FIRST PART: SAMUEL1 Samuel 1-7Samuel’s Life and Work as Judge, Priest and Prophet, Directed Towards a Through Reformation of the Theocracy and Laying the Foundation of the Theocratic Kingdom______ FIRST : SAMUEL’S EARLY LIFE1 Samuel 1-3______ FIRST SECTIONSamuel’s Birth in Answer to Prayer to the Lord1 Samuel 1:1-20I. Samuel’s parents, the Ephrathite Elkanah and the childless Hannah. 1 Samuel 1:1-81 Now [om. Now] there was a certain [om. certain] man of Ramathaim-zophim, of Mount Ephraim, and his name was Elkanah, the son of Jeroham, the son of 2Elihu, the son of Tohu, the Son of Zuph, an Ephrathite. And he had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah; and Peninnah 3had children, but [and] Hannah had no children. And this man went up yearly out of [from] his city to worship and to sacrifice unto the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts [Hosts] in Shiloh. And the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, the priests of the Lord, were there [And there the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, 4were priests of Jehovah]. And when the time was that Elkanah offered, Hebrews 5 gave to Peninnah his wife, and to all her sons and her daughters, portions; but unto Hannah he gave a worthy [double] portion, for he loved Hannah, but [and] 6the Lord [Jehovah] had shut up her womb. And her adversary also [om. also] provoked her sore [ins. also], for [om. for] to make her fret because the Lord [Jehovah] 7had shut up her womb. And as he did so [And so it happened] year by year; when she went up to the house of the Lord [Jehovah], so she [she thus] provoked 8voked her, therefore [and] she wept and did not eat. Then said Elkanah her husband [And Elkanah her husband said] to her, Hannah, why weepest thou? and why eatest thou not? and why is thy heart grieved? am not I better to thee than ten sons? II. Hannah’s Prayer far a Son. 1 Samuel 1:9-18 a9So [And] Hannah rose up after they [she] had eaten in Shiloh, and after they [she] had drunk. Now [And] Eli the priest sat upon a [the] seat by a [the] post 10of the temple [Sanctuary] of the Lord [Jehovah]. And she was in bitterness of 11soul, and prayed unto the Lord [Jehovah], and wept sore. And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts [Jehovah of Hosts], if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thy handmaid, but [and] wilt give unto thine handmaid a male-child, then I will give him unto the Lord [Jehovah] all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his 12head. And it came to pass, as she continued praying before the Lord [Jehovah], 13that Eli marked her mouth. Now [And] Hannah, she [om. she] spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard; therefore [and] Eli 14thought she had been [was] drunken. And Eli said unto her, How long wilt thou 15be drunken? put away thy wine from thee. And Hannah answered and said, No, my lord, I am a woman of a sorrowful spirit; I have drunk neither wine nor strong16drink, but have poured out my soul before the Lord [Jehovah]. Count not thine handmaid for a daughter of Belial [dissolute woman]; for out of the abundance 17of my complaint and [ins. my] grief have I spoken hitherto. Then [And] Eli answered and said, Go in peace; and the God of Israel grant thee [om. thee] thy 18a petition that thou hast asked of him. And she said, Let thine handmaid find grace in thy sight [thine eyes]. III. Samuel’s Birth. 1 Samuel 1:18-2018b So [And] the woman went her way and did eat, and her countenance was no 19more sad. And they rose up in the morning early, and worshipped before the Lord [Jehovah], and returned and came to their house to Ramah. And Elkanah 20knew Hannah his wife; and the Lord [Jehovah] remembered her. Wherefore [And] it came to pass, when the time was come about, after Hannah had [that Hannah] conceived, that she [and] bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because [For, said she,] I have [om. have] asked him of the Lord [Jehovah]. AND . Samuel’s Parents. 1 Samuel 1:1-81 Sa 1:1-2. And there was a man of Ramathaim-zophim.—Here an account is given of Samuel’s genealogy and birth-place.There is no sufficient ground for adopting (as Thenius does) the reading of the Sept. MS. R. (Vat.) ΰִ ?ιωδָ ?ιָ ?δ [there was a man] instead of εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιΰִ ?ιωׁ [and there was a man], since this latter does not affect the independence of the Books of Samuel; for the ε [and] does not indicate attachment to something preceding, the continuation of the Book of Judges, but εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι [and there was] stands here, as it often does at the beginning of a narrative, as historical introductory formula, Joshua 1:1; Judges 1:1; Rth 1:1; 2 Samuel 1:1; 1 Kings 1:1; Esther 1:1; Ezra 1:1; Ezekiel 1:1; Jonah 1:1. The father of Samuel was a man of Ramathaim-zophim in the hill-country of Ephraim, named Elkanah. The place Ramathaim (δָ ?ψָֽ ?ξָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν) is doubtless the same that is called in 1 Samuel 1:3 “his city,” and afterwards in 1 Samuel 1:19; 1 Samuel 2:11 by the shorter name Ramah (δָ ?ψָ ?ξָ ?δ), whence it appears that it was not merely the family-residence, but also Elkanah’s abode, where he had “his house.” The full name Ramathaim-zophim is found here only. The dual “Two-hills” points to the site of the place as on the sides or summits of two hills. It is the birth-place of Samuel (1 Samuel 1:19); the same Ramah in which he had his house (1 Samuel 7:17), the central point of his labors (1 Samuel 8:4; 1 Samuel 15:34; 1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Samuel 19:18-22) and his abode as long as he lived, and where he was buried (1 Samuel 26:1; 1 Samuel 28:3). But this Ramah of Samuel, according to Pressel’s clear statement in Herzog (R.-E. s. v. Rama), is most probably identical with the Ramah in the tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25); for the statement of Josephus (Ant. 8, 12, 3) that Ramathon, which = ψָ ?ξָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν [Ramathaim] and is therefore doubtless the Ramah of Samuel, was forty Stadia from Jerusalem, and that of Eusebius (Onomast. s. v. ’Αρμαθὲμ) that it was somewhat farther north in a line from Jerusalem towards Bethel, carry us into the territory of Benjamin. If it be urged against this view that, according to Judges 4:5 and this passage, Ramah of Samuel was in the mountains of Ephraim, and therefore in the Tribe-territory of Ephraim, it is to be observed on the other hand that the mountains of Ephraim stretch into the Tribe of Benjamin, and not only include its northern mountains, but extend towards Jerusalem and unite with the mountains of Judah. The Ramah of Samuel lay in Benjamin near Gibeah, Saul’s home, and Mizpah. The addition zophim (φεֹ ?τִ ?ιν) distinguishes it from the other places of the same name, and indicates the district (the land of Zuph 1 Samuel 9:5) in which it lay, whose name is to be derived from the family of Zuph or Zophim from whom Elkanah descended (comp. 1 Chronicles 6:11; 1 Chronicles 6:20). Since, according to this, Zophim indicates a region, which took its name from the descendants of Zuph, the place Sτba, which has lately been discovered west of Jerusalem, cannot be the Ramah of Samuel, as Robinson and Ritter suppose (see Then. sδchs, exeget. Studien, II. 134 sq., and Ewald, Gesch. II. 595). It is rather to be sought in the site of the present Er-Ram between four and five (Eng.) miles, as Josephus states, from Jerusalem on the summit or side of a conical mountain on the road from Jerusalem to Bethel. When Saul (in 1 Samuel 9:5) comes into the “ land of Zuph,” he straightway finds Samuel in “this city.” That “this city,” Samuel’s abode, is identical with Ramathaim-zophim here is beyond doubt. But against the view that it, together with the region “Zuph,” belonged to Benjamin, and in support of the view that it is different from Ramah of Benjamin, and lay in the territory of Ephraim, the principal consideration adduced is Saul’s route (1 Samuel 9:4 to 1 Samuel 10:2): on the return from Ramah to Gibeah, Saul, it is said, certainly took the directest road; but, according to 1 Samuel 10:2-5, he first crossed the border of Benjamin (1 Samuel 10:2), and then came into the neighborhood of Bethel (1 Samuel 10:3), which lay close to the border of Benjamin and Ephraim; according to this, Ramah of Samuel was situated north of Bethel in Ephraim not far from Gibeah (1 Samuel 1:20) but near Shiloh (1 Samuel 1:24), for if it had been far from Shiloh, the animals for offering would not have been carried from home. So Then. on 1 Samuel 9:5, p. 34. But the assumption that Saul went the directest way to Gibeah is not certain. In 1 Samuel 1:3, remarks Winer correctly (W.-B. s. v.), nothing is said really of the neighborhood of Bethel, but only that Saul should meet men who were going to Bethel, from what direction we know not. And Ramah of Benjamin was so near Shiloh, that there was no need to drive thither the animals which could not easily be purchased on the spot. The other geographical term ΰֶ ?τְ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι “Ephraimite” (which must not be connected with φεּ ?σ (Luth.) in which case it would have been δָ ?ΰֶ ?τְ ?ψָ ?ϊִ ?ι) certainly describes Elkanah as an Ephraimite, who belonged not only to the mountains, but also to the Tribe of Ephraim—and not as a Bethlehemite, as Hoffmann (Weissag. u. Erfόll. II. 61) and Robinson (Pal. II., 583 [Am. ed. 1 Samuel 2:7 sq.])sup. pose; for in 1 Samuel 17:12 and Rth 1:2, to which appeal is made, the word is further expressly defined by the phrase “of Bethlehem.” “It by no means follows, however, from this description of Elkanah (comp. Then. p. 2) that Ramathaim-zophim pertained to the territory of Ephraim, but only that Elkanah’s family had settled in this Ramah, and had afterwards moved to Ramah in Benjamin” (Keil, p. 18). As Elkanah came from the Levitical family of Kohath, son of Levi, whose land lay in Ephraim, Dan and Manasseh (Joshua 21:5; Joshua 21:21 sq.), and as the Levites generally were counted as citizens of the tribes in which their residence was, it is not strange that Elkanah is here designated as an Ephraimite according to his descent, while he lived in Benjamin, whither his forefathers had immigrated. The family of Elkanah is here traced back only through four generations to φεּ ?σ “Zuph,” no doubt with reference to the preceding designation Zophim, because Zuph had settled in this district with his family, and it had taken its name from him. It would therefore properly be written φεּ ?τִ ?ιν “Zuphim.” This explanation of the name is certainly more natural than that which supposes that the district in which it lay, the “land of Zuph” (1 Samuel 9:5) was so called from its abundant supply of water, and than the explanation of some Rabbis, “Ramathaim of the watchers or prophets.” [The first question with regard to this word, whether we read Zophim or, with Erdmann, Zuphim, is a grammatical one: is the combination Ramathaim-zophim in accordance with Heb. usage? In proper names the rule is that the first word of a compound is in the construct. state, but the two exceptions, compounds with ΰָ ?αֵ ?μ “meadow,” Genesis 50:11, etc., and ωָׁ ?εֵ ?δ “plain,” Genesis 14:5, seem to prove the possibility of an appositional construction, so that we must admit (against Wellhausen “Der Text. d. Bόcker Sam.” in loco) Ramathaim-zophim to be a possible form. But, as “Zophim” never appears again as an appendage to Ramathaim, and the old vss. Chald. and Syr. render it as an appellative, it would perhaps be better, with Wellhausen, to suppose that the final ν m comes by error of transcription from the following word, and to read φεּ ?τִ ?ι “a Zuphite,” which would then correspond to the “Zuph” at the end as “an Ephraimite” does to “Mount Ephraim.”—Tr.]. From a comparison of the two genealogies in 1 Chronicles 6:26-27 (Hebrews 11, 12) 34, 35 (Heb. 19, 20) with this genealogy of Samuel it appears that they agree except in the last three names, which in the first list in Chr. are Eliab, Nahath and Zophai, and in the second, Eliel, Toah and Ziph. They are plainly the same names with various changes of form. These changes are probably to be ascribed to differences of pronunciation or to the mis-writing of the original forms which are preserved in this passage (comp. Then. 2). The Levitical descent of Elkanah and Samuel is put beyond doubt by a comparison of the genealogy here with those in Chronicles. In the first of these, 1 Chronicles 6:22 sq. (Hebrews 7 sq.) the genealogical list descends from the second son of Levi, Kohath, to Samuel and his sons; in the second, 1:33 sq. (Heb. 18 sq.), it ascends from the singer Heman, Samuel’s grandson, to Kohath, Levi and Israel. These Levites of the Family of Kohath had their dwellings appointed them in the tribes of Ephraim, Dan, and Manasseh. As the Levites were usually designated by the tribes in which their dwellings were fixed (Hengstenb. Beitr. [Contributions] zur Einl. ins. A. T. III. 61), the name “Ephraimite” here cannot be adduced against the Levitical descent of Samuel, as is done by Knobel (II. 29, Anm. 2), Nagelsbach (Herzog, R.-E. s. v. Samuel) and others. The latter himself refers to Judges 17:7; Judges 19:1 as cases where a Levite is described as belonging to another tribe, but thinks it strange that, while in those passages the Levitical descent of the men is also expressly mentioned, Elkanah’s descent from Levi is here not hinted at, and this is all the more surprising, if he was really a Levite, when his ancestor came from Ephraim to Ramah and gave his name to the region. But the author of the Book of Judges had a special motive for mentioning the Levitical character of those persons, while our author had little or none, since in his narrative of Samuel he lays all the stress on his prophetic office, and writes, as we have seen, from a prophetic stand-point. There was the less need to emphasize Samuel’s Levitical character because, as Ewald (II. 594) remarks, the Levites that were not of Aaron’s family, seem in early times to have been more blended with the people. And the statement in “Chronicles” of Samuel’s Levitical descent was not occasioned by the fact that the prophet performed priestly functions (Knobel ubi sup.), nor is it to be explained by saying that perhaps quite early the conviction that Samuel must have been a Levite grew out of the difficulty which every Levite must have felt at the discharge of priestly duties by Samuel, if he were not of the stem of Levi (Nagelsbach, ubi sup.)