# commentaries

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>


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>


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>


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:
<a href='B:90 14:8'>14:8</a> Then Jonathan said, We will cross over to them and let them see us- &quot;See us&quot; is the word for denuding, also translated &quot;exile&quot;. 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:
<a href='B:90 14:11'>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!- 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>


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>


text:
<p>Israel and the Philistines put the battle in array, army against army- </p><p>David was walking with his brothers at this time (:23), so this may not have to mean that actual combat was going on. Rather would there have been an exchange of curses and facing off against each other, as was typical of ancient battles, rather than actual combat.</p>


text:
<p>David left his things with the keeper of supplies and ran to the army and came and greeted his brothers-</p><p>David could have returned home after leaving his things. But we get the impression from his "running" that he was zealous for involvement in this conflict.</p>


text:
<p>As he talked with them Goliath came up, the champion, the Philistine of Gath, out of the ranks of the Philistines. He shouted the same words, and David heard them- </p><p>"The same words" might mean 'the same words which David had heard that he was shouting, but now, David heard them for himself first hand'. David's desire was clearly to engage with him.</p>


text:
<p>All the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him and were terrified- </p><p>The armies were each on a mountain, divided by a valley. They fled back to the top of the mountain. Fleeing before their enemies each day was living out the curse for disobedience to the covenant, and surely they were being taught that this was their essential problem.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel said, Have you seen this man who keeps coming up? He comes up to defy Israel. The king has promised to give great riches to the man who kills him, and will give him his daughter and make his father’s house free in Israel- </p><p>I have noted several times that Saul seeks to emulate previous Biblical characters. This offer of his daughter in return for a military victory recalls Caleb's offer of <a href='B:60 15:16'>Jos 15:16</a>. But always Saul is portrayed as only imitating on a surface level. And in this case, he didn't give David his daughter on the terms here offered.</p>


text:
<p>David said to the men who stood by him, What shall be done for the man who kills this Philistine- </p><p>It is as if David wishes to clarify the reward. It could be that to marry Saul's daughter, whom he would have met in his time laying the harp for Saul, was something which further motivated him.</p><p>And takes away the reproach from Israel?- </p><p>Saul's work was to remove the disgrace or "reproach" from Israel (s:w. <a href='B:90 11:2'>1Sa 11:2</a>), as he had done with the Ammonites. 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, Saul fell into a complex of spiritual jealousy. See on <a href='B:90 19:5'>1Sa 19:5</a> for another example.</p><p>Who is this uncircumcised Philistine, that he should defy the armies of the living God?- </p><p>David was inspired by Jonathan's similar attitude in <a href='B:90 14:6'>1Sa 14:6</a>; he may have been the armourbearer for Jonathan at that time. This is the intention of true fellowship, to take inspiration from each other.</p>


text:
<p>The people repeated to him what they had said: This is indeed what is promised to the man who kills him- </p><p>See on :26. The freedom from taxation, which was one of the bad things Saul was prophesied as doing to the people, meant that for that man, Saul was no longer to have kingly power over him. David was to be king, and his victory freed him from Saul's kingship.</p>


text:
<p>Eliab his eldest brother heard when he spoke to the men and Eliab’s anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why have you come down? With whom have you left those few sheep in the wilderness?- </p><p>They only had a "few sheep"; 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><p>I know your pride and the presumption of your heart; you have only come down to see the battle- </p><p>He may mean that David was just trying to provoke someone to go out and fight Goliath, so that he could watch the fight. For the two armies were not themselves engaged in battle, being on opposite mountains divided by the valley of Elah. David comes over as anything but proud. The false accusation of Eliab reveals more about himself than it does about David. It is a classic case of transference; in this case, transferring his pride onto David and judging him for it.</p>


text:
<p>David said, What have I done now? Can I not speak?- </p><p>This has the ring of credibility to it; it is exactly how a youngest brother would talk to his oldest brother when falsely accused. We get the impression that false accusation of David was frequent; as noted on :28, the brothers transferred guilt for their own attitudes onto David.</p>


text:
<p>He turned away from him toward someone else and said the same, and the people answered him as before- </p><p>David seems to have wanted the reward clarified; it was attractive to him. There can be few men who do not have at least some attraction to the father and family of their wife. David really loved Saul's daughter, indeed the prospect of marrying her may have been a large motivator behind his zeal in fighting Goliath and the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>). Saul was not a totally unspiritual man; there are many hints that he had a spiritual side. It's rare indeed that a totally unspiritual person can love a highly spiritual person like David. And yet this fine relationship ended in an intense love-hate affair. So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:23'>Psa 109:23</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David's mind.</p>


text:
<p>When the words of David were heard, they repeated them to Saul and he sent for him- </p><p>I suggested on :16,17 that the 40 day period of the challenge to a duel was coming to an end and Saul was desperate.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of this Philistine. Your servant will go and fight him- </p><p>LXX has this as addressed to Saul, urging him not to have a faint heart because of this Philistine. These were the words of the Lord to His people just before going out to the cross (<a href='B:500 14:1'>Joh 14:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to David, You are not able to go against this Philistine to fight him; you are only a youth, and he has been a man of war from his youth- </p><p>David makes a play on these words by saying that he is "not able" (s:w:) to go against Goliath with Saul's armour. He was indeed not able to fight in human strength, only in God's. See on :42.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Your servant has been keeping his father’s sheep, and when a lion or a bear came and took a lamb out of the flock- </p><p>The young men in <a href='B:90 16:18'>1Sa 16:18</a> say nothing of David's victory over lion and bear which he mentions here. 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>I went out after it and struck it, and rescued it out of its mouth. When it turned on me I caught it by its beard and killed it- </p><p>Lions and bears don't have beards, so the "beard" likely refers to the chin, as the place where the beard grows. The 'rising up' ["turned on me"] of the wild animal against David was to prepare him for the 'rising up' of Goliath against him (:48 s:w:). Circumstances repeat in our lives; even incidents from youth are used to prepare us for similar circumstances, in essence, so that we have our faith tested and developed.</p>


text:
<p>Your servant- </p><p>Often David calls Saul his master, describing himself as Saul's servant (<a href='B:90 17:32'>1Sa 17:32</a>; <a href='B:90 17:34'>1Sa 17:34</a>; <a href='B:90 17:36'>1Sa 17:36</a>; <a href='B:90 20:8'>1Sa 20:8</a>; <a href='B:90 24:6'>1Sa 24:6</a>; <a href='B:90 26:16'>1Sa 26:16</a>; <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>; <a href='B:90 29:3-4'>1Sa 29:3-4</a>; <a href='B:90 30:15'>1Sa 30:15</a>). This was no formal "Sincerely your brother and fellow-servant". This was a real conscious putting of himself down, as the Lord Jesus felt he was a worm rather than a man (<a href='B:230 22:6'>Psa 22:6</a>). If only we would concentrate upon our own status and show some true respect for others on account of their being in the ecclesia, having even been anointed spiritually at their baptism (<a href='B:540 1:21'>2Co 1:21</a>) as Saul was.</p><p>Killed both the lion and the bear. This uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, since he has defied the armies of the living God-</p><p>The armies of God are the Angels, but David saw the trembling armies of Israel as their manifestation upon earth.</p>


text:
<p>David said, Yahweh who delivered me out of the paw of the lion and out of the paw of the bear, will deliver me out of the hand of this Philistine. Saul said to David, Go; and Yahweh be with you- </p><p>To agree to take up the challenge, with the conditions attached of :9, meant that Saul must have believed David had a chance of victory. And yet David was just a youngster with no armour. He didn't explain to Saul that he would be using a sling, he gives his confidence for victory as being in God Himself, and his previous experience of this. So Saul's decision to let the duel go ahead, given the consequences attached to it, was surely based on faith and spiritual reasoning. Saul was not completely unspiritual; and that is the tragedy of the man.</p>


text:
<p>Saul dressed David in his own clothes. He put a bronze helmet on his head and put a coat of mail on him- </p><p>To be dressed in the clothes of a king effectively meant that the king was ceding power to the person now wearing his clothes. The significance of this would only afterwards have been apparent to Saul. Saul would have realized that his anger with Samuel for as it were deposing him from the kingship was inappropriate- for he had effectively resigned it to David himself.</p>


text:
<p>David strapped his sword onto his tunic and he tried to move, but he was not used to it. David said to Saul, I can’t go with these; I am not used to them. So David took them off- </p><p>He didn't explain to Saul that he would be using a sling, he gives his confidence for victory as being in God Himself, and his previous experience of this. The human method he would use was secondary, David is presented as going ahead in total faith. Our human methods must likewise be sidelined. See on :37.</p>


text:
<p>He took his staff in his hand and chose five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in the pouch of his shepherd’s bag. His sling was in his hand as he drew near to the Philistine-</p><p>David took five stones but used only one. Was he faithless and doubting that the first one would hit home? Do those five stones represent the five books of Moses which Psalms 119 tells us was Christ's study all the day, it being through the word that Jesus overcame the mind of sin? Or did he aim to use the other four on Goliath's four giant sons (<a href='B:100 21:16-22'>2Sa 21:16-22</a>)? That shows supreme spiritual ambition. In reality those four were killed later by David's closest followers- and they must have their counterparts amongst us.</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine advanced and came near to David with his shield-bearer in front of him-</p><p>The focus of the record is zoomed close in on the characters, so that it is easy to play Bible television with the record.</p>


text:
<p>When he looked at David he despised him, for he was only a youth, ruddy and handsome-</p><p>Goliath and Saul had the same attitude towards David's youth (:33). As Goliath despised David (<a href='B:90 17:42'>1Sa 17:42</a>), so did Michal. The same word is used (<a href='B:100 6:16'>2Sa 6:16</a>).</p>


text:
<p>The Philistine said to David, Am I a dog that you come at me with sticks? The Philistine cursed David by his gods- </p><p>LXX adds "David said, Nay, but worse than a dog". This would reflect his deep humility, which we also see in his later reflections in Psalms 8 and Psalms 144 that he was most unworthy to have attained the victory. We note that in <a href='B:90 24:14'>1Sa 24:14</a> he also likens himself to a dog. He had a low self image.</p>


