaps in Saul's case all the detail was necessary in order to try to build faith in him, and to demonstrate for all time the capability of God to have micro level involvement and control in human experiences.</p>


text:
<p>After that you will come to the hill of God- </p><p>A place called Gibeath-Elohim.</p><p>Where the garrison of the Philistines is, and when you come near to the city you will meet a band of prophets coming down from the high place with a psaltery, a tambourine, a pipe and a harp being played before them. They will be prophesying- </p><p>Again Saul is being shown that there were other spiritually minded believers in Israel, right under the noses of the Philistine garrison. Saul didn't even know Samuel to look at, and he clearly moved outside the sphere of believers. He appears to have felt lost when actually not that far from home (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 9:8'>1Sa 9:8</a>), so he may never have travelled far from his birthplace- like many rural folk in Israel at the time. The Biblical idea of prophesying is speaking forth God's word, not necessarily predicting the future. But it may be that these prophets were doing both, speaking under inspiration of Saul's future kingship.</p>


text:
<p>and the Spirit of Yahweh will come mightily on you, and you will prophesy with them, and you will be changed into another person- </p><p>Here we see the essence of the work of the Spirit; it is not so much the miraculous gifts, as the internal change of the person. And that is what we so desperately need, and is a strong reason in our age to encourage people to accept the Lord Jesus and be baptized, knowing that this leads to the gift of the same transforming Spirit in the hearts and persons of people. And this transformation is our greatest need. Whilst the gift of the Spirit as we currently experience it is predicated upon the Lord's death and resurrection, through which His Spirit is poured out upon His people (<a href='B:500 7:39'>Joh 7:39</a>), yet clearly God even in Old Testament times was active through His Spirit directly on human hearts. The parallel in :9 says that Saul was 'given' (s:w. "changed" in :6) another heart. The same word is used in <a href='B:230 105:25'>Psa 105:25</a> of how God turned or changed the heart of the Egyptians towards hatred of His people. It is the word used of how Gentiles will be "converted" or turned to Yahweh (<a href='B:290 60:5'>Isa 60:5</a>)- by His work upon them, and not their own unaided intellectual searching for truth. The Spirit is not simply the power of God but also His mind and thinking, which precedes or is the essence of His actions. To be given God's Spirit is essentially to have our spirit changed; His breathing, His mind, becomes ours. And this is what happened to Saul. But as we see from his later life, God will not force a man to be other than what he himself wishes to be. If we wish to be spiritually minded, we will be helped toward this by the Spirit. If we do not, then as with Saul, an evil spirit from God will confirm us in the psychological path we prefer to take.</p>


text:
<p>When these signs have happened, then do as occasion demands, for God is with you-</p><p>"As occasion demands" is hard to translate. The idea seem to be that Saul had God with him and was to act in response to his calling. Whatever he did would prosper. The fact God departed from him (<a href='B:90 28:15'>1Sa 28:15</a>) was a sad reflection of how initially God had been with Saul (<a href='B:90 10:7'>1Sa 10:7</a>). In Saul's case it was given by the pure grace of how God calls otherwise unspiritual people. But in response to their rejection of His Spirit, God will send an evil spirit to confirm them in that rejection, as happened later in Saul's life.</p>


text:
<p>Go down before me to Gilgal and I will come down to you, to offer burnt offerings and to make sacrifices of peace offerings. Wait seven days until I come to you and show you what you must do-</p><p>It seems to me that all the Lord's servants are taught by increments, progressively, being given tests as to the degree to which they have grasped what the Lord has sought to teach them previously. Take Saul. At the beginning of his intended ministry, he was told by Samuel to wait for his coming, when he would offer sacrifices. Saul obediently obeyed; yet when he was tested on this very point in this very way at a later stage, he failed. It is for this reason that circumstances repeat so strangely in the lives of God's people. See on <a href='B:90 16:3'>1Sa 16:3</a>:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>When Saul had turned to leave Samuel, God gave him another heart, and all those signs happened that day- </p><p>This gift of another heart was through the Spirit coming upon him (see on :6,10).</p><p>This is further evidence that God can work directly upon the hearts of people, including those like the Egyptians who are not His people. The heart of Saul was likewise turned (s:w. <a href='B:230 105:25'>Psa 105:25</a> He turned their heart"). This is effected today by the work of the Holy Spirit directly upon human spirits / hearts.</p><p>The association of an Angel with God's "good spirit" in <a href='B:160 9:20'>Neh 9:20</a> suggests that the good and evil spirits that troubled Saul were actually Angelically-controlled dispositions of mind, co-ordinated by two different Angels. This giving of a new heart to Saul by the Angel (<a href='B:90 10:9'>1Sa 10:9</a>) appears to be the basis of <a href='B:300 31:33'>Jer 31:33</a>, where God says He will make a new Covenant with them (remember it was an Angel who made the Old Covenant also), when He "will put My Law in their inward parts::. and will be their God". This giving a new heart to Israel described here and in <a href='B:300 32:39'>Jer 32:39</a> and <a href='B:330 36:26'>Eze 36:26</a> appears to be over and above Israel's personal spirituality, although as with the case of Saul it will probably be a vast magnification of some small spiritual effort made of their own freewill, as Saul must surely have had. Again we see how the record of Saul was rewritten [under inspiration] for the exiles. Yet these words are quoted in the New Testament about&nbsp; God doing this to our hearts now (<a href='B:650 8:10'>Heb 8:10</a>); inviting us to read the other passages in the New Testament concerning the Spirit creating a new mind or creation in us as referring to God being willing to do the same to us as He did to Saul (<a href='B:510 15:8-9'>Act 15:8-9</a>; <a href='B:540 3:3'>2Co 3:3</a>; <a href='B:550 4:6'>Gal 4:6</a>; <a href='B:560 3:14-20'>Eph 3:14-20</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When they came to the hill a band of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God came mightily on him and he prophesied among them- </p><p>The hill was where the Philistine garrison was (:5). Although at that time the Israelites were allowed some autonomy, they were in power over Israel in this area. The association of this place with the outpouring of the Spirit was&nbsp; surely to teach Saul that he was going to be empowered by the Spirit to defeat the Philistines and lead Israel to freedom from them. It was he, therefore, who should have fought Goliath, and he would have won, through the work of the Spirit. But Saul didn't want to use the potential. Hence his bitter jealousy of David was based upon a sense that&nbsp; David had the faith to use the potential of the Spirit which he did not have. And it is spiritual jealousy which is the very worst and bitterest form of jealousy. Possession of the Spirit did not mean that someone was necessarily acceptable in God’s sight, e:g. Saul possessed it for a time as did the judges of Israel (<a href='B:40 11:17'>Num 11:17</a>) although they were not righteous; they did not believe the report of Joshua and Caleb and therefore were condemned to die like the other Israelites, despite their having the Spirit - <a href='B:230 82:1-7'>Psa 82:1-7</a> says as much.</p>


text:
<p>When all who knew him before saw that he prophesied with the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?- </p><p>It is possible that somehow there were people from Saul's home village who were present at the garrison of the Philistines when Saul began prophesying there. But it could also be that he continued prophesying on the way back to his home (see on :13), leading to this comment. The idea is that a totally secular man could instantly be transformed by the Spirit. This amazement by those who knew him, marvelling that he was the son of Kish, who also was not perhaps known for his spirituality, is also seen in the transformations of secular lives which the Spirit works today.</p>


text:
<p>A man who lived there answered, Who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb: Is Saul also among the prophets?-</p><p>As suggested on :11, the idea may be that Kish was not known for his spirituality. This amazing transformation of Saul therefore gave birth to the proverb, because it meant that the unspiritual way in which he was raised was no barrier to the work of the Spirit upon Saul's heart. This really does happen today also, and such transformations are the greatest advertisement for the Gospel.</p>


text:
<p>When he had stopped prophesying, he came to the high place- </p><p>LXX "to Gibeah". It's possible that on the way home to Gibeah of Saul, he met people who had previously known him (see on :11). If we retain the reading "the high place", we conclude that the work of the Spirit led him to come and make a sacrifice at the high place; when from the account in 1 Samuel 9, it seems he had never made such a sacrifice in his life. And this is where the work of the Spirit leads- to the principle of sacrifice.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s uncle said to him and to his servant, Where did you go? He said, To seek the donkeys. When we saw that they were not to be found we came to Samuel- </p><p>"Seek" is not really the word one would use for searching for lost cattle. It is the word more usually used for seeking in prayer or worship. The transformation of the Spirit led to Saul's vocabulary changing; and he now speaks of Samuel as if he was of course known to the family. When in reality Saul didn't recognize Samuel when he met him, indicating he had never attended Samuel's meetings. Such change in language is a typical reflection of the Spirit's transforming work.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s uncle said, Please tell me what Samuel said to you- </p><p>I suggested on <a href='B:90 9:3'>1Sa 9:3</a> that the donkeys were a symbol of leadership or even kingship. Therefore Samuel's commentary upon them being lost but then found was significant to Saul's uncle.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to his uncle, He told us plainly that the donkeys were found. But concerning the matter of the kingdom, of which Samuel spoke, he didn’t tell him-</p><p>We wonder why he didn't, especially given the amazing signs and wonders he had experienced in the wake of the statement about him becoming king. Indeed, he had been anointed to be king. His silence could have been bashful humility, or it could have been a lack of faith in running with the possibilities now opened up to him. The fact Saul does nothing until he is called by the Ammonite crisis indicates his passivity to the call. See on :21.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel called the people together to Yahweh to Mizpah- </p><p>"Mizpah" means watchtower, an appropriate place for a prophet to make statements. But Samuel called the people "to Yahweh". It was a calling to Him, to repentance. Just as Saul was called, so the people were called. 'Calling' is a major theme in this section.</p>


text:
<p>and he said to the people of Israel, Thus says Yahweh, the God of Israel, ‘I brought up Israel out of Egypt and I delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians and out of the hand of all the kingdoms that oppressed you- </p><p>This is said in the context of the people wanting a human king to lead them. They were bidden reflect how it was God who had led them and saved them from their enemies, even leading them out of Egypt. The local neighbouring tribes they were up against were nothing compared to Egypt.</p>


text:
<p>but you have this day rejected your God, who Himself saves you out of all your calamities and your distresses- </p><p>The stress is upon "who Himself". God had saved them by His direct leadership, and not through any human king. But always humanity shies away from the wonder of direct personal relationship with God. Many today prefer to hide at the bottom of a huge supposed hierarchy of priests, bishops, denominational membership etc:- rather than accept direct personal relationship with God. Just as God wished to speak directly to Israel, but they ran away from Him and wanted Moses instead to report to them what God had said. See on <a href='B:90 12:6'>1Sa 12:6</a>.</p><p>You have said to Him, ‘No! Set a king over us’. Now therefore present yourselves before Yahweh by your tribes and by your thousands- </p><p>God does make concessions to human weakness; He gave them a king in His wrath, Hosea says. But using those concessions ultimately makes obedience harder. It was God's wish that Israel would not have a human king; hence His sorrow when they did (<a href='B:90 10:19-21'>1Sa 10:19-21</a>). Yet in the Law, God foresaw that they would want a human king, and so He gave commandments concerning how he should behave (<a href='B:50 17:14-15'>Deu 17:14-15</a>). These passages speak of how Israel would choose to set a King over themselves, and would do so. Yet God worked through this system of human kings; hence the Queen of Sheba speaks of how God had set Solomon over Israel as King, and how he was king on God's behalf (<a href='B:140 9:8'>2Ch 9:8</a>). Israel set a king over themselves; but God worked with this, so that in a sense He&nbsp;set the King over them. God's ideal was that the Levites would live from the tithes given by Israel (<a href='B:50 14:27'>Deu 14:27</a>); but He foresaw that this ideal level wouldn't be reached by them, therefore the Levites were given land on which to grow their own crops for survival. However, it must be noted that by opting to make use of God's concessions to human weakness, real spirituality became harder to achieve. Thus it was harder to accept Yahweh as King if they had a human king demanding their allegiance.</p>


text:
<p>So Samuel brought all the tribes of Israel together, and the tribe of Benjamin was taken- </p><p>To gather representatives from all the tribes would have taken significant planning, and also their willingness to participate.</p>


text:
<p>He brought the tribe of Benjamin forward by their families, and the family of the Matrites was taken, and Saul the son of Kish was taken, but when they sought him he could not be found- </p><p>Again we have questions which the record leaves hanging intentionally open. Was he hiding because he was humble? <a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a> could encourage us to read him this way; he was exalted when he was "little" in his own eyes. And this was understood by Saul, who changed his name to Paul, the little one, in seeking to emulate the early spirit of Saul. Or because as suggested on :16, he failed to have the faith to be proactive after his anointing? The fact Saul was present at the gathering surely means that he had come along expecting to be pronounced king. Perhaps his nerve failed him, a kind of stage fright at the last minute. Human motivation and spirituality is nearly always mixed, and perhaps that is why these questions are left hanging.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore they asked of Yahweh further, Did the man come here? Yahweh answered, He has hidden himself among the baggage- </p><p>We think of the Lord's parable of the man who hid his talent in the earth. Saul had after all been anointed to be king, and had experienced signs confirming that. David continually accuses Saul of "arrogance" in the Psalms he wrote reflecting upon Saul's persecution of him (e:g. <a href='B:230 10:2'>Psa 10:2</a>); whereas Saul begins as an apparently humble man who doesn't feel worthy to be king, hiding himself to avoid being king (<a href='B:90 15:17'>1Sa 15:17</a>), and restraining himself when some mocked him as an inappropriate leader (<a href='B:90 10:27'>1Sa 10:27</a>). Saul's descent into apostasy was therefore primarily a descent into pride. Being called to do something for God so often makes men pride, when the invitation is intended to humble us; just as David's psalm of humility in Psalms 8 after killing of Goliath was a protestation of humility. "Who am I, to do this work for You?" ought to be our sense. However we will note on <a href='B:230 10:10'>Psa 10:10</a> that Saul had a false humility; so perhaps his initial humility was not genuine.</p>


text:
<p>They ran and fetched him, and when he stood among the people he was taller than any of the people from his shoulders and upward- </p><p>Truly God gave them just the kind of king they wanted. His unusual height made him the ideal person to fight Goliath, and his failure to do so suggests a failure to rise up to the potential given him. Perhaps the extensive prophesying from him and others right under the noses of the Philistines in :5,6 was about victory over the Philistines. Hence his bitter spiritual jealousy of David, who did rise up to the potential.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to all the people, You see the one whom Yahweh has chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? All the people shouted, Long live the king!- </p><p>As found often in Daniel, Gentile kings were addressed with the wish that "O King, live for ever". They were greeting their new king just as the Gentile nations did; and yet no man is immortal, and this was a phrase better not used by those who believed in the mortality of man, and that no king was in fact immortal.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel told the people the regulations of the kingdom, wrote them in a book and laid it up before Yahweh. Samuel sent all the people away to their homes-</p><p>These regulations were perhaps the laws in Deuteronomy about how the king of Israel should behave, not multiplying horses etc. Being laid up before Yahweh may have meant placing it in a pouch on the ark. But mishpat, "regulations", is also more commonly the idea of a verdict or judgment. It could be that Samuel wrote down his inspired judgment on this matter from God- that He didn't want them to have a king but was going along with their request, even though it meant their rejection of Him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul also went to his house to Gibeah and with him the valiant men whose hearts God had touched- </p><p>These men were those who like him had experienced the work of the Spirit directly upon their hearts (see on :6,9). The same word is used of how God touched [AV "plagued"] the hearts of the Egyptians (<a href='B:20 9:14'>Exo 9:14</a>). He can work directly on the human heart; this is the work of the Spirit, which is exactly what is needed by we weak minded people who want to be spiritual. Our deepest need is met in the Spirit, and yet it is this very topic which has provoked so much fear and controversy in the circles of believers. "The valiant men" is AV "a band of men", presumably the prophets of :5. They were to spiritually teach him in order to prepare him for kingship. Whether he paid attention or not we don't know; all we next read of him is that he was working in his fields and came home one evening to hear of the crisis at Jabesh (<a href='B:90 11:5'>1Sa 11:5</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But some worthless fellows said, How can this man save us? They despised him and brought him no present- </p><p>Clearly Saul was considered a nobody who had no military experience. It could however be that these worthless fellows were those who considered him to be spiritually unqualified to be king; and by thinking that of the man God had chosen and was in process of transforming, they were categorized themselves as unspiritual people.</p><p>But he was as though he had been deaf-</p><p>See on :22; <a href='B:230 38:13'>Psa 38:13</a>. David learnt the secret of seeing the positive in our weak brethren, and he didn’t let all that was wrong with Saul interfere with this. He describes himself as responding to criticism like this: “I as a deaf man, heard not” (<a href='B:230 38:13'>Psa 38:13</a>). Yet he was alluding to how Saul, when likewise criticized by “sons of belial”, “was as though he had been deaf” to their words (<a href='B:90 10:27'>1Sa 10:27</a> RVmg:). He saw the good in Saul, he remembered that one good example he showed- and it empowered him to follow it.</p>


text:
<p>Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead, and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, Make a treaty with us and we will serve you- </p><p>Nahash is the Hebrew word for serpent. Although God foreknew Saul's ultimate failure, he was set up as the potential Messianic seed who could crush the serpent; see on <a href='B:90 13:13'>1Sa 13:13</a>. He failed to realize his potential, and was confirmed in that by the evil spirit from Yahweh which later afflicted him. For the significance of Jabesh, see on :9. </p><p></p>


text:
<p>Nahash the Ammonite said to them, On this condition I will make it with you, that each of you has his right eye put out, bringing disgrace on all Israel- </p><p>Saul's work was to remove the disgrace or "reproach" from Israel. When Goliath reproached Israel, it was Saul, Israel's tallest man, who was potentially empowered to fight him and remove the reproach. But he failed to do so, and when David did (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a> s:w:), Saul fell into a complex of spiritual jealousy. See another example of this in :13. To put out the right eye was a living shame; perhaps the right eye was chosen because it was perceived as the eye most used in one to one combat. The relevance to the exiles is that very often, the word for "reproach" is used of their situation. Yahweh was powerful to remove this from them- if they accepted His leadership and didn't hanker for the immediate restoration of the kingly line as a condition for their return.</p>


text:
<p>The elders of Jabesh said to him, Give us seven days so that we can send messengers to all the borders of Israel, and then, if there is no one to save us, we will come out to you- </p><p>We wonder why Nahash agreed to this. His pride was apparently such that he considered that even if this were to be done, he would still win. It was again a case of pride going before a fall. Given the size of the land, it would have taken seven days to inform all Israel and get a response. See on <a href='B:90 14:10'>1Sa 14:10</a>:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul and reported these words to the people, and they all wept aloud- </p><p>The messengers went throughout Israel, just as messengers had recently gone throughout Israel inviting them to the gathering at Mizpah regarding having a king. And there was apparently no response. They were all therefore psychologically set up to hope that the promised new king would actually bring the charismatic deliverance they expected of a king. This setting up of expectation was all from God. He really wanted to arrange things so that Saul had the support and respect of all Israel. Saul's ultimate failure was therefore all the more culpable, because he had been set up for success- as is everyone called by God.</p><p></p>


text:
<p>Just then Saul came, following the oxen out of the field, and he said, What is wrong with the people that they weep? They told him what the men of Jabesh had said- </p><p>I pondered on <a href='B:90 10:16'>1Sa 10:16</a> why he didn't immediately tell others of his calling to be king, especially given the amazing signs and wonders he had experienced in the wake of the statement about him becoming king. Indeed, he had been anointed to be king. His silence could have been bashful humility, or it could have been a lack of faith in running with the possibilities now opened up to him. The fact Saul does nothing until he is now called by the Ammonite crisis could indicate his passivity to his calling. See on <a href='B:90 10:21'>1Sa 10:21</a>:&nbsp;</p><p>The Lord Jesus called men, arresting them with His radical call in the very midst of daily life, just when they were throwing a net into the sea, at the most utterly inconvenient moment, even the most humanly inappropriate moment- such as being on the way to your father’s funeral. The Son of God was actually acting as His Father had done. Gideon was called whilst in the middle of threshing wheat in a time of famine (<a href='B:70 6:1'>Jdg 6:1</a>), Saul whilst he was out looking for lost cattle (<a href='B:90 9:10'>1Sa 9:10</a>) and again now whilst he was coming home from ploughing [following the oxen] one evening; David whilst he was looking after the sheep; Samuel whilst he was asleep; Amos whilst he was leading the flocks to water (<a href='B:370 7:14'>Amo 7:14</a>); and see too <a href='B:110 11:29'>1Ki 11:29</a>; <a href='B:110 19:16'>1Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 9:1-13'>2Ki 9:1-13</a>; <a href='B:120 9:18'>2Ki 9:18</a>. In other words, the call of God comes to us right in the midst of ordinary, mundane life. Of this there can be no doubt. And the Lord Jesus called men in just the same way.</p>


text:
<p>The Spirit of God came mightily on Saul when he heard those words, and his anger was kindled greatly- </p><p>This seems another example of the Spirit of God touching his heart, giving him feelings, initiatives and ideas; all part of the Spirit of God touching his heart or mind (see on <a href='B:90 10:6'>1Sa 10:6</a>; <a href='B:90 10:9'>1Sa 10:9</a>; <a href='B:90 10:26'>1Sa 10:26</a>). And the Spirit can work likewise today if we are open to receive it:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He took a yoke of oxen, cut them in pieces and sent them throughout all Israel by the hand of messengers, saying, Whoever doesn’t come forth after Saul and after Samuel, this is what shall be done to his oxen- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. This is similar to what was done to call Israel to action against Gibeah and Benjamin (<a href='B:70 19:29-30'>Jdg 19:29-30</a>), and Jabesh were the ones who singularly refused to participate and respond. I suggest on :9 that Saul was seeking to show grace to them. Samuel was clearly identified with Saul and was effectively the joint leader at this point. He fades from view as Saul becomes more confident, and pride took over within him.</p><p>The dread of Yahweh fell on the people, and they came out as one man- </p><p>This continues the theme of the Spirit of God being at work on human hearts, giving not only individuals but a whole people the required psychological attitudes and dispositions.</p>


text:
<p>Saul numbered them in Bezek and there were three hundred thousand men of Israel and thirty thousand of Judah- </p><p>As often noted, "thousand" doesn't mean necessarily a literal 1000, but can refer to families or military regiments. The size of Judah, a tenth of the entire community, is roughly appropriate to the twelve tribe nation. Bezek is about 20 miles from Jabesh.</p>