—nor to be referred, with Thenius (p. 2), to the fact that, perhaps in later times the genealogy given in our Book was attached to that of Levi in order thus to justify Samuel’s offering sacrifices. “Chronicles” throughout makes its statistical-historical statements from the Levitical point of view, and thus supplements the history of David and Samuel in our Book. Hengstenberg well says (ubi sup.): “We cannot suppose these genealogies to be an arbitrary invention, simply because, if the author had been disposed to this, he would doubtless have put Samuel among the descendants of Aaron.” Ewald remarks, “Anyone who looks narrowly at the testimony in ‘Chronicles’ cannot possibly doubt that Samuel was of a Levitical family,” while our author attached no importance to this fact (ubi sup. Anm. 2). So Bunsen (in loco), referring to Joshua 21:21, where the dwellings of the Kohathites are fixed in Mount Ephraim also, says: “The Levitical descent of Samuel is certain; only it is not made specially prominent here.” Nδgelsbach himself is obliged to admit that the proofs of Samuel’s Levitical descent are convincing; for 1) looking at “Chronicles” (1 Chronicles 25:4; comp. 1 Samuel 6:18 sq.), he is obliged to concede that Samuel’s posterity is very decidedly considered as belonging to the Levites, since Heman, the renowned singer, grandson of Samuel and father of a numerous posterity, has an eminent place in the lists of Levites of David’s day; and 2) he urges further as a not unimportant consideration the name of Samuel’s father, “Elkanah, that is, he whom God acquired or purchased,” for this name is both in signification and use exclusively a Levite name, and all the Elkanahs mentioned in the Old Test, (leaving out the one in 2 Chronicles 28:7, whose tribe is not stated) were demonstrably Levites, and belonged mostly to the family of Korah from whom Samuel also was descended. See Simonis Onomast., p. 493; Hengstenb., ubi supra 61; Keil in loco.—The further objection is made that Samuel was really dedicated to the Sanctuary-service by his mother’s vow, which would not have been necessary if Elkanah had been a Levite. To this the answer is not that Hannah’s vow referred to the Nazariteship of her son—for though all Nazarites were specially consecrated to the Lord, they did not thereby come under obligation to serve in the Sanctuary like the Levites—but rather that in Hannah’s vow the words “all the days of his life” (1 Samuel 1:11; 1 Samuel 1:22) are to be emphasized. While she consecrates him to the Lord as Nazarite, she at the same time by her vow devotes him for his whole life to the service of the Lord in the Sanctuary; while the Levites did not enter the service till the age of twenty-five or thirty (Numbers 8:23 sq.; Numbers 4:23; Numbers 4:30; Numbers 4:47), and then needed not to remain constantly at the Sanctuary, Samuel as soon as he is weaned is destined by his mother to continual service there (1 Samuel 1:22), and while yet a boy wears there the priestly dress.—It is again urged against the Levitical descent of Elkanah that, according to the Septuagint rendering of 1 Samuel 1:21 (which adds πάσαςτὰςδεκάταςτῆςγῆςαὐτοῦ “all the tithes of his land”), he brought tithes (Then.); but the genuineness of this addition is very doubtful, and, even if it be received, the bringing of tithes is no evidence of Elkanah’s non-Levitical character (Josephus, who relates the Levitical descent, makes no difficulty in speaking of the tithe-bringing), for, according to the Law, the Levites had to bestow on the priests, as gift of Jehovah, one-tenth of the tenth which they themselves received from the other tribes, Numbers 18:26 sq.; comp. Nehemiah 10:38 (Keil 26, Note). Ewald (II. 594) says: “The tithe which Elkanah (according to 1 Samuel 1:21, Sept.) brought proves nothing against his Levitical cha racter.” See his Alterthόmer (Archζology), p. 346. Thenius refers the fulfilment of the prophecy in 1 Samuel 2:35 to Samuel, and thereon bases the assertion that Samuel’s Levitical descent is set aside by the prophecy; but, even if his reference be conceded, this consequence does not follow, for in this prophecy the sense requires us to emphasize not the priest but what is predicted of him. ηַ ?πָּ ?δ, ̓ ?́Αννα, Hannah (found in Ph�nician also; Dido’s sister was named Anna), a common name for women among the Hebrews, signifying “charm,” “favor,” “beauty,” and in a religious sense “grace.” Elkanah’s bigamy with Hannah and Peninnah (“coral,” “pearl”), like the custom of taking concubines along with the proper wives, is fundamentally opposed to the original divine ordination of monogamy. The Mosaic Law does not forbid polygamy, but never expressly approves it; it accepts it as a custom and seeks to restrict and govern it by various regulations (Leviticus 18:18; Exodus 21:7-10; Deuteronomy 17:17; Deuteronomy 21:15-17). According to Genesis 4:19 it was a Cainite, Lamech, that first violated the original ordinance. As it was usually only the men of more wealth and higher position that took two or more wives, we may suppose that Elkanah was a wealthy man.—The curse which attached to this relation appears in Elkanah’s married and family-life; Peninnah, who was blessed with children, exalts herself haughtily above the childless Hannah, and embitters her soul. The resulting discord in the family-life shows itself at the holy place, where Hannah’s heart is continually troubled by her “adversary,” while Elkanah seeks to console her by all the more affectionate conduct. 1 Samuel 1:3-5. Elkanah’s yearly worship and sacrifice at Shiloh. And this man went up, etc.—The expression “from year to year” (ξִ ?ιָּ ?ξִ ?ινιΧ) is used in Exodus 13:10 of the Feast of Unleavened Bread and so elsewhere (Judges 11:40; Judges 21:19). On the traces of the Passover in the Period of the Judges see Hengstenberg Beitr. [Contrib.] 3. 79–85. It is this Feast that is meant here. For Elkanah is said in the text to have traveled regularly every year with his whole household. (1 Samuel 1:21) to the Sanctuary. This journey was not taken at pleasure, but at an appointed time, and therefore at one of the festivals at which the people were required by the Law to appear before the Lord, Exodus 34:23; comp. Deuteronomy 16:16. It was only at the Passover that the whole family were accustomed to go up to the Sanctuary, only then that every man without exception went. But Elkanah attended the feast regularly only once a year. Nothing but the Passover, therefore, can be meant here. At this feast Elkanah went up once every year to the Sanctuary with his whole family. [This statement—that the feast which Elkanah attended was the Passover—would be probable, if we could assume regularity in carrying out the Mosaic Law at this time; but this cannot be assumed. See Judges 17., 18., 19.; 1 Samuel 2:12-17. Some prefer to see here a feast different from any of the three great festivals, referring to the feasting (1 Samuel 1:9) and David’s “yearly sacrifice,” 1 Samuel 20:6; comp. Deuteronomy 12:11-14 (Bib. Comm. in loco). This, however, is not conclusive; feasting would be appropriate at the great festivals, (see Leviticus 23:40; Nehemiah 8:12); and the question what occasion this was must be left undecided.—Tr.]. To worship and to sacrifice.—The beautiful picture of Israelitish piety which we have in the following account of Elkanah and Hannah is introduced by these features as the chief and fundamental ones. The worship relates to the name of the Lord who dwells in His chosen place in the Sanctuary, and is the expression of the remembrance of this name before the Lord. The sacrifice is the embodied prayer; in the sacrifice worship is presented to the Lord as the act by which the offerer brings himself, and all that he has, to the Lord. According to the Law (Exodus 23:15; Exodus 34:20; comp. Deuteronomy 16:16) those who came to the Sanctuary to attend the festival were not to appear empty-handed before the Lord, but “every man shall give as he is able, according to the blessing of the Lord thy God which He hath given thee.” The μִ ?ζְ ?αֹּ ?ηַ (“to sacrifice”) is to be understood of the Shelamim, which consisted of free-will offerings (Deuteronomy 16:10), partly from the tithes set apart for this purpose (Deuteronomy 14:22 sq.) and the first-born of cattle (Deuteronomy 15:20; Numbers 18:17), which were preceded by burnt offerings, (Numbers 10:10) and followed by joyful feasting. (Oehler, Herzog R.-E. IV. 386). With reference to this sacrificial meal, which belonged essentially to the peace-offerings (Shelamim), the whole act of sacrifice is designated by ζָ ?αַ ?η, because this word denotes slaying with reference to a meal to be afterwards held, and the expressions ωְׁ ?μָ ?ξִ ?ιν (peace-offerings) and ζְ ?αָ ?ηִ ?ιν (sacrifices) are exactly equivalent, the ζָ ?αַ ?ηζֶ ?αַ ?η (“to sacrifice a sacrifice”) being used of the Shelamim. This peace-offering, whose performance is called ζֶ ?αַ ?η “slaughter,” was preceded by a sin-offering and a burnt-offering, of which the former removed the alienation from God occasioned by sin, and the latter through the worship offered made the offerer acceptable in the sight of God; and thus the peace-offering was the representation and confirmation of the relation of integrity, the peaceful and friendly communion between the Lord and the man who was brought near to Him (ωָׁ ?μֵ ?ν integer fuit); comp. Oehler in Herzog 10:637, Hengstenb. Beitr. III., p. 85 sq. To the Lord of Hosts, Jehovah Sabaoth. Elkanah draws near with worship and with sacrifice. The signification of the name ιָ ?δεֶ ?δ [Jahveh, which probably, and not Jehovah, is the correct pronunciation,—Tr.] is the ground of the worship and of the presentation of the offering. The living, unchangeable eternal God, who by His historical self-revelation as His people’s Covenant-God has prepared Himself the name by which they are to know and call Him, and by which He comes into direct intercourse with them, has thus first made possible for His people the worship and sacrifice which they are to bring to His honor, and also made it a sacred duty. In Shiloh Elkanah brings his offering to the Lord of Hosts. Shiloh (ωִׁ ?μֹ ?δ, that is, “Rest”) lay in the territory of Ephraim, “on the north side of Bethel, on the east side of the highway that goeth up from Bethel to Shechem and on the south of Lebonah,” Judges 21:19. Here the Sanctuary of Israel, the Tabernacle with the Ark, which immediately after the entrance into Canaan was placed in Gilgal (fifty stadia from Jordan, ten from Jericho), was located from the time mentioned in Joshua 18:1 (the sixth year after the passage of the Jordan according to Joseph. Ant. 5., 1. 19), to the capture of the Ark by the Philistines. For a time only, during the Benjamite war (Judges 20:27), the Ark was in Bethel. Shiloh was the permanent seat of the Sanctuary till the unfortunate Philistine war under Eli. And this Sanctuary was, during the whole period of the Judges up to Samuel’s time when the Ark fell into the hands of the Philistines, the only one that the people of Israel had, the national Sanctuary instituted by Moses, where men came into the presence of the Lord, where all sacrifices were offered and the great festivals celebrated, where the whole nation assembled: the dwelling, the house, the temple of God (1 Samuel 1:7; 1 Samuel 1:9; 1 Samuel 1:22). In regard to Shiloh as the religious centre of the people during the whole period of the Judges on account of the location there of the Sanctuary with the Ark by Joshua, see for further details Hengstenb. Beitr. [Contrib.] III., p. 52 sq. Shiloh was the home of the prophet Ahijah under Jeroboam II. (1 Kings 11:12; 1 Kings 11:14) and was still in existence at the time of the Exile (Jeremiah 41:5). Jerome found there some ruins and the foundation of an altar (see on Zephaniah 1:14). According to Robinson (3:302 sq. [Am. ed. II. 267–270]) and Wilson (The Lands of the Bible, II. 292 sq.) the ancient Shiloh is the present ruin Seilϋn, whose situation answers exactly to the description in Judges 21:19. The position of the place was such that, in accordance with its name, the Sanctuary of Israel could there have a quiet permanent place. This quiet place, situated on a hill (Psalms 78:54) was the scene of the mighty revolution brought about in the history of the Theocracy by the call of Samuel to be the Prophet of God and by the overthrow of the priestly house of Eli. Instead of “and there the two sons, etc.” (εְֹ ?ωָ ?νωְׁ ?πֵ ?ιαּ ?Χ) the Sept. gives καὶἐκεῖ ‘Ηλίκαὶοἱδύουἱοὶαὐτοῦ (“and there Eli and his two sons,” 1 Samuel 1:3), as if the text had read “and there Eli,” etc. (εְ ?ωָׁ ?νςֵ ?μִ ?ι); but this is clearly a change of the original text occasioned by the fact, which seemed strange to the translator, that not Eli but his two sons are mentioned at the beginning of the Book. This mention of the priests accords with the following narrative, which speaks of the sacrificial function, which Eli on account of age no longer discharged. Eli, though termed only priest, yet filled the office of High-priest, but had made over the priestly duties to his sons; hence it is that they, and not he, are here specially mentioned as persons who were priests to the Lord (λֹּ ?δֲ ?πִ ?ινμιδεδ), by which it is intimated that there were others who performed this priestly service before the Lord. From the fact that only these two, with their father, are here mentioned expressly, it has been concluded that the Priesthood was numerically very meagre and simple; but this conclusion is wholly unfounded; for, on the one hand, not all the priests are mentioned here, but only the two who figure in the succeeding history and illustrate the corruption of the Priesthood, and, on the other hand, from the fact that all Israel sacrificed at the Sanctuary at Shiloh it is clear that two or three priests would not suffice for the service, comp. 1 Samuel 2:14; 1 Samuel 2:16. What a contrast is given us here in the two sons of Eli, representatives of a priesthood inwardly estranged from God and sunk in immorality, and the pious God-fearing Elkanah and his consecrated wife Hannah! 1 Samuel 1:4. “The day” (δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν), that is, on the day when he came to Shiloh to sacrifice.That Elkanah’s sacrifice (ζָ ?αַ ?η) was a praise or thank-offering is clear from what follows; for, according to the Law (Leviticus 7:15) the flesh of this offering, of which the offerer kept a part, had to be eaten on the day on which it was brought. This praise-offering or thank-offering is (Leviticus 7:11 sq.) the first and principal sort of the peace-offering (ζֶ ?αַ ?ηςַ ?μΞϊּ ?εֹ ?γָ ?δ = ωְׁ ?εָ ?ξִ ?ιν or ζֶ ?αַ ?ηϊּ ?εֹ ?γϊωׁ ?Χ 1 Samuel 1:13; 1 Samuel 1:15), the sacrifice of the thankful recognition of God’s undeserved benefits. The second sort of peace-offering is the vow-offering (πֶ ?γֶ ?γ), which was promised when a request was made for God’s favor, and offered when it was granted; the third sort is the free-will-offering (πְ ?γָ ?αָ ?δ) for a special experience of God’s favor, and in a wider sense a voluntary contribution to the Sanctuary and its furniture [Exodus 35:29.—Tr.].—Elkanah’s whole family took part in the feasts which he made there from the Shelamim [peace-offerings] in accordance with the provision of the Law, Deuteronomy 12:11-12; Deuteronomy 12:17-18. These meals had a joyful character, comp. Deuteronomy 12:12; Deuteronomy 16:11; Deuteronomy 27:7. In Elkanah’s household this joy was disturbed all the while by the childlessness of Hannah. While he divided to Peninnah and her children their pieces, parts, portions of the flesh of the offering, he gave Hannah 1 Samuel 1:5. ξָ ?πָ ?δΰַ ?ηַ ?ϊΰַ ?τָּ ?ιִ ?ν. Of the various explanations of these words (in which the ΰַ ?τַּ ?ιִ ?ν makes the difficulty), only two now deserve consideration; the first (Syr., Targ., Gesen., Winer, De Wette, Bunsen, Keil [Wordsworth, Bib. Com., Cahen]) takes ΰַ ?τָּ ?ιִ ?ν in the sense of “persons,” so that it would read “a, portion for two persons,” or “for persons” ([Fόrst], Bunsen, that is, “a large piece”); the second (Thenius, Bφttcher, “neua exeget. krit. Aehrenlese z. A. T.”, p. 85 sq.) after the Vulgate and Luther renders ΰַ ?τָּ ?ιִ ?