text:
<p>He said to David, Come here and I will give your flesh to the birds of the air and the animals of the field-</p><p>The same phrase is used in <a href='B:230 79:2'>Psa 79:2</a> of how Israel were indeed given to the birds and beasts. The implication is that there was no David to arise to save them, because they had rejected him.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said to the Philistine, You come against me with a sword, a spear and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of Armies, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied- </p><p>David could have drawn the contrast between Philistine weaponry and his own sling and stone. But instead he makes the contrast between human strength, and the name of Yahweh. Although the armies of Israel were cowering in unbelief or at best, very weak faith... David has the grace to talk not simply about his God but the God of those weak armies of Israel. We note the parallel between the armies of Israel and the Angelic armies of Yahweh in Heaven. We note the same parallel in <a href='B:130 14:15'>1Ch 14:15</a>. David believed this, even though the armies of Israel didn't.</p>


text:
<p>Today Yahweh will deliver you into my hand- </p><p>The idea behind "today" is "right now" (as in <a href='B:90 14:33'>1Sa 14:33</a> s:w:).</p><p>I will strike you down and cut off your head. I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines today to the birds of the air and the wild animals of the earth- </p><p>Note how the Angelic ‘hosts’ of God are contrasted with the ‘hosts’ of the enemies of God’s people (<a href='B:100 5:24'>2Sa 5:24</a>; <a href='B:90 17:45-46'>1Sa 17:45-46</a>; <a href='B:290 37:36'>Isa 37:36</a>). David and Goliath is the great example- David came to the hosts of the Philistines in the name of the God of Angelic hosts. And hence his faithful confidence that “the battle is the Lord’s” (<a href='B:90 17:47'>1Sa 17:47</a>). This is a comfort not only in times of physical danger but in realizing that in any situation, there are far more with us than with our opponents. In every ‘battle’, we of course should be ‘on the Lord’s side’- and the battle is His, and ultimate victory assured. Perhaps these things are the reference of the enigmatic <a href='B:260 6:13'>Son 6:13</a>, which speaks of the dance or company of the two hosts- those of Angels and the corresponding hosts on earth?</p><p>That all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel- </p><p>David had a vision of all the eretz promised to Abraham coming to accept Israel's God, and he often develops this thought in the Psalms. His language here seems to have inspired Elijah (<a href='B:110 18:36'>1Ki 18:36</a>). May our language likewise be an inspiration to others rather than pulling them downwards spiritually.</p>


text:
<p>and that all those here may know that Yahweh doesn’t save with sword and spear, for the battle is Yahweh’s and He will give you into our hand- </p><p>David's language inspired others (see on :46), but he himself in these words seems to have been inspired by the song of his ancestor Hannah (<a href='B:90 2:2-10'>1Sa 2:2-10</a>), which is so similar in spirit to these words. This is how functional believers interact with each other, inspiring and encouraging to faith and good works and words. This was especial encouragement for the exiles, that God would restore them without their own military strength but by faith (<a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>; <a href='B:450 4:6'>Zec 4:6</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When the Philistine came closer to attack David, David ran quickly towards the Philistine army- </p><p>Goliath 'rose up against' Yahweh and His people (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:48'>1Sa 17:48</a>) just as a lion had 'risen up' against David in his youth (s:w. <a href='B:90 17:35'>1Sa 17:35</a>). Goliath was in view in <a href='B:230 139:21'>Psa 139:21</a>, where David speaks of how those who rise up against Yahweh are hated by him. The visual image is of David running towards the huge army and them fleeing; one man was as it were chasing thousands, because he was in covenant with God and receiving His blessing.</p>


text:
<p>He put his hand into his bag, took out a stone and slung it and struck the Philistine on his forehead. The stone sank into his forehead and he fell on his face to the ground-</p><p>LXX "The stone penetrated through the helmet into his forehead". The hyper accuracy of the slingers of Benjamin is mentioned in <a href='B:70 20:16'>Jdg 20:16</a>. Again there could be the hint that this victory ought to have been won by Saul or his tribe of Benjamin. But they didn't rise up to it, whereas David did; and this heightened the sense of chronic jealousy against him afterwards.</p>


text:
<p>So David triumphed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and struck the Philistine and killed him without a sword in his hand- </p><p>The record seems to glory in the fact that David didn't use the human strength and most powerful technology, but triumphed by faith through the weaker things of this world.</p>


text:
<p>Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, took hold of his sword, drew it out of its scabbard and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled- </p><p>We see here the way that whole masses have their faith focused in one person who is their figurehead. By contrast, the Israelites had no equivalent champion. God sent a young unarmed man out of nowhere to save His people.</p>


text:
<p>The men of Israel and Judah arose with a shout and pursued the Philistines as far as Gath and the gate of Ekron. The wounded of the Philistines fell down all the way to Shaaraim, Gath and Ekron- </p><p>The geography is absolutely accurate, as Gath was at the entrance to the valley of Elah. The mass of historical and geographical material in the Bible is so great that any uninspired writer would have made many slips.</p>


text:
<p>The Israelites returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camp- </p><p>David was as one man chasing the Gentile armies because he was experiencing the blessings of obedience to the covenant; but all Israel seem to share in them. We note that after Saul was anointed, he was granted victory over Nahash, the serpent. Now after his anointing, David is granted this victory. The idea was that God was repeating His project with Saul with David. Thus the Spirit was transferred from Saul to David.</p>


text:
<p>David took the head of the Philistine and brought it to Jerusalem- </p><p>This was done at a later date, as Jerusalem wasn't then in Israelite hands. This would have given rise to the name Golgotha, skull of Goliath; see on :1. Or it could be that as Nob was near Jerusalem, it is counted as Jerusalem. For this was where Goliath's sword was taken (<a href='B:90 21:9'>1Sa 21:9</a>).</p><p>But he put his armour in his own tent- </p><p>A man's own tent refers to his own house (<a href='B:90 2:35'>1Sa 2:35</a>; <a href='B:90 4:10'>1Sa 4:10</a>; <a href='B:90 13:2'>1Sa 13:2</a>); presumably back in Bethlehem. But he later presented Goliath's sword as an offering to Yahweh, and it was laid up at the tabernacle at Nob (<a href='B:90 21:9'>1Sa 21:9</a>).</p>


text:
<p>When Saul saw David go forth against the Philistine, he said to Abner, the captain of the army, Abner, whose son is this youth?- </p><p>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 had wanted to leave the court and had slipped away.</p><p>Abner said, As your soul lives, O king, I don’t know- </p><p>He doesn't swear as Yahweh lives, as is commonly found in the Bible, but by Saul's own life. Perhaps he felt that Yahweh was no authority to Saul 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>The king said, Find out whose son the young man is!- </p><p>David had previously played the harp before Saul. In :15 AV we read that he "went and returned from Saul", as if this was a permanent leaving of Saul by David. Now 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><p>The question 'Who is this?' as asked by Boaz of Ruth (<a href='B:80 2:8'>Rth 2:8</a>)&nbsp; is to be understood as a statement of intended action and not read on face value. The same kind of question is asked by David about Bathsheba, even though he knew who she was because she lived next door to him and was the wife of his close friend (<a href='B:100 11:3'>2Sa 11:3</a>). Likewise when Saul enquires about who David is after his victory over Goliath, it is not because he doesn't know him. For David had been already at the court of Saul. The question 'Who is this?' means that the questioner wants to do something for the person being enquired after.</p>


text:
<p>As David returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him to Saul with the head of the Philistine in his hand- </p><p>This could imply that David was seeking to slip away from the battlefield and return home, but Abner "took him and brought him", possibly implying the use of an element of force. In this we see David's humility; that having done the job for God, he wished to slip away out of the spotlight, and return to his few sheep in the wilderness.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to him, Whose son are you, young man? David answered, I am the son of your servant Jesse, the Bethlehemite- </p><p>This cannot mean that Saul didn't know David, or who his father was; for in <a href='B:90 16:19'>1Sa 16:19</a>, before the Goliath incident, "Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send me David thy son" to ease Saul's depressions. So the question here perhaps maybe implied something like: 'Whose son are you? Jesse's? No, from now on you're adopted into my family, you're my&nbsp; son now, after all, you've been like a brother to Jonathan all down the years'. The fact that David replied that he was Jesse's&nbsp; son may have been a polite refusal to accept this position. It may be that Saul had tried to adopt David earlier, when after David had been at the court for some time, Saul asked Jesse if David could " stand before me" (<a href='B:90 16:22'>1Sa 16:22</a>). Another way of understanding Saul's apparent lack of knowledge of David, after having had much intimate association with him at the court in the past, is to conclude that Saul pretended&nbsp; not to know David. In chapter 16, David has left his shepherding and is at the court, as Saul's personal counsellor and armourbearer. In chapter 17, he is back keeping the sheep. It may be that he ran away from the court after Saul tried to adopt him. In other words, he found that despite the close spiritual relationship he enjoyed with the family, Saul was overpoweringly possessive, and he just had to leave. Accordingly, Saul disowned him, hence his very public appearance of ignorance concerning who David was (17:55,56). When David later "avoided out of (Saul's) presence" (<a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>), this would not have been the first time he had gone through this. His desire and need to do this was made all the more complex by his falling in love with Saul's daughter, Michal (<a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). We can well imagine how we would have loved to be Jonathan's brother-in-law. David and Michal were a marriage made in Heaven- that went wrong.</p>


text:
<p>When David had finished speaking to Saul, the soul of Jonathan became bound to the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:1'>1Sa 17:1</a>; <a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>; <a href='B:90 23:18'>1Sa 23:18</a>. Saul loved David. David had spiritually helped him (<a href='B:90 16:23'>1Sa 16:23</a>), 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. In response to his victory over Goliath, "Jonathan loved him as his own soul. And Saul&nbsp; took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house" (18:1,2). This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that strange dowry. See on :20.</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>):&nbsp; A good example of how the souls of David and Jonathan were spiritually knit together is shown by the identical style of prayer they had (<a href='B:90 20:12'>1Sa 20:12</a> cp. 23:10; the question arises: Who influenced whom?). After Christ's victory on the cross, He entered into a covenant with us His church. The intricately related friendship between David and Jonathan thus becomes typical&nbsp; of that between the Lord Jesus and ourselves. The idea of souls being knit together occurs in <a href='B:580 2:2'>Col 2:2</a>; <a href='B:580 2:19'>Col 2:19</a>, concerning how our hearts and souls are knit together with the Lord Jesus Christ. This alone encourages us to see Jonathan as typical of ourselves.</p>