text:
<p>They said to the messengers who came, Thus you shall tell the men of Jabesh Gilead: ‘Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you shall have deliverance’. The messengers came and told the men of Jabesh, and they were glad- </p><p>Jabesh was the town who had refused to help the rest of Israel in the war against Gibeah and Benjamin in Judges 19-21. That Saul should now help them was therefore an act of grace; although it could be read as him rewarding them for not turning against his tribe, the Benjamites (<a href='B:90 9:1'>1Sa 9:1</a>). But the fact the other tribes came to support Saul in saving Jabesh would indicate that he was spearheading a movement of grace. He did indeed begin well. See on :7.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore the men of Jabesh said to the Ammonites, Tomorrow we will come out to you and you can do to us what seems good to you- </p><p>The implication was that they had not had any offer of help and therefore the Ammonites in the pride were off guard (see on :3):&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>The next day Saul put the people into three companies, and they came into the midst of the camp in the morning watch and slaughtered the Ammonites until the heat of the day. Those who remained were scattered, so that no two of them were left together-</p><p>They had marched 20 miles overnight from Bezek, and were exhausted- and then entered battle at dawn. The victory was clearly a case of God empowering the weak. By splitting the people into three groups, Saul was trying to imitate Gideon (see too <a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>), and likewise when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>). And yet it was Gideon who refused the request of Israel to make him king; Saul's modelling upon Gideon was only superficial.</p>


text:
<p>The people said to Samuel, Who was it who said, ‘Shall Saul reign over us?’. Bring those men out so that we can put them to death!- </p><p>Saul was set up by God to fulfil all the hopes and expectations of Israel about a human king. See on :4. The desire to kill fellow Israelites reflects the degree of cult following which Israel felt towards Saul. They failed to perceive that it was Samuel and God who had effectively challenged whether Saul should reign over them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>But Saul said, No-one is to be put to death today, for today Yahweh has worked deliverance in Israel- </p><p>And the principle holds true. If we are in awe at the great deliverance Yahweh has worked in His Son, there should be maximum forgiveness and no judgment of our brethren. See on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>. As noted on :2, there is another connection with the conflict with Goliath. Yahweh again "worked deliverance in Israel" (s:w. <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>); but it was through David. It could have been through Saul, through whom He worked such deliverance at the start of his reign (s:w. <a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>). It was because David had the faith and humility to do what Saul potentially could have done, that Saul fell into a complex of spiritual jealousy against David:&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;</p><p>David many years later copies Saul's spirit here in <a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; and we see his humility in being willing to credit Saul with something good, and even being willing to learn from a man who hated him and later went wrong before God.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel said to the people, Come, let us go to Gilgal and reaffirm the kingship there- </p><p>This was all part of God psychologically setting up Saul to be a successful king. The introduction of him to Israel as their king was at a time when God had made him fulfil all their secular desires for a king. He was riding a surge of mass support. His failure was thereby the more culpable.</p><p>Israel had been given a chance to reject the kingship of Saul. But they had insisted upon it, and so they were reaffirmed in their choice. Despite setting Saul up for success, God gave them a king in His wrath (<a href='B:350 13:11'>Hos 13:11</a>) knowing how things would turn out and their motives in asking for a king, and this seems to be the reference of <a href='B:350 9:15'>Hos 9:15</a>: "All their wickedness is in Gilgal; for there I hated them". The mention of Gilgal is difficult because we are unaware that there was any more idolatry there than elsewhere. But probably the reference is to the way that Israel's demand for a human king at Gilgal was the epitome of their unfaithfulness to Yahweh; they thereby rejected Him as their king, master and husband; see on <a href='B:350 10:3'>Hos 10:3</a>. They of course claimed to still have Him as their king, just as Gomer protested she was still Hosea's wife whilst having affairs with others. As Hosea went through flashes of hatred against Gomer, so did God. But His hatred was for a moment, because Hosea's prophecies go on to declare His undying love for His people. We see here how answered prayer isn't necessarily an indication that we are pleasing to God, just as unanswered prayer is no indication of His displeasure. For He answered their prayer, giving them exactly the kind of king they desired- "in His wrath".</p>


text:
<p>All the people went to Gilgal and there they made Saul king before Yahweh in Gilgal, and there they offered sacrifices of peace offerings before Yahweh, and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly-</p><p>The fact we have peace with God must inevitably produce joy, not necessarily arms round the neck and grinning from ear to ear, but the real spiritual joy of being at one with God. <a href='B:90 11:13-15'>1Sa 11:13-15</a> recounts the offering of the peace offering to commemorate God's salvation of Israel, and their renewal of their covenant with Him. We should be able to say, at any given point in time, that we are confident that if Christ comes now, we will be saved. And in our times the breaking of bread meeting is an equivalent for the peace offering.</p><p>We note however that they offered peace offerings and rejoiced- despite having rejected Yahweh as their king, and His giving them a king in His anger (<a href='B:350 10:13'>Hos 10:13</a>). This was not necessarily to say that they didn't have peace and fellowship with God. It simply reflects the complex standing of sinful, weak man before God when He has made major concessions to human weakness, and they have been made use of.</p>


text:
<p>:1 Samuel said to all Israel, I have listened to all that you said to me, and have made a king over you- </p><p>It was God who made Saul king (<a href='B:350 10:13'>Hos 10:13</a>); Samuel here speaks on God's behalf, although not as a mere instrument of communication. Rather he is very much of one mind with Yahweh. Indeed God had listened to all they asked for, because Saul was set up by God to be exactly what they asked for. He was not only tall and apparently a born leader, but he was set up with dramatic military success just before he was proclaimed king. And military leadership was what Israel were looking for:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Now, the king is your leader; I am old and grey-headed and my sons are with you, and I have been your leader from my youth to this day- </p><p>Samuel is making it clear, perhaps not without a touch of resentment, that they had chosen Saul over himself. "My sons are with you" could imply that he knew they were worthless and were another indicator that he was unable to lead the people because of them. Or he could be saying that his worthless sons were on their side, and they along with his sons had rejected him. He comes over as a faithful, hard working old man who had been rejected by his people and his sons; and yet thereby came to close relationship with God, not merely speaking on His behalf, but having the very same thoughts and positions as God.</p>


text:
<p>Here I am. Testify against me before Yahweh and before His anointed- </p><p>The reference is to Saul; he would have had in mind how his mother had hoped that he would be Yahweh's anointed (<a href='B:90 2:9-10'>1Sa 2:9-10</a>). It seems Samuel and Saul stood together before the people.</p><p>Whose ox have I taken? Whose donkey have I taken? Whom have I defrauded? Whom have I oppressed? Of whose hand have I taken a bribe to blind my eyes? I will restore it to you- </p><p>This speech clearly inspired Paul, when he likewise affirms that his ministry has been with integrity (Acts 20). The insistence he had not stolen donkeys may refer to the donkeys of Saul which were lost and apparently found by Samuel (see on <a href='B:90 9:20'>1Sa 9:20</a>). Saul accepts here that Samuel never stole his donkeys.</p>


text:
<p>They said, You have not defrauded us or oppressed us, neither have you taken anything from any man- </p><p>This is tantamount to saying that unlike Eli with his sons, Samuel was known not to have profited from the corruption of his sons (<a href='B:90 8:3'>1Sa 8:3</a>). For Samuel's sons are in view (see on :2). We note they were judges in Beersheba (<a href='B:90 8:2'>1Sa 8:2</a>), a long way from Ramah and the small circuit of towns in that vicinity which had been judged by Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>He said to them, Yahweh is witness against you and His anointed is witness this day that you have not found anything in my hand. They said, He is witness- </p><p>Samuel is setting this up as a kind of court case, where he is tried and found innocent, with Yahweh and Saul as witnesses corroborating the testimony of the people.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to the people, It is Yahweh who appointed Moses and Aaron and brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt- </p><p>Samuel had earlier made the point that it was Yahweh Himself who had brought the people out of Egypt (<a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a>). But in practice He had done this through appointing Moses and Aaron. The judges and Samuel were appointed in the same sense. <a href='B:350 12:13'>Hos 12:13</a> uses the same phrase to say that it was by a prophet that Yahweh brought Israel up out of Egypt. And Samuel was the prophet of their times who had been used by God. But the ministry of prophets was to come to an end in Saul, who didn't continue prophesying after.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore stand still, that I may plead with you before Yahweh concerning all the righteous acts of Yahweh, which He did to you and to your fathers- </p><p>The righteous acts Samuel now pleads with Israel to accept all refer to His gracious saving of a sinful Israel. For in acts of saving sinners, Yahweh declares His righteousness; and thus Paul perceives that His righteousness was supremely declared on the cross. These "righteous acts" were the great acts of :24; Yahweh's greatness is supremely shown in the way He saves sinners and continues working with them when they are unworthy and of minimal response to His grace. Indeed this is what the history of God's encounter with man is all about. Samuel was pleading with the people to realize that God's grace over history meant they should never abuse that grace as it had been abused before. And the record of God's history with His people is likewise an appeal to us not to abuse grace.</p>


text:
<p>When Jacob had come into Egypt and your fathers cried to Yahweh, then Yahweh sent Moses and Aaron, who brought your fathers out of Egypt and settled them in this place- </p><p>The 'settling' in the land meant the destruction of nations like the Ammonites and Philistines who were currently threatening Israel. And this of course was done without any human king; the leadership by Moses and Aaron was the pattern Israel were intended to follow.</p>


text:
<p>But they forgot Yahweh their God, and He sold them into the hand of Sisera, captain of the army of Hazor, into the hand of the Philistines and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them- </p><p>The danger was that through having a human king, Israel would again forget Yahweh their God. At Samuel's time, Israel were under Philistine domination, with the Israelites living under the control of Philistine garrisons in their towns (<a href='B:90 10:5'>1Sa 10:5</a>). This therefore was because Yahweh had brought this situation about, in response to Israel forgetting their God. The relevance to the exiles was that they felt forgotten by Yahweh when it was in fact a case of them having forgotten Him; and that was why they were in the hands of their enemies, in exile (s:w. <a href='B:290 49:14'>Isa 49:14</a>; <a href='B:290 51:13'>Isa 51:13</a>; <a href='B:300 3:21'>Jer 3:21</a>; <a href='B:300 13:25'>Jer 13:25</a>; <a href='B:350 2:13'>Hos 2:13</a>). They were not to look for a human king to lead them back from exile, but to rather believe that Yahweh Himself could do this.</p>


text:
<p>They cried to Yahweh and said, ‘We have sinned, because we have forsaken Yahweh and have served the Baals and Ashtaroth; but now deliver us out of the hand of our enemies and we will serve You’- </p><p>This was not the best attitude. Surely they should have confessed and forsaken their sin of idolatry, promising to serve Yahweh; and then ask for deliverance from their enemies. But they appear to make serving Yahweh dependent upon whether He saved them from their enemies in response to their desperate plea. And yet despite&nbsp; this poor attitude, Yahweh was still pitiful toward them. Such was and is His grace.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh sent Jerubbaal, Bedan, Jephthah and Samuel, and delivered you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and you lived in safety- </p><p>The deliverance from enemies was through judges like Samuel, and not through a king. Their request for a king to save them from their enemies was therefore a rejection of how God had worked with them in the past. It was as good as saying that they were rejecting Yahweh's salvation, which is what they did when they rejected Jesus, Yehoshua, Yahweh's salvation, and instead pledged their loyalty to Caesar as their only king.</p><p>We notice that Samuel refers to himself in the third person. When asked who he was, John’s reply was simply: “a voice”. Amos, in the same way, was told not to keep on prophesying; but he replies: “I am no prophet… the Lord said unto me, Go, prophesy” (<a href='B:370 1:14-15'>Amo 1:14-15</a> RV). It’s almost contradictory: ‘I’m not a prophet… I am a prophet’. He was truly selfless, like, John, just a voice for God. Samuel spoke of himself at a distance from himself when he told Israel: “The Lord sent Jerubbaal… and Samuel… and delivered you” (<a href='B:90 12:11'>1Sa 12:11</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When you saw that Nahash the king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, ‘No, we want a king to reign over us’, when Yahweh your God was your king- </p><p>The threat from Nahash had apparently been there for quite some time, and was not only against Jabesh but "against you". Their desire for a king was not only a rejection of Yahweh as king, it was a seeking for military deliverance from their enemies by a charismatic, powerful army leaders, rather than through faith in Yahweh. They may not have worked it all out psychologically, it was all unconscious; but the truth was, they knew subconsciously that for Yahweh to deliver them, they had to trust Him and be solely obedient to Him, and quit their idols. But if they could find a strong military leader to deliver them, then they were free to continue the status quo in their religious lives.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, see the king whom you have chosen and whom you have asked for; Yahweh has set a king over you- </p><p>As noted on <a href='B:90 11:4'>1Sa 11:4</a>, God gave them exactly the kind of king they wanted; tall, strong, and now with a record of military deliverance behind him. God had thereby&nbsp; psychologically set them up to hope that the promised new king would actually bring the charismatic deliverance they expected of a secular king- and he did. This setting up of expectation was all from God. He really wanted to arrange things so that Saul had the support and respect of all Israel. And He gave them what they wanted. As Samuel stood there with Saul next to him, the tallest man in Israel who had just won a miraculous victory over their enemies- he was indeed the king they had asked for. Given in God's anger (<a href='B:350 10:13'>Hos 10:13</a>):&nbsp; Saul's ultimate failure was therefore all the more culpable, because he had been set up for success- as is everyone called by God.</p>


text:
<p>If you will fear Yahweh and serve Him, listen to His voice and not rebel against the commandment of Yahweh, then it will be well with both you and the king who reigns over you- </p><p>If all Israel had been obedient to Yahweh, then Saul would have been too and all would have been well for him. If a majority are spiritually minded, this can at times and in some ways influence a potentially weaker minority; even though the reverse is more often true. And yet Saul made the people “follow him trembling” because they weren’t, en masse, spiritually stronger than him (<a href='B:90 13:7'>1Sa 13:7</a>). The application to the exiles was in that they had rebelled against Yahweh's commandment, and therefore things had not gone well for them and their king had been deposed (s:w. <a href='B:290 1:20'>Isa 1:20</a>; <a href='B:310 1:18'>Lam 1:18</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But if you will not listen to the voice of Yahweh but rebel against the commandment of Yahweh, then the hand of Yahweh will be against you, as it was against your fathers-</p><p>This point is being made in the context of warning them of the dangers of having a king. They were to be aware that humans are like sheep, and tend to go where they are led. By having a human king, they would be more likely to follow him rather than obeying the voice of Yahweh. In some contexts it is true that the stronger and more charismatic the human leader, the harder it is for the flock to have a personal relationship with Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore stand still and see this great thing which Yahweh will do before your eyes- </p><p>To "stand still and see" was the language of the invitation to behold the miracle of the salvation at the Red Sea (<a href='B:20 14:13'>Exo 14:13</a>, cp. <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>). And again, thunder and water were involved. But it was here an invitation to see their material blessings destroyed, after the pattern of the plague of hail destroying the harvest of the Egyptians. But through that judgment, salvation was intended to come in that it would elicit their repentance. So "stand still and see" still has a salvation context.</p>


text:
<p>Isn’t it wheat harvest today? I will call to Yahweh to send thunder and rain, and you shall know and see that your wickedness is great which you have done in the eyes of Yahweh, in asking for a king- </p><p>This recalls the plague of thunder and hail upon Egypt which destroyed their harvest. The language of calling to Yahweh also recalls Moses in Egypt. They had acted as Egypt, who were led to destruction through their king; and so they were punished likewise.</p>


text:
<p>So Samuel called to Yahweh, and Yahweh sent thunder and rain that day, and all the people greatly feared Yahweh and Samuel-</p><p>To fear Yahweh is parallel here with knowing and seeing the greatness of their sin (:17). And yet such is the perversity of human nature that despite perceiving their sin, there was no change of plan. And in fairness, it seems God had chosen to give them their request, and had set things up for Saul already by this point. We can imagine the people being angry with Samuel for destroying their harvest by his prayers, but they "feared" him, perceiving the connection between Yahweh and Samuel.</p>


text:
<p>All the people said to Samuel, Pray for your servants to Yahweh your God that we do not die, for we have added to all our sins this evil, to ask for a king- </p><p>They feared death from the hail, it was so strong. Again we note that they ask Samuel to pray for them not to die, rather than directly praying to Yahweh themselves and repenting to him. Humanity shies away from the wonder of direct personal relationship with God. Many today prefer to hide at the bottom of a huge supposed hierarchy of priests, bishops, denominational membership etc:- rather than accept direct personal relationship with God. Just as God wished to speak directly to Israel, but they ran away from Him and wanted Moses instead to report to them what God had said. See on <a href='B:90 12:6'>1Sa 12:6</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to the people, Don’t be afraid. You have indeed done all this evil, yet don’t turn aside from following Yahweh, but serve Yahweh with all your heart-</p><p>This is Samuel's response to their request that he pray for them and save their lives. He agrees (:23), showing the degree to which prayer for others can indeed save them; but not before warning them that they are not to think that his prayer for them releases them from personal spiritual obligation. The people were very prone to dump their spiritual responsibilities upon others, and this was all part of the reason why it were better for them not to have a king.</p><p>Serving God with the complete heart precludes turning aside to idols (:21). We have no mental space for them. If we don't serve God whole-heartedly, we will serve the idols of this present age. There's no third road.</p>


text:
<p>Don’t turn aside to go after vain things which can’t profit or save you, for they are vain- </p><p>Only God can save [AV "deliver"]. The Israelites were looking for a king to deliver them, and they are being warned that only Yahweh can save&nbsp; / deliver, as He had done through the saviours raised at the time of the Judges. No king can deliver / save of himself, and to believe this was another form of idolatry. The idols are described repeatedly as vain and foolish- words which are so true of the spirit of our age today. <a href='B:50 32:15-24'>Deu 32:15-24</a> describes just how angry God gets when His people give their devotions to these things: Israel “scornfully esteemed the Rock of his salvation. They provoked Him to jealousy with foreign gods; with abominations they provoked Him to anger. They sacrificed to demons, not to God, to gods they did not know ::. that your fathers did not fear::. and He (God) said: ‘I will hide My face from them::. for they are a perverse generation, children in whom is no faith. They have provoked Me to jealousy by what is not God; they have moved Me to anger by their foolish idols::. I will heap disasters upon them”. <a href='B:290 65:3'>Isa 65:3</a> LXX is just as clear: “[Israel] burn incense on bricks to demons, which exist not”. The idols of the nations, representing as they did the supposed ‘demons’ of the cosmos, were “vanity” because what the demons and gods they supposedly represented did not exist – they are “beings that are nothing” (<a href='B:90 12:21'>1Sa 12:21</a> LXX), “a thing of nought” (<a href='B:300 14:4'>Jer 14:4</a>). Their equivalent in our age is to fill the mind with things of nothing.</p><p>The lesson for the exiles was not to look to nations or idols which also could "not profit" (s:w. <a href='B:290 30:5'>Isa 30:5</a>; <a href='B:290 44:9-10'>Isa 44:9-10</a>; <a href='B:300 2:8'>Jer 2:8</a>; <a href='B:300 2:11'>Jer 2:11</a> etc:).</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh will not forsake His people- </p><p>God forsaking Israel was a punishment for their sin (<a href='B:70 6:13'>Jdg 6:13</a>; <a href='B:120 21:14'>2Ki 21:14</a>; <a href='B:290 2:6'>Isa 2:6</a>; <a href='B:300 23:33'>Jer 23:33</a>). God would forsake Israel if they forsook Him; and they had (<a href='B:50 31:16-17'>Deu 31:16-17</a>; <a href='B:140 15:2'>2Ch 15:2</a>). God will only not forsake those who love Him (e:g. <a href='B:50 4:31'>Deu 4:31</a>; <a href='B:50 31:6'>Deu 31:6</a>; <a href='B:90 12:22'>1Sa 12:22</a>; <a href='B:110 6:13'>1Ki 6:13</a>; <a href='B:230 94:14'>Psa 94:14</a>; <a href='B:290 41:17'>Isa 41:17</a>; <a href='B:290 42:16'>Isa 42:16</a>). But Samuel assures them the paradoxically, Yahweh will not forsake them- because of His grace and desire to as it were will through His plan of salvation.</p><p>For the sake of His great name, because it has pleased Yahweh to make you His own people- </p><p>Samuel assures them that God's amazing grace to His people is part of His essential character which is "His great Name".</p>


text:
<p>As for me, far be it from me that I should sin against Yahweh in ceasing to pray for you; I will instruct you in the good and the right way-</p><p>Samuel said that to cease to pray for sinful Israel would be to sin against the Yahweh. The need is in itself the call to prayer. To not pray for people is a sin- one of the easiest sins of omission to commit. And our sins against those sinful people we omit to care for are sins against Yahweh. He watches very carefully our attitudes to hopeless sinners- because we ourselves are in that same category before Him.</p>


text:
<p>Only fear Yahweh and serve Him in truth with all your heart; consider what great things He has done for you- </p><p>The great things Samuel has just listed in their history all involved the greatness of God's grace in saving His sinful people, as discussed on :7. These "great things" were the "righteous acts" of :7, the paradoxical, fathomless grace of :22. Yahweh's greatness is supremely shown in the way He saves sinners and continues working with them when they are unworthy and of minimal response to His grace. Indeed this is what the history of God's encounter with man is all about.</p>


text:
<p>But if you still do wickedly you will be consumed, both you and your king-</p><p>In the face of so much Divine activity to save them, they would be destroyed if they continued to work against God's efforts to save them. And indeed Saul and Israel were "consumed" together in the massacre by the Philistines (s:w. <a href='B:90 26:10'>1Sa 26:10</a>). It was because despite all God's efforts with them, they had continued to "do wickedly".</p>


text:
<p>&nbsp; Saul reigned a year, and when he had reigned two years over Israel-</p><p>This may be some idiom now hard to understand, perhaps meaning 'when his reign was established'; some versions of LXX omit the verse. Or remembering that the chapter breaks are artificial and not inspired, it could be that the events of chapter 12 are within the first year of his reign and what we now read is in the second year. If Saul reigned forty years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>) but was rejected in the second year of his reign, then his reign would have been miserable indeed, the majority of it spent knowing he had been rejected. However the 40 year reigning period may need to be interpreted some other way, for his son Jonathan appears to already be an adult at this time (:2). I suggest that this is an idiom or metaphor here, which we may not currently be able to decode. Paul speaks of Saul reigning 40 years having just spoken of the 40 years wandering, which is also not an exact figure as they wandered 38 years. Saul, David and Solomon are all recorded as reigning 40 years, and we wonder whether this isn't a literary device rather than a literal figure.</p>