ν “sad,” or better, “displeased,” “unwilling.” Against the first explanation is the fact that the sing. ΰσ never has the meaning “person,” nor can it be shown that this meaning belongs to the dual; it means “countenance,” but it is only by forcing that the signification “person” can thence be gotten (Keil) on the ground that μְ ?ΰַ ?τֵּ ?ι is equivalent to μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι in 1 Samuel 25:23, and τָּ ?πιִ ?ν is used for “person” in 2 Samuel 17:11. It is, however, on linguistic grounds, better to explain the word, according to its usual signification, as expressing a displeased disposition or emotion, akin to anger. It is then to be taken adverbially (as, for example, the opposite feeling πְ ?γָ ?αָ ?δ, Deuteronomy 23:24; Hosea 14:5) equivalent to αְּ ?ΰַ ?τָּ ?ιִ ?ν in Daniel 11:20, “in anger.” In contrast with the joy which ought to have reigned undisturbed at this feast, Elkanah’s heart was full of sadness because his beloved Hannah remained without the blessing of children, while her adversary, proud of her children, vexed her with it; for childlessness was held to be a great misfortune, a reproach, yea a divine punishment (Genesis 19:31; Genesis 30:1; Genesis 30:23). The one portion, which alone he could give Hannah, was a contrast to the many portions which he gave to Peninnah and her sons and daughters, and was, as it were, the mark of her desolate despised condition over against the fortunate and boastful Peninnah. [It is difficult to give any satisfactory rendering of this much-disputed phrase. The word ΰַ ?τַּ ?ιν has only three meanings in the Old Test. (excluding this passage): 1) nostrils (Genesis 2:7; Lamentations 4:20); 2) face (1 Samuel 20:41); 3) anger (1 Samuel 11:6). The rendering, therefore, “sadness,” “displeasure,” defended above by Dr. Erdmann, is hardly allowable. Nor does the word mean “person;” in 2 Samuel 17:11 (adduced by Keil) the similar word τָּ ?πִ ?ιν means not “persons,” but “presence,” and offers no support to this rendering. The Chaldee translation “a chosen portion” takes it in the sense “presence,” “a portion worthy to be set in one’s presence,” as the bread in the Tabernacle was called μֶ ?ηֶ ?ντָּ ?πִ ?ιν “bread of presence,” “show-bread.” Another translation (mentioned by Gesenius, Thesaurus s. v.) is “one portion of faces,” that is, two slices of bread with meat between. The Syriac translation “double” is apparently based on an accidental resemblance in two words. The Sept. omits the word and renders “one portion,” but the context requires an explanatory word here. The original strictly allows only two translations, either “a portion of anger” (so Abarbanel, who speaks of two angers or griefs which Elkanah had), which seems out of keeping with Elkanah’s character, or “a portion set in one’s presence,” that is, “an offered portion,” which is jejune. In this failure of the strict rendering to make sense, it is perhaps better to conjecture a meaning “persons” for ΰַ ?τַּ ?ιִ ?ν, (following Syr. and Arab.) and render “a double portion.”—TR.]. 1 Samuel 1:6-8. Hannah, provoked by her adversary, consoled by Elkanah. Peninnah is Hannah’s adversary on account of Elkanah’s special love for the latter (1 Samuel 1:5); out of jealousy she is her rival. Bigamy, which is in opposition to God’s appointment, bears its bitter fruits for Elkanah and his house.—βַּ ?ρΞλַּ ?ςַ ?ν “with anger (or vexation) also.” λַּ ?ςַ ?ν is not simply “vexation” in a subjective-intransitive sense, but is found also in an objective-transitive sense, as in Deuteronomy 32:27 (the wrath which the enemy produces in me) and 2 Kings 23:26 (λְּ ?ςָ ?ρִ ?ιν, provocations to anger, in reference to God). This last is the sense here also, and the βַּ ?ν (“also”) indicates the heaping up of anger and vexation which Peninnah occasioned in Hannah. In what sense and with what design Peninnah did this is shown by the following words (αַּ ?ςֲ ?αεּ ?ψ etc.). The word (ψָ ?ςַ ?ν)in Hiph. means “to rouse, excite, put in lively motion;” here, as the context (λִּ ?ιρָ ?βַ ?ψιΧ) shows, against God; she not only held up before her her unfruitfulness, itself reckoned a reproach, but represented it also as a punishment from God, or at least as a lack of God’s favor.—In 1 Samuel 1:7 Elkanah cannot be taken as subject, as is done in the present pointing (ιַ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ); for in the preceding independent sentence (1 Samuel 1:6) Peninnah is the subject; still less, for the same reason, can the suffix in ςֲ ?μֹ ?ϊָ ?δּ (when she went up) according to this construction be referred to Hannah. In accordance with the tenor of the narrative it is better, with Luther, De Wette, Bunsen, Thenius, to read ιִ ?ςָ ?ωֶׂ ?δ and translate “and so it happened.” [Others read not so well ϊַּ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ “and so she did.”—Tr.]. The two λֵּ ?ο (so … so) correspond therefore in relation to Peninnah’s conduct, not in relation to Elkanah’s bearing towards Hannah, and Peninnah’s provocation (Keil). “So it happened (in reference to Peninnah) etc., thus she provoked her (Hannah).” The words “and she wept, etc.” (εַּ ?ϊִּ ?αְ ?λֶּ ?δ) are referred naturally to Hannah by a sudden change of subject, which is allowable only in this understanding of the subjects from “it happened” (ιֵ ?ςָ ?ωֶׂ ?δ) on.—In 1 Samuel 1:8 Elkanah’s consoling address is contrasted with Peninnah’s provocations. After “Hannah” the Sept. adds: “and she said, “Here am I, my lord, and he said;” but we are not to suppose (with Thenius) that the corresponding Hebrew words have fallen out of the text, for this phrase, a very common one in the circumstantial accounts of speeches and conversations, is here clearly an insertion. The attempt to give a more fitting expression to Elkanah’s feeling gives too subjective a character to this reading; and this feeling is sufficiently portrayed by the Masoretic text, in which the first three questions about the why or wherefore of her grief set it forth in a climax (weeping, not eating, grief of heart). The translation of the Sept. τίἐστίσοιὅτι (“what is to thee that”) does not warrant us in taking (with Thenius) for the original text the corresponding Heb. (ξַ ?δΞμָּ ?κְ αִּ ?ι) instead of “why” (μָ ?ξֶ ?δ), for, comparing it with ἱνατί [why] for the second and third “why” of the Heb., it is easily explained as a freedom of the translator. Elkanah, by the reference to himself, “am I not better to thee than ten children?” will comfort his wife for her lack of children. This supposes that she feels herself united to him by the most cordial love. We here have a picture of deepest and tenderest conjugal love. The number ten is merely a round number to express many. IΙ. Hannah’s Prayer For A Son. 1 Samuel 1:9-18 a 1. First in 1 Samuel 1:9-11 an account is given of her prayer and vow before the Lord. The “eating and drinking” is the sacrificial meal of the whole family, at which Hannah was present, though out of sorrow she ate nothing, and at the conclusion of which she rose up in order to pray to the Lord. As it is expressly said, “she ate nothing,” and Elkanah asks “why eatest thou not?” we must not, with Luther, translate “after she had eaten,” on the groundless assumption that she had done so on Elkanah’s consoling address (Von Gerlach). The Sept. renders rightly according to the sense μετὰτὸφαγεῖναὐτούς [after they had eaten], though this does not justify us (Then.) in so reading the Heb. (ΰָ ?λְ ?μָ ?ν). The passage from rose up (εַ ?ϊָּ ?χָ ?ν) to drunk (ωָׁ ?ϊֹ ?δ on this Inf. Abs. for Inf. Con., see Ewald, § 339 b) is to be connected with prayed, 1 Samuel 1:10 (εַ ?ϊִּ ?ϊְ ?τַּ ?μַּ ?μ) the latter expressing the act which followed her rising from the meal; the rest, from “Eli” to “soul” is parenthesis, which, in two circumstantial sentences, gives the ground and explanation of the following narrative. Eli’s sitting at the entrance of the Sanctuary is specially mentioned because of his after conduct to the praying Hannah; Hannah’s bitterness of soul is mentioned because it was the reason of her praying to the Lord. [The Heb. favors the translation, 1 Samuel 1:9, “after she had eaten … and drunk;” it may be a mere general expression, or she may have yielded to her husband’s request. There is no contradiction in this case between 1 Samuel 1:7 and 1 Samuel 1:9. See Bib. Comm. in loco.—Tr.]. In distinction from his sons, who are called “priests of the (to the) Lord” (λֹּ ?δֲ ?πִ ?ινμַ ?ιδֹ ?εָ ?δ), Eli is called the priest (δַ ?λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο). Though called simply “the priest,” he yet filled the office of High-Priest (Aaron and Eleazar, his son, are so called Numbers 26:1; Numbers 27:2). In the beginning of the period of the Judges Phinehas, son of Eleazar, was High-Priest, Judges 20:28. This office was bestowed not only on him, but also on his posterity, Numbers 25:13. At the end of the period of the Judges it is in the possession of Eli, who, however, was a descendant, not of Eleazar and Phinehas, but of Ithamar, Aaron’s fourth son. In 1 Samuel 2:28 the continued existence of the High-priesthood from its institution to Eli is taken for granted, and is confirmed by Jewish tradition (Josephus, Ant. 5, 11, § 5). According to this the High-priesthood continued to exist indeed in the period of the Judges, but did not remain, in accordance with the promise in Numbers 25, with “the seed of Phinehas,” but passed over to the family of Ithamar. It is not our author’s purpose to tell anything of the history of the High-priests and Judges. What he relates in the beginning of his Book of Eli and his sons serves only to illustrate the history and importance of Samuel’s call, and to show that it was a historical necessity that the reformation of religious-moral life should be undertaken by the Prophetic Order which entered with Samuel as a new and mighty factor into the development of the Theocracy over against the corrupted priesthood.—The door-post (ξְ ?ζεּ ?ζָ ?δ), at which Eli sat, hardly accords with the curtain which formed the entrance to the Holy Place, except on the supposition that, after the Sanctuary was permanently fixed in Shiloh, a solid entrance-way, perhaps of stone, with doors, was built; this is favored by 1 Samuel 3:15, where the “doors” are presupposed by the door-post here. δֵ ?ιλַ ?μιְ ?δֹ ?εָ ?δ is the Tabernacle in relation to God as King of Israel; it is his “palace” where, in His royal majesty as “King of glory” (Psalms 24), He dwells in the midst of His people, meets with them, and holds with them covenant-communion (Exodus 25:8; Exodus 29:45-46).—Hannah was “in bitterness of soul” (ξָ ?ψַ ?ϊπֶ ?τֶ ?ωׁ) at the continuance of her hopelessness, and the vexations which she suffered from her adversary (comp. 2 Kings 4:27).—Her supplication was the outpouring of her troubled soul before the Lord, and the words of the prayer (that her request for a son might be heard) were accompanied with many tears (εּ ?αָ ?λֹ ?δϊִ ?αְ ?λֶּ ?δ); that was the expression of her grief because her petitions had been hitherto unheard. 1 Samuel 1:11. And she vowed a vow is, as it were, the superscription and theme of the following words, which form a vow-prayer. The word here used (πֶ ?γֶ ?ψ) usually means the positive vow (Numbers 6:2-5 is an exception), the promise to return fitting thanks to the Lord, in case the petition is granted, by something performed for His honor or by an offering (the first ex. is in Genesis 28:20-22); the negative vow, the promise to refrain from something, is ΰִ ?ρָּ ?ψ or ΰֱ ?ρָ ?ψ=obligatio (Numbers 30:3). The former is connected with the Shelamim, as here Hannah’s vow with Elkanah’s peace-offering. [For the law of vows in the case of married women, see Numbers 30:6-16.—Bib. Comm. in loco.—TR.]—Hannah addresses Jehovah Sabaoth in view of His all-controlling power, by virtue of which He can put an end to her disgrace. The “if” (ΰִ ?ν) denotes not doubt, but the certainty of the fact, that, etc. The three-fold expression: “if thou wilt look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget,” betokens in the clearest manner her confidence that God cares for her, has fixed His eyes on her person and her troubles, and characterizes the fervor and energy of her believing prayers. The thrice-repeated “thy handmaid” expresses the deep humility and resignation with which she brings her petition to the Lord. The object of her petition is male seed, a son. (ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν, plural of ΰִ ?ιωׁ comp. Ewald, § 186 f.)—[The Sept. has ἐπιβλέψῃςἐπὶτὴνταπείνωσιντῆςδούληςσου, which are the identical words of the Magnificat. He hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden (Luke 1:48). Bib. Comm. in loco.—TR.]—The vow (then I will give him, etc.) has two parts: 1) the consecration of the son all the days of his life to the Lord; she will give him to the Lord for His own, that he may serve the Lord all his life in the Sanctuary. The emphasis is on the words “all the days” (λָּ ?μΞιְ ?ξֵ ?ιηΧ): the son was already called and pledged as Levite to service in the sanctuary, but not till his thirtieth or twenty-fifth year, and then to periodical service; Hannah consecrates him to the Lord all the days of his life, that is, to a life-long and constant service in the sanctuary. But this is entirely independent of the second part of the vow. 2) “No razor shall come upon his head,” that is, he shall be a Nazir (πָ ?ζִ ?ιψְ), one set apart to the Lord. The nazirate (nazariteship), as we see it in its representatives in the time of the Judges, Samson and Samuel, belonged to the holy institutions with which special consecration to God was connected. The Nazarite-vow belonged to the negative or abstinence-vows. According to the legal prescriptions in Numbers 6:1 sq. (which indeed presuppose the nazirate as a custom, and only regulate it, and affirm its importance), the characteristic marks of the Nazarite were the refraining from wine and all intoxicating drinks, letting the hair grow, and avoiding defilement by corpses even of the nearest kin. The one controlling ethical principle in these three negative prescriptions is expressed in 1 Samuel 1:2; 1 Samuel 1:5; 1 Samuel 1:8 : the separation or abstinence is for the Lord; the Nazir is holy to Jehovah (χָ ?γωׁ μιδεδ). To the negative element answers the positive—the special devotion and consecration of person and life to the Lord. This shows itself 1) in the abstinence from intoxicating drinks, which betokens the maintenance of complete clearness of mind for the Lord in the avoidance of sensual indulgences which destroy or hinder communion with God; 2) in avoiding contact with the dead, which sets forth the preservation of purity of life against all moral defilement, and its complete devotion to the living God, and 3) in keeping the razor from the free-growing hair, which indicates the refraining from intercourse with the world, and the consecration of the whole strength and the fulness of life, whose symbol is the free growth of hair as the ornament (πֵ ?ζֶ ?ψ of the Lord, 1 Samuel 1:7) of the head. It is in keeping with the great importance which is attached (in 1 Samuel 1:7) to the hair of the Nazarite as “consecration (πֵ ?ζֶ ?ψ) of his God upon his head,” that here this mark alone is mentioned, and Hannah thereby distinguishes her desired son as one vowed to God, see Numbers 6:11. Comp. Oehler in Herzog’s R.