text:
<p>Saul took him that day and would not let him go home to his father’s house- </p><p>This seems to show Saul's response to David as parallel with Jonathan's response. Saul's possessiveness towards David was surely an indication of how closely he felt towards him. That he wouldn't allow him to return to his father's house suggests that Saul wanted to have David as his adopted son. His delight that David was in love with Michal was a strange mixture of motivations; genuine joy at having David as his son-in-law, and also glee that perhaps David would die whilst raising that strange dowry. David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as his own soul- </p><p>See on :1,2. We are not told what were the terms of that covenant, but I suggest it was that Jonathan as the heir to the throne resigned that to David, aware that God had chosen David and not himself to replace his father. This shows a great humility towards God's word, requiring the resignation of human advantage in this life.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan stripped himself of the robe he was wearing and gave it to David with his tunic and even his sword, his bow and his belt-</p><p>I suggested on :3 that the covenant was to the effect that Jonathan agreed that David should replace Saul as king, rather than the throne going to himself. To give clothes to another suggests giving of an office, as we see in the experiences of Joseph and Daniel. He gave the clothes appropriate to the next in line to the throne to David. For his / the robe- see on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. Jonathan stripped himself of his "robe... and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle" (<a href='B:90 18:4'>1Sa 18:4</a> AV). The triple phrase "and / even to..." indicates the totality of this stripping. "Bow" and "sword" often occur together as almost an idiom for human strength (<a href='B:10 48:22'>Gen 48:22</a>; <a href='B:60 24:12'>Jos 24:12</a>; <a href='B:120 6:22'>2Ki 6:22</a>; <a href='B:130 5:18'>1Ch 5:18</a>; <a href='B:350 1:7'>Hos 1:7</a>). Not only did he give David the weapons of his human strength (cp. <a href='B:90 13:22'>1Sa 13:22</a>), but he appears to have stripped himself almost physically bare (cp. <a href='B:400 2:8'>Mic 2:8</a>). Stripping like this is almost always associated with shame. The same word occurs in relating how the Philistines stripped Jonathan of his clothes and weapons, as he lay slain on Gilboa (<a href='B:90 31:8-9'>1Sa 31:8-9</a>). This all seems to suggest that Jonathan was saying to David: "I deserve to have been killed by Goliath (cp. the devil), so in a sense I will 'die' now by entering into a covenant with you, knitting my life / soul with yours. Rather than the Philistines (cp. our sins) killing, shaming and stripping me, I'll do it to myself'. Isn't&nbsp; this exactly our response to the cross in the ongoing 'baptism' we commit ourselves to? And of course we shouldn't miss the connection with Israel stripping themselves, deeply conscious of their sins, and then entering into covenant with God (<a href='B:20 33:6'>Exo 33:6</a>). Yet does the cross of Christ really fill us with that sense of shame, that desire to throw away all our human strength and knit our souls with that of Christ…? &nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>David went out wherever Saul sent him and behaved himself wisely, and Saul set him over the men of war, which pleased all the people and Saul’s servants-</p><p>&nbsp;We get the sense that David pitted his wisdom against Saul's anger and bitter persecution; David's wisdom is mentioned in tandem with Saul's anger against him (<a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:11'>1Sa 18:11</a>; <a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>). "David behaved himself wisely (AVmg “prospered”) in all his ways; and the Lord was with him" runs like a refrain through <a href='B:90 18:5'>1Sa 18:5</a>; <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>. These words are referring back to <a href='B:50 29:9'>Deu 29:9</a>: "Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them, that ye may prosper in all that ye do" . David's charmed life and prospering despite all manner of plotting against him was due to his single-minded devotion to the Law; to those very chapters which tired Bible readers are wont to skip over as boring and not motivating. Yet David found something immensely inspiring and practical about the Law. The word made him wiser than his foes (<a href='B:230 119:98'>Psa 119:98</a>), and Psalms 119 was written at the time of Saul’s persecution.</p>


text:
<p>When David and the men returned from the slaughter of the Philistine the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul with tambourines, with joy, and with instruments of music- </p><p>See on <a href='B:100 1:23'>2Sa 1:23</a>. The women were of course attracted to David, the young, handsome bashful hero. Yet ostensibly they came out to greet Saul; whereas the focus was clearly upon David. It was a perfect set up for Saul's jealousy.</p>


text:
<p>The women sang one to another as they played, Saul has slain his thousands and David his ten thousands- </p><p>It became a kind of proverb in Israel that David was worth ten thousand; it was said right towards the end of his life (<a href='B:100 18:3'>2Sa 18:3</a>). This further developed Saul's jealousy, because he failed to perceive that the whole conflict was about the glory of God and not the human channel through which that was achieved.</p>


text:
<p>Saul was very angry; this song displeased him and he said, They have ascribed to David ten thousands and to me they have ascribed only thousands. What more can he have but the kingdom?- </p><p>We have a record here of what he said in his heart. He kept recycling those words in his mind, and it made him jealous and bitter. We too must beware of recycling upsetting words in our hearts. Saul was "displeased", the word used in <a href='B:290 15:4'>Isa 15:4</a> of how "life shall be grievous unto him". But it was the fault of his own jealousy and lack of humility towards God's plans for David.</p>


text:
<p>Saul eyed David from that day and onward-</p><p>Saul was precious in the eyes of David (<a href='B:90 26:21'>1Sa 26:21</a> s:w:), although Saul's eyes were only to destroy David. We see the chasmic difference in outlook, in "eyes", or worldview between these two men.</p>


text:
<p>The next day an evil spirit from God came mightily on Saul, and he prophesied in his house. David played his harp, as he did day by day. Saul had his spear in his hand- </p><p>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”. It is absolutely understandable that the day after the women greeted David as having slain his ten thousands, Saul suffered an attack of jealousy, depression and bitterness. It was his own fault, originating in his pride and narcissism. But because he didn't resist it and fed it, God confirmed him in the mental attitudes he chose, to the point that his evil spirit / disposition was sent by God. This is how the Spirit works, and also positively, through the Holy Spirit. See on <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>.</p>


text:
<p>and he threw the spear saying, I will pin David to the wall! David escaped from his presence twice- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. As noted on :8, the Biblical record states the self talk of people as if it is their actual spoken words. As the Lord Jesus was to later teach, thoughts are as culpable as the words and actions. 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 through 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>Saul was afraid of David because Yahweh was with him but had departed from Saul- </p><p>Saul came to this conclusion from observing things great and small in his life, as well as in his internal awareness of God's presence; and his watching of David (:9) revealed to him that the Spirit of Yahweh was surely with this man and not him. David was the fulfilment of Samuel's words to him about a replacement being raised up. To try to murder him was therefore not only futile but a blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, going against God's clearly demonstrated intentions. And yet David in depression felt that Saul would one day kill him (<a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>), despite all the evidence in the bigger picture that God's Spirit was working to establish him.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore Saul sent David away from him and made him his captain over a thousand, and David went out and came in before the people- </p><p>See on :16. The idea perhaps was that he sent David off with some symbolic responsibility, to some outpost where he would not be in the public eye. To fire him from kingly service would provoke the wrath of the masses.</p>


text:
<p>David behaved himself wisely in all he did, and Yahweh was with him- </p><p>That Psalms 119 was written at this time is evident. It mentioned David as a young man devoting himself to the word rather than riches(:72)- the riches which could have been his if he mentally surrendered to Saul, or if he killed Saul and took the kingdom. He often laments how he is in exile from Yahweh's word (:43,46,54), which would have been on account of his being away from the sanctuary at Gibeah. He pleads the promise of the word that he would be preserved from Saul's persecution (v:41,58), and several times mentions Saul's attempts on his life (v:87,95,109,110). The following verses are evidently relevant to this period: 61,63,67,79,84 (= <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>),95,98 (= <a href='B:90 18:14-15'>1Sa 18:14-15</a>),110 (cp. the 'snaring' with Michal),119 (the emphasis is on 'You will destroy the wicked like Saul- one day),125 (David is often called Saul's servant),150,154 (= <a href='B:90 24:15'>1Sa 24:15</a>),157,161,165,176. Therefore in the face of such hatred and pain, feeling he must be careful of every step he took, emotionally and physically, David could rejoice: "I will walk at liberty (AVmg. 'at large'): for I seek thy precepts".</p>


text:
<p>When Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, he stood in awe of him- </p><p>Saul's jealousy was on account of David's spirituality and victories, especially over Goliath, which represented Christ's conquest of sin (<a href='B:90 18:7-8'>1Sa 18:7-8</a>; <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>), and his subsequent popularity with the people. This was because these things were potentially possible for Saul, but he had refused to rise up to them. Saul watched David's spirituality, observing the close fellowship David had with God (<a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). The Jews were jealous of the evident moral perfection of the Lord Jesus, and his popularity with the people which he seemed to effortlessly achieve. Joseph's brothers had a similar motivation to Saul. David as a type of Christ comes out clearly here. But "stand in awe" is also translated 'gathered together' in the context of Saul's persecution of David (<a href='B:230 56:6'>Psa 56:6</a>; <a href='B:230 59:3'>Psa 59:3</a>).</p>


text:
<p>But all Israel and Judah loved David, for he went out and came in before them-</p><p>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. The victories granted him were clearly setting him up to be a popular king.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to David, here is my elder daughter Merab; I will give her to you as a wife. Only be valiant for me, and fight Yahweh’s battles- </p><p>"Yahweh's battles" is a repeat of David's phrase in <a href='B:90 17:47'>1Sa 17:47</a>, where he triumphed that "the battle is Yahweh's" and therefore would not be won by human valiance or strength. Saul again is shown to be alluding to spiritual ideas, but getting things absolutely the wrong way around.</p><p>Saul thought, Don’t let my hand be against him, but let the hand of the Philistines be against him- </p><p>Again as noted on :8 and :11, we have recorded the inward words, the self talk, of a man who lived thousands of years ago. The thoughts of Saul are recorded in Heaven, and in this case are recorded in God's inspired word. Our self talk is no less significant to God.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Saul, Who am I, and what is my clan or my father’s family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the king?- </p><p>This reflects David's humility. He could easily have argued that by slaying Goliath, Saul should have given him his daughter for free as promised. But humility often involves not making the obvious argument, true as it may be.</p>


text:
<p>But when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, she was given to Adriel the Meholathite as his wife- </p><p>There's a repeated circumstance of a woman promised in marriage to a man being given to another- in the lives of Samson and David. Circumstances repeat between the experiences of God's children; and if we perceive that, then we will realize that man is not alone. No experience is so awfully unique or without precedent. This is the value of the histories God chose to record in the Bible. It could possibly be inferred from :25 that Adriel paid Saul a large dowry for his daughter.</p>