text:
<p>Saul chose three thousand men of Israel, of which two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in the Mount of Bethel, and one thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin, and the rest of the people he sent back to their tents-</p><p>This continues Saul's imitation of Gideon, sending potential soldiers back home because he believed God could save by many or by few. Saul was trying to imitate Gideon (see too <a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>), and likewise when he prohibited the men to eat anything while they were pursuing the Philistines (<a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:90 13:5'>1Sa 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a>; <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a> = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>). And yet it was Gideon who refused the request of Israel to make him king; Saul's modelling upon Gideon was only superficial. As in <a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a>, he seems to have split the troops into three groups of 1000 each, again imitating Gideon. His aim was to use them to attack the Philistine garrisons in Gibeah, Michmash and Bethel.</p><p>It seems the 2000 and 1000 were some kind of permanent force under the command of Saul and Jonathan. Jonathan must have been very young at this time, if indeed Saul reigned 40 years (<a href='B:510 13:21'>Act 13:21</a>); although I suspect the reference to 40 years is symbolic. Paul says it to make a similarity with the 40 years in the wilderness he has just spoken about. The reigns of Saul, David and Jonathan were all 40 years, so this may be an example of where Semitic languages use numbers and periods in a non literal sense.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan attacked the garrison of the Philistines in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews hear!- </p><p>"Hebrew" is literally 'one who has passed over'; he may have in view the Israelites who were on the other side of the Jordan river. Having attempted to follow Gideon's example of not needing many men (see on :2), he now is desperate for every Israelite he can get; his faith didn't hold up. Despite Jonathan's victory it seems Saul himself didn't bring deliverance from the Philistines, for by the time of the conflict with Goliath the Hebrews were under severe threat from them. So Saul's early promise of being a military deliverer just didn't come true.</p>


text:
<p>All Israel heard that Saul had attacked the garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel had become odious to the Philistines. The people were gathered together to Saul in Gilgal- </p><p>As noted on :2,3, Saul's imitation of Gideon by sending soldiers home was merely surface level spirituality. Now he wanted every soldier he could get. We note that Saul was given credit in the publicity material [as it were] for the attack, when it was Jonathan who did it. We therefore see pride creeping in to Saul. See on :17. Saul was potentially enabled to free Israel from the Philistines, but he failed to have the personal faith required. The main victories against them were by Jonathan and David. And this explains his great jealousy against them both, even planning to slay Jonathan at least twice (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>; <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines assembled themselves to fight with Israel: thirty thousand chariots, six thousand horsemen and people as numerous as the sand which is on the seashore, and they came up and encamped in Michmash, east of Beth Aven- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 14:28'>1Sa 14:28</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. As often noted, "thousand" doesn't mean necessarily a literal 1000, but can refer to families or military regiments. Otherwise in this case the proportion of horsemen and chariots is wrong. It was Israel who were to be as the sand on the seashore, but the Philistines were a quasi Israel.</p>


text:
<p>When the men of Israel saw that they were in great peril and the people were distressed, they hid themselves in caves, thickets, rocks, coverts and in pits- </p><p>This is alluded to in <a href='B:650 11:38'>Heb 11:38</a>, implying amongst these people who hid were those with faith. And the context of Hebrews 11 is faith in the things of the Kingdom and&nbsp; Messiah Jesus. They believed that although they were now in free fall before their enemies, the day of Israel's Kingdom and true saviour Messiah would one day come. To flee is not necessarily a lack of faith (<a href='B:470 10:23'>Mat 10:23</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Now some of the Hebrews had gone over the Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead, but Saul was still in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling-</p><p>Israelites persecuted for their faithlessness crossed the Jordan into the territory of Gad (<a href='B:90 13:7'>1Sa 13:7</a>). This is fair commentary upon the situation in <a href='B:60 22:19'>Jos 22:19</a>; <a href='B:60 22:25'>Jos 22:25</a>, where the Israelites accused Gad of falling away from Yahweh worship, and the people of Gad explained that they feared that the other Israelites would make the Jordan a boundary which they would use to exclude them from Yahweh worship. All these fears and speculations about the future are here shown to be inappropriate. Actually the very opposite worked out. And this is the problem with so many divisions between brethren; they are based upon fears of possible futures, and the passage of time often shows the opposite working out. See on <a href='B:90 14:16'>1Sa 14:16</a>.</p>


text:
<p>He waited seven days, according to the time set by Samuel, but Samuel didn’t come to Gilgal- </p><p>In his opening training when first called to the kingship, Saul had been trained to wait until Samuel came and made the offerings (<a href='B:90 10:8'>1Sa 10:8</a>). And he obeyed. Now the lesson learned is repeated- and he fails. We have similar things in our lives. There are similarities of circumstance not only within our lives, but between our lives and those of others. Thus as Samuel tarried longer than Saul expected, so Amasa "tarried longer than the set time which [David] had appointed him" (<a href='B:100 20:5'>2Sa 20:5</a>). Circumstances repeat within our lives and between our lives and those of others in Biblical history; that we might learn the lessons and take comfort from the scriptures, that man is not alone.</p><p>"The time set" can refer to a feast, but also simply to a festival arranged by Samuel for the making of peace offerings. Samuel was not a Levite, and the gatherings for the peace offerings were therefore not necessarily to keep Mosaic legislation.</p><p>And the people were scattered from him- </p><p>They were no longer following him trembling (:7), but were scattered from him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Bring here the burnt offering to me, and the peace offerings. He offered the burnt offering- </p><p>Saul was not wrong to offer the offerings because he wasn't a Levite. For neither was Samuel, and David wasn't either and yet made such offerings (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>). The point is that he wasn't obedient to Samuel's inspired words, and was likely not qualified to make the offerings as he was not at peace with God.</p>&nbsp;<p>Are we going to be like those Israelites who offered a peace offering, when actually they were not at peace with God at all (<a href='B:90 13:9'>1Sa 13:9</a>; <a href='B:120 16:13'>2Ki 16:13</a>; <a href='B:240 7:14'>Pro 7:14</a>; <a href='B:370 5:22'>Amo 5:22</a>)? Are we going to be like Israel, who offered peace offerings, and then rose up from their tables to worship idols and indulge their flesh (<a href='B:20 32:5-6'>Exo 32:5-6</a>)? These are challenges especially appropriate to the breaking of bread meeting, which is a kind of new covenant equivalent for the peace offering.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as he had finished offering the burnt offering Samuel came, and Saul went out to meet him, to greet him- </p><p>The idea seems to have been that the war of independence against the Philistines was to be begun by sacrifice and establishing peace with God first. But Saul didn't see the importance of this and impatiently wanted to get on with the campaign, without waiting for Samuel to pronounce God's blessing upon it. Saul wanted to push through the sacrifices as mere ritual, trusting in his own strength for the looming war. This was what was so displeasing to God; the issue was not that Saul wasn't a Levite. For neither was Samuel. He was judged for these things apparently harshly, losing the kingship because of it. But his actions which are condemned reflected deeper bad attitudes. We too have surely been guilty of over hasty prayer, dashing into enterprises in our own strength and with prayer and spiritual devotion effectively relegated to a mere formalism, assuming that time is of the essence rather than spiritual devotion. Circumstances repeated to give him another chance to learn the same lesson (<a href='B:90 14:10'>1Sa 14:10</a>), but he failed again.</p><p>It seems that Saul was about to offer the peace offering after having offered the burnt offering, but then Samuel arrived. And he never got to offer the peace offering. The burnt offering represented dedication to God, and always preceded the peace offering in the Mosaic legislation. Peace with God could only be celebrated after offering total devotion to Him. And Saul it seems was stopped from making the peace offering, because he was not at peace with God.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, What have you done?- </p><p>Surely said to recall the situation in Eden when God questioned Adam and Eve, who had been established by Him as the rulers of His Kingdom as it then was (s:w. <a href='B:10 3:13'>Gen 3:13</a>; <a href='B:10 4:10'>Gen 4:10</a>). And there is a similar initial attempt to deny any wrongdoing. See on :43.</p><p>Saul said, When I saw that the people were scattered from me and that you didn’t come within the days appointed, and that the Philistines assembled at Michmash- </p><p>Saul says the truth, to an extent. His trembling followers were deserting by the hour (:7,8) and the Philistines were only ten miles away. He needed to go ahead as quickly as possible instead of waiting for Samuel's religiosity. He gave in to the common human feeling, that religion is fine but we have to get on and live our secular lives as secular people. And he was severely judged for this attitude, as a warning to us all. And as noted on :16, his fears and perceived need to act quickly were in fact misplaced.</p>


text:
<p>I thought ‘Now the Philistines will come down on me to Gilgal, and I haven’t entreated the favour of Yahweh’. I forced myself therefore, and offered the burnt offering- </p><p>Saul passes off his inattention to spiritual things and treating the offerings as mere rituals by saying that in fact he wanted to ask Yahweh's favour. Saul had been commanded to wait for Samuel. That was the commandment he disobeyed (:13). "Forced myself" is always elsewhere translated "restrained myself". But the opposite was the case. He had no restrained himself and waited for Samuel. Yet Saul implies he had been tempted to dash into battle without seeking Yahweh's favour, but he restrained himself. We have a chilling insight here into mentality and self justification which we have surely all had at times. And it cost Saul the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Saul, You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of Yahweh your God which He commanded you- Saul had been commanded to wait for Samuel. That was the commandment he disobeyed. David felt preserved by God from Saul and his other enemies (<a href='B:90 30:23'>1Sa 30:23</a>; <a href='B:100 22:44'>2Sa 22:44</a>), because he had preserved or obeyed [s:w:] God's ways (<a href='B:100 22:22'>2Sa 22:22</a>; <a href='B:100 22:24'>2Sa 22:24</a>; <a href='B:230 18:21'>Psa 18:21</a>; <a href='B:230 18:23'>Psa 18:23</a>); whereas Saul didn't obey / preserve them and was destroyed (<a href='B:90 13:13-14'>1Sa 13:13-14</a>; <a href='B:130 10:13'>1Ch 10:13</a>). Hence <a href='B:230 145:20'>Psa 145:20</a>: "Yahweh preserves all those who love Him, but all the wicked He will destroy".</p><p>For now Yahweh would have established your kingdom in Israel forever- </p><p>God had set up Saul with the chance of success, and even of becoming the Messianic king with an eternal kingdom. See on <a href='B:90 11:1'>1Sa 11:1</a>. We see here the various possible futures which God is aware of and has set up. This makes us appreciate more the huge significance of human freewill decisions. They open up various pathways and destinies which God has enabled. Saul chose not to go this pathway towards the eternal Kingdom, and so there kicked into operation the pathway to destruction which Israel had been warned of when he first became king. But God's foreknowledge in no way made it inevitable that Saul go down that path.</p>


text:
<p>But now your kingdom shall not continue- </p><p>Perhaps it was God's plan to immediately remove the kingship from Saul, but in practice He yet further delayed it in the hope of Saul's more meaningful repentance.</p><p>Yahweh has sought for Himself- </p><p>God was and is in search of man, looking at human hearts. God’s search for man is a repeated theme of the prophets. “Like grapes in the wilderness, I found Israel. Like the first fruit on the fig tree, I saw your fathers” (<a href='B:350 9:10'>Hos 9:10</a>). “He found him in a desert land… He encircled him, He cared for him, He kept him as the apple of his eye” (<a href='B:50 32:10'>Deu 32:10</a>). “I have found David my servant” (<a href='B:230 89:20'>Psa 89:20</a>). “I said, Here am I, here am I… I spread out my hands all the day to a rebellious people… I called, no one answered” (<a href='B:290 50:2'>Isa 50:2</a>; <a href='B:290 65:1-2'>Isa 65:1-2</a>; <a href='B:290 66:4'>Isa 66:4</a>). Jeremiah speaks of running to and fro in the streets of Jerusalem, searching her squares on God’s behalf, to see if he could find a single man who did justice and wasn’t greedy (<a href='B:300 5:1'>Jer 5:1</a>; <a href='B:300 5:5'>Jer 5:5</a>; <a href='B:300 6:6'>Jer 6:6</a>; <a href='B:300 6:13'>Jer 6:13</a>; <a href='B:300 8:10'>Jer 8:10</a>). God looked, and was deeply shocked that He found no man: “He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore His own arm brought salvation” (<a href='B:290 59:16'>Isa 59:16</a>). It’s not simply so that men search for God and then find Him in Truth. He is in search for man. So it’s not us as it were reaching out to God; He is fervently reaching out to us, and we have to come to realize that. We don’t so much as find God, as realize that He already is earnestly with us. This explains how wonderful is the moment when both sides meet; all heaven rejoices when the woman finds her lost coin, or the shepherd His sheep. As the Yiddish proverb says, “And going out to find Him, I met Him coming towards me”.</p><p>A man after His own heart- </p><p>David had been chosen to replace Saul because David was a man after God's own heart. But this didn't lift David up with pride. He realizes that the kingship would be nothing but grace (<a href='B:230 119:76-77'>Psa 119:76-77</a>) and tender mercy toward him. We can also reflect that being after God's own heart didn't mean he was perfect; for Psalms 119 contains many verses where David at this time of scrutiny by God admits to sin and longs to be more spiritually minded. But we too can be after God's heart without being perfect; He looks at the overall desires of a person rather than actual achievement.</p><p>On the other hand, this high estimation led to David subsequently being over confident as to the state of his heart (e:g. <a href='B:230 26:2'>Psa 26:2</a>). David was confident not only of legalistic obedience but also of a heart in which God would find nothing wrong. Indeed David had been considered a man after God's own heart, but it seems this led David to assume that from then on, his heart would be always found perfect before God. He didn't remain the idealistic, spiritually minded shepherd boy. And this assumption that how he was at one point in his life was how he would always be::. led him into his sin with Bathsheba.</p><p>Spiritual mindedness is the seal of the Spirit, the guarantee that we will eternally be there with Christ in His Kingdom; for having “Christ in you” is the hope of glory (<a href='B:580 1:27'>Col 1:27</a>). To bring every thought into captivity to Christ; to be able to say with Paul “but we have the mind of Christ”. But I think that Paul got there (in the end), and like me you’ve probably met even a few in your ecclesial experience who apparently ‘got there’ by the end of their days – who had “the mind of Christ”, and whom we laid to rest in sleep knowing that truly, “I knew a [wo]man in Christ”. For all his failure and dysfunction, David is given the amazing accolade – ‘a man after God’s own heart’ (<a href='B:510 13:22'>Act 13:22</a>). And remember, this was God’s very own estimation of David. We really can be ‘after God’s own heart / mind’. We must not think that human nature of itself precludes this; for it didn't stop David coming to this point. May we find true fellowship with each other as we walk towards that same goal, knowing that “we all, with unveiled face, reflecting as in a mirror the glory of the Lord (Jesus), are (being, slowly) transformed into the same image, from glory to glory” (<a href='B:540 3:18'>2Co 3:18</a>).</p><p>It's worth remembering that at the point he was told that another person was to replace him, Saul didn't know David. He may well have assumed that the person in view as a replacement was in fact his son Jonathan. This would explain the tensions between Saul and Jonathan.</p><p>And Yahweh has appointed him to be prince over His people, because you have not kept what Yahweh commanded you- </p><p>The fact God allowed Saul to continue ruling may mean that even this change of purpose with Saul was open ended, and could still be changed if he repented. For David had not yet been anointed.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel arose and went from Gilgal to Gibeah of Benjamin. Saul numbered the people who were present with him, about six hundred men-</p><p>Decreased from the 1000 in each brigade of :2. Some would have deserted or fled over the Jordan (:7), others were slain. We note Samuel's continued involvement in things. For indeed Saul had been raised up by God with the potential ability to free Israel from the Philistines:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul and Jonathan his son and the people who were with them stayed in Geba of Benjamin, but the Philistines encamped in Michmash-</p><p>Saul had justified his offering because he considered that time was of the essence in attacking the Philistines. But in fact it seems he didn't do so. And it was to be Jonathan acting alone who gained the victory and not himself. Saul was therefore dominated by thoughts of how the situation required him to act, and quickly; rather than waiting in faith, and then he would have realized that neither his action nor immediacy of action were actually required.</p>


text:
<p>Raiders came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies: one company turned towards Ophrah in the land of Shual- </p><p>This left the camp depleted, opening up the camp to Jonathan's attack. This raises the question as to whether acts of faith require us to all the same act wisely. Ophrah was the home of Gideon (<a href='B:70 8:27'>Jdg 8:27</a>), whom Saul was imitating at least on a surface level (see on :2-4). Perhaps the Philistines were aware of this and sought to reverse his "three companies" strategy in imitation of Gideon by sending out their marauders in three companies.</p>


text:
<p>another company turned towards Beth Horon, and another company turned towards the border land overlooking the valley of Zeboim facing the wilderness- </p><p>There seemed a particular emphasis upon the territory of Benjamin, as if the Philistines were punishing them for having a member of their tribe become king. This would have taught the people the folly of what they had done. And it thereby created pressure upon Saul to defeat the Philistines. The fact he personally didn't win the dramatic victories against them [Jonathan and David did] all contributed towards his failure and depression.</p>


text:
<p>Now there was no smith to be found throughout all the land of Israel, for the Philistines said, Otherwise the Hebrews will make swords or spears- </p><p>The Babylonians did the same to the Jews in the time of Nebuchadnezzar; they took captive all the metalworkers so they couldn't make weapons (<a href='B:120 24:14'>2Ki 24:14</a>; <a href='B:300 24:1'>Jer 24:1</a>; <a href='B:300 29:2'>Jer 29:2</a>). Again, we see evidence that the choice of events to record is in order to help the exiles see that their situation was not unique and was not without historical precedent.</p>


text:
<p>All the Israelites went down to the Philistines to have their ploughshares, mattocks, axes and sickles sharpened- </p><p>"Went down" suggests a reversal of the situation at the conquest of the land, where the local inhabitants remained in the mountains and Israel in the lowlands.</p>


text:
<p>The price was two thirds of a shekel to sharpen a mattock and a ploughshare, and one third for the forks and axes, and to set the goads-</p><p>We may well ask why such detail is given. The amount of detail given in the Biblical record varies enormously. It can be likened to a cameraman zooming in and out; and here the zoom is very much on the fine details, the goads being "set", and coins being handed over. The prices were high, that may be the idea- with the implication that the Israelites were impoverished and unable to afford much agricultural technology, and therefore enduring a hard life under Saul's reign. This all sets up David for mass popularity after he led Israel to victory against the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>So on the day of battle no soldier had either sword or spear among the people who were with Saul and Jonathan; only Saul and Jonathan his son had swords and spears- </p><p>The result of this was that the Israelites became skilled in the use of slings and bows. It was this which resulted in David being an expert slinger and able to slay Goliath. If they had had access to swords, then the logical thing would have been to try to fight Goliath with sword and spear. But there was no expertise in the use of these weapons. And so we see how providence works out. Because of their oppressed situation, David became a skilled slinger- and slew Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>The garrison of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash- </p><p>"When the Philistines heard that Saul with his six hundred men had joined the small force already at Geba with Jonathan, they sent a body of men to occupy an eminence higher up in the defile which lay between Geba and Michmash. The purpose of this was to keep the route open, that so, when they pleased, they might send a larger body of troops up the defile in order to attack Saul. It would also keep a watch upon his movements, though they could have had no expectation that he would venture to attack them. It was this garrison which Jonathan so bravely attacked, and by his success prepared the way for the utter defeat of the enemy".</p>


text:
<p>One day Jonathan the son of Saul said to the young man who carried his armour, Come, let us go over to the Philistines’ garrison on the other side- </p><p>A fair case can be made for thinking that this young armourbearer was David. We marvel at Jonathan's initiative and spiritual ambition.</p><p>But he didn’t tell his father- </p><p>It seems Saul was deeply aware that he had not delivered Israel from the Philistines because he hadn't the faith to do so; and so he was deeply spiritually jealous of Jonathan and later David. It's worth remembering that at the point he was told that another person was to replace him (<a href='B:90 13:15'>1Sa 13:15</a>), Saul didn't know David. He may well have assumed that the person in view as a replacement was in fact his son Jonathan. This would explain the tensions between Saul and Jonathan, and why Jonathan didn't tell Saul of his plans. For Saul had taken credit for Jonathan's previous victory (see on <a href='B:90 13:4'>1Sa 13:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul stayed on the outskirts of Gibeah under the pomegranate tree which is in Migron; the people who were with him were about six hundred men- </p><p>"Pomegranate tree" is "Rimmon" and could possibly refer to a place name. Saul no longer had two groups of 1000 under his direct control (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Ahijah the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the priest of Yahweh in Shiloh was there, wearing an ephod. The people didn’t know that Jonathan had gone- </p><p>Yet Eli's family had been cursed in 1 Samuel 2, 3. It could be that this person in later life experienced the curses. But it would be far from the only time in Bible history where a curse is pronounced but not carried out. There is a gap between Yahweh's prophetic pronouncements, and their fulfillment. And in that gap there is the possibility for repentance. In 40 days, Nineveh was to be destroyed; but it didn't happen, because they repented. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap. This Ahijah could be the Ahimelech of <a href='B:90 21:1'>1Sa 21:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>On each side of the pass by which Jonathan intended to go over to the Philistines’ garrison there was a rocky crag; one was called Bozez and the other Seneh- </p><p>Literally, a tooth of rock. To climb it with enemies at the top would have seemed a mad idea.</p>


text:
<p>The one crag was on the north in front of Michmash and the other on the south in front of Geba- </p><p>Bozez was the northern crag, and Seneh the southern one. "Was on" is literally 'was set as a pillar'. We get the impression of needing to make an almost perpendicular, vertical assent of sheer rock.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to the young man who carried his armour, Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised people- </p><p>The implication was that because they were circumcised, they were in covenant with God; and therefore He was able to use them. Covenant relationship involves far more than circumcision, but clearly Jonathan felt in covenant with God, at a time when many in Israel were clearly not. He believed that for those in covenant, one man could make a thousand flee. And this is what indeed happened.</p><p>Perhaps Yahweh will work for us, for nothing can hinder Yahweh from saving, by many or by few- </p><p>The idea of the Hebrew underlying "Perhaps::." is rather that surely, Yahweh will do so. We note that Jonathan's motivation was to save- to save others. There was no desire merely for personal glory nor settling perceived old scores.</p><p><a href='B:90 30:21'>1Sa 30:21</a> LXX says that in his fight with the Amalekites, David "had caused them [the 200 weaker of his soldiers] to remain by the brook of Bosor". This would mean that the decision to leave them was David's and not theirs. He had learned the lesson of Gideon, and knew he didn't need numbers for victory. It was the lesson of his friend Jonathan's victory, that the Lord could save by many or by few (<a href='B:90 14:6'>1Sa 14:6</a>). We may learn a lesson [and David may have been Jonathan's companion at that time], and then find our grasp of it tested again, decades later.</p>