-E. s. v. Nasirδat. [A similar omission occurs in the case of Samson, Judges 13:5, who is, however, called a Nazarite. It may, perhaps, be doubtful whether all the conditions of the Nazirate were observed in these cases. Comp. the fuller statement concerning John the Baptist, Luke 1:15. The Sept. inserts “And he shall drink neither wine nor strong drink,” plainly an addition to bring it into exacter accordance with the law in Numbers 6. It is possible that some freedom was used in making the vow, as the time was left at the option of the consecrator. Samuel was what the Talmud calls πζιψςεμν, “a perpetual Nazarite.”—The preservation of the hair does not seem to symbolize withdrawal from the world; and in fact the Nazarite did not lead a secluded life. The view of Oehler, adopted above by Erdmann, that the hair represents vigor and life, is perhaps supported by the connection between the hair and strength in Samson’s case. Another view, that it symbolizes the subjection of man to God, is adopted by Baumgarten and Fairbairn; the latter refers to Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 11:10. On the general subject see Smith’s Bib. Dict., Fairbairn’s Typology II. 346.—Tr.]—The nazirate is in its essential elements related to the priesthood, and represents the idea of a truly priestly life withdrawn from earthly-worldly things and devoted to God. But it has nothing in common with the priestly order as such; it was, along with that, a special temporary form of consecration to the Lord in opposition to the unholy, impure life of the world. The Nazarites were not bound to service in the sanctuary, and not all who were called to this service were Nazarites. The son whom Hannah had consecrated by her first vow to life-long service in the sanctuary she consecrated by her second to be a Nazarite for life. The latter was the condition and foundation of an all the more hearty and faithful devotion to the Lord in His sanctuary-service. The life-long nazirate, to which children could be devoted before birth, as was true here and with Samson (comp. John the Baptist), was the highest and most comprehensive presentation of that idea. This double vow of Hannah and its fulfillment gave to Samuel from childhood on the disposition of heart and direction of life towards the Lord, in which all the powers of his mind, all the striving and struggling of his inner and outer life were consecrated for the performance of the holy mission which he had received from the Lord. 2. 1 Samuel 1:12-13. Eli’s profane view of the condition of the praying Hannah. Her manner of praying is very distinctly described: 1) she prayed much and long, before the Lord—this marks the energy of thorough devotion and ardent piety towards God; 2) she spake to her heart (ςַ ?μ is not “in,” nor is it=ΰֵ ?μ, Genesis 24:25, where there is a similar phrase); in her prayer Hannah looked altogether into her heart, that she might obtain consolation and rest for it, and thus it was certainly in fact speaking in her heart. This marks the deep sincerity of heart, the profound concentration and emotion of soul with which she prayed; it was so intense that only her lips moved as the involuntary expression of her emotion, and her voice was not heard, which was the necessary result of the fact that her heart was turned in on itself and thoroughly immersed in God.—In contrast with this picture of the believing suppliant, Eli’s conduct is portrayed as really profane; his view of Hannah’s condition is precisely the opposite of the truth. He appears here as a very bad Judge. He judges merely from the outward appearance; he looks only at the movement of her lips (τִּ ?ιδָ), which from the Heb. expression (πָ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ) must have been lively; he remains fixed at the surface, while, considering the source of Hannah’s emotion, he ought to have seen the prayerful energy of her heart through the outward appearance; he passes rash judgment on her, holding her from the signs of her emotion to be a drunken woman; instead of “making the best” of what seemed to him strange, he suspiciously takes it in the worst sense, for he must have seen that Hannah came to pray, and was really praying, and need not have thought of drunkenness to explain her demeanor. There is a noteworthy irony in the fact that, while the High-priest takes her to be drunk, she has made a vow for her son which looks to the very opposite. This conduct is characteristic of Eli. With all his piety and good nature, he was lacking religiously and morally in proper earnestness and true depth and thoroughness. To the same source, his natural-fleshly disposition of heart, whence came his conduct towards his unworthy sons, we must refer his profane conduct and his so false judgment on the praying Hannah. Yet there was some ground for his hasty suspicion of Hannah in the frequent occurrence of such cases in connection with the sacrificial meals; and this points to a certain externalized and brutalized condition of the religious-moral life in the very precincts of the sanctuary under a brutalized priesthood. “Such heartfelt prayer seems not to have been usual at that time” (Bunsen). 3. 1 Samuel 1:14-18 a. Hannah’s conversation with Eli concerning her prayer shows again the striking contrast between Eli’s pre-judgment of her condition and her real frame of heart (1 Samuel 1:14-15), and Hannah’s deep heart-felt piety as the source of her supplication (1 Samuel 1:15-16), but brings out also Eli’s better nature, the expression of which is the wish for a blessing (1 Samuel 1:17-18). 1 Samuel 1:14. Eli sat at the door-post of the sanctuary no doubt to keep watch and prevent all things improper; but his address to Hannah shows how unworthily he did it. The question “How long wilt thou be drunken?” must have wounded her heart all the more in the sorrowful mood of her prayer, and grieved her no less deeply than Peninnah’s speech. (On the form ϊִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?λָּ ?ψִ ?ιο see Ewald, § 191, and Gesen., § 47, 3). The order: “put away thy wine from thee,” that is, “take steps to get sober again,” or “go and sleep off thy debauch” (comp. 1 Samuel 25:37), is as rude and profane as the question—least of all becoming to, and to be expected from, a priest. Here, looking at Eli’s sons, we cannot but think of the German proverb: “The apple falls close to the tree.” It is the same unworthy littleness that we see in Acts 2:13 (“they are full of new wine”). The Sept. has here in Eli’s interests inserted “youth, servant” (πַ ?ςַ ?ψ) before “Eli,” and put the rudeness off on him; but then his dismissal must have been mentioned here, and Hannah could not have answered the servant: “no, my lord,” which words are addressed to Eli (comp. Bφttch. against Thenius). To Thenius’ remark that the masoretic recension has here for unknown reasons abridged, we reply that such abridgement, which sets Eli in so bad a light, certainly cannot be regarded as probable. In reference to the “servant” of the Septuagint, the canon of criticism holds that the harder, more offensive reading is to be preferred. 1 Samuel 1:15 sq. Hannah’s answer is an energetic denial of Eli’s charge; in the spirited fulness of her reply, we may see something of the indignation which Eli’s unworthy speech had called forth in her heart. Her language is in part a denial of his assumption, in part an explanation of her condition of mind as the reason of her conduct in prayer; each of these parts has a three-fold expression, so that each denial answers to an explanation. First, she denies simply and sharply with “no, my lord” (μֹ ?ΰΰֲ ?γֹ ?πִ ?ι) the drunkenness imputed to her, and explains that her condition of soul is one of deep sorrow. According to the masoretic text Hannah says: “I am hard of spirit” (χְ ?ωַׁ ?ϊψεּ ?ηַ). Though in Ezekiel 3:7 the similar phrase “hard of heart” (χְ ?ωֵׁ ?δμֵ ?α) means “obstinate,” “stiff-necked,” yet the combination of this Adj. (χωׁ ?δ) in the signification “heavy” (Judges 4:24 [the hand … was heavy against Jabin]; Exodus 18:26) with the subst. (ψεּ ?ηַ ?= disposition, mind, Genesis 41:8; Psalms 34:19 [18]) may give the signification “heavy-hearted.” It is not clear why it should sound strange (as Thenius thinks) that Hannah, in her condition, should speak of herself as heavy-hearted; the expression is so natural in reply to Eli’s outspoken suspicion, that she had dulled her mind with intoxicating drink. Hence, also, follows immediately the express denial of this suspicion. The Sept., on the other hand, has the strange expression: γυνὴ ?̣ἐνσκλήρᾷἡμέρᾳἐγώεἰμι (I am a woman in a hard day). This is based on the reading “hard of day” (χְ ?ωַׁ ?ϊιεֹ ?ν), an expression which in Job 30:25 [“in trouble”] describes one who has a hard day, a hard life, is unhappy. So the Vulg.: infelix nimis ego sum, “I am very unfortunate.” Perhaps this is the original reading, as Thenius supposes. Clericus: “This reading is not to be wholly despised.”—The negation advances from the simple “no, my lord,” to the denial that there is anything in her case to produce drunkenness, that is, that she has drunk wine or any intoxicating drink (ωֵׁ ?λָ ?ψ); with this denial she connects, so as to bring out a sharp contrast, the explanation and assurance that she has “poured out her soul before the Lord.” Comp. Psalms 42:5 [4]: I pour out my soul in me; Psalms 42:9 [8]: Pour out your heart before him; and Psalms 142:3 [2]: “I pour out my complaint before him.” This expression, common in German [and English] also and Latin (fundere preces), indicates the lightening of the deeply moved, sorrowful heart by complaints, petitions, etc., before God the Lord, based on humble submission to His will and trust in His help, that is, on the opposite of the feeling which Peninnah wished to excite in Hannah (1 Samuel 1:6). Comp. Calvin on Psalms 142:3 : “He sets the pouring out one’s thoughts and telling one’s trouble over against the confused anxieties which unhappy men nurse in their hearts, preferring to gnaw the bit rather than flee to God.” Such pouring out of the heart before the Lord witnesses for Hannah of itself against Eli’s charge of intemperance and drunkenness.—A third and still stronger denial she makes (1 Samuel 1:16); and this time it refers to the bad, worthless character which he had imputed to her. “Daughter of worthlessness” (on the etymology of αְּ ?μִ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ, comp. Gesen. s. v.)=bad woman. The words “count not,” etc. (ΰַ ?μΞϊִּ ?ϊֵּ ?ο etc.).cannot be explained: “Do not make me the scorn of bad women” (Clericus), but must be rendered: “Do not in thought set thy handmaiden before (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι) a worthless woman,” that is, let not thy handmaid be taken for a worthless woman, do not liken her to such a one. She grounds her denial of this bad opinion of her on the assurance, which answers to the two positive explanations, and forms their conclusion, that out of the abundance (ψֹ ?α) of her complaint and grief she had spoken “hitherto” (ςַ ?γΞδֵ ?πָּ ?δ), that is, as long as Eli had observed her.—Comp. Calvin ad h. I.: “Consider the modesty of Hannah, who, though she suffered injury from the High-priest, yet answers with reverence and humility.” 1 Samuel 1:17. Eli’s reply. Eli, as Calvin remarks, “not only insulted a feeble woman, but blasphemed against God Himself, though unintentionally.” Now he retracts his accusation; indeed, he really, though silently, accuses himself of injustice to Hannah, in that 1) he replies with the usual parting-formula “Go in peace !” and 2) he adds the wish that her request may be granted. (ωֵׁ ?μָ ?ϊֵ ?κְ is for ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?μָ ?ϊֵ ?κְ). There is no prophecy in this; it was a wish which God fulfilled. 1 Samuel 1:18. Hannah’s answer does not ask for his mediation (Keil), but is a respectful request that the High-priest would further grant her his favor, as he had already done (comp. 1 Samuel 1:26).—[There seems to be no advantage in closing this section in the middle of 1 Samuel 1:18. The latter part of the verse forms a fitting conclusion to the interview of Eli and Hannah, since it describes the result to Hannah of her prayer and conversation, and 1 Samuel 1:19 begins a new narrative, as in Eng. A. V.—TR.] III. The Answer to the Prayer. 1 Samuel 1:18-20 Hannah went her “way,” namely, back to her husband. The words of the Sept.: “and she went to her inn,” and (after “she did eat”) “with her husband and drank,” are explanatory and descriptive additions to the original text: it is inconceivable why these words, if they stood in the text originally, should have been left out. [The words “and did eat” are wanting in the Syriac and Arabic versions and in five MSS. of Kennicott, and were omitted perhaps because supposed to be inappropriate; but they fitly describe Hannah’s more cheerful mood.—TR.] “And her countenance was no more to her”—that is, her countenance was no longer disturbed as before. There are similar expressions in German. Comp. Job 9:27, where, from the context, the word “countenance” (τָּ ?πִ ?ιν) is likewise to be taken in the sense “sad countenance” [“heaviness” in Eng. A. V.—Tr.].1 Samuel 1:19 describes circumstantially and vividly, almost solemnly, the return to Ramah after early worship together before the Lord. Elkanah knew his wife (ιָ ?γַ ?ς, “know,” as in Genesis 4:7). “The Lord remembered her,” indicates the fulfilment of her request; the divine control, under which (1 Samuel 1:11) she had placed herself, is quite appropriately here again expressly mentioned. At the end of the verse the Sept. (Alex.) adds “and she conceived,” explaining and filling out the “remembered.” There is no necessity for supposing (with Thenius, following the Sept.) that this expression has fallen out of the original text, where it was a needful explanation of the “remembered,” since in the following 1 Samuel 1:20 the significance of the latter is expressed, though it cannot be considered a mere addition. [The change in the text of the Sept. (in the Vat., not Al.) is easily explained. The Heb. (1 Samuel 1:20) reads “and in the course of time Hannah conceived and bare a son.” The Greek translator stumbled at the place assigned the conceiving, and therefore changed the word from after to before the “course of time.” The difficulty is removed when we remember that “conceived and bare” as the common phrase to express the birth of a child. The other versions sustain the Heb. order of words.—Some Heb. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONSamuel’s Consecration and Restoration to the Lord1 Samuel 1:21-28I. The child Samuel at home till he is weaned. 