text:
<p>Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David, and when they told Saul he was pleased- </p><p>David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (18:20,26, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship. &nbsp; See on :1,2. As Jonathan's close friend, it was inevitable that David got to know his sister, Michal. David and Michal began their relationship on this basis. Jonathan's spiritual side would have had some reflection in his sister. For even Saul their father had a spiritual side, and it is fair to assume that Jonathan's mother was also a spiritual woman. It is easily overlooked that David later married Saul's wives (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>)- including the mother of Jonathan and Michal. So now we can reconstruct the complex spiritual and emotional situation. David without doubt experienced a state of 'in-loveness' with Jonathan. His lament of 2 Samuel 1 is proof enough of this. The spirituality which was in Jonathan was also seen in Michal his sister. And David loved Saul, too. Again, his lament over him is proof of this- it shows that David's loving respect for him was not just the result of a steely act of the will, forcing himself to patiently respect Saul. There was something in him which he loved. And we can assume that David did not just marry women whom he didn't spiritually&nbsp; love. There was therefore something in Saul's wives which was spiritual. And the whole thing was not just one way. Jonathan loved David, " Michal, Saul's daughter loved David" (18:20), and Saul clearly had love-hate feelings for David; there was something about him which he deeply loved and respected. The intensity of his hatred of David must have been psychologically connected to a deep-seated love. "He loved him greatly" is the comment of 16:21. The seeds of the love between David and the house of Saul would have begun early on. The reason why&nbsp; all this information is included is to provide comfort for us in the incredible emotional and spiritual complexities which we find ourselves in. In the flesh, David cannot have known which way to turn, mentally, spiritually, emotionally. Yet in the Spirit he could turn to his Heavenly Father, whose mind can totally fathom our pain, who can know in totality our every situation.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, I will give her to him so that she can be a snare to him, and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him. Therefore Saul said to David, You shall this day have a second opportunity to be my son-in-law-</p><p>See on :11. By describing his daughter as a "snare" to a righteous man, Saul shows his insensitivity to the way the law of Moses warned against women who were as snares. Even in the cynicism of Ecclesiastes, written in Solomon’s later life, he still uses words and phrases which have their root in his father David- e.g. his description of women as snares in <a href='B:250 7:26'>Ecc 7:26</a> goes back to how his father dealt with women who were a snare (<a href='B:90 18:21'>1Sa 18:21</a>). And the whole description of old age in Ecclesiastes 12 is based on his father’s experience with Barzillai (<a href='B:100 19:35'>2Sa 19:35</a>). The lack of true&nbsp;amongst many raised as believers may be related to all this too. We each need to seriously examine ourselves in this connection, and know the meaning of personal conversion.</p>


text:
<p>Saul commanded his servants, Speak to David secretly and say, ‘Look, the king is pleased with you, and all his servants love you; now therefore be the king’s son-in-law’- </p><p>All this intrigue was so far from the shepherd boy who simply loved God. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>. It is quite clear that David distrusted Saul, and so he communicates through his servants. But it is all rather simplistic and primitive as it was obvious they had been set up by Saul. And if Saul were genuine, he would have fulfilled his promise and given David his daughter freely.</p>


text:
<p>Saul’s servants told David this. David said, Does it seem to you a light thing to be the king’s son-in-law, since I am a poor man- </p><p>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. 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><p>And little known?-</p><p>"Lightly esteemed" is the word David will later use in <a href='B:230 38:7'>Psa 38:7</a> about being "loathsome" after his sin with Bathsheba. What had been mere words expressing theoretical humility were now translated into actual ownership. Our expressions of humility likewise are brought into reality by God's hand, often working through our own sins.</p>


text:
<p>The servants of Saul told him what David said- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said, Tell David, ‘The king desires no dowry except one hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged on the king’s enemies’. Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines- </p><p>This could possibly suggest that Saul had given Merab to Adriel rather than David because Adriel paid a large dowry. That David casually killed 200 men instead of 100 reflects his failure to perceive the value and the meaning of the human person, even if they were Gentiles.</p>


text:
<p>When his servants told David this, he was pleased to be the king’s son-in-law. Before the allotted time- </p><p>David was "pleased" to be Saul's son in law, as Saul too was "pleased" at the prospect (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>, the same Hebrew word is used); this indicates the complexity of&nbsp; the relationship. See on :2.</p><p>There can be few men who do not have at least some attraction to the father and family of their wife. David really loved Saul's daughter, indeed the prospect of marrying her may have been a large motivator behind his zeal in fighting Goliath and the Philistines (<a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a>; <a href='B:90 17:30'>1Sa 17:30</a>; <a href='B:90 18:26'>1Sa 18:26</a>). Saul was not a totally unspiritual man; there are many hints that he had a spiritual side. It's rare indeed that a totally unspiritual person can love a highly spiritual person like David. And yet this fine relationship ended in an intense love-hate affair. So many of the Psalms contain references to Saul's smear campaign against David (<a href='B:230 27:12'>Psa 27:12</a>; <a href='B:230 31:13'>Psa 31:13</a>; <a href='B:230 109:23'>Psa 109:23</a> cp. <a href='B:90 26:19'>1Sa 26:19</a>). This frequency of reference in itself indicates the weight with which this tragedy rested upon David's mind.</p>


text:
<p>David arose and went with his men and killed two hundred of the Philistine men, and David brought their foreskins- </p><p>We see here the beginning of hints that David sunk into blood lust, culminating in the comment that he couldn't build the temple because of his attitude to shedding blood. He need not have murdered these men in order to get their foreskins. And he did so "that he might" marry Michal. Rather than for any more spiritual motive. If he had circumcised them rather than murdering them, he might have brought them within the hope of Israel.</p><p>And gave them in full number to the king so that he might be the king’s son-in-law. Saul gave him Michal his daughter as his wife- </p><p>A more arrogant man than David would have insisted that Saul keep his offer, that the man who slew Goliath could freely marry his daughter. He could likewise have insisted that Saul give him Merab as promised. But he instead is zealous to meet Saul's new demands, bringing 200 and not just 100 foreskins, and doing it earlier than the deadline given (:26):&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>Saul saw and knew that Yahweh was with David, and Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved him- </p><p>See on <a href='B:90 17:58'>1Sa 17:58</a>. The fact his own daughter was one of the many daughters in Israel who loved David was all so hard for Saul. If he had accepted God's rejection of him as king, he could still have built a personal relationship with God and lived in sure hope of eternal salvation in the Kingdom. But he didn't, and only hoped that he would somehow be able to destroy David and establish his own kingdom, despite God's word to the contrary.</p>


text:
<p>Saul was yet the more afraid of David, and Saul was David’s enemy continually- </p><p>The more Saul perceived the hand of God in David's life, the more he feared and hated him. He realized, as he thought about it, that the man set to replace the king... was now the king's son in law. But by the king's own device and encouragement. It seems that spiritual jealousy, the cancer which stalks churches and Christian relationships, is the worst form of jealousy. It knows no bounds.</p>


text:
<p>Then the princes of the Philistines went forth and whenever they did so, David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul, so that his name was highly esteemed- </p><p>David's commentary upon this is in Psalms 8, written in reflection upon his victory: "Yahweh our Lord, how majestic is Your name in all the earth!" (<a href='B:230 8:9'>Psa 8:9</a>). It was David's name which was much set by (<a href='B:90 18:30'>1Sa 18:30</a>); but David's desire was it should be Yahweh's Name which was now made majestic after the defeat of Goliath, and not his name. The ide seems to be that David was more successful in the field of battle than the other servants of Saul; instead we read that he behaved himself more wisely than them. This is to equate his victories with his wisdom, rather than his own strength or felicity in combat.</p>


text:
<p>Saul told Jonathan his son and all his servants to kill David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David- </p><p>The simple appeal was that if David was no more, then Jonathan would be king, and the existing courtiers would remain in power. Whereas David, from another tribe, and with every reason for bitterness against Saul, would not remove them from power. But Samuel's words about David were surely known by Jonathan, and he had himself made a covenant to give the kingdom to David (see on <a href='B:90 18:3-4'>1Sa 18:3-4</a>). It could be that Saul "told" them to kill David in a mad outburst of anger whilst throwing one of his tantrums. But those words are here recorded. It could be that Saul was sharing with them a specific plan of killing David the next morning (:2); and I note on :11 that it seems his servants go along with it.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan told David, Saul my father seeks to kill you. Now therefore, please take extra care of yourself in the morning; hide in a secret place and stay there- </p><p>This is the same word for "hiding place" as in <a href='B:230 119:114'>Psa 119:114</a>: "You are my hiding place and my shield. I hope in Your word". When hiding from Saul in the wilderness [s:w. of David's "hiding places" at this time in <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:20'>1Sa 25:20</a>], David hoped in the prophetic word that one day Saul would be no more and David would be king. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>.</p>


text:
<p>I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where you are and I will talk with my father about you, and if I find out anything, I will tell you- </p><p>The idea seems to be that Jonathan would walk with Saul in the field, the open countryside in Gibeah where David also lived with Michal; and then Jonathan would tell David as soon as possible what he had learned. To facilitate this, David needed to be in the same "field" or area of countryside, so that when Jonathan had finished his chat with his father, he could immediately inform David. Presumably Jonathan wanted to talk with his father out of earshot of anyone else.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan spoke well of David to Saul his father, and said to him, Don’t let the king sin against his servant David, because he has not sinned against you and he has worked well for you- </p><p>Jonathan's intensity of relationship with David meant that he was not ashamed to speak up for him: "Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king&nbsp; sin against his servant... because his works have been to thee-ward very good: for he... slew the Philistine" (19:4,5). Note how he calls Saul "the King", suggesting a certain detachment from him. The vision of David standing triumphant over Goliath still motivated Jonathan, to the extent that he could stand up in that hostile environment and testify to the love of David, the extent of his selfless victory, and the urgent need for this to be recognized by men. The spirit of our preaching only occasionally matches this example. No wonder the record stresses Jonathan as being typical of ourselves. &nbsp;</p><p>19:5 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>).</p>