text:
<p>His armour bearer said to him, Do all that you have in mind; I am with you according to your heart- </p><p>This is a colloquial expression and is therefore hard to translate. We really are reading the actual words said by this brave young man in response to Jonathan's spiritual ambition. The idea is "On with you; I will follow".</p><p>It seems that the armourbearer was David. He and Jonathan grew up only 10 miles away from each (Jonathan in Gibeah of Saul, David in Bethlehem). In the early Israel of those days, it is almost certain that they knew each other from their youth. So it is possible to speculate that David was in fact "the young man that bare (Jonathan's) armour" in the heroic conquest of the Philistine garrison in 1 Samuel 14. Note how Saul also calls him "young man" in <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>:&nbsp; There was evidently an intense&nbsp; spiritual and physical rapport between Jonathan and his armour bearer which was similar to that described between Jonathan and David. "I am with thee according to thy heart" (14:7 AV) has firm connection with David and Jonathan being described as having their souls knit together in <a href='B:90 18:1'>1Sa 18:1</a>. The record of David's battle with the Philistines in <a href='B:100 5:17-24'>2Sa 5:17-24</a> has certain similarities with the exploits of <a href='B:90 14:8-11'>1Sa 14:8-11</a>; as if, years later, David replicated his early adventure of faith. David already had a reputation in Israel for being "a mighty valiant man, and a man of war::. and the Lord is with him" (<a href='B:90 16:18'>1Sa 16:18</a>), even before the Goliath incident. This would be understandable if he had gone with Jonathan in chapter 14. His becoming Saul's&nbsp; armourbearer (<a href='B:90 16:21'>1Sa 16:21</a>) would then be seen as a logical promotion from being Jonathan's armourbearer.</p><p><a href='B:90 14:8'>1Sa 14:8</a> Then Jonathan said, We will cross over to them and let them see us- </p><p>"See us" is the word for denuding, also translated "exile". The exiles were encouraged that what seemed impossible could be achieved.</p>


text:
<p>If they say ‘Wait until we come to you!’, then we will stay where we are and will not go up to them- </p><p>This seeking for a sign connects with Gideon's similar desire before going into battle. There are clear connections between Jonathan and Gideon; compare <a href='B:90 14:10-20'>1Sa 14:10-20</a> with <a href='B:70 7:3'>Jdg 7:3</a>; <a href='B:70 7:10-11'>Jdg 7:10-11</a>; <a href='B:70 7:14'>Jdg 7:14</a>; <a href='B:70 7:22'>Jdg 7:22</a>. Jonathan's son was called Merib-baal (<a href='B:130 9:40'>1Ch 9:40</a>), meaning 'rebellion against Baal', an epithet for 'Gideon'. Gideon was Jonathan's hero; it's not wrong to have such Biblical heroes! Saul also imitated Gideon, but on a surface level; for Gideon refused to be king over Israel because Yahweh was their king. See on <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>.</p>


text:
<p>But if they say ‘Come up to us!’, then we will go up, for Yahweh has delivered them into our hand. This will be the sign to us- </p><p>Such an invitation would be a sign of pride, laughing at the two young men who had no chance of climbing up and then fighting them. Again, as with Nahash (see on <a href='B:90 11:3'>1Sa 11:3</a>), pride was to go before a fall. And Jonathan perceived this, hence his giving them an opportunity to mockingly and arrogantly invite them up to them.</p><p><a href='B:90 14:11'>1Sa 14:11</a> So they revealed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines, and the Philistines said, Look, the Hebrews are crawling out of the holes they were hiding in!- </p><p>From their perspective so high above them, indeed the two men would have appeared as small animals emerging from their holes and crawling upwards to their destruction.</p>


text:
<p>The men of the garrison shouted to Jonathan and his armour bearer, Come up to us and we will show you something! Jonathan said to his armour bearer, Come up after me, for Yahweh has delivered them into the hand of Israel- </p><p>Jonathan's confidence was because he saw their extreme arrogance. He was utterly persuaded after the victory over Nahash because of his pride (see on <a href='B:90 11:3'>1Sa 11:3</a>) that therefore God would surely give the victory.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan climbed up on his hands and feet and his armour bearer followed, and the Philistines fell before Jonathan, and his armour bearer followed and killed behind him- </p><p>It has been observed that "a single stone rolled down upon them while thus clambering up the precipitous side of the cliff would have sent them to the bottom". The arrogance of the Philistines in not doing so was what brought about the victory; see on :10. If indeed David was the armour bearer, we have the impression that he who began inspired by Jonathan, following his example, moved ahead to in turn inspired Jonathan. And this is indeed what true spiritual fellowship and friendship is all about.</p>


text:
<p>That first slaughter by Jonathan and his armour bearer killed about twenty men in an area of about half an acre-</p><p>LXX "with darts and slings and stones of the field". I noted on <a href='B:90 13:22'>1Sa 13:22</a> that because of their lack of iron weapons, the Israelites became skilled in the use of slings and bows. It was this which resulted in David being an expert slinger and able to slay Goliath. If they had had access to swords, then the logical thing would have been to try to fight Goliath with sword and spear. But there was no expertise in the use of these weapons. And so we see how providence works out. Because of their oppressed situation, David became a skilled slinger- and slew Goliath. And Jonathan likewise. This was all a preparation for the victory against Goliath.</p>


text:
<p>Then panic struck the whole Philistine army, those in the camp, in the field, and among all the outposts and raiding parties, and the ground shook. There was panic- </p><p>Unaware that there were only two attackers, the Philistines would have run in confusion to the narrow tongue of land where the exit was, which served as a bottleneck. It seems that Yahweh then sent an earth tremour, which would have added to their sense of panic. This was also the Divine element in it all, lest it appear totally a victory for human strength and bravery. God likewise works in human life today, lest any man should boast. The Philistines out in the field on raiding parties would have been panicked by the sight of the garrison rushing down the pass at great speed.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s watchmen in Gibeah of Benjamin saw that the army had melted away and scattered- </p><p>They would have had a wonderful view across the pass of two men causing an army to flee. It was a powerful visual fulfilment of how one man in covenant relationship with God could cause a thousand to flee before him. The Philistines would have fled down steep descent of Aijalon toward Bethel (:23)—the same pass where Joshua had won his first great victory. The idea is that there was a reconquest of the land, in God's strength. The tables had turned; the people had followed Saul trembling and melted away (<a href='B:90 13:7-8'>1Sa 13:7-8</a>), but now the Philistines were doing just this (Heb:). "Melted away" is the same word used of how the inhabitants of Canaan were to melt at the conquest by Joshua. The impression is of a reconquest of the land.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to the men with him, Count now and see who is missing from us. When they had counted, Jonathan and his armour bearer were not there- </p><p>Saul was so proud that he was most concerned as to who was going to get the personal glory for this victory which he himself should have gotten; for he was Divinely set up as Israel's military saviour.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Ahijah, Bring the ark of God here. For the ark of God was with the Israelites at that time- </p><p>LXX "the ephod". The word "bring hither" is usually used of the ephod. "Withdraw your hand!" (:19) is more appropriate to getting a yes / no decision from the urim and thummim within the ephod, which was required in order to eliminate options and decide who was missing. The presence of the priest logically suggests the ephod with Urim and Thummim was present rather than the ark.</p>


text:
<p>While Saul was talking to the priest the tumult in the camp of the Philistines went on and increased, and Saul said to the priest, Withdraw your hand!- </p><p>This again reveals Saul's impatience to put spiritual things first. He failed to learn the lesson he failed to learn in <a href='B:90 13:10'>1Sa 13:10</a>. Circumstances repeated to give him another chance, but he fails again. He considered religious / spiritual things as a mere formality, and wanted to get on with the work in his own strength without waiting for God's word to him.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and all the men with him were gathered together and came to the battle, and found that every man’s sword was against his fellow; a very great confusion- </p><p>"Confusion" is the word used of how an Israel faithful to the covenant would destroy the inhabitants of Canaan with "confusion" (<a href='B:50 7:23'>Deu 7:23</a>). Jonathan shows himself very aware of the covenant and word of Moses, presumably as a result of Samuel instructing him.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Hebrews who had been with the Philistines previously and had gone with them into the camp, turned to join the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan- </p><p>One letter different would turn "Hebrews" into "servants". This reading would make better sense here, and the idea would be that the servants were freed.</p>


text:
<p>Also all the men of Israel who had hidden themselves in the hill country of Ephraim, when they heard that the Philistines had fled, followed hard after them in the battle- </p><p>This again supports the impression that they were chasing their enemies as promised for obedience to the covenant. And yet by grace, the righteousness and blessing of Jonathan was really being extended to them.</p>


text:
<p>So Yahweh saved Israel that day, and the battle moved beyond Beth Aven-</p><p>The reference is to Bethel. See on :16. The judges had been Israel's saviours on Yahweh's behalf, and the idea seems to be that although they now had a human king, God saved them just as He had done under the judges.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel were in distress that day- </p><p>The same word used of how they had been distressed by the Philistines in <a href='B:90 13:6'>1Sa 13:6</a>. The idea was that Saul was effectively oppressing them as the Philistines were.</p><p>Because Saul had bound the people with an oath saying- </p><p>He had called out to them the words of the curse, and made them shout back their consent. Again, a surface level imitation of Moses without any spirit to it, just as he imitated Gideon in the same way.</p><p>Cursed is the man who eats any food before evening, and I have been avenged of my enemies. So none of the people ate any food- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> and on <a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a>; <a href='B:90 14:31'>1Sa 14:31</a>. This was a surface level imitation of Gideon winning a great victory when desperately hungry. But he failed to follow Gideon's example of refusing to be Israel's human king when asked to be, because Gideon unlike Saul believed that Yahweh alone was to be Israel's king. Such surface level imitation of others' spirituality is something which can be fallen into so easily. Saul's desire for personal vengeance upon his enemies is sadly deficient in any desire to see God's glory. God patiently tried to correct him by then asking him to work for Him, as His agent, in executing His vengeance or punishment upon His enemies (<a href='B:90 15:2'>1Sa 15:2</a>).</p>


text:
<p>All the army came into the forest, and there was honey on the ground- </p><p>The promised land was to flow with milk and honey to those who kept covenant. And yet Saul was precluding the people from experiencing the blessings of the covenant by petty legalism and a desire for personal control. The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a>; <a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When they had come to the forest the honey was oozing out, but no-one tasted any because the people feared the oath- </p><p>As noted on :25, the idea is that the land was literally flowing with honey; and they were precluded from experiencing that blessing because they feared Saul and had made a covenant with him, rather than glorying in the fulfilment of Yahweh's covenant with them. "Oozing" is literally 'flowing like a river'. And likewise, obedience to narcissistic leaders precludes so many from experiencing the blessing of true covenant relationship with Yahweh on a personal level.</p>


text:
<p>But Jonathan hadn’t heard when his father commanded the people with the oath, so he dipped the end of his rod into the honeycomb and ate some, and his eyes brightened- </p><p>The allusion is to Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit and having their eyes enlightened. But everything is inverted. Jonathan had done the right thing, and Saul's attempt to play God had gone totally wrong and brought curse instead of blessing. The allusion to the events of Eden is to demonstrate how Saul had everything so spiritually inverted, because he was just trying to follow spiritual precedent on a surface level without any spirit to it.</p><p>Paul may have had Jonathan in mind as typical of the church when he spoke of our eyes being enlightened (<a href='B:560 1:18'>Eph 1:18</a>), using the very words of <a href='B:90 14:27'>1Sa 14:27</a> concerning Jonathan. He was a type of us, devoted to David-Jesus. Saul saw Gideon as his spiritual hero, and this was a senseless, surface level imitation of Gideon devoid of spirit: <a href='B:90 11:11'>1Sa 11:11</a> = <a href='B:70 7:16'>Jdg 7:16</a>; <a href='B:70 13:5'>Jdg 13:5</a> = <a href='B:70 7:12'>Jdg 7:12</a>; <a href='B:70 13:6'>Jdg 13:6</a> = Gideon offering before fighting Midian; <a href='B:70 14:5'>Jdg 14:5</a>; <a href='B:70 14:20'>Jdg 14:20</a> = Jdg:7:22; 14:24 = imitating Gideon and his men going without food; Jdg. 14:28,31 = <a href='B:70 8:4-5'>Jdg 8:4-5</a>; <a href='B:70 11:7'>Jdg 11:7</a> = Gideon killing his father's oxen. But he failed to follow Gideon's example of refusing to be Israel's human king when asked to be, because Gideon unlike Saul believed that Yahweh alone was to be Israel's king.</p>


text:
<p>Then one of the people said, Your father bound the people with an oath saying, ‘Cursed is the man who eats food this day’. The people were exhausted- </p><p>"Cursed is the man::." reflects the Mosaic making of covenant with Israel. Again we see Saul attempting to mimic spiritual precedent, as he did the example of Gideon and God forbidding Adam to eat the fruit in Eden, but with no spirit to it. He was all about surface level spirituality and appearances, and he came therefore to such a tragic end. A true warning for us all.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said, My father has troubled the land- </p><p>Unlike Saul, Jonathan's Biblical allusions are appropriate. Here he refers to how Simeon and Levi provoked problems amongst the inhabitants of the land (<a href='B:10 34:30'>Gen 34:30</a>), and how Achan stopped Israel from victory against those inhabitants by his own pride and narcissism (<a href='B:60 7:25'>Jos 7:25</a>). A far greater victory could have been one against those inhabitants, but Saul had precluded it by his arrogant legalism.</p><p>Please look how my eyes have been brightened because I tasted a little of this honey- </p><p>Jonathan is aware of how his father has alluded to God's command in Eden about not eating the fruit. He now acts like Eve, justifying what he has done and encouraging others to do so as she did to Adam. But he does so to demonstrate how Saul has got it all the wrong way around.</p>


text:
<p>How much better it would have been if the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies? Would not the slaughter among the Philistines have been greater?- </p><p>This reflects Jonathan's humility. He had won a great victory against the Philistines, slaying many of them. But he considers it a small victory compared to the potential possible, which his father had precluded.</p>


text:
<p>They struck down the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon. The people were exhausted- </p><p>Their exhaustion is now stressed again (:28). They still refused to follow Jonathan's example and eat. They so feared the oath to Saul, far more than seeing beyond that to the obviously correct spiritual argument of Jonathan. This reveals the fear of Saul in which they lived.</p>


text:
<p>and they pounced on the spoil, and took sheep, cattle and calves and killed them on the ground and ate them with the blood- </p><p>The essence of this has been seen so many times in church history. An insistence upon petty legalism leads people to commit major sin. They are more obedient to the party line and the barked orders of their leadership, than to God. And the legalistic demands of their elders lead them to make utter shipwreck of their faith, breaking the most elemental principles of their covenant with God. Now that sundown had come and they were free from the oath to Saul, the people were totally disobedient to the covenant. They ate blood, and also killed calves and mothers on the same day (disobeying <a href='B:30 22:28'>Lev 22:28</a>). For all this, they were to have God against them and be cut off from God's people; their behaviour in <a href='B:90 14:32'>1Sa 14:32</a> is portrayed as breaking every principle of the commands about eating blood in <a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then they told Saul, Look, the people are sinning against Yahweh, eating meat with the blood- </p><p>The people were obedient to his word, but then totally disobeyed Yahweh's command about not eating blood as a result of it (<a href='B:90 14:25'>1Sa 14:25</a>; <a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a>).</p><p>He said, You have broken faith- </p><p>He means, broken the covenant. But he has it all the wrong way around. For a land flowing with honey was a blessing for keeping the covenant, and he was precluding them from receiving that blessing by his arrogant legalism.</p><p>Roll a large stone here at once!-</p><p>This could represent the rolling away of their sin through repentance. But it may simply be that he was telling them to kill the animals and put their heads on a large stone to allow the blood to drain out. See on :35.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Go out among the people and tell them, ‘Each man bring to me here his ox and sheep; kill them here and eat; don’t sin against Yahweh by eating meat with the blood’. So each of them brought his ox with him that night, and killed them there- </p><p>But the commands of <a href='B:30 17:10-14'>Lev 17:10-14</a> were clear that doing this just once would lead to having God against them and being cut off from God's people. But Saul thinks that can just be disregarded if they get it right in future. He plays God, just as he did when framing his commandment in terms of the Mosaic covenant, and the command of God in Eden.</p>


text:
<p>Saul built an altar to Yahweh. This was the first altar that he built to Yahweh- </p><p>Saul had commanded them to roll a stone so as to prop up the slain beasts upon it and let the blood drain out (:33). It seems he now capitalizes on what had been done and declares this to be an altar to Yahweh, in surface level imitation of how the patriarchs had set up altars in thankfulness to Yahweh. But Saul is just declaring this an altar in an opportunistic sense; and unlike the patriarchs, he had never made an altar to Yahweh before. We get the impression that he just called it an altar and imagined the slain animals left to drain upon it as some kind of sacrifices. But typical of Saul, he didn't have the patience to do as David did, who built an altar and sacrificed burnt and peace offerings upon it (<a href='B:100 24:25'>2Sa 24:25</a>). Literally “it he began to build as an altar to Yahweh”, implying he didn't bother to finish it. Saul's impatience and subsequent lack of spiritual depth is what cost him the Kingdom.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night and plunder them until the morning, and let us not leave any of them alive. They said, Do whatever seems good to you- </p><p>David may be referring to this when he condemns Saul in <a href='B:230 119:150'>Psa 119:150</a>: "They draw near who follow after wickedness, they are far from Your law". "Draw near" is a common idiom for offering sacrifice and worshipping God. But that sacrifice must be from men who are near to God's law, and not offering just as mere tokenistic ritualism. He may be alluding to Saul's insincere sacrifices and religious rituals which led to his rejection and David's choice as the next king (<a href='B:90 14:36'>1Sa 14:36</a>; <a href='B:90 14:38'>1Sa 14:38</a>; <a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>).</p><p>But the priest said, Let us enquire of God- </p><p>Saul was not bothered about enquiring of God and having His blessing. It was all a question of external surface level religion.</p>


text:
<p>Saul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will You deliver them into the hand of Israel? But He didn’t answer him that day-</p><p>Saul ultimately was judged as not enquiring of God (<a href='B:130 10:14'>1Ch 10:14</a>). Yet on a surface level he did (<a href='B:90 14:36-37'>1Sa 14:36-37</a>) and did so desperately at the end of his life. We have here a powerful challenge to our prayer life. For we can enquire of God on a surface level, as a kind of formality, to soothe the religious conscience which is somewhere in every man. But this is not to really enquire of Him.</p><p>Just before his final fight with the Philistines, "Saul enquired of the Lord (but) the Lord answered him not" (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>), and therefore he went to a witch. But in God's final analysis of Saul, Yahweh says that He smote Saul because Saul sinned against God's word by not enquiring of God, but of a witch (<a href='B:130 10:13-14'>1Ch 10:13-14</a>). But Saul did enquire of God (see <a href='B:90 14:37'>1Sa 14:37</a> s:w. 28:6), but God didn't answer him (note how often in the records it is stated that David enquired successfully of Yahweh). The point is that although Saul prayed to God and enquired of His word on the surface, in his heart, he did nothing of the sort; and therefore his prayer and enquiry was reckoned never to have happened. And we must ask how much of our prayer and Bible study is seen by God as being only spoken and read on a surface level. This was exactly the problem of natural Israel. "They have not cried unto me with their heart, when they howled (in prayer) upon their beds" (<a href='B:350 7:14'>Hos 7:14</a>). "Though they called them to the Most High, none at all would exalt him" (<a href='B:350 11:7'>Hos 11:7</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Come here, all you chiefs of the people and let us find out which of us has sinned today-</p><p>See on :36. Saul thinks that God's lack of answer by Urim and Thummim is because someone amongst the people has sinned. But Saul's awful hypocrisy here was rebuked at the end of his life. God refused to give Saul an answer from Urim and Thummim because of his sin in not sincerely enquiring of the Lord (<a href='B:90 28:6'>1Sa 28:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>For as Yahweh lives, Who saves Israel, even if it is Jonathan my son, he must die. But there was not a man among all the people who answered him- </p><p>Clearly Saul wanted to kill Jonathan. Saul was potentially enabled to free Israel from the Philistines, but he failed to have the personal faith required. The main victories against them were by Jonathan (1 Samuel 13, 14) and David. And this explains his great jealousy against them both, even planning to slay Jonathan at least twice (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>; <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>):&nbsp; See on <a href='B:90 20:30-31'>1Sa 20:30-31</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said to all Israel, You stand on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side. The people said to Saul, Do what seems good to you- </p><p>The whole situation was contrived, so that Jonathan would stand publically before the people and be openly condemned. I suggest that Saul wanted to kill Jonathan because he was jealous of him, and he tried to do so again when he threw a javelin at him.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Saul said to Yahweh, the God of Israel, Show me the right answer- </p><p>Or "show the innocent". Surely the armour bearer also ate the honey. Yet Saul intentionally sets up this kangaroo court to find Jonathan alone guilty.</p><p>Jonathan and Saul were chosen, but the people escaped- </p><p>LXX adds: “And Saul said, O Lord God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant to day? If the iniquity be in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim: and if it be in thy people Israel, give Thummim”. Saul sees the lack of immediate answer as being because Jonathan has sinned. And yet lack of immediate visible answer to prayer is not necessarily because of sin. We see here Saul's huge problem with impatience. He wanted everything immediately and before his eyes. When it didn't happen, he starts the blame game. We see this today in so many, who cannot wait for God because they demand He always acts in what they consider to be "real time", immediately and just as they envisage His response.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. Jonathan was selected- </p><p>As suggested above, I think this was all orchestrated by Saul to lead up the a public condemnation of Jonathan, whom he wished to kill- so deep was his jealousy that great victories were won without him and by another. LXX adds: "And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son: whomsoever the Lord taketh by lot, let him die. And the people said unto Saul, This thing shall not be. And Saul prevailed over the people, and they cast lots between him and Jonathan his son, and Jonathan was taken".</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul said to Jonathan, Tell me what you have done!- </p><p>This is the same question which Samuel rhetorically asked Saul when he condemned him to lose the kingship (<a href='B:90 13:11'>1Sa 13:11</a>). Yet Saul now assumes the authority of Samuel in asking the question. It is a psychological classic; the man condemned by a question then asks that question of another, seeking to condemn him too. Things like this are powerful internal evidence that the Biblical record is true, and these words were actually said and these situations really happened.</p><p>Saul is also seeking to emulate the question of faithful Joshua to wicked Achan (<a href='B:60 7:19'>Jos 7:19</a>). But he has it all the wrong way around, yet again. For Saul was like Achan, precluding the people from the victory which could have been theirs.</p><p>Jonathan told him, I only tasted a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand, and now must I die?- </p><p>The Hebrew can also be read as him expressing willingness to die. But I suggest he phrases it like this, standing before all Israel, to elicit their sympathy and mass protest against his father's decision.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if you do not die, Jonathan- </p><p>This indicates Saul's insincerity. He calls God as a witness that Jonathan must die; when clearly, he has orchestrated the whole situation because he wanted to slay Jonathan from jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>But the people said to Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who has worked this great salvation in Israel? Far from it!- </p><p>They are alluding to the words of Saul himself, who had put a stop to the call to slay those who resisted his kingship (<a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>). And the principle holds true. If we are in awe at the great deliverance Yahweh has worked in His Son, there should be maximum forgiveness and no judgment of our weak brethren. Jonathan had expressed absolute faith that God would work with him (:6), and He did.</p><p>As Jonathan wrought great salvation in Israel in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>, so did David (the same phrase occurs in <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a>). As Saul tried to kill an innocent Jonathan out of jealousy of his victory, so he did David- thus Jonathan shared the sufferings of David, as we do of Christ. Another example of this will be found in <a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>, where Saul tries to kill Jonathan with a javelin, as he did to David. Yet wonderfully, David seems to have counted Jonathan as if&nbsp;&nbsp;he actually had been the champion against Goliath; he describes him as "the mighty" (<a href='B:100 1:27'>2Sa 1:27</a>), using the same Hebrew word translated "champion" in <a href='B:90 17:51'>1Sa 17:51</a> concerning Goliath. Likewise the Lord Jesus Christ shares his victory with us to the extent that he counts us as if&nbsp;we were the victors on Calvary.</p><p>As Yahweh lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day! So the people rescued Jonathan so that he didn’t die- This is alluded to in <a href='B:470 10:30'>Mat 10:30</a>; <a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a>. See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. </p><p>Paul speaks of the church as workers together with God (<a href='B:540 6:1'>2Co 6:1</a>), probably alluding to Jonathan having "worked with God" here. Jonathan is seen as representative of us all. Our Lord too seems to have seen in Jonathan a type of ourselves. In the context of warning us that loyalty to Him would mean confessing him before men and conflict between fathers and sons, he encourages us that not a hair of our head will perish (<a href='B:470 10:30'>Mat 10:30</a> cp. <a href='B:490 21:18'>Luk 21:18</a>). This is picking up the application of this phrase to Jonathan in <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul stopped pursuing the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own land-</p><p>It could be argued that the extent of the victory over the Philistines was again hindered by Saul. For we get the impression that after his loss of face regarding Jonathan, he stopped pursuing the Philistines. And so instead of wiping them out, they escaped to "their own land". Which of itself is a tacit recognition that the land of Israel was not free of the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>After Saul had taken the kingship over Israel, he fought against all his enemies on every side: Moab, the Ammonites, Edom, the kings of Zobah and the Philistines; wherever he turned he defeated them- </p><p>However by David's time, he had to fight these same powers, and the situation at the time of Goliath indicates the abiding strength of the Philistines. Perhaps the record here reflects how Saul liked to see things; hence :52 reminds us that he failed to rid Israel of the Philistines throughout his reign.</p>