1 Samuel 1:21-2321 And the man Elkanah and all his house went up to offer unto the Lord 22[Jehovah] the yearly sacrifice, and his vow. But Hannah went not up; for she said unto her husband, I will not go up until the child be weaned, and then I will bring him, that he may appear before the Lord [Jehovah], and there abide 23for ever. And Elkanah her husband said unto her, Do what seemeth thee good; tarry until thou have weaned him; only the Lord [Jehovah] establish his word. So the woman abode, and gave her son suck until she weaned him. II. Samuel given back by his mother to the Lord. 1 Samuel 1:24-2824 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of 25the Lord [Jehovah] in Shiloh; and the child was young. And they slew a [the] 26bullock, and brought the child to Eli. And she said, O my lord, as thy soul liveth, my lord, I am the woman that stood by thee here, praying [to pray] unto the Lord 27[Jehovah]. For this child I prayed; and the Lord [Jehovah] hath given me my28petition which I asked of him: Therefore also I have lent [given] him to the Lord [Jehovah]; as long as he liveth he shall be lent [he is given] to the Lord [Jehovah]. And he worshipped the Lord [Jehovah] there. AND 1 Samuel 1:21. And the man Elkanah and all his house went up. This he did yearly, in order to present the offering of the days and the vow. The “offering of the days” is the annual offering, the offering which every Israelite was obliged and accustomed to present annually. “The offering of the days and the vow” is the brief statement of what is detailed at length in the Law. In going up with his whole house, Elkanah did as is commanded in Deuteronomy 12:17-18 : “Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill-offerings, or offering of thine hand; but thou must eat them before the Lord thy God in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose, thou and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy man-servant, and thy maid-servant, and the Levite that is within thy gates; and thou shalt rejoice before the Lord thy God.” The offering of the days “is, as it were, the yearly reckoning with the Lord, the presentation of those portions of the property which fall to him in the course of the year.” Hengstenberg, Beit. [Contributions to an Introd. to the Pent.] III., 89, 90.—The Sing, “his vow” refers to the vow which Elkanah also had made based on the hearing of Hannah’s prayer. The addition of the Sept., “and all the tithes of his land” is, like the plural “his vows,” to be referred to the translator’s having in mind the above-quoted passage. Thenius (ad locum) remarks that the corresponding words εְ ?λָ ?μΞξַ ?ςְ ?ωְׂ ?ψεֹ ?ϊΰַ ?ψְ ?φεֹ [and all the tithes of his land] were probably purposely omitted by transcribers who regarded Samuel’s Levitical descent as certain, according to 1 Chronicles 6:7 sq. and 19 sq.; but Josephus, who expressly describes Elkanah as a Levite, and follows the Alexandrine translation, has the addition also. It belongs to the category of explanatory additions and changes of which the Sept. is so full. 1 Samuel 1:22. After the child is weaned from his mother’s breast, Hannah will bring him to the Sanctuary. That the Heb. verb (βָּ ?ξַ ?μ) means here “to wean,” and does not include the idea of education (Seb. Schmid) as in 1 Kings 11:20, is plain from the “gave suck,” (εַ ?ϊֵּ ?ιπֶ ?χ) in 1 Samuel 1:23. The ground adduced for this opinion, namely, that the child would otherwise be troublesome to Eli, is of no force; for, apart from the fact that a child three years old (this was the term of weaning, according to 2Ma 7:27) is not troublesome in the East, his nurture and education could be committed to “the women that served at the door of the Tabernacle of meeting,” (1 Samuel 2:22).—The “appearing before the Lord,” for which Hannah will bring her son to Shiloh, supposes the existence there of the National Sanctuary instituted by Moses, and answers to the law (Exodus 23:17; Exodus 34:23): “Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord Jehovah.” The “abide for ever,” all his life (ςַ ?γΞςεֹ ?μָ ?ν) indicates the life-long consecration to service in the Sanctuary from his weaning on, while otherwise this service was binding only from the 25th year to the 50th. By the education which the boy received in the Sanctuary he was even as a child to grow into the service; and moreover, as a child, he could perform little outward services (Then.), so that the objection, that, as a newly weaned child, he was unfit for the Temple-service, falls to the ground. 1 Samuel 1:23. Only the Lord establish His word, that is, maintain, fulfil it, bring it to completion. The “word” (γְּ ?αָ ?ψεֹ) refers not merely to Eli’s word, 1 Samuel 1:17, but to God’s factual discourse, which consisted in hearing Hannah’s prayer, and in the real promise which he had given, by the birth of the child, in reference to his destination to the service of the Lord. Bunsen excellently says: “Word, that is, may He fulfil what He designs with him and has promised by his birth, comp. 1 Samuel 1:11; 1 Samuel 1:20. The words refer, therefore, to the boy’s destination to the service of God, which the Eternal has in fact acknowledged by the partial fulfilment of the mother’s wish.” Similarly Calvin already: “Elkanah seeks from God, and suppliantly begs with prayers, that, since God has bestowed on him male offspring, He will consecrate him and make him fit for His service, and direct him by the power of His Holy Spirit, by which his service shall be grateful and acceptable to God.” Since there is no express word of the Lord to which the “word” may be referred, the Sept. avoids the difficulty by translating (groundlessly) τὸἐξελθὸνἐκτοῦστόματόςσου “that which came out of thy mouth.” The Heb. text is not therefore to be changed (with Then.), to accord with the Sept., into “only, let thy word stand” (ΰַ ?κְ ϊָּ ?χִ ?ιξִ ?ιΰֶ ?ϊΞγְּ ?αָ ?ψֵ ?κְ.) Clericus: “God had shown, not by words, but by very deed, that He approved Hannah’s vow, and had promised her a living son; and Elkanah prays that He will perform His promise. There is therefore no need to invent with the Rabbis an oracle uttered to the mother concerning the child about to be born.” 1 Samuel 1:24, sq. The case is the same here with the diverging translation of the Sept., “with a three-year-old bullock” [instead of “three bullocks”], which is occasioned by the singular “the bullock” of 1 Samuel 1:25. The contradiction between “three bullocks” and “one-bullock” cannot indeed be removed (with Bunsen) by regarding the sing as collective, Judges 6:25 being cited in support of it; but it may properly be said with Keil that “the bullock” in 1 Samuel 1:25 denotes specially the offering with which the boy was returned to the Lord, “the burnt-offering by which the boy was dedicated to the Lord for life-long service in His Sanctuary, the two other bullocks serving for the yearly offering.” As it was understood that the two others were for the yearly festival-offering, that is, burnt-offering and thank-offering, it was not specially mentioned that they were sacrificed. Further, three bullocks are required by the quantity (one ephah) of flour which Elkanah takes with him, since, according to Numbers 15:8-10, three-tenths of an ephah of flour was required for a burnt-offering of one bullock. The peace-offering, like the burnt-offering, was connected with a meat- and drink-offering.—A striking example of the arbitrary fashion in which the Alex. translators got over difficulties in the text is found in their translation μετ’ αὐτῶν “with them” at the end of 1 Samuel 1:24 [the Heb. reads “the child was a child”]; as if, instead of the difficult πַ ?ςַ ?ψ [“child”], to which the sense requires the addition of the predicate “small,” the text had read ςִ ?ξָּ ?ν “with them.” The addition of the Sept. to 1 Samuel 1:24, “and his father slew the offering which he made annually to the Lord, and he brought the boy near,” and the translation in 1 Samuel 1:25, “and he slew the bullock, and Hannah the mother of the child brought him to Eli” are to be explained as efforts at exegesis, and give us no ground to correct the Heb. text, as Thenius supposes. Not the mother alone, but both parents gave the boy over to Eli, and thus presented him as an offering to the Lord. 1 Samuel 1:26 sq. Hannah makes herself known to Eli by reminding him of the circumstances under which she had prayed for the child (1 Samuel 1:11 sq.)—On “stood” (δַ ?πּ ?φֶּ ?αֶ ?ϊ) Clericus remarks: “they prayed to God standing.” For the custom of standing in prayer comp. Genesis 18:22; Genesis 19:27; Daniel 9:20. In time of deeper devotion and emotion a kneeling posture also was adopted, (1 Kings 8:54; 2 Chronicles 6:13; Ezra 9:5). 1 Samuel 1:27. Three things move Hannah’s soul deeply and joyfully: 1) The recollection of the moment when she stood here and called on God for this Song of Solomon 2) the contemplation of the answer to her prayer, and the granting of the thing asked, and 3) the determination now to restore to the Lord what He had given her in this answer to her prayer. 1 Samuel 1:28. “And also I” (εְ ?βַ ?νΰָ ?πֹ ?λִ ?ι) refers back to the words “and the Lord hath given me,” and implies a requital, et ego vicissim, “and I in my turn,” (Cler.). “It cannot be shown that δִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰִ ?ιμ means “lend,” as is generally assumed; it occurs in 1 Samuel 1:28, in the sense of “grant,“ “give.“ Knobel on Exodus 12:36. Further, the signification “lend” is here inappropriate, because the “I also” expressly brings out the correspondence to the “gave,” of 1 Samuel 1:27. δִ ?ωְּׁ ?ΰִ ?ιμ means “cause to ask or demand,” “grant what is demanded,” “give.” The sense is: the Lord gave him to me, and so have I also given him to the Lord, as one asked or demanded. Calvin: “The sense is plain enough, namely, that she gave, dedicated to God the child obtained from Him by prayer.” The short concluding sentence “he is asked for the Lord,” expresses her determination to give him to the Lord for His service.—“They prayed,” not sing., referring to Elkanah, but plur., Elkanah and Hannah, (comp. 1 Samuel 1:19), Samuel not being included. [The plur. “they prayed” is easier, but the Heb. reads “he prayed,” (though some regard the form as plur.), and so Chald.; Syr. Ar. Vulg. have the plur.; Sept. omits the clause. If taken as sing. it no doubt refers to Elkanah, who, as head of the household, represented his wife and conducted the worship. (So Abarbanel δεֹ ?γָ ?δαְ ?πֶ ?γψֶ ΰִ ?ωְׁ ?ϊּ ?εֹ; he also mentions Samuel and Eli). This is the view of Keil and Wordsworth. The Bib. Comm. takes it as fem, sing., and makes Hannah the subject.—It is impossible to convey in an Eng. translation the fine play upon words of the Heb. in the principal sentence of this verse and the preceding. Literally it reads: The Lord has given me my asking which I asked of Him; and I also have caused the Lord to ask him; as long as he lives he is asked to the Lord. The contrast between the Qal and Hiph. of the verb “to ask” (ωΰμ) is brought out in Exodus 12:35 (asked, not borrowed, as in Eng. A. V.) and 36 (gave, not lent). Keil and Erdmann make the Hiph. a denominative from ωָׁ ?ΰεּ ?μ “asked” == “to make one asked,” but there does not seem to be authority for this; the best rendering is “give.”—Erdmann puts a semicolon after “liveth;” but it is better, with Chald. Syr. and Eng. A. V., to put it after the first Jehovah.—The ancient vss. (except Vulg.) take the διδ “is” here to be equivalent to διδ “lives,” or perhaps, read διδ, and it is better to adopt the latter reading. Otherwise we must translate “and I also have given him to Jehovah all the days for which he was asked for Jehovah.”—Tr.]. AND 1. The mother’s determination, that the child should not be presented to the Lord in the Sanctuary till after he was weaned, was in keeping with the divine ordination that the child must first, in the bosom of natural maternal love, pass through the elementary conditions of the sustenance and earliest development of his physical life, before he could, in accordance with the divine destination, receive in the service of the Sanctuary the proper education and culture for his theocratic calling. 2. That God gives in answer to prayer, and that man devotes to God what he obtains, so that God takes again what He has given, or lays claim to it for the ends of His kingdom, is the law of reciprocity in the intercourse between the living God and His saints; the latter contribute nothing for the realization of the special ends of His kingdom, which they have not received from him, and are not by Him enabled to contribute. 3. Among the heroes of God’s kingdom who have been brought to the Lord by the prayers of their mothers and consecrated as His instruments, Samuel is a shining example of the full, unselfish devotion of the whole life to the Lord’s service, which is the condition of great profound capacity to further the kingdom of God. 4. An important principle of education is herein contained: every child should be devoted to the Lord’s service, from the beginning of his life on, with self-denial and prayer; and, in accordance with this destination, should receive his life-direction by education, selfish parental love yielding to the counsel of the divine will. Calvin: “Hannah, forgetting her own advantage, gives all the glory to God, thinking it would be well enough with her, if only God were glorified; and indeed it is right to yield to God all we have, whatever it may be.” In the education of children the using them to the divine and holy must begin with the weaning. From the beginning of his life the child must be “about his Father’s business.” AND 1 Samuel 1:21-28. The presentation of Samuel for constant service in the sanctuary. 1) What preceded it, according to Hannah’s wish and Elkanah’s consent (1 Samuel 1:21-22). 2) How it was performed, in bringing up Samuel to Shiloh and in delivering him to Eli and in prayer to the Lord (1 Samuel 1:24-28). 1 Samuel 1:21. Osiander: After receiving divine benefits we should not be more slothful in performing divine service, but rather be so much the more diligent and industrious.—Pious mothers are performing acceptable divine service when they are rearing their children faithfully and in the fear of God.—It is no reproach to a man when he prefers his wife’s better opinion to his own. [1 Samuel 1:23. Matt. Henry: So far was he from delighting to cross her, that he referred it entirely to her. Behold, how good and pleasant a thing it is, when yoke-fellows thus draw even in the yoke, and accommodate themselves to one another; each thinking well of what the other does, especially in works of piety and charity.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 1:24. Cramer: The rearing of children gives to parents, it is true, great toil and trouble, but when it is done in faith, it constitutes better works than when monks and nuns perform all their fasting, praying, castigations and indulgence-ceremonies; for those, not these, are enjoined by God in His word. Accordingly they are true acts of divine service, and receive from God their reward. 1 Samuel 1:25. Von Gerlach: That a three-year old boy should be already given over to the temple, was done in order that from the first awakening of his higher spiritual powers he might already be living amid these holy surroundings.—Seb. Schmidt: Children must at times be carried to divine service.—Starke (1 Samuel 1:26-27): The wonders of God’s goodness we should openly celebrate, and not keep silent about them. 1 Samuel 1:28. Parents give their children back to God when they advance them to holy baptism, present them to God in prayer, and rear them in a Christian manner. [There are many who think this can be, and often is, quite as well performed without infant baptism as with it.—Tr.]—Cramer: We should devote to the ministry the best talents and dearest children. [1 Samuel 1:28. Giving back to the Lord: 1) All we have was given by the Lord. 2) All we have should be really consecrated to Him, and regarded and treated as His. 3) The Lord will then make all promote both our good and His glory. 1 Samuel 1:10; 1 Samuel 1:26. Agonizing supplication and joyful thanksgiving. Look on the two pictures and learn the lesson.—Chap. I. Hannah, her sorrows and her joys: I. Her sorrows. 