text:
<p>he put his life in his hand and struck the Philistine- </p><p>David lived permanently in the intensity of that victory (s:w. <a href='B:230 119:109'>Psa 119:109</a>).</p><p>And Yahweh worked a great victory for all Israel. You saw it and rejoiced- </p><p>Yahweh had earlier "worked deliverance in Israel" through Saul (s:w. <a href='B:90 11:13'>1Sa 11:13</a>); but now it was worked through David. It could have been through Saul. 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. See on <a href='B:90 17:26'>1Sa 17:26</a> for another example.</p>&nbsp;<p>Jonathan saw David as his personal hero, succeeding where he failed, can be found in the following consideration. Jonathan seems to have seen Gideon as his hero [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']. Yet in 19:5 he says that "David put his life in his hand", exactly as Gideon did (<a href='B:70 9:17'>Jdg 9:17</a>). In other words, Jonathan saw David as the perfect fulfilment of all he spiritually wished to be, he felt that David&nbsp; lived up to the example of his hero Gideon, whereas he did not. Is this how dynamically and intensely we relate to our Lord Jesus?&nbsp; For this is what the David and Jonathan relationship points ahead to.</p><p>But there are similarities also with Samson. 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><p>Why then will you sin against innocent blood, to kill David without a cause?-</p><p>The desire to slay innocent blood points forward to the Jewish desire to do the same to the Lord, articulated through Judas (<a href='B:470 27:4'>Mat 27:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Saul listened to Jonathan and took this oath: As Yahweh lives, he shall not be put to death- </p><p>Yet Saul did try to kill David. He is here taking the Yahweh Name in vain.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan called David and told him all this:&nbsp; Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence as before-</p><p>We may consider both Jonathan and David to have been naive in believing this. But the situation was nuanced because all of them loved each other. Saul had loved David and told Jesse he wanted David as his son. Saul's daughters loved David and he likewise. It was all so interwoven, just as relationships are today, resulting in people doing things or trusting people when to onlookers, this is ridiculously unwise and naive. The record here has absolutely every verisimilitude to real life and is absolutely psychologically credible.</p>


text:
<p>There was war again. David went out and fought the Philistines and killed them with a great slaughter, and they fled before him-</p><p>The next verse records Saul suffering from an evil spirit. Clearly what is in view is the spirit of jealousy, arising from his own lack of faith, pride, refusal to accept Yahweh's word about the passing of the kingship to David, indeed a whole nexus of unspirituality. But Yahweh's Spirit worked to confirm that spirit, those wrong psychological positions which Saul allowed to operate and progress within him. Just as the Holy Spirit works positively in the heart / spirit / mind of the spiritual. Likewise in <a href='B:90 18:10'>1Sa 18:10</a>, the 'evil spirit' also comes to Saul after a military incident which provoked his jealousy of David. Clearly 'spirit' is being used to refer to the spirit / mind of Saul, and not any external cosmic being.</p>


text:
<p>An evil spirit from Yahweh came on Saul as he sat in his house with his spear in his hand, and David was playing his harp- </p><p>Saul's jealousy, confirmed by God psychologically confirming him in it through the Spirit, was on account of David's victories, especially over Goliath, which represented Christ's conquest of sin (<a href='B:90 8:7-8'>1Sa 8:7-8</a>; <a href='B:90 19:8-9'>1Sa 19:8-9</a>), and his subsequent popularity with the people. Saul watched David's spirituality, observing the close fellowship David had with God (<a href='B:90 18:15'>1Sa 18:15</a>; <a href='B:90 18:28'>1Sa 18:28</a>). The Jews were jealous of the evident moral perfection of the Lord Jesus, and his popularity with the people which he seemed to effortlessly achieve. Joseph's brothers had a similar motivation to Saul. David as a type of Christ comes out clearly here.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sought to pin David to the wall with the spear- </p><p>Saul "sought" David, implying a great level of mental effort (<a href='B:90 19:10'>1Sa 19:10</a>; <a href='B:90 23:14-15'>1Sa 23:14-15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:2'>1Sa 24:2</a>; <a href='B:90 25:26'>1Sa 25:26</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:90 26:2'>1Sa 26:2</a>; <a href='B:90 26:20'>1Sa 26:20</a>; <a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the type of Christ, the Jews sought to kill the Lord (<a href='B:470 21:46'>Mat 21:46</a>; <a href='B:480 11:18'>Mar 11:18</a>; <a href='B:480 12:12'>Mar 12:12</a>; <a href='B:480 14:1'>Mar 14:1</a>; <a href='B:480 14:11'>Mar 14:11</a>; <a href='B:480 14:55'>Mar 14:55</a>; <a href='B:490 19:47'>Luk 19:47</a>; <a href='B:490 20:19'>Luk 20:19</a>; <a href='B:490 22:2'>Luk 22:2</a>; <a href='B:490 22:6'>Luk 22:6</a>; <a href='B:500 5:16'>Joh 5:16</a>; <a href='B:500 5:18'>Joh 5:18</a>; <a href='B:500 7:1'>Joh 7:1</a>; <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>; <a href='B:500 7:25'>Joh 7:25</a>; <a href='B:500 7:30'>Joh 7:30</a>; <a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 10:39'>Joh 10:39</a>; <a href='B:500 11:8'>Joh 11:8</a>; <a href='B:500 11:56'>Joh 11:56</a>; <a href='B:500 18:4'>Joh 18:4</a>; <a href='B:500 18:7-8'>Joh 18:7-8</a>).</p><p>But he slipped away out of Saul’s presence, and the spear went into the wall. David fled, and escaped that night- </p><p>Compare this with the Lord Jesus Christ slipping away from Jews bent on killing him, <a href='B:500 8:59'>Joh 8:59</a>; <a href='B:500 7:19'>Joh 7:19</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent messengers to David’s house to watch him and to kill him in the morning- </p><p>They presumably didn't charge into the house and murder David there because Saul feared a public uproar if he did so. David's escape to his house implies he didn't think Saul would follow him there; he assumed this was just another temper tantrum. Psalms 59 refers to this time, and seems to speak of Saul's thugs roaming the streets looking to kill David. For the first time, the servants of Saul become proactively aggressive, having accepted his charge to kill David given in :1.</p><p>Michal, David’s wife, told him, If you don’t save your life tonight, tomorrow you will be killed- </p><p><a href='B:230 130:6'>Psa 130:6</a> seems to allude here: "My soul longs for the Lord more than watchmen long for the morning; more than watchmen for the morning". Watching for the morning is the phrase used about the plot to slay David by morning (<a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>). <a href='B:230 130:6'>Psa 130:6</a> would therefore have originated with David's reflections that whatever the careful watchings of man to destroy him, his focus was upon longing for the Lord.</p>


text:
<p>So Michal let David down through the window. He fled and escaped- </p><p>Escape through a window and down a wall is something experienced by the spies in Jericho (<a href='B:60 2:15'>Jos 2:15</a>), and Saul in Damascus (<a href='B:540 11:33'>2Co 11:33</a>). Again we note how circumstances repeat between the experiences of God's children; and if we perceive that, then we will realize that man is not alone. No experience is so awfully unique or without precedent. This is the value of the histories God chose to record in the Bible.</p>


text:
<p>Michal took an idol and laid it in the bed- </p><p>This speaks so much of her unspirituality and that of her father. The use of teraphim was common in Israel at the time (<a href='B:70 17:5'>Jdg 17:5</a>; <a href='B:70 18:14'>Jdg 18:14</a>) and continued until the time of Josiah (<a href='B:120 23:24'>2Ki 23:24</a>) and then were used even in exile (<a href='B:450 10:2'>Zec 10:2</a>). These teraphim were often life size male images. Michal was barren (<a href='B:100 6:23'>2Sa 6:23</a> implies she never had a child), and she may well have had this particular one as an idol for fertility, which involved using it as a kind of sex toy. Yet David, the man after Go's own heart, had fallen in love with this unspiritual woman and married her.</p><p>Put a pillow of goats’ hair at its head, and covered it with the clothes- </p><p>Heb. "Put the quilt of goat’s hair at its head, and covered it with the coverlet". She wrapped the head of the image in a hairy rug to resemble a man’s hair, and then covered it with a square piece of woollen cloth.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul sent messengers to take David she said, He is sick- </p><p>LXX adds: “they [the messengers] brought word that he was sick”. This sounds a rather lame response by men who had been sent by Saul to kidnap David from his own home and then murder him somewhere (see on :1,11). Clearly they baulked at actually performing what they had agreed to do.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent the messengers to see David, saying, Bring him up to me in the bed so that I can kill him- </p><p>"Bring him up" may mean that Saul's home / palace was on the hill of Gibeah, and David’s in the lower town. Saul now wanted to personally murder David; whereas it seems from :1,11 that the plan originally had been for his servants to do the job, and that is also the impression given in Psalms 59, which has a title assigning it to this time. We sense Saul drunk with the obsession of jealousy, with the hatred in his heart which leads to murder.</p>


text:
<p>When the messengers came in, there was just the idol in the bed, with the pillow of goats’ hair at its head- </p><p>After this incident, circumstances repeat for Saul. He again sends messengers to take David at Naioth, but they are overcome by the Spirit; and then he goes himself. And still doesn't get David. He was unwilling to perceive the clear patterns in his life which reflected Yahweh's Spirit.</p>


text:
<p>Saul said to Michal, Why have you deceived me like this and let my enemy go, so that he has escaped? Michal answered Saul, He said to me, ‘Let me go! Why should I kill you?’- </p><p>We are surely intended to compare her response to that of her brother Jonathan, who stood up for David (:1) and was prepared to die for it at the hands of his father. "Why have you deceived me?" is word for word what Saul was later asked by the witch at Endor on the last night of his life (<a href='B:90 28:12'>1Sa 28:12</a>). Saul's words were to return to him, placed in the mouth of another woman. For by our words we are judged.</p>


text:
<p>Now David fled and escaped, and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. He and Samuel went and lived in Naioth- </p><p>"Naioth" means "the dwellings" and seems to refer to a kind of college of instruction Samuel had built up at his home in Ramah. The Targum renders the word “house of instruction”. It would have been the first of the schools of the prophets. This would account for the prophets appearing at that place (:20).</p>


text:
<p>Saul was told, David is at Naioth in Ramah!- </p><p>Saul had a network of spies watching David (<a href='B:90 18:20'>1Sa 18:20</a>; <a href='B:90 18:24'>1Sa 18:24</a>; <a href='B:90 19:11'>1Sa 19:11</a>; <a href='B:90 19:19'>1Sa 19:19</a>; <a href='B:90 23:7'>1Sa 23:7</a>; <a href='B:90 23:13'>1Sa 23:13</a>; <a href='B:90 23:25'>1Sa 23:25</a>; <a href='B:90 24:1'>1Sa 24:1</a>; <a href='B:90 27:4'>1Sa 27:4</a>). In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:480 3:2'>Mar 3:2</a>; <a href='B:490 6:7'>Luk 6:7</a>; <a href='B:490 14:1'>Luk 14:1</a>; <a href='B:490 20:20'>Luk 20:20</a>; <a href='B:500 11:57'>Joh 11:57</a>.</p>