text:
<p>He fought valiantly and defeated the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of those who plundered them-</p><p>Here we have an example, common in the Hebrew Bible, of a summary statement being made and then an explanation is given of how the stated situation came about. And so here we have the explanation concerning the Amalekites in the next chapter.</p>


text:
<p>Now the sons of Saul were Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua, and the names of his two daughters were Merab the firstborn and Michal the younger- </p><p><a href='B:90 31:2'>1Sa 31:2</a>; <a href='B:130 10:2'>1Ch 10:2</a> read "Jonathan, Abinadab and Malchishua", whereas <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a> has "Jonathan, Ishvi and Malchishua". "Ishvi" may be another name for Abinadab; or we may note that the word means "and the second::.", which would make sense in <a href='B:90 14:49'>1Sa 14:49</a>. The genealogies of <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>; <a href='B:130 9:39'>1Ch 9:39</a> also mention Esh-Baal or Ishbosheth; perhaps his name mentioning the "Baal" compound was the reason for its exclusion. Having such a name reflects upon Saul's lack of total devotion to Yahweh.</p>


text:
<p>and the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam the daughter of Ahimaaz. The captain of his army was Abner the son of Ner, Saul’s uncle- </p><p>God gave Saul’s wives to David (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>), which would’ve involved David being married to both a mother and daughter- for he had married Saul’s daughters. And this giving of Saul’s wives to David may not have occurred simply after Saul’s death. For David’s eldest son, Amnon, was borne by Ahinoam (<a href='B:100 3:2'>2Sa 3:2</a>), who was initially Saul’s wife (<a href='B:90 14:50'>1Sa 14:50</a>). Now this is not to justify sin. Adultery, taking another’s wife or husband, is all wrong. Let there be no mistake. But God at times sees the bigger, or longer, perspective, and tolerates things which we may quite rightly find intolerable. And if He loves us despite of our sin and failure- are we surprised that we are invited to show love to others in the face of their sin and failure toward us? A black and white insistence upon God’s standards being upheld in the lives of others, demanding their repentance for having hurt us, is what has caused so much division between believers. Whilst God alone will apportion the guilt for this, in the final, unalterable, ultimately just algorithm of Divine judgment, it’s worth observing that the fault for division isn’t always with the sinners, the wider thinkers, the freewheelers; but with the inflexible intolerance of those in power. We must recognize that there will be anomalies in the lives of our brethren- just as there are in the lives of us all (if only we would examine ourselves ruthlessly enough to see them). And in some ways at some times, God goes along with them:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Kish was the father of Saul and Ner the father of Abner was the son of Abiel- </p><p>See on :50.</p>


text:
<p>There was severe war against the Philistines all the days of Saul, and when Saul saw any mighty man or any valiant man, he took him into his service- </p><p>This was in fulfilment of Samuel's inspired warnings of how Saul would pressgang men into his service. See on :47. He failed to rid Israel of the Philistines throughout his reign, even though he had been Divinely set up to do so.</p>


text:
<p>:1 Samuel said to Saul, Yahweh sent me to anoint you to be king over His people Israel. Now therefore, listen to the words of Yahweh- </p><p>We could interpret Samuel as meaning that he had anointed Saul to be king, and God had set Saul up for success. Yet he had been rejected from the kingship due to his impatient disobedience in 1 Samuel 13. But despite that, which apparently happened early in his reign (<a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>), he remained king. The fact God didn't immediately depose him may simply have been because he was being given a chance to repent. And perhaps now with the set of instructions given him regarding Amalek, he was being given an opportunity to prove he had learned the lesson, and to undo his mistake. He fails spectacularly, but we marvel all the same at God's grace in trying by all means to save him. We note too that Saul's calling began with sets of detailed instructions from Samuel, which he obeyed. Circumstances repeat in our lives, as God seeks to help us learn the lessons.</p>


text:
<p>Thus says Yahweh of Armies, ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel, opposing them when they came up out of Egypt- </p><p>It was God who was to do this; Saul is being invited to be His agent on earth, and not rule and fight in his own strength and to his own glory. For this was his problem. Saul's desire for personal vengeance upon his enemies in <a href='B:90 14:24'>1Sa 14:24</a> was sadly deficient in any desire to see God's glory. God patiently now tries to correct him by now asking him to work for Him, as His agent, in executing His vengeance or punishment upon His enemies, in respect of His people Israel. And yet Saul fails, because he is more interested in showing off the best animals he has captured and to have a powerful king whom he has conquered publically paraded. Rather than slaying the king and the animals as requested.</p>


text:
<p>Now go and attack Amalek and utterly destroy all that they have; don’t spare them, but kill both man and woman, infant and nursing baby, ox and sheep, camel and donkey’- </p><p>The reason for this command was because God wanted the glorification of His Name and His people, and if these things and persons were preserved, then they would have been paraded to Saul's glory. See on :2. And that was indeed his motive in preserving them. "Utterly destroy" translates the word used for religious devotion. Amalek was to be devoted to Yahweh in its condemnation, and the murder of everything living was to be seen as a sacrifice to Him. To keep some of His offerings for himself was therefore effectively Saul thieving from God.</p>


text:
<p>Saul summoned the people and numbered them in Telaim- </p><p>'Place of lambs'. The area was known for sheep and animals; the very best of the very best was kept by Saul for himself when clearly it was intended for devotion to Yahweh.</p><p>Two hundred thousand foot soldiers and ten thousand men of Judah- </p><p>The proportion of the men of Judah is very small. It could be that Saul was seen as showing nepotism to the tribe of Benjamin and his support within Judah was waning. "Thousand" more likely refers to a brigade or family.</p>


text:
<p>Saul went to the city of Amalek and laid wait in the valley- </p><p>I have noted earlier that Joshua tried to emulate the examples of faithful men like Moses and Gideon. Here he is copying Joshua (<a href='B:60 8:4'>Jos 8:4</a>). But he was emulating on a surface level only, with no real spiritual attention.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to the Kenites, Go away from among the Amalekites so that I don’t destroy you with them, for you showed kindness to all the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed from among the Amalekites- </p><p>He could have been commanded to do this by God through Samuel. But if not, this shows some spiritual awareness and familiarity with Biblical history- which makes his sins all the more culpable. By doing this, Saul lost the advantage of making a surprise attack. But he put grace and care for people first (or perhaps at least Samuel insisted he did), and won the victory all the same.</p>


text:
<p>Saul attacked the Amalekites from Havilah to Shur east of Egypt- </p><p>This is not the Havilah near Yemen. It means "circle" and must refer to some spot in the south of Judah. "Shur" is literally "the wall", referring to the wall which ran from Pelusium past Migdol to Hero, resulting in the name "Mizraim" for Egypt, meaning 'the enclosed / fortified'. The idea is that Saul destroyed them to the Egyptian border.</p>


text:
<p>He took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people- </p><p>"Agag" is the same consonants as "Gog", the leader of the latter day invasion of Israel in Ezekiel 38. But it is a generic name for the ruler of Amalek, like "Pharaoh". "Utterly destroyed" is the word for sanctification / devotion to Yahweh. The idea isn't that every Amalekite was destroyed, as David later fights with them. It could be argued that by keeping the best of the animals, and needing to care for them and not over drive them, Saul's men therefore didn't destroy as many Amalekites as they otherwise could have done.</p>


text:
<p>But Saul and the people spared Agag and the best of the sheep, cattle, fat calves and lambs and all that was good, and wouldn’t utterly destroy them; everything that was bad and worthless they destroyed utterly-</p><p>I suggested on :2,3 that the reason for this command was because God wanted the glorification of His Name and His people, and if these things and persons were preserved, then they would have been paraded to Saul's glory. And that was indeed Saul's motive in preserving them. By having a live, conquered king and impressive fat animals, Saul could boast of his personal military prowess. And the whole exercise he had been given in fighting Amalek had been designed to help him unlearn his personal pride, and work on God's behalf to God's glory, rather for his own. He failed totally. He ended up offering to God that which was "bad and worthless". And then trying to lie his way out of it. "Bad" is the word for "despise", and is used about how Eli and his sons had despised Yahweh's offerings (<a href='B:90 2:30'>1Sa 2:30</a>). Saul was intended to replace Eli but he had not learned from history. The relevance for the exiles was that they were in exile because they had likewise despised Yahweh's offerings (<a href='B:330 22:8'>Eze 22:8</a>).</p><p></p>


text:
<p>Then the word of Yahweh came to Samuel saying- </p><p>Samuel was apparently not with Saul at this time (:12), although hovering nearby.</p>


text:
<p>It grieves Me that I have set up Saul to be king- God 'repented' (AV), He changed His mind about setting Saul up as king. And yet He gave them a king in His wrath, warning Israel how Saul would work out, although He set Saul up for success. And yet when indeed Saul fails, God changes His mind and as it were regrets having made Saul king. We have here an insight into how God feels. He enters fully into the human situation, limiting His omniscience and omnipotence to do so; and therefore has such conflicted feelings within Him, just as His many changes of mind within Him were kindled together in <a href='B:350 11:8'>Hos 11:8</a>.</p><p>For he has turned back from following Me and has not obeyed My commandments- </p><p>"Turned back" suggests God did consider Saul to have initially followed Him.</p><p>Samuel was troubled and he cried out to Yahweh all night- </p><p>God tells Samuel of His rejection of Saul, implying this opportunity to change His earlier rejection of Saul in 1 Samuel 13 has again not worked out; and Samuel cries to Him all night. I think the implication is that Samuel was pleading with God to consider another future with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>; <a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a>; <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>). We should be awed by Samuel's love for Saul and desire to make him work out spiritually. <a href='B:370 7:1-6'>Amo 7:1-6</a> is another case- God reveals His intention regarding Israel, but then Amos makes a case against this and is heard. In fact, these and other examples suggest that this is almost a pattern with God- to devise His purpose, and then in the 'gap' until its fulfillment, be open to the persuasion of His covenant people to change or ammend those plans. This could be what <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a> is speaking of: "Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets". It's as if He reveals His plans to them so that they can then comment upon them in prayer.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning- There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>); Samuel (<a href='B:90 15:12'>1Sa 15:12</a>); David (<a href='B:90 17:20'>1Sa 17:20</a>; <a href='B:90 29:11'>1Sa 29:11</a>); Hezekiah (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>; <a href='B:140 29:20'>2Ch 29:20</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:140 36:15'>2Ch 36:15</a>; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p><p>And he was told: Saul came to Carmel and he set up a monument for himself, then went down to Gilgal- </p><p>We see here Saul's vanity, wishing to memorialize his own great victory, although that victory had been given by God. We must be warned by this not to glory in and seek to memorialize that which was given us by God's grace and as part of His wider purpose.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said to him, Yahweh bless you! I have obeyed the commandment of Yahweh- </p><p>Saul speaks of "Yahweh your God" in :15, as if he felt unable to say that Yahweh was fully his God, even though he here uses the Yahweh Name as a formality. Personal relationship with God is not the same as using the right Hebrew names for Him and the correct religious language.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Then what is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What does this lowing of cattle mean?- </p><p>We sense through the record how angry Samuel is that Saul can tell such a childish lie; we hear the bleating and lowing of cattle coming down through the centuries, such is the power of the inspired word.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites, for the people spared the best of the sheep and cattle to sacrifice to Yahweh your God. We have utterly destroyed the rest- </p><p>Saul had defeated the Amalekites in the south, near the border with Egypt (:7), had then gone up to Carmel in the north to build a memorial (:12), and was now in Gilgal (:12). This must have required at least a week. And the animals were still alive. Saul's story was clearly untrue. We note he speaks of "Yahweh your God", as if he felt unable to say that Yahweh was fully his God, even though he uses the Yahweh Name as a formality (:13). Saul excuses himself by blaming it on the people, as if he is not really king. And further, he reasons that they devoted "the rest" to Yahweh. He refuses to see that the commandment was to devote all to Yahweh. But he considers he devoted something, so that, surely, was good enough. And this is not so far from our own weakness, faced with the demand for our all, and total devotion after the pattern of the crucified Christ:&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel said to Saul, Stop! I will tell you what Yahweh said to me last night. He said to him, Tell me- </p><p>Samuel as a child had to tell Eli of God's rejection of him, a message he also heard at night, and His replacement of him with someone else. This prepared Samuel for doing this very same thing years later, with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:16'>1Sa 15:16</a>); and to some extent, he too failed in ways similar to Eli, and was in a sense replaced. Whilst it's impossible to attach meaning to events at the time they happen, they potentially prepare us for later use by God if we are willing to be used.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, When you were once little in your own sight, weren’t you made the head of the tribes of Israel? Yahweh anointed you king over Israel- </p><p>Pride was Saul's problem. A fair case can be made for his humility in not punishing those who initially mocked him, his hiding amongst the baggage, his not telling his uncle about his calling. But David in the Psalms frequently complains of Saul's pride. Saul appears to have changed his name to ‘Paul’, “the little one”, at the time of his first missionary journey- in order to not be like Saul in his later life, but "little". His preaching of the Gospel was thus related to his own realization of sinfulness, as reflected in his name change. And so it has ever been. Saul becomes Paul in so many lives. True self-abnegation, recognition of our moral bankruptcy, our desperation, and the extent of the grace we have received…these two paradoxical aspects, fused together within the very texture of human personality, are what will arrest the attention of others in this world and lead them to the Truth we can offer them.</p>


text:
<p>and Yahweh sent you on a mission and said-</p><p>"Mission" is AV "journey". It is the word used of how Saul went on his "way" to find the lost donkeys (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 9:8'>1Sa 9:8</a>), and as part of his calling process he was sent on journeys and was obedient. But now he had not been obedient. And yet Saul arrogantly insists that he has gone on the "mission" or "way" (:20 s:w:).</p><p>‘Go, and utterly destroy those sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are destroyed’- </p><p>The mission had been total destruction of the Amalekites. But Saul was content with just a tokenistic victory. We learn here that he was told they were "sinners". He was asked to manifest Yahweh's judgment against sin. But he ignored that dimension, and saw himself as simply glorifying himself.</p>


text:
<p>Why then didn’t you obey the voice of Yahweh- </p><p>Israel did not obey / hearken to the voice of Yahweh, and He did not hearken to their voice in prayer (<a href='B:50 1:45'>Deu 1:45</a>; <a href='B:50 9:23'>Deu 9:23</a>; <a href='B:50 28:15'>Deu 28:15</a>; <a href='B:60 5:6'>Jos 5:6</a>; <a href='B:70 2:20'>Jdg 2:20</a>; <a href='B:70 6:10'>Jdg 6:10</a> cp. <a href='B:50 8:20'>Deu 8:20</a> s:w:). <a href='B:120 18:12'>2Ki 18:12</a> states this specifically. God hearkened to Joshua's voice in prayer (<a href='B:60 10:14'>Jos 10:14</a>) because Joshua hearkened to His voice. It was to be the same with Saul. He didn't hearken to God's voice (<a href='B:90 15:19'>1Sa 15:19</a>) and God didn't hearken to Saul's voice in prayer in his final desperation at the end of his life (<a href='B:90 28:18'>1Sa 28:18</a>, although he hearkened to the voice of the witch, <a href='B:90 28:23'>1Sa 28:23</a>). If God's word abides in us, then our prayer is powerful, we have whatever we ask, because we are asking for things according to His will expressed in His word (<a href='B:500 15:7'>Joh 15:7</a>). See on :23.</p><p>But took the spoils and did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh?- </p><p>Sins of omission, serving God partially and not wholly, for the sake of appearance, are described here as "evil". And they are our most likely form of sin.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Samuel, But I have obeyed the voice of Yahweh, and have gone on the mission which Yahweh gave me and have brought Agag the king of Amalek- </p><p>This is Saul at his most inexcusable, seeking to save face before Samuel by lying when the evidence of the bleating animals was for all to hear in the background. He had indeed "gone on the mission" given by Yahweh,&nbsp; but had not fulfilled it as required. We too can have the illusion that because we are involved in God's work, have "gone on the mission", that we are thereby justified. But God works through all manner of sinful people, and awareness of His activity in and around our lives doesn't mean we are therefore pleasing to Him.</p><p>And have utterly destroyed the Amalekites- </p><p>He had not utterly destroyed them, for David later had to smite them (s:w. <a href='B:100 1:1'>2Sa 1:1</a>). Saul was empowered to smite the Amalekites but he didn't completely do this. As often happens, God then passed on the job to another, in this case David. We can see His hand working in similar ways today. This seems to be the idea of <a href='B:190 4:14'>Est 4:14</a>. If she had not saved her people, then God would have pursued another plan to the same end.</p>


text:
<p>But the people took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of the devoted things, to sacrifice to Yahweh your God in Gilgal- </p><p>This is alluded to by Solomon in <a href='B:240 21:27'>Pro 21:27</a>: "The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination: how much more, when he brings it with a wicked mind!". Solomon may have in view Saul's rejection from the kingship for his wrong attitude to sacrifice (<a href='B:90 15:21-22'>1Sa 15:21-22</a>). Likewise the attempts of Absalom and Adonijah to take the throne from David and Solomon involved the offering of sacrifices (<a href='B:100 15:12'>2Sa 15:12</a>; <a href='B:110 1:9'>1Ki 1:9</a>). What Solomon says in the Proverbs is true on one level, but he harnesses Divine truth to justify himself and his own agendas; just as we can.</p><p>Again we note "Yahweh your God". Not "our God" or "my God". Yet he freely uses the Yahweh Name in addressing Samuel in :13. It was as if he felt unable to say that Yahweh was fully his God, even though he here uses the Yahweh Name as a formality. Personal relationship with God is not the same as using the right Hebrew names for Him and the correct religious language.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams- </p><p>The point was that God didn't need the sacrifices of themselves. The essence He sought was an obedient heart toward His voice. So often, form comes to eclipse content with religious people; the external sacrifices are seen as of supreme importance, rather than the attitude behind them.</p><p>David may be referring to this when he condemns Saul in <a href='B:230 119:150'>Psa 119:150</a>: "They draw near who follow after wickedness, they are far from Your law". "Draw near" is a common idiom for offering sacrifice and worshipping God. But that sacrifice must be from men who are near to God's law, and not offering just as mere tokenistic ritualism. He may be alluding to Saul's insincere sacrifices and religious rituals which led to his rejection and David's choice as the next king (<a href='B:90 14:36'>1Sa 14:36</a>; <a href='B:90 14:38'>1Sa 14:38</a>; <a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>).</p><p>The words of <a href='B:480 12:33'>Mar 12:33</a> allude to a number of OT passages which also show the superiority of knowledge and practical service over sacrifices (<a href='B:90 15:22'>1Sa 15:22</a>; <a href='B:350 6:6'>Hos 6:6</a>; <a href='B:400 6:6-8'>Mic 6:6-8</a>). Putting them together we find the following parallels:</p><p>To obey God’s word is better than sacrifice</p><p>To listen to God’s word&nbsp;is better than sacrifice</p><p>To show mercy is better than sacrifice</p><p>To know God&nbsp;is better than sacrifice</p><p>To be humble and just is better than sacrifice</p><p>To understand God&nbsp;is better than sacrifice.</p><p>Understanding God, hearing His word, knowing God in ongoing personal relationship (all acts of the intellect) are therefore paralleled with practical things like loving out neighbour, showing mercy, justice etc. These practical things are an outcome of our correct knowledge of / active relationship with God.</p>