1) She was childless. 2) She was derided and ridiculed. 3) She was unjustly accused by a good man. II. Her joys. 1) In the tender love of her husband. 2) In the answer to her agonizing prayer. 3) In being the mother of a prophet.—Tr.] [Chrysostom has five sermons on Hannah, which are discursive as usual, but contain some passages in his best vein. Works, ed. Migne, Vol. IV., p. 631.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 1:28. Erdmann renders: I have made him one prayed for (asked, erbeten) to the Lord as long as he lives; he is asked to the Lord (for the Lord). See Exegetical Notes in loco.—Tr.] [Rashi says 22 months; Kimchi and others 24 months. For other opinions see “Synopsis Criticorum ” in loco.—Tr.]. [Rashi: “The Bath-qol (‘daughter of the voice’) went forth, saying: there shall arise a just one whose name shall be Samuel. Then every mother who bore a son called him Samuel; but when they saw his actions, they said, this is not Samuel. But when this one was born and they saw his manner of life, they said, this is that Samuel; and this is what the Scripture means, when it says, ‘the Lord confirm His word,’ that Samuel may be that just one.”—Tr.]. αִּ ?ι in connection with ΰֲ ?γπִ ?ι is an interjection, “hear,” or “I beg,” or “truly, my lord,” (Genesis 43:20; Genesis 44:18; Exodus 4:10; Exodus 4:13; Numbers 12:11; Joshua 7:8; 1 Kings 3:17; 1 Kings 3:26). Many explain it as = “per me obsecro,” citing the corresponding Arab oath “per me.” Another explanation (Ges.) supposes a contraction of αְּ ?ςִ ?ι “request,” since “in the Aramaic translations αְּ ?αָ ?ςεּ stands for the Heb, αִּ ?ι, for which the Samaritans at least wrote αςεּ ‘obsecro’ without αְ, Genesis 42:30.” Ewald says: “Most probably αִּ ?ι is shortened from ΰָ ?αִ ?ι (Job 34:36; 1 Samuel 14:12), a simple Interjection.” [The German is: mit der Entwφhnung schon hat die Gewφhnung … zu beginnen.—Tr.] THIRD SECTIONHannah’s Song of Praise1 Samuel 2:1-101    And Hannah prayed, and said: My heart rejoiceth in the Lord [Jehovah], My horn is exalted in the Lord [ Jehovah]; My mouth is enlarged [opened wide] over mine enemies, Because I rejoice in thy salvation. 2    There is none holy as the Lord [Jehovah], ‘For there is none beside thee, Neither is there any [And there is no] rock like our God. 3    Talk no more so exceeding proudly; Let not arrogancy come out of your mouth; For the Lord [Jehovah] is a God of knowledge,And by him actions are weighed. 4    The bows of the mighty men are broken, And they that stumbled are girded with strength. 5    They that were full have hired themselves out for bread, And they that were hungry ceased [ins. to hunger]; So that [Even6] the barren hath borne seven, And she that hath many children hath waxed feeble. 6    The Lord [Jehovah] killeth and maketh alive, He [om. He] bringeth down to the grave (underworld) and bringeth up. 7    The Lord [Jehovah] maketh poor and maketh rich, He (om. He) bringeth low and lifteth up. 8    He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, And [om. And] lifteth up the beggar [needy] from the dunghill, To set them among princes, And to make [And he makes] them to inherit the [a] throne of glory: For the pillars of the earth are the Lord’s [Jehovah’s], And he hath set the world upon them. 9    He will keep the feet of his saints,And the wicked shall be silent9 in darkness; For by strength shall no man [not by strength shall a man] prevail. 10    The adversaries of the Lord [Jehovah] shall be broken to pieces; Out of heaven shall [will] he thunder upon them. The Lord [Jehovah] shall [will] judge the ends of the earth, And he shall [will] give strength unto his king, And exalt the horn of his anointed. AND 1 Samuel 2:1. The superscription, “and Hannah prayed,” does not suit precisely the contents of the following Song, which is not exactly a prayer (ϊְּ ?τִ ?μָּ ?δ) but a thanksgiving-testimony to the Lord and the revelation of His glory. Clericus: “Hannah rather sings praises to God than asks anything of Him.” So the word “prayers” (ϊְּ ?τִ ?μִּ ?εֹ ?ϊ) in Psalms 72:20, includes all the Pss. from 1 to 72, in the broad sense of thinking and speaking of God and in God’s presence, when the heart is most thoroughly concentrated and deeply immersed in Him, though the form of thinking and speaking to God may be lacking. The “thou,” however, referring to God, appears in two places (1 Samuel 2:1-2). [Chald.: “H. prayed in the spirit of prophecy.”—Tr.]. The content of the Song is: 1) The manifestation of deep joy in the Lord at the deliverance vouchsafed by Him over against enemies (1 Samuel 2:1). With lofty flight the four-membered strophe rises from the depth of the heart’s joyful emotion on high, where the source of salvation and help in the living God is seen and praised. The heart (as elsewhere the soul) is the central organ of all painful and joyful feelings. The “horn” is the symbol—derived from horned beasts, which carry the head high in consciousness of power—of vigorous courage and consciousness of power, of which the Lord is the source, (comp. Deuteronomy 33:17; Psalms 75:5; Psalms 89:18; Psalms 89:25). The repetition of the “in the Lord” emphasizes the fact that the joyous frame of mind and lofty consciousness of power has its root in the Lord, and presupposes the most intimate communion with the living God. The “mouth opened wide over my enemies,” intimates that the joy and courage that filled her soul had found utterance, partly in exulting over adversaries, as contrasted with the silence of subjection to them, partly in proclaiming the glory of the Lord in thanks and praise for the help received from Him in the attacks of foes. The ground of her joy in the Lord is His salvation, His help against enemies. 2) The praise of the majesty of God in His holiness and His faithfulness, which is as firm as a rock (1 Samuel 2:2). The “holy” indicates here in the broad sense the infinite superiority of God to everything earthly and human, His isolation from the world, but at the same time His absolute completeness of life in contrast with the nothingness and perishableness of everything in the sphere of the creaturely, as in Psalms 99:2-5; comp. 1 Kings 8:27. This is evident from the double negation: “none is holy as the Lord; for there is none beside thee.” The ground of this exclusive holiness is the aloneness and absoluteness of God; there is no God beside Him, He shares the divine being [Germ. Sein und Wesen] with none; therefore He is apart from everything human and earthly, and lifted up above it.—The words “there is no rock like our God,” express the aloneness and exclusiveness of God’s character as set forth by the name rock. This superiority of God to all earthly and worldly being, this absolute glory beyond everything finite and human does not exclude, but is the ground of His self-revelation as the Fixed, Unchangeable, Immovable amid everything earthly and human. The “our God” presupposes the revelation of God by which He, as the Holy One, has chosen His people to be His possession, announced Himself to this people as their God, and made a covenant with them. The symbolical designation of this covenant-God by Rock, which occurs frequently, was suggested naturally by the configuration of the ground in Palestine, where masses of rock surrounded by steep precipices offered an image of solid and sure protection. God is a rock in His firm unshakable faithfulness; and it is the more necessary to suppose this attribute to be here set forth, because His relation to His people as covenant-God is assumed in the words “our God.” This term has the signification of faithfulness and indestructible trustworthiness in Deuteronomy 32:4, also; where it is clearly the same as ΰֱ ?ξεּ ?πָ ?δ “faithfulness,” Psalms 18:3, (2) sq.; Psalms 92:16.—The presupposition is the declaration “there is none beside Thee.” Jehovah, as the Holy One who has revealed Himself to His people as their God in His lofty elevation above the earthly and human, and is alone the truly existing living God, is for this very reason the Rock also in the absolute sense, the unchangeable, unshakably faithful, trustworthy God, and therefore claims from men, to whom He has revealed Himself as their God, and is known as such, unconditioned complete confidence, as it is expressed in this brief sentence, “none is a rock like our God.”3) The manifestations of the holy and faithful God in His conduct, as it is determined by His omniscience and omnipotence, partly towards the ungodly, partly towards the godly, 1 Samuel 2:3; 1 Samuel 2:8). 1 Samuel 2:3. The negative particle is omitted before “come out” (ιֵ ?φֵ ?ΰ) as before “speak” (ϊְּ ?γַ ?αְּ ?ψεּ), and the sense requires that it be supplied (Gesenius, §152, 3). Partly by the “more,” [Heb. literally, “do not increase to speak.”—Tr.], partly by the doubling of the noun [βְּ ?αֹ ?δָ ?δ “pride;” in Eng. A. V. the intensive doubling is rendered by “exceeding,”—TR.], the boastful vaunting character, the haughty soul of the ungodly is characterized, showing itself, as it often does, in arrogant words, and becoming, as it were, a second nature. The warning, “talk not so proudly, proudly,” stands in contrast with the praise of God’s grandeur in His holiness, and brings out the more sharply the contrast between human pride and the humility which is appropriate towards the holy God. Herder’s reference of the word (Geist d. ebrδisch. Poesie 2, 282) to the “heights, which were used for defence, and in which pride was felt” is untenable, the Heb. not permitting it. The talking with so many proud and arrogant words stands in contrast with the expression of humility and gratitude in 1 Samuel 2:2 : “My mouth is opened wide, etc., there is none holy.”.......” ςָ ?ϊָ ?χ “arrogance” specially marks the haughty talk as the expression of a bold defiant soul, which will not bend, and manifests itself particularly towards the pious and God fearing by bold words, comp. Psalms 75:6; Psalms 94:4; Psalms 31:19. Sins of word, corresponding to the proud nature, are here emphasized, because what the heart is full of the mouth will speak. His warning is supported by pointing to God’s omniscience and omnipotence, in which the relation of His holiness to earthly and human things is shown. “For Jehovah is a God of omniscience.” The plu. “knowledges” (γֵּ ?ςεֹ ?ϊ) indicates that God knows and is acquainted with every individual thing, that, as He is raised above every created thing, and thus present with all things and creatures, so they are present and known to Him; and thus it expresses the thought that the concrete content of God’s omniscience is everything finite and created. The proud and bold men, who speak so haughtily, must recollect that God knows all their deeds and hears their words, that therefore they cannot withdraw from His rule.—Secondly, reference is made to God’s power, which controls all things according to a fixed unchangeable plan. We must first inquire whether the “actions” (ςֲ ?μִ ?μεֹ ?ϊ) is to be understood of human or divine deeds, and then whether we are to read “not” (μֹ ?ΰ) or the Qeri “by him” (μεֹ). The first question can be decided only by the connection. The preceding context speaks not of the deeds, but of the words of ungodly men. In what follows it is similarly not works and deeds of men that are treated of, but the conditions and relations of human life, with which divine agency has to do; in 1 Samuel 2:4, sq., the thought expressly confines itself to divine deeds. We cannot therefore with Bφttcher (Aehrenlese, in loco) suppose a question, and, retaining the Kethib, render, “and are not deeds measured?” that is, “ is not care taken that human deeds shall not become immoderate, insolent?” nor, with Thenius, adopting the Qeri, “and by Him actions are measured,” that is, “He determines how far human doing may go;” nor, with Luther, paraphrase “the Lord does not suffer such conduct to prosper.” But, if we have to suppose only divine deeds, then the translation “to him or by him actions are weighed or measured” is certainly to be preferred to the other—“are not actions weighed or measured, that is, determined?”—because of the vagueness of the thought in the latter. The thought, then, is this: God’s actions are weighed, measured, fixed; He proceeds, in His working, by unchangeable paths established by Himself, so that none can free himself from His omnipotence, as none can withdraw from His all-pervading omniscience. Against the explanation “by Him the actions of men are weighed” (Bunsen: according to their essential worth), Keil properly urges: “God weighs the spirits, the hearts of men indeed (Proverbs 16:2; Proverbs 21:2; Proverbs 24:12), but not their deeds. This expression is never found.” It is without ground, however, that he introduces the idea of righteousness, since we have here to do with nothing but the free, unrestricted activity of the divine omnipotence, to which, as to His omniscience, men are absolutely subject. [The correctness of this interpretation is open to doubt. The conception of God weighing His own actions, acting with prudence and forecast, is not, I believe, found elsewhere in the Bible; the higher conception of immutable wisdom is every where presented. On the other hand, that God weighs the actions of men, if not (as Keil says) explicitly stated, is yet involved in many passages, in all, for example, which set forth His righteous retribution; as, “Thou renderest to every man according to his work” (Psalms 62:12); “God shall bring every work into judgment” (Ecclesiastes 12:14); and comp. Psalms 10:18; Psalms 11:5; Psalms 14:2; Proverbs 15:3; Job 34:21; Job 34:23; Jeremiah 9:23-24; Joe 3:12. And this interpretation agrees very well with the context. The word “actions” may well include all exhibitions of human character, and the antithesis throughout the Song is between the wicked and the righteous. The thought, therefore, may be: Jehovah is holy and immutable. Give ho exhibition of pride, for He knows and weighs your actions. He reverses human conditions, bringing down (i. e. the wicked), and setting up (i. e. the righteous). Expositors are about equally divided between these interpretations. With Erdmann are Targum, Sept., Theodoret, Patrick, Keil; in favor of the other, Syr., Clarke, Henry, Ewald; doubtful, Vulg., Synop. Crit., Gill, “Wordsworth. Deuteronomy 32:4 does not seem to bear on the decision, for it is Jehovah’s righteousness that is there emphasized.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 2:4-8 further carry out the thought of God’s almighty working in human life by a series of sharply contrasted changes of fortune. In this it is assumed that God’s omnipotent working is just, but it is not explicitly declared till afterwards. “The preceding thought is carried further: Every power which will be something in itself is destroyed by the Lord; every weakness, which despairs of itself, is transformed into power” (O. v. Gerlach). 1 Samuel 2:4. As in Isaiah 21:17 we have bows of heroes instead of heroes of the bow, so here the symbol of human power and might is poetically put first instead of the personal subject. [Dr. Erdmann translates: “the heroes of the bow are cast down,” which is, however, giving up the poetical form. Better: “the bows of heroes are broken.” So in Isaiah 21:17 : “the residue of the bows of the heroes shall become small.”—Tr.] The “broken” (ηַ ?ϊִּ ?