text:
<p>Saul sent messengers to take David, and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying and Samuel standing as head over them, the spirit of God came on the messengers of Saul and they also prophesied- </p><p>As explained on :18, there was a school of the prophets at Naioth, headed up by Samuel. This incident is looking ahead to the experience of the enemies of the Lord Jesus in <a href='B:500 7:46'>Joh 7:46</a>. These messengers were those mentioned in :1 and :11, the servants of Saul who had agreed to murder David. They, Saul and everyone involved is here given a taste of the power of God's Spirit. He is able to take over the human mind by His Spirit, and make us spiritual; but as discussed on :24, He will not treat us as robots, overpowering us so that we have no choice but to be saved. We are to follow onwards in the path His Spirit sets us upon.</p>


text:
<p>When Saul was told, he sent other messengers, and they also prophesied. Saul sent messengers again the third time and they also prophesied- </p><p>We wonder if the content of the prophesy here mentioned was that David would be king.</p>


text:
<p>Then he went himself to Ramah, and came to the great well that is in Secu, and he asked, Where are Samuel and David? Someone said, They are at Naioth in Ramah- </p><p>LXX "the well of the threshing-floor that is in Sephi (or, the hill)". Saul ought to have learnt from experience. He had sent messengers to take David from his own house and murder him, but when they failed, he went himself; and failed to find David. Now circumstances repeated, as they do in lives where God is at work. When he is calmly told that David is at Naioth, and realizes that his messengers have been overcome by the Spirit; he ought to have realized that he would not prevail alone. But he continues; and despite his headlong folly, by pure grace, God's Spirit attempts to yet again burst into his life and turn him around.</p>


text:
<p>So he went towards Naioth in Ramah. Then the spirit of God came on him also, and he went on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah- </p><p>See on :24. This overpowering by the Spirit was not due to encounter with people or some kind of group psychology. We get the impression Saul had come alone; and now on the final stage of the journey, he was overcome by the Spirit in a deeply personal meeting with God. See on :24.</p>


text:
<p>He stripped off his clothes and he also prophesied before Samuel, and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets?- </p><p>The Spirit of God usually confirms the human spirit in the way the person wishes to go. But here we see how God at times makes a direct entrance into a person's life through His Spirit, as He had initially with Saul as he was out looking for lost donkeys. Twice God had told him that he was rejected from the kingship for his disobedience. But God dearly loved Saul, and really wanted their relationship to work, despite his mental illness and unspirituality. We marvel at God's desire to save and not to condemn, to accept rather than reject; and His tireless attempts to work even with the proud who have apparently turned away from God. For here God yet again comes into Saul's life and tries to almost force him to be humble.</p><p>To take off his kingly clothes before Samuel represented his willingness to resign the kingship for the sake of Samuel's prophetic word about David replacing him. We noted how Jonathan had willingly done this of his own initiative. But time and again, Saul refuses to follow on from the path God's Spirit placed him upon.</p>


text:
<p>David fled from Naioth in Ramah and went to Jonathan and asked, What have I done? What is my iniquity? What is my sin before your father- </p><p>David was clearly upset that Saul's oath before Yahweh not to kill him had been broken so unashamedly (<a href='B:90 19:6'>1Sa 19:6</a>). He quotes the words of Jacob in <a href='B:10 31:36'>Gen 31:36</a>; perhaps not because the surrounding context was relevant, but because God's word and Biblical precedent was ever on David's mind. See on <a href='B:90 20:13'>1Sa 20:13</a>. This all recalls "You seek to kill me... which of you convicts me of sin?" (<a href='B:500 8:37'>Joh 8:37</a>; <a href='B:500 8:40'>Joh 8:40</a>; <a href='B:500 8:46'>Joh 8:46</a>). Again, we see clearly David as a type of Christ.</p><p>That he seeks my life?- </p><p>Saul sought the life of David (s:w. <a href='B:90 20:1'>1Sa 20:1</a>; <a href='B:90 22:23'>1Sa 22:23</a>; <a href='B:90 23:15'>1Sa 23:15</a>; <a href='B:90 25:29'>1Sa 25:29</a>; <a href='B:100 4:8'>2Sa 4:8</a>). In the Psalms, David frequently imprecates judgment upon those who sought his life (s:w. <a href='B:230 35:4'>Psa 35:4</a>; <a href='B:230 38:12'>Psa 38:12</a>; <a href='B:230 40:14'>Psa 40:14</a>; <a href='B:230 54:3'>Psa 54:3</a>; <a href='B:230 63:9'>Psa 63:9</a>; <a href='B:230 70:2'>Psa 70:2</a>; <a href='B:230 71:13'>Psa 71:13</a>; <a href='B:230 86:14'>Psa 86:14</a>). He loved Saul, the life of Saul was precious in David's sight, indeed the historical records seem to emphasize David's patient love of Saul; and yet in the Psalms he gives vent before God to his anger with Saul and desire to see Saul punished and judged by God. This is absolutely true to human experience; we may act with great patience and apparent love toward those who abuse us, and yet within we fume about it. The lesson of David is that we are to pour out those feelings to God in prayer, leaving Him to judge:&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


text:
<p>He said to him, Far from it; you shall not die. Look, my father does nothing either great or small without disclosing it to me, so why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so- </p><p>In the type of Christ, this is <a href='B:500 7:20'>Joh 7:20</a>. We see the complexity of the situation, psychologically. Jonathan loves David more than he does his father Saul, but he also doesn't want to believe that his father is an inveterate liar who would take Yahweh's Name in vain by making an oath and then breaking it (1 Samuel 19; 1 Samuel 6). Clearly his father did do things without disclosing them to Jonathan. But he is in denial at how bad his father really was towards David, the man and brother he dearly loved and respected. We see precisely the same kinds of apparently contradictory behaviours in relationships all around us. As observers we may see how people are obviously naive to believe others... but within those relationships, vision is not at all so clear. It was all so interwoven, just as relationships are today, resulting in people doing things or trusting people when to onlookers, this is ridiculously unwise and naive. The record here has absolutely every verisimilitude to real life and is absolutely psychologically credible.</p>


text:
<p>But David took an oath and said, Your father knows well that I have found favour in your eyes, so he says, ‘Don’t let Jonathan know this, or he will be grieved’; but truly as Yahweh lives and as your soul lives, there is but a step between me and death- </p><p>As Saul had sworn by Yahweh not to kill David (<a href='B:90 19:6'>1Sa 19:6</a>), so David swears in response that Saul does want to kill him. The way Saul had broken that oath was clearly distressing to David. Yet David's faith in the message of Samuel that he would become king is now at maximum stretch. He feels Saul is about to kill him, and gives in further to these feelings when he says he will surely be killed by Saul (<a href='B:90 27:1'>1Sa 27:1</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said to David, Whatever your soul desires, I will do it for you- </p><p>Jonathan recognizes that what David has said in :3 is true, and as noted on :2, he realizes that indeed he is just refusing to see evil in his father. His loyalties were torn between David and Saul, and now by saying this he comes down on the side of David. "Soul" is the word for "life" in :1, and Jonathan surely means 'Whatever it takes to save your life, I will do'. As noted on :3, we might wish to see at this point more faith by both of them in Samuel's prophetic word that David shall become king. Their faith in that word went up and down, with <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a> being a high point in it.</p>


text:
<p>David said to Jonathan, Look, tomorrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to dine with the king; but let me go so that I can hide myself in the field until the third day at evening- </p><p>This dining was presumably to keep a peace offering and eat together of the sacrifice. Saul for all his unspirituality continued an outward semblance of religious obedience and peace with God- as we can through partaking in the breaking of bread (the Christian equivalent of the peace offering), whilst harbouring obsessive hatred against our brethren in our hearts.</p>


text:
<p>If your father misses me at all then say, ‘David earnestly asked leave of me to run to Bethlehem, his city, for it is the yearly sacrifice there for all the family’- </p><p>This was a lie, as David was in the field (:5). It raises the question as to whether a lie is acceptable at times. We think of the Hebrew midwives in Egypt and Rahab, whose lie was an act of faith.</p>


text:
<p>If he says, ‘Very well’, your servant will have peace; but if he is angry, then know that evil is determined by him- </p><p>The reference to "peace" is appropriate if as suggested on :6 a peace offering celebration is in view. This is appropriate language given that context, and confirms us in believing that we are reading the actual words spoken by men millennia ago.</p>


text:
<p>Therefore deal kindly with your servant, for you have brought your servant into a covenant of Yahweh. But if there is iniquity in me, kill me yourself; why should you bring me to your father?- </p><p>As discussed further on :9, there is an element of doubt now in David as to Jonathan's loyalty. He reminds him that their covenant that he should be king was before Yahweh. And he entertains the fear that Jonathan might bring David to Saul to be murdered by him; again, a lack of faith in the prophetic word that he would become king. See on :4. We note too that David calls Jonathan his master, recognizing that his life is completely in Jonathan's hands.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said, Never! If I should know that evil were determined against you by my father, wouldn’t I tell you?- </p><p>We are reading a realistic record of the conversation between two friends, one of whom has conflicted loyalties, and the other naturally fears the integrity and trust in the relationship is thereby under threat. For :8 appears to be David somewhat doubting Jonathan, and Jonathan responds with passion, coming down on David's side with his loyalty.</p>


text:
<p>Then David said to Jonathan, Who will tell me if your father answers you roughly?- </p><p>Clearly the two of them were not to be seen together. And it seems Jonathan had not even one trusted servant who could take a message to David; they had to somehow meet so that Jonathan could tell David in person. This is a tacit reflection of the anti-David feelings amongst the courtiers of Saul.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to David, Come, let us go out into the field. They both went out into the field- </p><p>Presumably they had this conversation in the field because they were scared of being overheard; see on :10. They also wanted to map out exactly the place where they would meet for Jonathan to share the news with David.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to David, By Yahweh, the God of Israel, when I have sounded out my father, by this time tomorrow or the third day, if he is favourable toward you I will send and tell you-</p><p>- see on <a href='B:90 18:1-3'>1Sa 18:1-3</a>. AV "Jonathan said unto David,&nbsp;O Lord God of Israel...". He was aware that he was speaking to Yahweh, or before Yahweh, when speaking to David. And we should be likewise aware. Jonathan is seeking to allay the understandable fears of David, that Jonathan would sacrifice his loyalty to David for the sake of that to his father Saul. But Jonathan swears before Yahweh that his loyalty has come down solidly on David's side.</p>