text:
<p>For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as the evil of idolatry- </p><p>The sin of omitting obedience was as bad as committing witchcraft (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>). Even though Saul partially obeyed God's commandments (<a href='B:90 15:20'>1Sa 15:20</a>), his omissions of some of them led to God declaring that Saul had in fact turned back from following His commandments (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>). Sins of omission are our strongest temptations.</p><p>Because you have rejected the word of Yahweh, He has also rejected you from being king- </p><p>Our attitude to God's word becomes His attitude to us; see on :19. We later read that God's "soul" departed from Israel, because "the Lord has rejected you" (<a href='B:300 6:8'>Jer 6:8</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>). The connection is because these historical records were intended for the exiles to learn from. This is the same language used about Saul- God rejected him, and so His spirit departed from him (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>; <a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>). The implication was that God's very soul / spirit is "with" us, and therefore He can be so terribly wounded by us in His heart by the rebellions of those in covenant relationship with Him. For His heart / soul / spirit is so close to us His beloved people.</p><p>Although it is true as it was with Saul that those who reject Yahweh's word are rejected (<a href='B:90 15:23'>1Sa 15:23</a>), God's grace is beyond such a simplistic picture. Israel were to despise / reject God's word (s:w. <a href='B:30 26:15'>Lev 26:15</a>; <a href='B:30 26:43'>Lev 26:43</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a> s:w:). Israel rejected Yahweh when they wanted Saul to be their king (s:w. <a href='B:90 8:7'>1Sa 8:7</a>; <a href='B:90 10:19'>1Sa 10:19</a>), and yet He did not reject them immediately because of that. The relevance to the exiles was in that they were in captivity because they too had rejected God's word and therefore God had rejected them (<a href='B:120 17:15'>2Ki 17:15</a> cp. <a href='B:120 17:20'>2Ki 17:20</a>; <a href='B:120 23:27'>2Ki 23:27</a>), because they rejected His prophetic words, He rejected them (<a href='B:300 6:19'>Jer 6:19</a>; <a href='B:300 6:30'>Jer 6:30</a>; <a href='B:350 4:6'>Hos 4:6</a>), "and yet for all that:. I will not reject them / cast they away" (<a href='B:30 26:44'>Lev 26:44</a>; <a href='B:300 31:37'>Jer 31:37</a> s:w:). For ultimately God has not rejected / cast away His people (<a href='B:290 41:9'>Isa 41:9</a>; <a href='B:300 33:26'>Jer 33:26</a>; <a href='B:520 11:2'>Rom 11:2</a>). This is the mystery of grace, no matter how we may seek to explain it away by Biblical exposition and balancing Bible verses against each other.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Samuel, I have sinned- </p><p>The very words of Judas (<a href='B:470 27:4'>Mat 27:4</a>). Again, we see clearly David as a type of Christ. David said these same words to Nathan and was accepted, but Saul wasn't. Clearly the words were like so much in his life, a mere religious formality and not from the heart.</p><p>I have transgressed the commandment of Yahweh and your words because I feared the people and obeyed their voice- </p><p>Their words, and the unspoken 'word' of their silent opinion of Saul, struggled within Saul's mind against the words of God. And because he didn't have a deep seated respect for God's word as the ultimate authority, he therefore gave in to their words. We have this same struggle almost minute by minute in daily life. It's not only our familiarity with the Biblical text which will assist us towards victory, but our base, core conviction that God's words are of ultimate authority. One reason for Saul's lack of respect for Yahweh's words is that he seems to see them as Samuel's words ("your words"); hence he feels he has sinned against Samuel more than against God; see on :25. Our attitude to God's word, our approach to the inspiration of the Bible, will be related to our obedience to it.</p>


text:
<p>Now therefore, please pardon my sin and come back with me so that I may worship Yahweh- </p><p>Saul's religiosity is reflected by the way in which he asks Samuel to "pardon my sin", when he ought instead to have been asking this of God. For Yahweh is the God who delights to pardon sin (s:w. <a href='B:20 34:7'>Exo 34:7</a>). But whilst Saul uses the correct vocabulary, he misdirects it- to Samuel and not to God. And he ends up using the very phrase of Pharaoh (<a href='B:20 10:17'>Exo 10:17</a>), also without ultimate sincerity. And we note Pharaoh also asked Moses to pardon his sin, rather than asking Yahweh directly:&nbsp; By contrast, David asks God directly to "pardon my sin" (<a href='B:230 25:18'>Psa 25:18</a>; <a href='B:230 32:5'>Psa 32:5</a>). Saul's motive is clear- he wants Samuel to return to Gilgal and publically justify Saul by presiding over the sacrifice of the best animals at Gilgal, although this was perhaps not what Saul had initially planned. For he kept them for himself.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Saul, I will not return with you, for you have rejected the word of Yahweh, and Yahweh has rejected you from being king over Israel- </p><p>For "rejected", see on :23. Samuel appears to have concluded that Saul is now finally rejected and beyond the hope of reformation by repentance. "Return" is the word usually used for repentance. Samuel didn't see Saul's repentance as sincere, and so he would not turn again with him. And yet he apparently gives in and does so in :31. This could have been due to fear of Saul, who apparently got physically violent with him (see on :27). Or it could have been because he still entertained the desperate hope that perhaps Saul had turned again / repented. And perhaps he is rebuked for this in <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>As Samuel turned to go away, Saul grabbed the skirt of his robe and it tore- </p><p>The translation here is misleading. He grabbed the hem, the outer border of the garment, probably at the neck or shoulder, literally grabbing him by the collar. It's possible that Saul intended the mantle to tare, because it symbolized Samuel's prophetic authority. And Saul dearly wished for God's words through Samuel to be untrue. But denial of God's word, rejecting the inspiration of the Bible, will not save us. And we see that such positions are ultimately motivated by a desire to demonstrate God's judgments of us as being untrue and somehow negated by our negation of them.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to him, Yahweh has torn the kingdom of Israel from you this day, and has given it to a neighbour of yours who is better than you- </p><p>Put this together with later verses in :29,35: "The Lord hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee (Saul)::. and hath given it to (David)::. the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for He is not a man, that he should repent::. and the Lord repented that He had made Saul king over Israel" (AV). This juxtaposition of such conflicting statements seems to intentionally give us insight into the deeply conflicted feelings of God, which were perhaps reflected in Samuel (see on :31).</p><p>I suggested on :27 that it was Saul who had torn the Kingdom. Those who are deprived of the Kingdom will have made the decision themselves. Samuel knew that Yahweh had already decided to given the kingdom to another, as already expressed in 1 Samuel 13; and he knew that God had already selected this "neighbour"; for Bethlehem was only 12 miles away from Gibeah of Saul. But Samuel had still gone on hoping for Saul, and was apparently not proactive in seeking for this replacement- hence the implicit criticism of him by God in <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>.</p><p>Perhaps David took a cue from these words, and started thinking of Saul as his neighbour. And then his mind went to <a href='B:30 15:18'>Lev 15:18</a>; if Saul was his neighbour, he was to love him as himself, and not take vengeance.</p>


text:
<p>The Strength of Israel will not lie nor change His mind, for He is not a man that He should change His mind- </p><p>God does not “repent” as men do, but He can still change His mind. Samuel therefore wept to God for Saul to change his mind, and therefore for God to relent on His stated purpose concerning him (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>). Saul had been rejected in 1 Samuel 13, but he was given a chance to change that (see on :1), and continued as king. So perhaps the idea here is that God would not any longer change His mind over Saul. The rejection of him in 1 Samuel 13 was now confirmed. Yet despite telling Saul that “the strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent”, Samuel appears to have continued praying for a change of mind from God and Saul; we can conclude this from the way God had to keep telling Samuel to stop (<a href='B:90 15:25'>1Sa 15:25</a>; <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>). This is very similar to how God told Ezekiel that He would not spare nor repent of His attitude to Israel, and will judge them according to their ways (<a href='B:330 24:14'>Eze 24:14</a>); yet according to His grace, it is many times recorded that He did and will spare them, and does not judge them according to the merits of their sins.</p><p>LXX adds: "And Israel shall be divided to two: and God will not turn nor repent, for he is not as a man to repent". The division of the kingdom was therefore ultimately traced back to Saul's apostasy.</p>


text:
<p>Then he said, I have sinned, yet please honour me now before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me so that I may worship Yahweh your God- </p><p>Again we note "Yahweh your God". See on :21. It really was all about appearances before men in the religious group, rather than before God. We note that all the elders of Israel were present there in Gilgal. Perhaps there was some truth in Saul's excuse that in fact he intended to offer the best animals to Yahweh at some big gathering proclaimed at Gilgal; for he had had at least a week to gather the elders. Saul had gone up to Carmel in the north of the land to proclaim his victory (:12), and perhaps he intended to offer the best animals in front of an Israel gathered to behold his military glory, and to view the humbled Agag before him. What was wrong with all this was that he had disobeyed Yahweh's commandment for the sake of his own pride, and was using the service of God for his own ego. And this pride was so disgusting to God, as it is to this day. Saul was therefore desperate that his display of victory, his victory triumph, not be marred by Samuel snubbing it.</p>


text:
<p>So Samuel went back with Saul- </p><p>"Return" or "went back" is the word usually used for repentance. In :26, Samuel didn't see Saul's repentance as sincere, and so he would not turn again / go back with him. And yet he apparently gives in and does so now. This could have been due to fear of Saul, who apparently got physically violent with him (see on :27). Or it could have been because he still entertained the desperate hope that perhaps Saul had turned again / repented. And perhaps he is rebuked for this in <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>.</p><p>And Saul worshipped Yahweh- </p><p>Worship like prayer can be on a surface level, or the real thing. Saul “worshipped the Lord” merely for the sake of appearances, because this was what his position required of him, the hymn being sung which he had to go along with.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel said, Bring here to me Agag the king of the Amalekites! Agag came to him confidently, thinking, Surely the bitterness of death is past- </p><p>I explained on :31 that the gathering at Gilgal had been set up as a kind of victory triumph to Saul's glory. Saul did not intend to kill Agag, and Agag had got that impression, that he would not taste the bitterness of death. It had been Saul's idea to parade him live, in some kind of Roman victory triumph- to Saul's glory. He had been commanded to kill him immediately exactly so that this would not be the case. Samuel therefore killed him, although it seems not at the victory triumph but privately, so that Saul could not glory in him.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said, As your sword has made women childless, so your mother will be childless among women! Samuel cut Agag in pieces before Yahweh in Gilgal- </p><p>See on :32. "Before Yahweh" implies there was a high place there, or possibly the ark.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel went to Ramah and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah of Saul- </p><p>The idea is that they both returned to their homes, for Samuel had his home in Ramah. The fact Saul returns to his home village at this point could suggest he was as it were resigning from being king.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death- </p><p>This is proof enough that Samuel was resurrected to see Saul on the day of his death.</p><p>Yet Samuel mourned for Saul, and Yahweh grieved that He had made Saul king over Israel- </p><p>We note the parallel in feeling between Yahweh and Samuel. Samuel's desperate desire for Saul to repent, for the project with him to work out, reflected that of God. And God's efforts with people are similar to this day. And like Samuel, we should have His saving, hopeful heart for the lost and stubborn.</p><p>Any separations from brethren are brought forth from much sorrow; Corinth ecclesia were told that they should&nbsp; have mourned as they withdrew from one who had left the faith (<a href='B:530 5:2'>1Co 5:2</a>). "The whole house of Israel" were commanded to "mourn" the necessary destruction of Nadab and Abihu (<a href='B:30 10:6'>Lev 10:6</a>). Samuel mourned and God repented when Saul was finally rejected (<a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a>). Paul wept when he wrote about some in the ecclesia who had fallen away (Php_3:17-19). It must be said that 'block disfellowship'- the cutting off of hundreds of brethren and sisters because theoretically they fellowship a weak brother-&nbsp; hardly enables 'mourning' and pleading with each of those who are disfellowshipped.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh said to Samuel, How long will you mourn for Saul, since I have rejected him from being king over Israel?-</p><p>This sounds like a rebuke of Samuel for still entertaining the hope that Saul might repent. For his mourning may be mourning in prayer before God, asking Him to still accept Saul. I noted on <a href='B:90 15:26'>1Sa 15:26</a> that Samuel appears to have concluded that Saul is now finally rejected and beyond the hope of reformation by repentance, and therefore refused to "return" with Saul. "Return" is the word usually used for repentance. Samuel didn't see Saul's repentance as sincere, and so he would not turn again with him. And yet he apparently gives in and does so in <a href='B:90 15:31'>1Sa 15:31</a>. This could have been because he still entertained the desperate hope that perhaps Saul had turned again / repented. And he is now rebuked for this. We learned from <a href='B:90 15:28'>1Sa 15:28</a> that Samuel knew that Yahweh had already decided to given the kingdom to another, as already expressed in 1 Samuel 13; and he knew that God had already selected this "neighbour". But Samuel had still gone on hoping for Saul, and was apparently not proactive in seeking for this replacement- hence now the implicit criticism of him by God.</p><p>God tells Samuel of His rejection of Saul, and Samuel cries to Him all night. I think the implication is that Samuel was pleading with God to consider another future with Saul (<a href='B:90 15:11'>1Sa 15:11</a>; <a href='B:90 15:35'>1Sa 15:35</a>; <a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>). <a href='B:370 7:1-6'>Amo 7:1-6</a> is another case- God reveals His intention regarding Israel, but then Amos makes a case against this and is heard. In fact, these and other examples suggest that this is almost a pattern with God- to devise His purpose, and then in the 'gap' until its fulfillment, be open to the persuasion of His covenant people to change or ammend those plans. This could be what <a href='B:370 3:7'>Amo 3:7</a> is speaking of: "Surely the Lord God does nothing without revealing His secret to His servants the prophets". It's as if He reveals His plans to them so that they can then comment upon them in prayer.</p><p>Fill your horn with oil and go. I will send you to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided a king for Myself from among his sons-</p><p>"Provided for Myself" could be an implied rebuke that Samuel had not been more proactive in searching him out. Literally, "seen", which could suggest God had searched for David and found him, having foreseen him from afar.</p>


text:
<p>:2 Samuel said, How can I go? If Saul hears it he will kill me. Yahweh said, Take a heifer with you and say, I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh- </p><p>We get the impression that this is intended to recall Moses' weak reluctance to do God's work. Samuel was it seems rebuked for holding on to the dream that Saul would work out well in the end, and for not being proactive in seeking the neighbour of Saul whom Yahweh had already appointed to be king. "Go" in :1 is responded to with apparent defiance: "How can I go?". It seems Samuel was well known for going to villages and homesteads to offer sacrifice. They would have been voluntary peace offerings, with the people invited to eat of the offering; even though in this case Samuel himself brought the animal. That could imply that Jesse was not forthcoming in providing the offering.</p>


text:
<p>Call Jesse to the sacrifice and I will show you what you must do. You are to anoint for Me the one whom I name to you- </p><p>Samuel had commanded Saul earlier to wait until God would show him what he must do (the very same phrase is in <a href='B:90 10:8'>1Sa 10:8</a>). Now, God was telling Samuel to do what Samuel had told Saul to do. And Samuel had observed Saul's testing, his initial obedience and his later failure. This is how God works, repeating circumstance between the lives of people, bringing people into our lives from whom we are to learn; and then we are tested just as they were. David may have reflected on this, for he in turn uses the phrase of how he was waiting for God to lead him further (<a href='B:90 22:3'>1Sa 22:3</a>). He would have remembered how Samuel had come to his father's house and likewise waited for God to show him what he had to do.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel did what Yahweh said and came to Bethlehem. The elders of the city came to meet him trembling, and said, Do you come peaceably?- </p><p>This may reflect their deep fear of Saul. For the last we knew, the elders of Israel, including of Bethlehem, had gone to Gilgal and witnessed Samuel snubbing Saul over the matter of Agag; and it was known that Samuel had withdrawn credibility from Saul. And Saul was doubtless fuming and cussing Samuel about that. So a visit from Samuel was not particularly to be welcomed.</p>


text:
<p>He said, Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to Yahweh. Consecrate yourselves and come with me to the sacrifice. He consecrated Jesse and his sons, and called them to the sacrifice- </p><p>We wonder whether Jesse and his wife were very faithful people. His other sons all supported Saul (<a href='B:90 17:13'>1Sa 17:13</a>). He was surely one of the elders of Bethlehem who were not comfortable with the idea of a visit from Samuel, the peripatetic priest (:4). He was here asked to consecrate himself, but Samuel ends up having to consecrate him, and Samuel has to provide the animal for the peace offering himself (:2). And it's possible to understand <a href='B:230 51:5'>Psa 51:5</a> as meaning that David may have been an illegitimate child. The description of David's other sons as "rejected" (:7) uses the same word as used of Saul's rejection by God; a rather strong term, which seems to imply they were rejected by God as they had rejected Him.</p>


text:
<p>When they had come he looked at Eliab and said, Surely Yahweh’s anointed is before Him- </p><p>The very structure of Biblical Hebrew as a language is often instructive as to how God wishes us to perceive things. There is actually no literal word in Biblical Hebrew for ‘to think’ – instead there is a word meaning ‘to say in one’s heart’. And there are times when the word is wrongly translated simply “say”– here NEB correctly renders as “thought” instead of NEV "said". This provides a window into understanding how the Greek logos means both ‘speech’ and ‘reason’; and sets the backdrop for the repeated teaching of Jesus that God counts human thoughts as if they are the spoken word or acted deed. But my point is that the Hebrew Bible continually focuses our attention upon the internal thought processes – for here is the real ‘Satan’, the real enemy to true spirituality.</p><p>Samuel’s comment about Eliab was presumably to himself (<a href='B:90 16:6'>1Sa 16:6</a>); Saul’s “I’ll strike [David] to the wall” was surely said to himself (<a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>); likewise his explanation of his plan to trap David via his daughter Michael was all hatched out within his own brain (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>); other examples in <a href='B:90 27:12'>1Sa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:110 12:26'>1Ki 12:26</a> etc. Only God knew what those men ‘said in their heart’; and yet He has recorded it in His inspired word for all generations to see. In this alone we see how ultimately, nothing remains secret; at the day of judgment, what we spoke in darkness (i:e. In our own minds) will be heard in the light of God’s Kingdom (<a href='B:490 12:3'>Luk 12:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But Yahweh said to Samuel, Don’t look at his appearance or height, because I have rejected him. I do not look at the things man looks at; man looks at the outward appearance but Yahweh looks at the heart- </p><p>Samuel appeared to have assumed that Eliab must be Yahweh's anointed, seeing he was tall and handsome (<a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a>). But he had not learnt the lesson he should've learnt from his experience with Saul, who was exceptionally tall, and yet was no leader of God's people. God tries to remind Samuel of this by saying of Eliab: "I have rejected him"; God had used the very term about Saul very recently (<a href='B:90 16:1'>1Sa 16:1</a>; <a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a> RV). <a href='B:230 89:19-20'>Psa 89:19-20</a> imply that God had specifically told Samuel to anoint David- so his desire to anoint tall, handsome Eliab appears to have been a failure on Samuel's part, rooted in simply not joining the dots. And even when David was brought in, Samuel seems to have somewhat failed in his judgment- for he was impressed by David's fair appearance (<a href='B:90 16:12'>1Sa 16:12</a>), when God had just laboured the point to Samuel that the choice of a ruler was not to be based upon his appearance. See on :5.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. He said, Neither has Yahweh chosen this one- </p><p>In all close friendships there are some aspects which just could not have been contrived by human arrangement, and which add to the closeness and sense of specialness which those relationships have. There were such aspects with David and Jonathan, intensifying the love of David for Jonathan. For example, it was a beautiful coincidence that they both happened to have a brother called Abinadab (<a href='B:90 16:8'>1Sa 16:8</a> cp. <a href='B:130 8:33'>1Ch 8:33</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Jesse made Shammah pass by. He said, Neither has Yahweh chosen this one- </p><p>It's unclear whether the sons and Jesse knew what was happening. We get the impression Jesse ushered each of his sons before Samuel, perhaps to receive from him a part of the meat of the peace offering. However by this stage they had not yet sat down to eat the peace offering (:11). As they passed by him, Yahweh signalled to Samuel whether or not this was the chosen son. And David was anointed in the presence of his brothers (:13). See on :10.</p>


text:
<p>Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. Samuel said to Jesse, Yahweh has not chosen these- </p><p>This statement is hard to understand unless Samuel had told Jesse his intention. In which case there was clearly some agreement from Samuel in this risky venture. For Samuel is alluding to <a href='B:50 17:15'>Deu 17:15</a>, "You shall set him king over you, whom Yahweh your God shall choose". The same word for "choose" is used:&nbsp; Despite their desire to choose their own king (<a href='B:90 8:18'>1Sa 8:18</a> s:w:), and God disagreeing with it, He and not they chose the king. He intervened to as it were make them obedient, even in this wrong choice they had made. We marvel at His grace. For David's choosing was totally of God and not man.</p>


text:
<p>Samuel said to Jesse, Are all your children here? He said, There is still the youngest; he is keeping the sheep. Samuel said to Jesse, Send and get him, for we will not sit down until he comes here- </p><p>It's possible to understand <a href='B:230 51:5'>Psa 51:5</a> as meaning that David may have been an illegitimate child. This would also account for the diffidence in inviting him, and answering the question as to whether David was one of "your children". The youngest son had a bad lot in life, serving his older brothers and doing the dumb jobs like minding the sheep. But from this kind of hopeless, bottom of the ladder or hierarchy situation, God prepares those whom He can use.</p>


text:
<p>He sent and brought him in. Now he was ruddy, with a beautiful face and handsome appearance. Yahweh said, Arise, anoint him, for this is the one- </p><p>"Ruddy" could mean he was a redhead, which was unusual for Semitic peoples and considered handsome.</p>


text:
<p>Then Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him in the presence of his brothers- </p><p>It's unclear whether or not they understood this anointing to be as a king to replace Saul. For they "followed Saul" (<a href='B:90 17:13'>1Sa 17:13</a>). Perhaps they did perceive what it was all about, but their jealousy over his choice led them to support Saul. There are similarities with the hateful jealousy of Joseph's brothers concerning his choice, as one of the youngest. David's Psalms connect being "anointed" with having opposition, and this was doubtless rooted in his own experience (<a href='B:230 2:2'>Psa 2:2</a>; <a href='B:230 89:51'>Psa 89:51</a>; <a href='B:230 105:15'>Psa 105:15</a>). But surely <a href='B:230 45:7'>Psa 45:7</a> was also based upon David's case: "You have loved righteousness, and hated wickedness; therefore God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows". The choice of David is here predicated upon his love of righteousness "above" his brothers. The "gladness" at the anointing was likely only for Samuel and David, as the brothers were doubtless bitterly jealous onlookers. However when this is quoted about the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:650 1:9'>Heb 1:9</a>, "gladness" is translated by a Greek word meaning 'exaltation'; as if the anointing was a sign of David's exaltation above his brothers.</p><p>And the spirit of Yahweh came mightily on David from that day on. So Samuel arose and went to Ramah- </p><p>The Spirit departed from Saul and came to David (:14). This was the Spirit which had made Saul a new man and given him&nbsp; new heart in order to do God's work. This spoke of his psychological strengthening and transformation, which continues to be the work of the Spirit to this day. But the Spirit as it were transferred from one to the other because it was given for the intention of making them saviour king of Israel. That intention transferred from Saul to David and therefore the Spirit was transferred from Saul to David.</p><p>The Spirit came on David as it did on Samson (<a href='B:90 16:13'>1Sa 16:13</a>); they were both empowered to kill lions, whilst keeping the fact a secret. And in both those acts they were taught that they would deliver God's people from the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:34-37'>1Sa 17:34-37</a>). Indeed, David's confident words that God would deliver him from the Philistines were evidently inspired by Samson, the renowned one-man deliverer from Philistine armies. Both Samson and David wrought "great salvation" for Israel (<a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> cp. <a href='B:70 15:18'>Jdg 15:18</a>). As Samson was characterized by his love of that riddle (the word occurs nine times in <a href='B:70 14:12-19'>Jdg 14:12-19</a>, and <a href='B:70 15:16'>Jdg 15:16</a> Heb. is also some kind of riddle), so David uses the same word to describe how he chose to put forth a riddle (<a href='B:230 78:2'>Psa 78:2</a>). Psalms 3 is full of reference to Samson's fight at Lehi. It was also written at a time when David was betrayed by his own people. And his failures with women would make another parallel.</p>