ιν) refers, according to the sense, to the latter (since “heroes” is the logical subject) instead of to “bows,” the breaking of which indicates the broken power of those who, like heroes of the bow, trust to their might. The strong are overcome by God, as a hero loses his power when his bow is broken. The antithesis: “And they that stumbled [or, stumble] are girded with strength.” As stumbling, tottering indicates weakness and powerlessness, so “being girded” with strength denotes fitness for battle, power prepared for battle. The strong He deprives of strength, the powerless He makes strong—according to the free working of His power. 1 Samuel 2:5. The “full,” who in the abundance of their wealth had no need, have hired themselves out for bread, that is, must earn their bread in order to appease their hunger. On the other hand, the hungry “cease” (ηָ ?γֵ ?μεּ) either “to be hungry,” or, “to work for bread.” The latter is preferable on account of the contrast with “hire themselves out for bread” in the first clause; so Herder (“they now have holiday”) and Bunsen (“they no longer need work for bread”). Clericus: “Hannah here rightly attributes to divine providence what the heathen wrongly attribute to fortune, of whose instabilitv they speak ad nauseam.” See J. Stobζi, florileg. tit. 105 The ςַ ?γ [“till,” rendered in Eng. A.V. “so that”] is taken by some expositors in the sense “even” [Germ. sogar]. Clericus explains it as a sort of ellipsis “as if she said that all experienced the vicissitudes of human affairs, even to the barren woman, who,” etc. Similarly Keil explains it as a brachylogy: “it goes so far that”..… This adverbial construction, with the presupposed logical zeugma, would have as much in its favor as the view of Thenius, who asks: “Might not ςַ ?γ be an adverb: the long barren?” But there are passages in which ςַ ?γ, from its sense of continuance, must be taken simply as a conjunction, meaning “in that or while” (Jonah 4:2; Job 1:18; 1 Samuel 14:19); in the two last passages it is followed as here by εְ [“and”], and introduces an occurrence contemporaneously with which, or following on which, something else occurred. Here then: “while the barren bears seven.” “Seven children” is, according to Rth 4:15, the “complete number of the divine blessing in children” (Keil). Comp. Psalms 113:9 : “he makes the barren woman dwell in the house, the joyful mother of children.” [Erdmann translates: “he makes the barren woman of the house dwell as a joyful mother of children.”—Tr.] [Psalms 113:7-9 resembles 1 Samuel 2:5; 1 Samuel 2:7-8 so closely as to suggest an imitation. It would be very natural in a later writer, in composing a Psalm celebrating Jehovah’s majesty and power, to take such general expressions from a well-known song, which we may suppose was committed to writing by Hannah herself, and through Samuel transmitted to the prophetic students, among whom, no doubt, were many psalmists. The Book of “Samuel” itself was probably in circulation soon after Rehoboam’s time.—Tr.] “And she who had many children languishes away.” Clericus remarks: “being exhausted before the end of the, usual bearing-time of women, and perhaps left solitary by the death of her children.” As to this last point comp. Jeremiah 15:9. [The view held by some that in Hannah’s barrenness and subsequent fruitfulness there is a mystical or typical meaning, deserves consideration. It is advocated by Jerome, Augustine, Patrick, Gill, Wordsworth, and the Bib. Comm. Hannah is said to be the type of the Christian Church, at first barren and reviled, afterwards fruitful and rejoicing. As to such a typical character we must be guided, not by outward resemblances, but by fixed principles of biblical interpretation. If Hannah’s late fruitfulness is typical, it must be because it sets forth a spiritual element of the spiritual kingdom of God. These facts may guide us to a decision: 1) God’s relation to His people is set forth under the figure of marriage; He is the husband, His people the wife (Isaiah 54; Jeremiah 3; Hosea 1-3); 2) Isaiah (1 Samuel 54:1) describes God’s spiritual people as barren, yet with the promise of many children; 3) Paul (Galatians 4:27) quotes this passage of Isaiah, refers it to the Church of Christ as distinguished from the Jewish dispensation, and declares that this antithesis is given in Sarah and Hagar. The barren Sarah is the new dispensation, the fruitful Hagar the old. Besides Sarah, other barren women in the Bible become the mothers of remarkable sons: Rebecca, Rachel, Samson’s mother, Hannah, Elizabeth. Are these all typical of the new dispensation or the Church of Christ? The answer is to be found in Paul’s treatment of Sarah’s history. What he declares is, that Sarah is the mother of the child of promise, while Hagar’s child was the product of natural fruitfulness. Thus Sarah sets forth the dispensation which is based on promise or free grace and faith; Hagar represents the dispensation of works. Paul quotes Isaiah 54:1, to show simply that the spiritual Jerusalem, the Church of Christ, is our mother. Throughout his argument it is the spiritual element of promise and faith on which Sarah’s typical position is based. Only, therefore, where we can show such spiritual element are we justified in supposing a typical character. There must be involved the truth that the origination and maintenance of God’s people depend on His promise and not on human strength. This is not necessarily involved in the history of every barren woman who becomes fruitful—certainly not in that of Rachel, probably in that of Rebecca, probably not in the others. These histories teach indeed that fruitfulness is the gift of God; and, as an encouragement to faith, He has in some instances granted to the barren to be the mothers of sons to whom He has assigned important positions in the development of His kingdom. But this fact does not in itself show that these mothers sustained to the kingdom of God the relation which Sarah sustained. Hannah seems to be simply a pious mother whose prayer for a son, contrary to human probabilities, is granted.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:6. This Keil connects with the preceding, explaining: This comes from the Lord, who kills, etc. But here, as in the remaining members of the Song, we must suppose a logical asyndeton. The contrast of death and life, killing and making alive demands even a wider extension of these conceptions than is indicated in the last clause of 1 Samuel 2:5. Killing denotes (with a departure from the ordinary sense) bringing into the extremest misfortune and suffering, which oppresses the soul like the gloom of death, or brings it near to death—making alive is extricating from deadly sorrow and introducing into safety and joy. This is confirmed by the second member: “He brings down to Sheol and brings up.” The same contrast is found in Deuteronomy 32:39, “I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal;” Psalms 30:4 (3), “Thou hast brought up my soul from Sheol, Thou hast made me alive,” etc.; Psalms 71:20, “Thou, who hast showed us great and sore trouble, wilt quicken us again, and wilt bring us up again from the depths of the earth,” [Eng. A. V. reads, with Qeri, me; Kethib, us.—Tr.]. Psalms 86:13 : “Great is Thy mercy towards me, and Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest Sheol,” (comp. Job 5:18, and Psalms 88:4-6). So also in Psalms 66:9, misfortune is conceived of as death, salvation as revival. Calvin: “in the word ‘death’ Hannah properly embraces everything injurious, and whatever leads step by step to death, as, on the other hand, the word ‘life’ includes everything happy and prosperous, and whatever can make a fortunate man contented with his lot.” [As is apparent from the above exposition, there is no reference in this verse to the doctrine of the resurrection. The word ωְּׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ “Sheol,” improperly rendered in Eng. A. V. “hell” and “the grave,” means “the underworld,” (Erdmann, the same, “unterwelt”), the gloomy abode of all the dead, conceived of by the Hebrews as the negation of all earthly activity. It thus became an image of darkness and suffering, only here and there illumined and soothed (as in Psalms 16) by the conviction that God’s love would maintain and develop into fulness of joy the life which He had bestowed on His servants.—The word is usually supposed to mean a “hole,” “cleft” like, Eng. hell (=“hole,” “hollow,” German hφlle.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:7. By His power the Lord determines the contrast of rich and poor, high and low; comp. Psalms 75:8 (7). The thought of the second clause is developed in 1 Samuel 2:8, with the first half of which Psalms 113:7-8 agrees almost Word for word. Being low is here regarded as being despised, for “dust and dunghill” indicate a condition of deepest dishonor and disgrace, in which one is, as it were, trodden under foot; comp. Psalms 44:26 (25). The “raising and lifting” denotes the divine government, by which shame and contempt are changed into honor and glory. The contrast to the dust and the dunghill is the sitting in the company of nobles and princes, on the throne of honor. Calvin: “Hannah goes on to say the same thing of honors and dignities as of fortunes, namely, that, when we behold in this world so many and so great vicissitudes, we should lift up our gaze to the providence of God, who rules all things in heaven and earth by His will, not imagining that there is anything fortuitous in our lives, (… but knowing that God’s providence controls everything).”—The two last clauses point to the foundation of the Lord’s determination and arrangement of the contrasted relations of life and fates of men: “for the pillars of the earth are Jehovah’s, and He hath set the earth upon them.” The control and government of God here portrayed is founded on the fact that He is the creator and sustainer of the earth, and therefore by His omnipotence exercises unrestricted rule over the earth-world. Here we have clear and plain the highest point of view, from which all that is said from 1 Samuel 2:4 on is to be looked at: the all-embracing power of the Lord. Clericus: “Hannah, therefore, means to say that God easily effects any change in human affairs, since He is creator and lord of the earth itself.” 4. The Song culminates (1 Samuel 2:9-10) in the prophetic testimony to the omnipotent rule of the holy God in the manifestation of His justice towards the godly and the ungodly, and in conducting His kingdom to glorious victory over the world, a) To the godly the Lord will grant His protection and salvation, and will guard them from misfortune, comp. Psalms 56:13 (14): “Wilt Thou not deliver my feet from falling, that I may walk before God in the light of life [Germ, as Eng. A. V.: ‘the living’]?” So Psalms 116:8; Psalms 121:3; “he suffers not thy foot to fall.” The tottering [or falling] of the feet is not to be taken here in an ethical sense; the preservation of the feet from slipping, tottering, stumbling, often denotes deliverance from long-continued misfortune and suffering, so Psalms 15:5; Psalms 55:23; Psalms 66:9. “His saints” points to the intimate association between God and His people, and its correlative is “my God,” “our God.” b) The godless will be the objects of His punitive justice. They will perish in darkness. The darkness is the symbol of misfortune and misery, as light of safety and life, Job 15:22; Psalms 107:14. Godlessness is voluntary remoteness from the light of salvation, which God sheds abroad; and so its walking in darkness must end in destruction. For, not by strength, that is, by his own strength, shall a man prevail; “shall a man be strong” (ιִ ?βְ ?αַּ ?ψΞΰִ ?ιωׁ) is an allusion perhaps to the “mighty men” (βִ ?αֹּ ?ψִ ?ιν) in 1 Samuel 2:4. The godless rely on their own strength with which to help themselves in the darkness. But it is universally true that “we do nothing by our own strength.” Psalms 33:16-17. He who leans on his own strength (which cannot be without turning away from the Lord, who alone can help) will receive his just reward, he will perish in darkness. Clericus: “No one can avoid calamity by his own strength, unhelped by divine providence.”—Human weakness is here specially brought out by the order of the words; on man [Heb. ΰִ ?ιωׁ last word in 1 Samuel 2:9] follows immediately Jehovah [in the Heb., first word in 1 Samuel 2:10], which further stands as absolute subject (comp. Psalms 11:4) and thus in sharper contrast. As “prevail” in 1 Samuel 2:9 alludes to 1 Samuel 2:4, so here the “broken” to the “broken” in that verse.—The thought, that God’s justice is shown in the punishment of the godless, is first very strongly and sharply expressed by the immediate collocation of the two verbs after Jehovah: “broken are his opposers,” and then illustrated by the allusion to a judicial process which ends with the carrying out of the sentence. The ungodly strive with God as in a judicial contest (ξְ ?ψִ ?ιαָ ?ιε [Qeri]), but they are confounded in the presence of the process of law to which the Lord comes. The thunder, the sign of His fear-inspiring and destructive power, is the announcement of His proximity lo the tribunal. The “judge” (ιָ ?γִ ?ιο) denotes the holding of the court. The judicial work of God is the outflow of His holiness, justice and almightiness, which three attributes of God have been celebrated up to this point. The object of the judicial interposition of God is not only the members of the chosen people, but the ends of the earth, that is, all peoples, the whole world. As before the whole earthly creation, founded and maintained by God’s power, was brought before us in order to establish God’s almighty control over the earth, so here our view is extended from punitive justice as it shows itself in the sphere of God’s people to God’s judgment as it stretches over the whole earth, to the all-embracing world-judgment. The prophetic view often rises to this universality of God’s judicial control as the judge of the whole world (Genesis 18:25), which corresponds to the idea of the universal salvation embracing all the nations of the earth; so, for example, Micah 1:2 sq.; Isaiah 2:9 sq.; 1 Samuel 3:13; Psalms 7:8 sq.; 1 Samuel 9:8. The conception of this general judgment over all the peoples of the earth, and that of the special judgment over Israel and every individual member of Israel are closely connected. The aim of both is to lead God’s kingdom to victory and glory. The broad glance at the ends of the earth filled with the judicial glory of King Jehovah fixes itself in the concluding words on the highest aim and end to be reached by the exercise of God’s judicial justice, namely, the unfolding of God’s power and dominion in the kingdom in Israel and in the person of His anointed. “And He will give strength to His king, and exalt the horn of His anointed.” AND After the explanation of the content of this Song of praise of Hannah, we must in the first place consider the question of its origin. The answer to this question is inseparable from our historical conception and estimate of the content of the Song, and is therefore connected with the historical and theological remarks. The question is: whether, as the author obviously assumes, Hannah herself sang it from her heart, or, whether it owed its origin to a totally different occasion, and was put into Hannah’s mouth by the author. According to Ewald, this Song is an interpolation by a later hand, because 1 Samuel 2:1 is the immediate continuation of the concluding words of the first chapter, and is therefore a proper ending like 1 Samuel 1:19, (“ they worshipped and returned”); but we reply that the words, 1 Samuel 1:28, “they worshipped the Lord there,” form an appropriate introduction to the following prayer, and that the latter contains nothing out of keeping with the continuity of the narrative—rather its content quite suits the situation, and therefore from this point of view there is no necessity for regarding it (from its content) as a later insertion which breaks the connection.