text:
<p>Yahweh deal with me severely, if my father intends evil against you and I don’t disclose it to you so that I can send you away safely. May Yahweh be with you, as He has been with my father- </p><p>The last phrase reflects the continued struggle of feeling within Jonathan, torn as he was between loyalty to Saul and David. Perhaps he is putting in other words the Biblical comment that the Spirit departed from Saul and came to David; God's providential working to make Saul king was transferred to David, and Jonathan here recognizes that. But the Hebrew seems to imply that Yahweh had been with Saul and would continue to be with him. This surely bespeaks a lack of appreciation of the seriousness of Saul's apostasy. Despite Saul commanding Jonathan by clear pronouncement to kill David (<a href='B:90 19:1'>1Sa 19:1</a> Hebrew), Jonathan assures David that Saul is not really intending to kill him; the implication is that he felt David's fear of Saul was somewhat exaggerated (<a href='B:90 20:1-2'>1Sa 20:1-2</a>). David gently pointed out, in the spirit of Christ, that Jonathan did not realize how deceptive Saul was (<a href='B:90 20:3'>1Sa 20:3</a>). Saul gave the impression that he 'delighted' in David (<a href='B:90 18:22'>1Sa 18:22</a>), using the very same word as in <a href='B:90 19:2'>1Sa 19:2</a>: "Jonathan... delighted&nbsp; much in David". In other words, Saul and our surrounding world can appear to have the same attitude to David / Jesus as ourselves. The massive difference between the world's attitude to Christ and our own should become more and more apparent to us, despite the external similarities between us and them. Jonathan's familiarity with his father led him to overlook the manic danger which he posed for David, although at other times Jonathan seems to have faced up to it squarely. Our sense of the seriousness of sin likewise tends to blow hot and cold.</p>


text:
<p>But while I live, show me the grace of Yahweh so that I will not be killed- </p><p>Jonathan here reverts to a stronger faith in the prophetic word that David would indeed be king. He imagined that this would typically involve the slaying of the family of the former king. David feared Jonathan would betray him to death at the hands of Saul; Jonathan feared David would kill him when he became king. It is all so absolutely credible as a psychological narrative, although at this point Jonathan appears to have more faith in the prophetic word of David becoming king than David himself does.</p>


text:
<p>Also, do not cut off your kindness from my house forever, not even when Yahweh has cut off all the enemies of David from the surface of the earth-</p><p>Jonathan through faith in Samuel's prophetic word is sure that David will become king, and he sees this as requiring the cutting off of Saul and all David's enemies. He may use 'cutting off' in the sense of cutting off their descendants and family name, and he begs David to show mercy to his own line. As David is nervous of his friend Jonathan, so Jonathan here and in :42 seems also to have almost feared that David would take revenge or punish him in some way, on account of his close relationship with his sinful father. It must have seemed impossible to Jonathan, living at a&nbsp; time of kinship-based revenge, to believe that ultimately David would not react strongly against Saul's hatred of him. And we too, ever conscious of our sinful associations, struggle to reassure ourselves of the&nbsp; love of Christ that passes knowledge, just as Jonathan must have looked deeper and deeper into the malice-less love of his friend David.</p><p>The covenant between Jonathan and David was an eternal one ("for ever", <a href='B:90 20:15'>1Sa 20:15</a>; <a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>), and was reconfirmed during their brief meetings together, during which they earnestly looked ahead to the Kingdom (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). And as we are all too painfully aware, our friendship with the Lord Jesus reflects the frustration of the Jonathan / David relationship, the accumulated tension of being unable to express their spiritual communication with each other, the pain of physical distance, Jonathan not knowing David's geographical location, having to live up to appearances and expectations in the David-hating court of his bitter father, struggling for the courage to stand up for his best friend:&nbsp; The sheer human pain of it all is so thoroughly revealed to the sensitive reader of the records. There is a purpose in this: it is to take us further in appreciating the true nature of our relationship with Christ.</p>


text:
<p>So Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Yahweh will require it at the hand of David’s enemies- </p><p>Jonathan proposed it, but David agreed to it. Jonathan accepts that Saul his father would have their behaviour against David "required" of them, at the hands of David. But the covenant was that Jonathan and his family would be spared.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan made David swear again, for the love that he had for him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul- </p><p>We might think that the motive for Jonathan requiring David's oath was more for the sake of his own security. But we are told here that the motive was love for David. Hence LXX "And Jonathan sware again to David". A double oath before Yahweh was the strongest kind of oath they could enter between them. Jonathan's love for David was based upon his respect for him and conviction that he would rightly be the next king instead of himself. It's as if in the tension of the storyline, with both sides distrusting the other despite their friendship, the Divine narrator steps in to assure us of Jonathan's absolute sincerity for David.</p>


text:
<p>Then Jonathan said to him, Tomorrow is the new moon and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty- </p><p>This implies that David regularly sat at the new moon peace offering feasts with Saul. Despite all the bitterness Saul felt toward him, he went through the motions of eating at the same religious table with him, in the name of celebrating our common peace with God. Those who complain of insincerity at the communion meal, with brethren hating brethren as they sit there, must realize that there is nothing new under the sun. Faithful men have passed this way before.</p>


text:
<p>When you have waited three days, go down quickly to the place where you hid yourself when this started, and stay by the stone Ezel- </p><p>Ezel is literally 'to go' and may refer to a stone set up as a signpost. LXX "heap of stones".</p>


text:
<p>I will shoot three arrows to the side of it as though I shot at a mark- </p><p>This whole intricate plan was because Jonathan lacked a single faithful friend or messenger through whom he could communicate with David. He had to do so himself directly. We see here his very difficult situation within the household of Saul, and the extent of opposition to David there.</p>


text:
<p>Then I will send the boy saying, ‘Go, find the arrows!’. If I tell the boy ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you; bring them’, then come, for you are safe, as Yahweh lives- </p><p>As noted on :20, Jonathan lacked even one faithful messenger. He couldn't even trust this "boy"; see on :39.</p>


text:
<p>But if I say this to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you’, then go your way, for Yahweh has sent you away- </p><p>The plan was originally that Jonathan and David would not meet each other. But such was their love for each other, that we see that they did briefly embrace. It has all the makings of a wonderful story with every bit of psychological credibility, and the closer we analyze it we are left with no doubt that what we are reading actually happened. Histories and records of the time all tend to embellish events with so much extra that it is hard to know what really was said or done. But the Biblical record shows such powerful internal evidence of being what it claims to be, the inspired word of God.</p>


text:
<p>Concerning the matter which you and I have spoken of, behold, Yahweh is between you and me forever- </p><p>Jonathan is at pains to persuade David of his loyalty, as well as continuing to harbour just a slight fear that in the day of David's exaltation, he might be tempted still to wipe out the entire family of Saul including Jonathan and his family.</p>


text:
<p>So David hid himself in the field, and when the new moon had come, the king sat down to eat- </p><p>I have suggested that eating at the new moon festival meant eating the peace offering, which Saul hypocritically did.</p>


text:
<p>The king sat on his seat by the wall as usual and Jonathan sat opposite and Abner sat by Saul’s side, but David’s place was empty- </p><p>The Divine cameraman zooms in close up. "As usual" again shows that these peace offering feasts, the rough equivalent to the breaking of bread service under the new covenant, were held regularly. And David was usually in attendance at them, despite Saul's obvious insincerity towards him. See on :18. The fact Abner and not Jonathan sat by Saul's side, with Jonathan opposite Saul, would suggest a distance between them, with Abner now hoping to be next in line to the throne after Saul; an honour which Jonathan had resigned to David.</p>


text:
<p>Nevertheless Saul didn’t say anything that day, for he thought, Something has happened to him. He is not clean. Surely he is not clean- </p><p>This reinforces the suggestion that the new moon feast was a religious feast, and the eating together was eating the peace offering, even though Samuel wasn't present to bless it. We note too how David was well known for his observation of the Mosaic law; for it was not allowed to eat the peace offering whilst unclean (<a href='B:30 7:20-21'>Lev 7:20-21</a>).</p>


text:
<p>On the next day after the new moon, the second day, David’s place was empty again. Saul said to Jonathan his son, Why didn’t the son of Jesse come to eat, either yesterday or today?- </p><p>In the type of Christ, this looks ahead to <a href='B:500 7:11'>Joh 7:11</a>. If David had been unclean, he would have been clean by sundown. If the excuse of :28 was true, it should have been presented at the start. Jonathan therefore clearly comes over as lying. "The son of Jesse" may suggest Saul found it hard to frame the word "David", meaning "beloved"- of God.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem- </p><p>As noted on :27, this was obviously a lie as the excuse would have been given at the start of the feast. Jonathan's lie could be justified, but he might as well have been honest with Saul, and explained that David was frightened of Saul because of his erratic behaviour against him.</p>


text:
<p>He said, ‘Please let me go, for our family has a sacrifice in the city. My brother has commanded me to be there. Now, if I have found favour in your eyes, please let me go away and see my brothers’. That is why he has not come to the king’s table- </p><p>This would have restimulated Saul's memories of his daughter Michal saying that David had asked her "Let me go away...". He would have felt both his children were lying to him because of their greater loyalty to David. Jonathan's lie was really without any credibility, for nobody in Israel, let alone a Saul supporter like David's brother, would have demanded David's presence at home rather than with Saul at the palace.</p>


text:
<p>Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said to him, You son of a perverse rebellious woman, don’t I know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the confusion of your mother’s nakedness?-</p><p>David loved Saul, his daughters and his son Jonathan; and later David was to marry Saul's wives. These wives were given into David's bosom (<a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a>); in other words, they were really close in their relationship; so close, <a href='B:100 12:8'>2Sa 12:8</a> implies, that David had no real emotional need to take Bathsheba. Even while Saul was alive there was probably some attraction chemistry going on between David and those women. This may well be reflected in Saul's fury with Jonathan, which hints at least two things: firstly, Saul had a bad relationship with his wife; and secondly, he suspected some kind of unfaithfulness in her with David, perhaps only on a mental level. His paranoia would have led him to suspect all his wives of unfaithfulness. Saul perhaps feared that when David became king and he was deposed, then David would marry his wives, including Jonathan's mother. Just as Absalom took David's wives and lay with them as a sign of his taking of power from David. Even if this were to be how David exercised his kingship, Saul was struggling against the prophetic word which said David was to replace him as king.</p>