text:
<p>Now the spirit of Yahweh had departed from Saul and an evil spirit from Yahweh troubled him- </p><p>See on :13. In Old Testament times, an evil or unclean spirit referred to a troubled mental state (<a href='B:70 9:23'>Jdg 9:23</a>; <a href='B:90 16:14'>1Sa 16:14</a>; <a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a>); and in every Old Testament reference to evil spirits, they were sent by God, not an orthodox ‘Devil’. In New Testament times, the language of evil spirit/demon possession had come to refer to those suffering mental illness. The association between demons and sickness is shown by the following: “They brought unto Him (Jesus) many that were possessed with demons: and He cast out the spirits with a word… that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Isaiah the prophet, saying, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses” (<a href='B:470 8:16-17'>Mat 8:16-17</a>). So human infirmities and sicknesses are described as being possessed by “demons” and “evil spirits”. See on :15.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s servants said to him, See now, an evil spirit from God troubles you- </p><p>See on <a href='B:130 21:30'>1Ch 21:30</a>. "Troubles" is the word for 'made afraid'. Saul became paranoiac as a result of his own insecurities, which in turn were rooted in his own lack of faith and security in God's grace. His pride also contributed majorly, so that he ever feared losing his crown and glory. These psychological processes were confirmed by God. This is how His Spirit works upon the human spirit. His Holy Spirit will likewise confirm us in the upward spiral of spirituality we wish to take, working through our own psychological processes.</p>


text:
<p>Let our lord now command your servants who are before you to seek out a man who is a skilful player on the harp. When the evil spirit from God comes on you, he can play and you will feel better- </p><p>There is quite a theme of servants bringing blessings or good news (<a href='B:90 9:6'>1Sa 9:6</a>; <a href='B:90 16:16'>1Sa 16:16</a>; <a href='B:90 25:14'>1Sa 25:14</a> cp. <a href='B:10 41:10'>Gen 41:10</a>; <a href='B:120 5:3'>2Ki 5:3</a>). This may be to reflect God's interest in the significance of the lowly. I suggested on :15 that God's Spirit worked to confirm Saul's own psychological processes, freely chosen by him. No amount of music would change this. At best only a surface level, placebo effect would be achieved. We too must beware of the power of music. It is good if it confirms us in the upward path we are going; but we must beware of the possibility that like Saul, we can be unspiritual people who are made to feel only temporarily better by music. The essential issues are as outlined in :15, and will not be changed by music. &nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to his servants, Find me someone who can play well and bring him to me- </p><p>"Find" is literally to see or provide. The Hebrew language reflects certain realities about the nature of God's ways. The common Hebrew word for 'to see', especially when used about God's 'seeing', means also 'to provide'. Abraham comforted Isaac that "God will see for himself [AV 'provide'] the lamb" (<a href='B:10 22:8'>Gen 22:8</a> RVmg:); and thus the RVmg. interprets 'Jehovah-Jireh' as meaning 'the Lord will see, or provide' (<a href='B:10 22:14'>Gen 22:14</a>). The same word is used here when Saul asks his servants to "provide" him a man. When Hagar said "You God see me" (<a href='B:10 16:13'>Gen 16:13</a>) she was expressing her gratitude for His provision for her. What this means in practice is that the fact God sees and knows all things means that He can and will therefore and thereby provide for us in the circumstances of life; for He sees and knows all things.</p>


text:
<p>Then one of the young men said, I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite who is skilful in playing, a mighty man of valour, a man of war, who speaks well and is good-looking, and Yahweh is with him- </p><p>"Young men" means just that, and is not the usual word used of Saul's servants. Perhaps they had grown up with him, having also been taken from Bethlehem to serve Saul, as Samuel had predicted Israel's king would do. They say nothing of David's victory over lion and bear which he mentions in <a href='B:90 17:34-36'>1Sa 17:34-36</a>. Instead, David was known by the other youngsters for having fought valiantly against the Philistines. His fights with the wild animals were personal things to him, he didn't share them with others, and only in extremis did he tell Saul about them in order to let him fight Goliath. There are private things which occur within our experience with God, deliverances so amazing and personal it's not appropriate to publically share them with others.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Saul sent messengers to Jesse and said, Send me David your son, who is with the sheep- </p><p>This was in fulfilment of Samuel's warning that Israel's king would take their young men to serve him. And yet through this curse, blessing was to come. God is never defeated by sin but somehow works through it in a wider sense. They only had a "few sheep" (<a href='B:90 17:28'>1Sa 17:28</a>); David was not from a wealthy family, he was "a poor man" as he says himself (<a href='B:90 18:23'>1Sa 18:23</a>):&nbsp; His later abuse of the "poor man" Uriah once he was rich (<a href='B:100 12:3'>2Sa 12:3</a> s:w:) was therefore the more culpable.</p>


text:
<p>Jesse took a donkey loaded with bread, a bottle of wine and a young goat and sent them by David his son to Saul- </p><p>Bread and wine had been sent to Saul during the process of training him in 1 Samuel 9. Perhaps this was to recall that, in an attempt to prod Saul back to his earlier spirituality. We marvel at God's continued working with this man, despite having already twice rejected him. His activity with those who apparently leave Him is amazing. Situations are arranged to restimulate their previous spiritual connections.</p>


text:
<p>David came to Saul and stood before him. Saul loved him greatly and he became his armour bearer- </p><p>For "loved him", see on <a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>. But by <a href='B:90 17:15'>1Sa 17:15</a>; <a href='B:90 17:56'>1Sa 17:56</a>, David has returned to the sheep and Saul is ignorant of him. Saul's mental illness may well have involved short term memory loss, and he may have totally forgotten about the young David who came to play for him and was then dismissed; or perhaps David himself wanted to leave the court. This verse could also be a summary statement of what happened, and then 1 Samuel 17 explains how it came about, with that chapter climaxing in David's glory and, as we would learn here, promotion to Saul's armourbearer, carrying the very armour of Saul which he himself had declined to use.</p><p>Saul loved David. David had spiritually helped him, and the very special relationship between the spiritual helper and the helped had fully developed. Yet in such cases it isn't uncommon for there to arise a bitterness between the convert and the converter; exactly as happened with David and Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent to Jesse saying, Please let David stay with me, for I am pleased with him- </p><p>See on :21; <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. "Stay with me" is "Stand before me", as if this was an official position. But as noted on :21, we may be reading here a summary statement of what Saul did to David after the victory over Goliath, and now in 1 Samuel 17 we are to read how this situation came about. This is typical of Hebrew writing and prose style.</p>


text:
<p>When the spirit from God was on Saul, David took the harp and played, and Saul was refreshed and felt better and the evil spirit departed from him- </p><p>According to <a href='B:230 35:13'>Psa 35:13</a> "But as for me, when they were sick, my clothing was sackcloth, I afflicted my soul with fasting. My prayer returned into my own bosom". Saul is in view (see on <a href='B:230 35:12'>Psa 35:12</a>). The sickness of Saul was psychological, and David not only played the harp for him but also prayed and fasted in sackcloth for him. This again is something we don't see in the historical records.</p><p>I explained on :16 that Saul's illness was confirmed by God through His Spirit working on Saul's psychological issues, which arose from his own unspirituality. Music could not resolve those issues, apart from by some temporary placebo effect. And we must be aware likewise of 'feel good' religion caused by music. This is not to decry the use of music, but it is a caveat sounded by Saul's case.</p><p>We could also entertain the possibility that God departing from Saul may mean that the Angel physically left him; for God makes His Angels Spirits, and He works through them (<a href='B:230 104:4'>Psa 104:4</a>)- the Hebrew for 'depart' can imply physical movement (it is also translated 'withdraw', 'pluck away' etc:). At times in our lives we may feel the presence of God coming and going. Perhaps such feelings are connected with the presence or absence of our Angel, although the Angel leaving us does not necessarily imply God's displeasure with us. The Angel may return to God (cp. Angels ascending and descending on Jacob's ladder) to report on His actions or to seek further commands; or they may depart from us in order to give us a feeling of spiritual depression so that our faith is tempted all the more. Job and Jesus on the cross are prime examples of this- hence the real anguish of&nbsp;the Lord's cry "My God, My God (a reference to His Angel?), Why hast Thou forsaken Me". In this case, an added trial of the crucifixion would have been that Jesus did not feel at His spiritual strongest to face the ordeal. Job explains&nbsp; how all things in life come and go in rhythms, and so also does our spirituality (<a href='B:220 12:15'>Job 12:15</a>; <a href='B:220 34:29'>Job 34:29</a>; <a href='B:220 36:32'>Job 36:32</a>; <a href='B:220 39:3'>Job 39:3</a> - the context of each of these needs to be studied to get the point). So the Lord was perhaps on a spiritual 'low' cycle due to the Angel not being with Him. It seems that great stress is placed in Scripture on the Angels physically moving through space, both on the earth and between Heaven and earth, in order to fulfil their tasks, rather than being static in Heaven or earth and bringing things about by just willing them to happen. See on <a href='B:10 18:10'>Gen 18:10</a>. However, the essential reference here is as explained on :16; God was confirming Saul's spirit psychologically by His Spirit acting upon him.</p>


text:
<p>Now the Philistines gathered their armies to battle and assembled at Socoh, which belongs to Judah, and they encamped between Socoh and Azekah in Ephesdammim-</p><p><strong>David and Goliath</strong></p><p>David must be one of the greatest types of Christ. At this time of the David and Goliath conflict he was a shepherd, despised by his brethren, trying to save Israel at a time of dire physical suffering and spiritual apostasy. These connections alone should make us scan this record for deeper Messianic allusions. The giant strongman falling to the earth because of a stone suggests Nebuchadnezzar's image of Daniel 2, where the stone refers to Christ. Note how lion and bear (17:34 cp. <a href='B:340 7:4-5'>Dan 7:4-5</a>) and brass and iron (17:5-7 cp. <a href='B:340 2:32-33'>Dan 2:32-33</a>) are all mentioned in the record. Goliath's death by a fatal wound in the head (<a href='B:90 17:49'>1Sa 17:49</a>) must look back to <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>, again connecting David and the stone with the seed of the woman (Christ) and equating Goliath with the seed of the serpent. This is confirmed by the repetitious description of Goliath in battle with David four times as covered in "brass" from head to foot (17:5,6); which is related to the word translated "serpent" and is a symbol of sin. According to some etymologists, "Philistine" fundamentally means 'one who rolls in the dust', i:e. a serpent; and significantly, Goliath is several times described as "the Philistine". But he may also look ahead to a latter day personification of militant Palestinians, also to be brought down by the Son of David. Six being the number of the flesh it is significant that his "height was six cubits and a span::. his spear's head weighed six hundred shekels" (17:4,7). It is even possible that the "man of sin" of 2 Thessalonians 2 refers back to Goliath as his prototype, in which case the image of Daniel 2 and the man of sin are equated.</p><p>Goliath, representing the seed of the serpent, a personification of sin (i:e. the Biblical devil), needed a man to fight him (17:8,9). The men of Israel cowered in fear, wishing they could only have the strength and courage necessary, but looking one on another helplessly as the invincible giant made his boast. How to overcome him and the evil intent of this man against God's people was what the men's conversation revolved around: "Have you seen this man that is come up? Surely to defy Israel is he come up". They also discussed the glorious reward being offered: "It shall be, that the man who kills him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and make his father's house free in Israel" - and throw in his daughter for good measure too (17:25). But "all the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, and were sore afraid" (17:24). This may well refer to those who thought about being Israel's "champion" in fighting Goliath, rather than speaking about the Israelite army as a whole. Now what more precise description could we wish for of our feelings in the struggle against sin? There seems a similarity here with men and Angels weeping because no man was found worthy to look upon or pen the book of life (<a href='B:730 5:3-5'>Rev 5:3-5</a>)- until our Lord prevailed on the cross:&nbsp; 'Golgotha' meaning 'The place of the skull' or even a form of Gol Goliath, may well be the place near Jerusalem where David buried Goliath's skull (17:54), greatly strengthening this connection. "Ephes-Dammim" meaning 'border of blood' suggests 'Aceldama', the "field of blood". Goliath coming out to make his challenges at morning and evening (<a href='B:90 17:16'>1Sa 17:16</a>) coincided with the daily sacrifices which should have been offered at those times, with their reminder of sin and the need for dedication to God. The thoughtful Israelite must surely have seen in Goliath a personification of sin which the daily sacrifices could do nothing to overcome.</p><p>The ultimate wager</p><p>If David represents the Lord Jesus and Goliath represents sin personified, then his supporting Philistines must be the armies of our individual sins, depending for their strength and power on this principle of the devil (cp. Goliath). The Israelites were effectively the servants of the Philistines before this battle, although with a theoretical chance of freedom; and similarly with mankind before Christ's death. However, this relationship between Israel and the Philistines was now to be formalized and made permanent: "Choose you a man for you:::if he be able to fight with me, and to kill me, then will we be your servants: but if I prevail against him, and kill him, then shall ye be our servants" (17:8,9). This was exactly the contest between sin and our Lord; if He had failed in His mission, we would have permanently been in bondage to sin, as we were effectively even before the cross.</p><p>Something of the same wager is implied in <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>, another prophecy of the cross- either the man kills the snake by hitting it on the head, or the snake will bite the man’s heel. He has to kill it outright, first time. Yet thanks to His victory we are now free from sin- and more than that, our sins (cp. the Philistines) should now be subservient to us; <a href='B:520 6:17-18'>Rom 6:17-18</a> may even be referring back to this passage: "You were the servants of sin, but (by baptism into Christ's death)::. being then made free from sin, you became the servants of righteousness". This sheds more light on the immense pressure on our Lord, knowing that just one slip would result in the permanent servitude of man to the sin which he hated. No wonder He appeared a man of sorrows.</p><p>Despised and rejected</p><p>Plenty of other details now appear relevant to the Lord's crucifixion. Both his family and the men of Israel generally rejected David's claims to be able to save Israel (<a href='B:90 17:28-30'>1Sa 17:28-30</a>). Eliab's "Why did you come down here?" matches Christ's brothers telling him "depart hence" (<a href='B:500 7:3'>Joh 7:3</a>). The crucifixion psalms emphasize how the Lord Jesus felt rejected by both Israel and His family as He fought His Goliath then (e:g. <a href='B:230 69:8'>Psa 69:8</a>). Arguing back from the experience of his Lord, it would seem that David was really hurt and cut by the discouragement he received. 'Eliab' meaning 'God of my father' invites comparison with the Jews who despised our Lord's claims at the time of His death. The alternative rendering 'God is my Father' would connect with Israel being God's son (<a href='B:20 4:22'>Exo 4:22</a>).</p><p>It is twice stressed that David's brothers "followed Saul" (<a href='B:90 17:13-14'>1Sa 17:13-14</a>); is it possible to argue back from this that Christ's brothers were strong Judaists? His family appear to have later disowned him during Saul’s persecution (<a href='B:230 31:11'>Psa 31:11</a>), fleeing from him, as the Lord’s friends also did (<a href='B:230 31:11'>Psa 31:11</a> = <a href='B:470 26:56'>Mat 26:56</a>). David's being sent by his father to see his brethren has echoes of Joseph's experience- which was also highly typical of the Lord Jesus. Joseph's problems with his brothers may well indicate a great barrier between the Lord Jesus and His natural brothers (who surely would have always resented the fact He was the firstborn in the eyes of their mother, whilst they were most likely convinced He was illegitimate).</p>&nbsp;</p><p><p>David's other brothers also have names which have connections with an apostate Israel; see on :13. Similarly, Saul too represented the Jewish system, as the one who appeared superficially to Israel to be the one who could overcome all enemies, i:e. sin in the parable (<a href='B:90 8:20'>1Sa 8:20</a>). Doubtless one of the reasons they were attracted to Saul was because his large warrior physique made him seem a match for the giant Philistines in these man to man duels that often decided whole battles in those days. And the men of Israel should have learnt at the time of the crucifixion that the Law which appeared so powerful to save was unable to do so. By contrast we are specifically told that David was not of unduly great height (so <a href='B:90 16:7'>1Sa 16:7</a> implies), but was chosen because of the spiritual state of his heart.</p><p>We have seen how Goliath was a 'man of sin'; the New Testament concept of Satan can describe both the Jewish system and also sin, because "the strength of sin is the (Jewish) law". The great height of both Saul and Goliath would inevitably have been noticed; as if to imply that Saul (representing the Law) was as superficially as powerful as Goliath was. There seems to be a verbal connection at least between the Jews' mocking question of Christ "Where is Your father?" (<a href='B:500 8:19'>Joh 8:19</a>) and Saul's "whose son is this youth" (17:55)- or was Saul's question also a subtle accusation of illegitimacy? <a href='B:230 106:13'>Psa 106:13</a> also seems to describe Israel's rebellions in language relevant to Saul, as if he represented them: "They sang His praise (cp. Saul prophesying). They soon forgat His works; they waited not for His counsel" - cp. Saul in <a href='B:90 13:8'>1Sa 13:8</a>. Note how Saul lost the animals (asses) he was given to look after; while David preserved his father's sheep, maybe looking forward to the Jewish system's inability to save its people compared to Christ's keeping of us.</p><p>Of sheep and shepherds</p><p>We can now attempt a more chronological analysis of the confrontation between David and Goliath: "And David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and went, as Jesse commanded him" (17:20). There being no human reason for David to leave his shepherding (17:28), there may be the implication that Jesse knew more about David's mission than appears on the surface. Thus David could say to Eliab concerning his coming to the battle "Is there not a cause" (17:29)- i:e. 'I'm not just here to bring provisions- but for something far more important'. It would be fitting if Jesse represented God, in which case the commandment to go and see the brethren would correspond to Joseph being told by Jacob (cp. God) to go and see his brethren (<a href='B:10 37:13'>Gen 37:13</a>). This resulted in his figurative death and resurrection in the pit, comparable with the Son being sent by the Father to inspect the Jewish vineyard, with the subsequent murder of Him by the husbandmen (<a href='B:490 20:14'>Luk 20:14</a>).</p><p>"As the Father gave me commandment, even so I do. Arise::." (<a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a>) is in the context of Christ's going to fight sin on the cross; and it connects very nicely with David receiving the father's command and arising to go. David leaving the sheep and going to fight Goliath recalls the parable of Christ as the good shepherd leaving the flock and going to save the lost sheep (<a href='B:490 15:4-6'>Luk 15:4-6</a>). The shepherd goes alone at night up into the hills (cp. Isaac going to be sacrificed in the hills), and carries the lamb on his shoulder- as Christ carried the cross of our sins on his shoulder to redeem the lost sheep of mankind (<a href='B:290 53:6'>Isa 53:6</a>). This lost sheep parable is also picked up in <a href='B:670 2:25'>1Pe 2:25</a>: "For you were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the shepherd and bishop of your souls" (i:e. Christ the shepherd). But this in turn is quoting <a href='B:290 53:5-6'>Isa 53:5-6</a>: "All we like sheep have gone astray::. but he was wounded (on the cross) for our transgressions", which is thus the parallel to the saving of the lost sheep. This interpretation of the lost sheep parable- i:e. that the shepherd going to save the sheep represents Christ going to die on the cross- was first prompted by David leaving the sheep with the keeper to go and fight Goliath, representing Christ's saving us from sin on the cross. The leaving of the sheep with the keeper perhaps looks forward to Christ's entrusting the disciples to the Father's care in those agonizing days while death parted him from them, as David's encounter with Goliath did. David's subsequent leaving of them altogether to go and live in the King's court clearly looks forward to our Lord's ascension to Heaven after his victory over the real Goliath.</p><p>Note how in the fight with Goliath, David progressively shed all human distractions; he left the sheep with a keeper, then on arrival at the battlefield he "left his things in the hand of the keeper of supplies" (17:22), and finally left Saul's armour behind, representing the Law as a means of overcoming sin. And there must also have been progressive stages in our Lord's coming towards that state of total faith necessary for His final victory:&nbsp; David "ran into the army" after leaving behind "his things", and also ran towards the Philistine. The eagerness of our Lord to fight sin, despite knowing the supreme difficulty and seriousness of failure, sets us a matchless example of the enthusiasm we should have in our striving against sin.</p><p>Revving up the faith</p><p>"He came to the trench as the host was going forth to the fight, and shouted for the battle" (17:20). What a terrifying sight and sound that must have been; and similarly the strength of sin and man's inability to overcome must have struck fear into our Lord's heart as he came closer to the cross. David as a newcomer and onlooker would especially have noticed the obvious weakness of Israel. His seeing the weak knees of all the warriors of Israel must have made him feel like his Lord did on contemplating the fact that He personally would have to overcome sin: "He saw that there was no man, and wondered that there was no intercessor: therefore his own arm brought salvation::. for he put on righteousness as a breastplate, and an helmet of salvation::. the garments of vengeance" (<a href='B:290 59:16-17'>Isa 59:16-17</a>). Connect this with David's shunning of such physical armour for its spiritual counterpart. Is there a conscious allusion to David and Goliath here?.</p>&nbsp;</p><p><p>David asked about the promised reward for killing Goliath as if it was a genuine motivation for him to rev up his faith and go ahead. "The man who kills him, the King will enrich him with great riches, and will give him his daughter, and make his father's house free in Israel" (17:25). Our victorious Lord received these rewards in the form of the spiritual riches of greater understanding of the Father, being given us, God's spiritual daughter, in marriage, and us being made free from the legal requirements of the Law. This again suggests that Saul in his heavy duty taxation system represented the demands of the Mosaic law, from which the victory of the cross made us free. Amazingly, it was the beauty which our Lord saw in us which inspired him to take a deep breath of faith and step forward.</p><p>Angelic help</p><p>"Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?" (17:26). At least three times David stresses that he will overcome Goliath with the help of the Angelic armies: "This::. Philistine shall be as (the lion and bear I killed with Angelic help), seeing he (also, like them) has defied the armies of the living God ('God of the living ones'?- i:e. the Angel cherubim, 17:36). Thus David says to Goliath "I come to you in the name of the Lord of Hosts (invariably an Angelic title of God), the God of the (Angelic) armies of Israel" (17:45). The Messianic parable is so complete that this triple emphasis on David's Angelic help must have relevance to Christ's overcoming of sin on the cross. It seems highly likely that it is through the Angels that Christ (and ourselves in our crosses) received power to overcome sin (cp. Goliath), over and above any human strength which we can muster. One can therefore better understand the spiritual panic of our Lord when He felt this Angelic presence and help withdrawn on the cross (<a href='B:470 27:46'>Mat 27:46</a>).</p><p>Total faith</p><p>"And David said to Saul, Let no man's heart fail because of him; your servant will go and fight with this Philistine" (17:32). This must be another John 14 allusion- this time to "Let not your heart be troubled" (<a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>), spoken by Jesus as he was about to go forth to the cross, as David was about to fight Goliath. His subsequent references to his earlier delivering of sheep out of the mouth of the lion and bear indicate that Israel were in the same situation as those lambs had been; again, as if the good shepherd David/ Jesus had left the sheep safely (17:20) and gone to save the lost- and almost killed- sheep of Israel, both natural and spiritual. And on another level our Lord's previous triumphs of faith, not least in the wilderness temptations, would have given him courage for the ultimate spiritual test of the cross:&nbsp; </p><p>Such was his totality of faith that David could calmly call out " I will smite you, and take your head from you" (17:46). David's emphasis on cutting off Goliath's head (cp. :54) and the stone hitting the forehead perhaps indicates that the significance of Christ's victory over the devil was that men now have the possibility of sharing His victory over the mind of the flesh. This is where the real David and Goliath battle is worked out so many times each day. David continued: "That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel", which seems to be referred to in <a href='B:500 14:31'>Joh 14:31</a>: "That the world may know" that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself through Christ's loving obedience to the Father (cp. <a href='B:500 17:23'>Joh 17:23</a>).</p><p>Brief battle</p><p>David crossed the brook and then cast the stone at Goliath (17:49). This connects with our Lord crossing the brook Kidron, and maybe echoes him being a stone's cast distant from the disciples&nbsp; (<a href='B:490 22:41'>Luk 22:41</a>). There is a continued emphasis on David's zeal to fight Goliath- as the Lord had to fight sin: "David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and" disarmed him (17:51). There is a possibility that this is consciously referred to in <a href='B:580 2:15'>Col 2:15</a>, where we read that Christ on the cross "Disarmed (NIV) principalities and powers, making a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them"- as if Goliath represented the Law and the sin engendered by it which our Lord conquered on the cross.</p><p>Triumph over every sin</p><p>"And the men of Israel and Judah arose, and shouted, and pursued the Philistines" (17:52). That shout of glee and triumph should be ours on considering Christ's victory- and because the devil has been destroyed by his death, we should enthusiastically pursue our sins right back to their source, confident we will have the victory- as the Philistines were chased back to their home towns, such as Sharaim, meaning 'two gates'- as if hinting at the promise that Abraham's seed, both Christ and us, would inherit the gate of our enemies. Note that the enemies that the seed of Abraham would conquer are our sins (<a href='B:10 22:18'>Gen 22:18</a> cp. <a href='B:490 1:73-75'>Luk 1:73-75</a>; <a href='B:510 3:25-26'>Act 3:25-26</a>; <a href='B:400 7:19'>Mic 7:19</a>). David seemed to have anticipated that his victory would be pressed home by the Israelites attacking the individual Philistines: "The Lord::. will give you into our hands" (17:47). And no doubt our Lord hoped that He eventually would see that the travail of His soul had produced the same effect in us. So let us too arise, shout, and pursue those sins which appear so triumphant.</p><p>The "reproach" was taken away from Israel by David's victory (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>), as Christ carried away the reproach of our sins on the cross (<a href='B:230 69:9'>Psa 69:9</a>; <a href='B:520 15:3'>Rom 15:3</a>). Therefore we can stand unreproachable before God at judgment, with no sin at all against us- due to Christ's victory (<a href='B:580 1:22'>Col 1:22</a>).</p><p>Additional homework for the enthusiast would be a study of Psalms 8, 144 (see notes there), both of which appear to be about the David and Goliath struggle, and are therefore a description of our Lord's feelings after his resurrection. <a href='B:230 144:3'>Psa 144:3</a> is amazing: " What is::. the son of man (Jesus) that You take account of him?", showing our Lord's humility is such that even now He is amazed that God bothered to help Him.</p><p>Political aspects</p><p>The different metals which feature in the description of Goliath all find their place in the beasts of Daniel 7, which are destroyed by the coming of Christ. This implies that the nations of the world are confederate under one charismatic, seemingly invincible leader; the latter day Goliath. Hit by David's stone, Goliath keeled over "upon his face to the earth" (<a href='B:90 17:49'>1Sa 17:49</a>), just as Dagon his god had done earlier. Thus Goliath was treated like his gods, as the lives of people of this world consist in the idols of materialism they possess. Perhaps this "man of sin" will likewise be a Philistine / Palestinian? We have mentioned the evident similarity between Daniel's image and the Goliath man of sin. The place of the conflict was a little South of Jerusalem, halfway between Jerusalem and the Mediterranean. This sounds suspiciously like the king of the north planting his tents (cp. the Philistine's) "between the seas (Dead and Mediterranean) in the glorious holy mountain" (<a href='B:340 11:45'>Dan 11:45</a>). The Philistines making their constant painful incursions into an apostate Israel may well have links with the Palestinian activities today. Goliath was from Gath (<a href='B:90 17:4'>1Sa 17:4</a>), meaning "winepress", with its Armageddon and judgement hints. Similarly the conflict lasted for 40 days (<a href='B:90 17:16'>1Sa 17:16</a>)- another link with the coming Divine judgements. David's mocking "Who is this uncircumcised Philistine?" matches "Who are you, O great mountain?" which was to be destroyed "not by might:. but by My spirit" (<a href='B:450 4:6-7'>Zec 4:6-7</a>), as Goliath was killed by David without a sword in his hand, i:e. not by human might. Note that the Philistines were pitched on a mountain, comparing with the description of Babylon as "O great mountain". Thus the king of the North, the man of sin, Babylon, Daniel's image of the last days are all alluding to Goliath, implying that Christ will destroy all of them during one conflict. It is worth questioning whether all these various systems in opposition to Christ will be separate at the time of His return; present developments suggest there may be one huge opposing system (the beast) which incorporates all these historical precedents. But now the possibilities are opened up to the reader to work through 1 Samuel 17 again from this political/ latter day prophecy perspective.</p><p>Matchless Jonathan</p><p>It must be significant that straight after the fight between David and Goliath, representing Christ's conquest of sin on the cross, "the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul::. then Jonathan and David made a covenant" (<a href='B:90 18:1'>1Sa 18:1</a>; <a href='B:90 18:3'>1Sa 18:3</a>). After the cross, a new covenant was made between Jesus and us, making Jonathan representative of us. The extraordinary bond between David and Jonathan then becomes a type of our relationship with Jesus after His victory on the cross. To confirm the covenant, "Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle", pointing forward to our total divesting of human strength and giving it to our Lord when we appreciate the greatness of His victory without those things (cp. <a href='B:90 17:39'>1Sa 17:39</a>).</p><p>Jonathan&nbsp;lived in an environment which was bitterly opposed to David; yet he stuck up for him, at the risk of embarrassment and opposition, and certain damage to his own prospects (<a href='B:90 20:31'>1Sa 20:31</a>); as we should in this wicked world. As Saul cast a javelin at David, so he did at Jonathan (<a href='B:90 20:33'>1Sa 20:33</a>); as we should fellowship the sufferings of David's greater son. Saul's hate of David resulted in Jonathan being "grieved for David, because his father had done him shame" (<a href='B:90 20:34'>1Sa 20:34</a>). Is this not our response to our world in its' ceaseless blasphemy of the Lord Jesus Christ?</p><p>Only occasionally could Jonathan and David meet, brief moments of intense fellowship away from the rest of the world, strengthening each other's hand in the Lord (<a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>), reconfirming their covenant together (<a href='B:90 18:3'>1Sa 18:3</a>; <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:90 20:16'>1Sa 20:16</a>; <a href='B:90 23:18'>1Sa 23:18</a>). No wonder their goodbyes were so hard: " they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (<a href='B:90 20:41'>1Sa 20:41</a>). Not surprisingly, they looked forward to the promised day of David's Kingdom: "You shall be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto you" (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). Our communion meetings with the Lord during our wilderness journey must surely mirror those meetings. &nbsp; </p><p>The depth of the David/Jonathan relationship introduces to the pages of Scripture the idea of agape love- a love higher than normal human experience. "The beauty of Israel is (singular- about Jonathan, :25) slain upon your high places::. I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant have you been unto me: your love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women" (<a href='B:100 1:19'>2Sa 1:19</a>; <a href='B:100 1:26'>2Sa 1:26</a>). Such love should typify our relationship with Jesus. But does it?</p><p>Our Inspiration</p><p>The David and Goliath conflict was not only inspirational to Jonathan, but to the men of Israel generally. It seems from <a href='B:130 11:13-14'>1Ch 11:13-14</a> that soon after the fight with Goliath, there was another skirmish with the Philistines at Pas-Dammim [RVmg. ‘Ephes-Dammim’- the same place where David fought Goliath]. Again, the men of Israel fled, but those who held fast were given a “great deliverance” [“salvation”, RVmg:], just as David is described as achieving. Those men who stayed and fought were doubtless inspired by David; just as we should be, time and again, by the matchless victory of our Lord on Golgotha.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and the men of Israel assembled and encamped in the valley of Elah, and set the battle in array against the Philistines- </p><p>The idea seems to be that the Israelites were proactive in setting the battle in array against the Philistines, but once faced with Goliath, they lost their nerve. As explained on :1 this reflects our confidence in overcoming sin in our strength being dented once we realize the enormity of the struggle and strength of the opposition.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistines stood on the mountain on the one side and Israel stood on the mountain on the other side, and there was a valley between them- </p><p>The valley of Elah was described by one visitor as "strewn with rounded and waterworn pebbles". Consistently, the Biblical record is credible.</p>


text:
<p>A champion went out of the camp of the Philistines named Goliath of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span- </p><p>Joshua / Jesus had destroyed most of the Anakim (<a href='B:60 11:21-22'>Jos 11:21-22</a>), but the Israelites failed to capitalize on his victory. With the result that the few Anakim left in Gath had spawned Goliath. It's all a parable of what happens unless we totally root sin out of our lives and capitalize on the Lord's work. Depending how a cubit is defined, Goliath’s height was between nine feet nine inches and eleven feet four inches.</p>


text:
<p>He had a helmet of bronze on his head and he wore a bronze coat of mail which weighed five thousand shekels- </p><p>About 157 pounds. It is copper which is really being referred to here as bronze was unknown then. I have often suggested that these historical records were rewritten under inspiration in Babylon for the encouragement of the exiles, and maybe the reference to bronze was inserted then.</p>


text:
<p>He had bronze shin armour on his legs and a javelin of bronze between his shoulders- </p><p>"Javelin" could also be translated as some kind of armour, possibly for the throat. He was covered in armour, that is the impression. David's slingshot was therefore amazingly accurate, entering the one point which was not covered. He would have looked like a living metal image (see on :1).</p>


text:
<p>The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam and his iron spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels, and his shield bearer went before him- </p><p>About 25 pounds. All the armour made Goliath very cumbersome in movement. David had the faith to see through all this, whereas the external appearance was all that the other men saw.</p>


text:
<p>He stood and shouted to the armies of Israel, Why have you come out to line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and are you not servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me- </p><p>The Targum adds: "I am Goliath the Philistine of Gath, who slew the two sons of Eli the priest, Hophni and Phinehas, and carried away captive the ark of the covenant of the Lord, and brought it into the house of Dagon my idol, and it was there in the cities of the Philistines seven months. Moreover in all the wars of the Philistines I go forth at the head of the army, and we have been victorious in war, and have cast down the slain as the dust of the earth, and hitherto the Philistines have not honoured me, to make me captain of a thousand over them. But as for you children of Israel, what valiant deed has Saul the son of Kish of Gibeah wrought for you, that ye have made him king over you? If he be a valiant man, let him come down and do battle with me; but if he be a coward, choose you". Saul as the tallest Israelite was indeed the appropriate, intended person to fight on Israel's behalf, not least because God had given him the potential power to defeat the Philistines.</p>


text:
<p>If he is able to fight and kill me, then we will be your servants, but if I overcome him and kill him, then you will be our servants, and serve us- </p><p>This wager (see on :1 for the typical significance), typical of how conflicts were resolved at the time, meant in practice that Saul was wary of allowing anyone to take it up. His allowing David to do so, without armour, without explaining his planned strategy of using a sling, but only on the basis of his faith in Yahweh::. therefore shows at least some spiritual perspective in Saul. And it is also a tacit admission of his own lack of such personal faith.</p><p>"Overcome" is the word Saul will later use about David (<a href='B:90 26:25'>1Sa 26:25</a>), where he sees in David's prevailing over / overcoming Goliath a sign that David will ultimately prevail to become king in his place. Saul realized that Samuel had indeed chosen his successor as king, and it was David; and that kingship was guaranteed by his victory over Goliath. For Saul to seek to kill David when David had overcome even Goliath::. was therefore futile. Saul realized this, but obsessively continued in it. Such is the obsessive, blind nature of jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day! Give me a man and let us fight one another!- </p><p>Goliath's defiance of Israel is a major theme (<a href='B:90 17:10'>1Sa 17:10</a>; <a href='B:90 17:25-26'>1Sa 17:25-26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45'>1Sa 17:45</a>). Later Philistine defiance is described with the same word (<a href='B:100 21:21'>2Sa 21:21</a>; <a href='B:100 23:9'>2Sa 23:9</a>). David's victory over Goliath was inspirational to other Israelites, just as the Lord's triumph on the cross should be to us. The history here would have been inspirational when the Assyrians likewise defied the living God, and again this is a theme of the record (<a href='B:120 19:4'>2Ki 19:4</a>; <a href='B:120 19:16'>2Ki 19:16</a>; <a href='B:120 19:22-23'>2Ki 19:22-23</a>; <a href='B:140 32:17'>2Ch 32:17</a> s:w:). It was also inspiration for the exiles when they were reproached / defied (s:w. <a href='B:160 6:13'>Neh 6:13</a>). For another allusion to David and Goliath in the Assyrian context, see on :11.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul and all Israel heard those words of the Philistine they were dismayed, and terrified-</p><p>Being "dismayed and terrified" is the term David in turn uses to his son Solomon (<a href='B:130 22:13'>1Ch 22:13</a>; <a href='B:130 28:20'>1Ch 28:20</a>). He was thereby urging Solomon not to worry if he was out of step with all Israel; if they were dismayed and terrified, he was still to walk in faith as David had done at the time of the Goliath crisis. It is also used to urge the people toward the spirit of David rather than that of Israel in <a href='B:140 20:15'>2Ch 20:15</a>; <a href='B:140 20:17'>2Ch 20:17</a>. The same phrase is also used in urging the people of Judah in Hezekiah's time to consider the Assyrians to be as a Goliath which they like David could vanquish (<a href='B:140 32:7'>2Ch 32:7</a>). See on :10. The exiles likewise were urged not to be dismayed and terrified at the reproach of men (<a href='B:290 51:7'>Isa 51:7</a>; <a href='B:300 30:10'>Jer 30:10</a>), very clearly making the history with Goliath relevant to their times.</p>


text:
<p>Now David was the son of an Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, whose name was Jesse. He had eight sons and was considered an old man in the days of Saul- </p><p>Heb. "that Ephrathite", meaning 'the one already mentioned'- in the account of David's anointing.</p>


text:
<p>The three eldest sons of Jesse had gone after Saul to the battle. Their names were Eliab the firstborn, next to him Abinadab and the third Shammah- </p><p>I suggested on :1 that the sons of Jesse, David's brothers, were against him and were identified with Saul. In the type being worked out here and as explained on :1, they represented Israel after the flesh in their initial rejection of the kingship and anointing of the Lord Jesus. Abinadab means "The Father is willing"; cp. "All day long have I stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people" (<a href='B:520 10:21'>Rom 10:21</a>). Shammah means 'desolation, astonishment, ruin'. God would "make your land desolate (shammah)" (<a href='B:300 4:7'>Jer 4:7</a>), and Israel were to be an astonishment to the world after their rejection.</p>


text:
<p>David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul- </p><p>It is stressed that David's brothers "followed Saul" and were "gone after Saul" (see on :13). And yet Saul had been dismissed from his kingly role, and in the presence of Jesse's sons, David had been anointed as his replacement. This could suggest that the brothers jealously refused to accept this and were strongly supportive of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Now David went back and forth from Saul to tend his father’s sheep at Bethlehem- </p><p>AV "went and returned from Saul", as if this was a permanent leaving of Saul by David. In :56, Saul is ignorant of him. Saul's mental illness may well have involved short term memory loss, and he may have totally forgotten about the young David who came to play for him and was then dismissed; or perhaps David himself wanted to leave the court. Rather like Daniel slipping away from high profile court life when promoted to it, because of his conscience toward God.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine drew near morning and evening and took his stand for forty days- </p><p>"Forty" seems a round number; Saul, David and Solomon are all recorded as reigning 40 years, but there are some chronological difficulties if the figure is taken literally. Ancient battles rarely took so long. It seemed that the Philistines really wanted to resolve things by a duel, but the Israelites were scared. The idea may be that he offered the duel for 40 days, and if Israel refused, then the confident Philistines would attack the psychologically worn down Israelites. Perhaps it was on the final day of the challenge that David intervened. This would also explain why Saul was so desperate that despite the serious implications of the wager, he agreed to allow David to do it.</p>


text:
<p>Jesse said to David his son, Now take an ephah of parched grain and these ten loaves, and carry them quickly to the camp to your brothers- </p><p>Perhaps the information about the 40 days wager, and the time running out, is inserted in :16 to show the hand of providence in Jesse sending David at the end of the period. If David was famed as a man of war already, we wonder why he was not with the army. Perhaps his return from Saul was because he didn't want to be in such an unspiritual environment; and his brothers considered him too young for army service (:28).</p>


text:
<p>and take these ten cheeses to the captain of their thousand- </p><p>Supporting evidence for the comment I often make that the word "thousand" is not always to be taken literally, and can refer to a group / regiment / family. This avoids the problem of otherwise unrealistically large numbers being spoken of at places in the record.</p><p>See how your brothers are doing and bring back news- </p><p>The Hebrew means "their pledge"; they were to return a collateral on a loan. This is rather curious, until we note that David's son Solomon in the Proverbs is quite obsessed with forbidding it in very strong terms (<a href='B:240 6:1-3'>Pro 6:1-3</a>; <a href='B:240 11:15'>Pro 11:15</a>; <a href='B:240 17:18'>Pro 17:18</a>; <a href='B:240 20:16'>Pro 20:16</a>; <a href='B:240 22:26'>Pro 22:26</a>; <a href='B:240 27:13'>Pro 27:13</a> - all quite some emphasis). Perhaps Solomon recalled some bad experience in his family because of this. David's brothers, Solomon's uncles, were to return a collateral. Perhaps this ruined the family and Solomon's wisdom has some human element in it, reflecting his own bad experiences in his family life. But there is nothing wrong with giving or taking collateral for a loan (<a href='B:20 22:25-27'>Exo 22:25-27</a>); what is condemned in God's law is the abuse of the debtor and the abuse of the situation. See on <a href='B:240 6:1'>Pro 6:1</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Saul and David’s brothers and all the men of Israel were in the valley of Elah, fighting with the Philistines- </p><p>The two camps were on two mountains, divided by the valley where Goliath made his challenge twice / day. It seems both sides fought a bit in the valley and then returned to their mountain top camps.</p>


text:
<p>David rose up early in the morning- There is a much repeated characteristic of God's servants: that they 'rose up early in the morning' and did God's work. In each of the following passages, this phrase is clearly not an idiom; rather does it have an evidently literal meaning: Abraham (<a href='B:10 19:27'>Gen 19:27</a>; <a href='B:10 21:14'>Gen 21:14</a>; <a href='B:10 22:3'>Gen 22:3</a>); Jacob (<a href='B:10 28:18'>Gen 28:18</a>); Job (1:5); Moses (<a href='B:20 8:20'>Exo 8:20</a>; <a href='B:20 9:13'>Exo 9:13</a>; <a href='B:20 24:4'>Exo 24:4</a>; <a href='B:20 34:4'>Exo 34:4</a>); Joshua (<a href='B:60 3:1'>Jos 3:1</a>; <a href='B:60 6:12'>Jos 6:12</a>; <a href='B:60 7:16'>Jos 7:16</a>; <a href='B:60 8:10'>Jos 8:10</a>); Gideon (<a href='B:70 6:38'>Jdg 6:38</a>; <a href='B:70 7:1'>Jdg 7:1</a>); Samuel (<a href='B:90 15:12'>1Sa 15:12</a>); David (<a href='B:90 17:20'>1Sa 17:20</a>; <a href='B:90 29:11'>1Sa 29:11</a>); Hezekiah (<a href='B:120 19:35'>2Ki 19:35</a>; <a href='B:140 29:20'>2Ch 29:20</a>). This is quite an impressive list, numerically. This can be a figure for being zealous (<a href='B:230 127:2'>Psa 127:2</a>; <a href='B:240 27:14'>Pro 27:14</a>; <a href='B:260 7:12'>Son 7:12</a>; <a href='B:290 5:11'>Isa 5:11</a>; <a href='B:430 3:7'>Zep 3:7</a>). God Himself rises up early in His zeal to save and bring back His wayward people (<a href='B:140 36:15'>2Ch 36:15</a>; <a href='B:300 7:13'>Jer 7:13</a>; <a href='B:300 7:25'>Jer 7:25</a>; <a href='B:300 11:7'>Jer 11:7</a>; <a href='B:300 25:3-4'>Jer 25:3-4</a>; <a href='B:300 26:5'>Jer 26:5</a>; <a href='B:300 29:19'>Jer 29:19</a>; <a href='B:300 32:33'>Jer 32:33</a>; <a href='B:300 35:14-15'>Jer 35:14-15</a>; <a href='B:300 44:4'>Jer 44:4</a>). Yet the above examples all show that men literally rose up early in their service to God; this was an expression of their zeal for God, in response to His zeal for us. I'm not suggesting that zeal for God is reflected by rising early rather than staying up late; but it wouldn't be too much to suggest that if we are men of mission, we won't waste our hours in bed. Get up when you wake up.</p><p>Left the sheep with a keeper and took the gifts, and went as Jesse had commanded him; he came to the camp as the army was going forth to the battle, shouting the war cry- </p><p>See on :20. "The war cry" likely included some reference to Yahweh, and yet clearly the Israelite didn't really believe it; whereas David did.</p>