text:
<p>As long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth you will not be established, nor your kingdom. Therefore now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die!- </p><p>Saul assumed that Jonathan was to replace him as king, and assumed Jonathan would want this. He was deeply aware of Samuel's words that Saul's kingdom was not to be established, and was to be given to David. And yet he reasons as if this is not going to happen. This is typical of man's denial of the truth of God's word.</p><p>All of us in Christ experience a massive sense of paradox. We live and work in this world, doing the things of this world in our daily occupations, yet in the more important side of our lives we have this high spiritual relationship with the Lord Jesus and the Almighty Sovereign of this universe. This is - or ought to be- part of our hour by hour experience in this life. A little imagination of Jonathan's situation soon shows that our dilemma was exactly matched by his experience. He was the King's son, heavily taken up with the day to day running of the Kingdom, clearly tipped to succeed the King, and possibly take over as regent on Saul's retirement. Saul effectively says as much during his explosion at Jonathan for befriending David. So there was Jonathan, going up the ladder towards Kingship, when he had no real interest in this, and when he had firmly decided that David would be king, not himself , when the Kingdom was established (<a href='B:90 23:17'>1Sa 23:17</a>). There must be hundreds of Christians-come-high flying executives worldwide who can identify completely with this scenario.</p><p>The bitterness underlying Saul's words in <a href='B:90 20:30-31'>1Sa 20:30-31</a> indicates a certain element of love-hate in Jonathan's relationship with Saul. We can sense this in the record of 1 Samuel 14, when Jonathan overcame the Philistine garrison whilst his father cowered away in nervous faithlessness. How jealous Saul must have been! Jealousy was one of Saul's characteristics, and it is subconsciously a major feature of the world's aggression towards us; for the world is&nbsp; passively aggressive (cp. <a href='B:10 3:15'>Gen 3:15</a>), if only we manifest Christ as we should. Saul almost seems to have contrived his command not to eat on pain of death in order to incriminate his son, whom he knew would not have heard his prohibition. The way in which he says that even if it were Jonathan who had eaten, then he must die (<a href='B:90 14:39'>1Sa 14:39</a>), seems to suggest that Saul was actually looking for an excuse to kill Jonathan. This love-hate relationship between Jonathan and Saul is exactly typical of ours with the world and our own flesh.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan answered Saul his father, Why should he be put to death? What has he done?- </p><p>We notice that when Saul tried to put Jonathan to death when he had done no wrong, Jonathan accepted it (<a href='B:90 14:43'>1Sa 14:43</a>). But he protests strongly when his father treats David the same way. This reflects his deep humility, accepting his own death as he felt a sinner even if innocent of what he was accused of. But he stands up for David, as we should for the Lord Jesus. The answer to Jonathan's question was "Because Saul is jealous of him". When people are pressed to answer the hard questions which they cannot answer, they often become aggressive. And this is just what happened here (:33). Again and again, the record has every psychological verisimilitude and reality.</p>


text:
<p>Saul cast his spear at him to strike him. By this Jonathan knew that his father was determined to put David to death- </p><p>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>). See on <a href='B:90 14:45'>1Sa 14:45</a>.</p><p>A sensitive heart will constantly be looking to the Lord Jesus for inspiration. For its hard to maintain the intensities of which we have written. Consider how Jonathan suffered the same suffering as did David, in that Saul tried to kill him with a javelin. Jonathan felt the shame of David, and grieved for him. David is set up in the record as a type of Jesus, and Jonathan as a type of those with whom Jesus has made a covenant after His defeat of sin on the cross [cp. the fight with Goliath]. Jonathan 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; 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 Christ?</p>


text:
<p>So Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had treated him shamefully- </p><p>If as suggested this feast was a kind of peace offering celebration, this refusal to eat with them on the second day was a sign of refusing religious fellowship with his own father. To eat with someone, or not do so, was a major statement in ancient society. It was as good as quitting relationship with Saul. See on :33.</p><p>The Hebrew implies Jonathan felt shamed for the sake of the shame put on David, and was angry because of it. This again bears the hallmark of psychological credibility; for there's a definite link between shame and anger. Take a man whose mother yelled at him because as a toddler he ran out onto the balcony naked, and shamed him by her words. Years later on a hot Summer evening the man as an adult walks out on a balcony with just his underpants on. An old woman yells at him from the yard below that he should be ashamed of himself. And he's furiously angry with her- because of the shame given him by his mother in that incident 20 years ago. Shame and anger are clearly understood by God as being related, because His word several times connects them: "A fool's anger is immediately known; but a prudent man covers his shame" (<a href='B:240 12:16'>Pro 12:16</a>); A king's anger is against a man who shames him (<a href='B:240 14:35'>Pro 14:35</a>). Job's anger was related to the fact that he felt that ten times the friends had shamed him in their speeches (<a href='B:220 19:3'>Job 19:3</a>). Frequently the rejected are threatened with both shame and anger / gnashing of teeth; shame and anger are going to be connected in that awful experience. They will "curse [in anger]... and be ashamed" (<a href='B:230 109:28'>Psa 109:28</a>). The final shame of the rejected is going to be so great that "they shall be greatly ashamed... their everlasting confusion shall never be forgotten" (<a href='B:300 20:11'>Jer 20:11</a>). Seeing they will be long dead and gone, it is us, the accepted, who by God's grace will recall the terrible shame of the rejected throughout our eternity. Their shame will be so terrible; and hence their anger will likewise be. Because Paul's preaching 'despised' the goddess Diana, her worshippers perceived that she and they were somehow thereby shamed; and so "they were full of wrath, and cried out, saying, Great is Diana of the Ephesians" (<a href='B:510 19:27-28'>Act 19:27-28</a>). It's perhaps possible to understand the wrath of God in this way, too. For His wrath is upon those who break His commands; and by breaking them we shame God (<a href='B:520 2:23'>Rom 2:23</a>); we despise his desire for our repentance (<a href='B:520 2:4'>Rom 2:4</a>).</p>


text:
<p>In the morning Jonathan went out into the field at the time appointed with David, and a little boy went with him- </p><p>As noted on :39, Jonathan was driven to use a child because he didn't want to use anyone who might just guess something was going on in this apparent archery practice.</p>


text:
<p>He said to his boy, Run, find now the arrows which I shoot. As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him- </p><p>This apparent missed shot was to give Jonathan the excuse to shout out words to the boy which were really addressed to David.</p>


text:
<p>When the boy had come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan called after the boy, Isn’t the arrow beyond you?- </p><p>The boy ran to where the arrows had fallen, near the target. But the arrow shot beyond him was purposeful, so that he could shout the words of :38 which were really intended for David.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan called after the boy, Go quickly! Hurry! Don’t delay! Jonathan’s boy gathered up the arrows and came to his master- </p><p>These words were intended to be heard by David, who was to not delay in fleeing. But Jonathan's love for David led him to change plans at the last minute; which is completely imaginable in such a relationship and emotional moment. The whole ruse with the archery practice had been in order to relay these words to David. But then the plans change- and Jonathan meets David face to face, because love overpowers him.</p>


text:
<p>But the boy didn’t know anything. Only Jonathan and David knew the matter- </p><p>As noted earlier, this whole intricate plan was because Jonathan lacked a single faithful friend or messenger through whom he could communicate with David. He had to do so himself directly, and it was critical that even "the boy" didn't perceive what was going on. We see here his very difficult situation within the household of Saul, and the extent of opposition to David there.</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan gave his weapons to his boy, and said to him, Go, take them to the city- </p><p>As discussed on :38, this was a change of plan at the last minute.</p>


text:
<p>As soon as the boy had gone David got up from the south side of the stone, fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself three times. They kissed one another and wept one with another, and David wept the most- </p><p>They agree that if Jonathan shoots arrows well beyond David, then David should flee. Obviously they did not intend to meet if this were the case; otherwise there would have been no point in the arrangement about the arrows. David did need to flee, so Jonathan shot the arrows beyond him. Yet&nbsp; somehow Jonathan and David took a chance and crept towards each other. David went towards Jonathan, somehow hoping that he would meet him. And Jonathan went to find David, hoping against hope that he wouldn't&nbsp; flee immediately, as they had arranged. This explains the intensity of their meeting together: "they kissed one another, and wept one with another, until David exceeded" (AV). "Until David exceeded" defies complete translation and interpretation. It clearly does not mean that David cried until he stopped crying. David "exceeded" in that he went somewhere beyond; Strong defines the Hebrew word as meaning 'to be made larger in the mind'. In a sense David broke down emotionally, and yet on another level he went beyond, into a level of relationship which was beyond normal emotional experience. In like manner he commented that his love for Jonathan was beyond the love of women; the love of David for Jonathan pointed forward to that special emotional and spiritual bond in Christ which passes the human experience of love (<a href='B:560 3:19'>Eph 3:19</a>).</p>


text:
<p>Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, because we have both sworn in the name of Yahweh, saying, ‘Yahweh shall be between me and you, and between my seed and your seed, forever’. David arose and departed, and Jonathan went into the city-</p><p>See on <a href='B:90 23:16'>1Sa 23:16</a>; <a href='B:90 23:18'>1Sa 23:18</a>. We are of course invited to see the two friends returning to such different lives. David to the outlaw life of the free scrubland, and Jonathan walked alone uphill back to the court life, fraught as it was with political tensions, anger and frustration. Both lives were equally serving Yahweh, and many servants of God in different situations have reflected upon this truth. We are all called to different situations.</p>


text:
<p>Then David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, Why are you alone and no-one with you?- </p><p>This Ahimelech could be the Ahijah descendant of Eli of <a href='B:90 14:3'>1Sa 14:3</a>:&nbsp; 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. This is what gives intensity to our prayers and repentance, knowing we too live in such a gap.</p><p>The Lord refers to Ahimelech as "Abiathar the high priest" (<a href='B:480 2:26'>Mar 2:26</a>). There were times when two high priests held the office at the same time (<a href='B:40 19:3'>Num 19:3</a>; <a href='B:130 24:3'>1Ch 24:3</a>; <a href='B:110 1:45'>1Ki 1:45</a> cp. <a href='B:110 2:27'>1Ki 2:27</a>). Or His idea may have been "Abiathar who was the high priest later on", just as we read of Jesse begetting "David the king" (<a href='B:470 1:6'>Mat 1:6</a>), not immediately, but only later was he king. Or "Rahab the harlot" (<a href='B:650 11:31'>Heb 11:31</a>), "Mathew the publican" (<a href='B:470 10:3'>Mat 10:3</a>).</p>