—But particularly two things in the content have been adduced against the ascription of the Song to Hannah or to Hannah’s time: the celebration of a glorious victory over foreign enemies, and the assumption of the existence of the theocratic kingdom in the conclusion.—But, as to the first, where in the Song is there the mention of a victory gained in war with foreign enemies? The only passage in which warriors are spoken of contrasts the “mighty bowmen” with the stumbling who are girded with the strength, not to portray heroes of war, but to show how this contrast also (which is parallel with others, none of which have anything to do with war) is brought about by the Lord’s omnipotent rule. The description of these contrasts and of the power of God which reveals itself in them is so general that it is impossible to discover here the character of a Song of victory which presupposes a war. The “enemies ” against whom the Song is directed are not the national enemies of the people of Israel, the heathen nations with whom they had to fight, but the ungodly within the chosen people as opposed to the truly pious and God-fearing. The contrasts which are introduced have their root in the fundamental view of the religious-moral opposition of pride and humility in reference to the holy God (1 Samuel 2:3, a), culminate in the testimony to God’s righteous judgment on godly and ungodly, and in their movement between these poles exhibit only the religious-moral condition of the people of Israel as the historical background. Nothing is said of opposition to external national enemies. Hence it is just as unfounded to regard David as the author of the Song (Bertholdt, Einl. III. 915), especially to suppose it a Song of praise for his victory over Goliath and the resulting defeat of the Philistines, (Thenius 1 ed., Bφttcher), as it is arbitrary to suppose one of the oldest Kings of Judah its author. Neither one nor the other can be demonstrated, or even shown to be probable.—The second argument against the ascription of the Song to Hannah, and for referring it to the period of the Kings seems weightier; for the words of 1 Samuel 2:10, “He will give strength to his king, and exalt the horn of His anointed,” seem to assume the existence of a king. But nothing obliges us so to understand it. If we put ourselves in the period of Samuel’s early life, the fact is incontestable that in the consciousness of the people, and the noblest part of them too, the idea of a monarchy had then become a power, which quickened more and more the hope of a realization of the old promises that there should be a royal dominion in Israel, till it took shape in the express demand which the people made of Samuel. The divine promise that the people should be a kingdom is given as early as the patriarchal period, comp. Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16. The idea of the kingdom as bringing prosperity to the whole people connects itself with the Tribe of Judah, Genesis 49:10. Judah will come forth victorious from the battle which awaits him, will remain in possession of everlasting imperishable dominion, and will never lose the sceptre. The period of the Law further develops the idea of this kingdom. The whole people is to be a priestly kingdom (Exodus 20:6). In Balaam’s prophecy the royal power and dominion to which Israel would attain is celebrated under the figure of the Star which rises on Jacob, and in their victory over their enemies, Numbers 24:17; Numbers 24:19. This old prophecy is altogether unintelligible if the consciousness of the people did not attach the hope of future development and prosperity to the idea of the kingdom. That the law of the king in Deuteronomy 17 belongs to the legal period has been improperly doubted, (comp. Oehler in Herzog’s R.-E. s. v. Kφnigthum). The proposition made to Gideon to be king (Judges 8:23), though rejected by him, shows how in the period of the Judges the felt national disintegration brought out more strongly the desire for a single government which should embrace the whole people and protect them against external enemies. The phrase of refusal “Jehovah shall rule over you,” is based on the external non-theocratic conception of the kingdom which underlay that application, and at the same time expresses in the clearest manner the consciousness of the divine rule of which the kingly rule was to be the organ. At the close of the period of the Judges the need of such a theocratic kingdom was felt the more strongly, because the office which was entrusted with the duty of forming and guiding the theocratic life of the nation, namely, the high-priestly office, was itself with the people involved in the deepest degradation. The hope thereon based, that the Lord would set up a kingdom as the instrument of saving the people from their deep corruption, is expressed in our Song in the concluding mention of the anointed of the Lord, who would receive his power from Him, whose horn would be exalted by the hand of the Lord. The same thought is expressed by that man of God (1 Samuel 2:35), who announces to the High-priest Eli the judgment of his house and the raising up of a faithful priest who will walk before the anointed of the Lord; that is, he indicates a direct interposition by God in the fortunes of His people, by which a new order of things will be brought about under the guidance of a true theocratic priesthood in connection with a divinely established kingdom. This was a testimony of the prophetical spirit which animated that man of God, that spirit of the prophecy and announcement of divine truth and promise, which had by no means completely died out in the time of the Judges. When God introduced the new era of Israel’s fortunes, the elevation of the theocratic development of His people’s life to a new plane by the prophet Samuel as instrument of His revelation, and first of the continuous theocratic line of prophets, He selected persons in the border-time between the old and the new in whom theocratic hopes dwelt in living power, informed them by direct influence of His Spirit of the approaching fulfillment of this hope, and prepared and impelled them to announce and to celebrate by prophetic testimony God’s new revelations of salvation. The “man of God” made such an announcement to Eli, who, according to the divine counsel, was to fall together with his house, that a new true priesthood might arise, which should be closely connected with the “anointed of the Lord,” the theocratic kingdom, in its effort to attain its end and aim, namely, God’s dominion over His people. Hannah made such an announcement respecting her child Samuel, she knowing by divine revelation that he was to be God’s instrument for great things, the renewer and restorer of the theocratic life under the God-given kingdom. She, like that man of God, is filled with the spirit of prophecy, whose representative and instrument she was the more fitted to be, as she belonged to the pious class of the people, and walked before God. Her song is a product of this prophetic spirit, which lifts her far above the joy (felt in her heart, and uttered at the outset) of her heard prayer and God’s acceptance of her child to be His possession, and above her personal experience of the might of the living God, and makes her see and celebrate His manifestations of might in his kingdom, which he has established in his people, and will develop in new glory by the revelation of His power and justice. From the depths of humble piety she looks up away from her poor self to the height of the holiness and faithfulness of the living God. The foundations on which rests all God’s revelation to His people, as well as His dominion over them, are His holiness and rock-firm faithfulness. On them is built God’s government in His kingdom and people, to which Hannah is led by the divine providence in her own life to look up. As she looks, her experience of her “adversaries” and of their pride and presumption is broadened and generalized into a view of God’s absolute government and dominion which brings to shame all the pride and insolence of the ungodly, and which is revealed, partly in the unlimited, unconditioned rule of His might, which accomplishes the life-changes of godly and ungodly in the extremest contrasts, contradicting all human calculation (1 Samuel 2:4-8), partly in the government of His justice, in which He shows Himself as the unchangeable rock of the godly, and gives the ungodly over to destruction (1 Samuel 2:9-10). From the idea of this government of justice the song rises finally with rapid flight to the conception of a judgment which the living, just God stretches with His dominion over the ends of the earth, and to the idea of a kingdom, which, in this divine domain, and by this ruling and governing of God, develops its power beyond the limits of Israel, and in the possession of this God-given power is the instrument of the divine dominion—a wide extension of the prophetic view, under the guidance of the divine Spirit, beyond the present which is the foundation of the word of the prophetic testimony. Thus the prophetic-historical description of the establishment of the kingdom in Israel is introduced by this lyric-prophetic witness of the God-ordained and God-serving power of the theocratic kingdom; and on this follows soon the prophetic announcement of the intimate relation in which the renovated priesthood is to stand to the “anointed of the Lord.” Hannah “beholds in her individual experience the general laws of the divine economy, and divines its significance for the whole history of the kingdom of God” (Auberlen, Stud. u. Krit., 1860, p. 564). In this song—uttered, in the spirit of prophecy, in the beginning of the development of the theocratic life, in so far as that development was determined by the kingdom which the people hoped for and God gave—Hannah passes unconsciously, impelled by the divine Spirit, over all the intermediate steps of the development of the kingdom of God, and points to the final goal, at which the divinely established, divinely equipped, royal dominion extends itself over the ends of the earth. To this answers, on the one hand, the idea of a universal revelation of salvation, which appears in that tribe-promise of the Shiloh, to whom the obedience of the nations belongs, and farther back in the patriarchal promises; and, on the other hand, there is connected with it the prophetic content of the songs of praise of Mary and Zachariah (Luke 1:46 sq. and 68 sq.), where there is express reference to the words of Hannah in view of the approaching final fulfillment of the idea, contained in her prophetic announcement, of the dominion of the anointed of the Lord which in divine power is to extend over the ends of the earth. [Wordsworth: “The Magnificat of Hannah is an evangelical song, chanted by the spirit of Prophecy under the Levitical Law. It is a prelude and overture to the Gospel. It is a connecting link of sweet and sacred melody between the Magnificat of Miriam after the passage of the Red Sea—symbolizing the Death, Burial and Resurrection of Christ—and the Magnificat of Mary, after the Annunciation of His Birth..… Let this Song of Hannah be read in the Septuagint, and then the Magnificat in St. Luke’s original, and the connection of the two will be more clearly recognized.… The true characteristic of Sacred Poetry is, that it is not egotistical. It merges the individual in the nation, and in the Church Universal. It looks forward from the special occasion which prompts the utterance of thanksgiving, and extends and expands itself, with a loving power and holy energy, into a large and sympathetic outburst of praise to God for His love to all mankind in Christ.…… The Magnificat of Hannah is conceived in this spirit. It is not only a song of thanksgiving; it is also a prophecy. It is an utterance of the Holy Ghost moving within her, and making her maternal joy on the birth of Samuel to overflow in outpourings of thankfulness to God for those greater blessings in Christ, of which that birth was an earnest and a pledge. In this respect it may be compared with the Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32) and the Song of David (2 Samuel 22).”—Augustine, in his comment on this Song (De Civ. Dei, 17, 4), follows the translation of the Sept. (which is often incorrect), and, along with some good thoughts, has much wrong exegesis and unfounded spiritualizing.—Tr.] AND 1 Samuel 2:1. The joy in the Lord, to which faith attains amid sore conflicts: 1) Its source—not our own heart with its frowardness and its despondency, not help and consolation from men, but only the Lord’s grace and compassion, which make the heart joyous again, lifting up with mighty power the mind that has been stricken down; 2) Its object: the fulness of the salvation which the Lord dispenses, and faith ever more richly appropriates: 3) Its expression: an open testimony to the salvation experienced—before God in praise, (“I rejoice in thy salvation”), before men—in confessing and celebrating our experience of salvation, to our companions in the faith that they may unite with us in joy and praise, so that their faith may be strengthened, to the adversaries of the faith that they may be ashamed, may be warned, may repent.—[Hannah’s song of praise compared with her former prayer. 1) She was then “in bitterness of soul” (1 Samuel 1:10); now her “ heart rejoiceth.” 2) Then she was humiliated (1 Samuel 1:5; 1 Samuel 1:8; 1 Samuel 1:11); now she is “exalted.” 3) Then her adversary provoked her (1 Samuel 1:6); now her “mouth is opened wide over her enemies.” 4) Then she “poured out her soul before the Lord” (1 Samuel 1:15); now she “rejoices in His salvation.” Often we remember to pray, and then forget to praise.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:2. The two characteristics of the life of God’s children in their relation to the living God: 1) The humble reverence before Him, in view of His holiness; 2) The heartiest confidence in Him, in view of His unchangeable faithfulness.1 Samuel 2:3. The humbling of the natural man’s pride through the testimony concerning the living God: 1) Concerning his universal knowledge; 2) His universal wisdom which determines and regulates all the details of His action (1 Samuel 2:3); 3) His universal power which determines every change in the fortunes of human life, (1 Samuel 2:4-8). [The division 2) must be modified if the view of Tr. be adopted as to the reference of the term “actions.” See Exegetical on 1 Samuel 2:3.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:3. “ By Him actions are weighed.” I. The manner of His weighing—with perfect knowledge (1 Samuel 2:3), with absolute rectitude (1 Samuel 2:2), with immutable justice (1 Samuel 2:2).—II. The result of His weighing is often a total reversal of men’s fortunes (1 Samuel 2:4-8). Application: Be not proud of present prosperity, but look well to the way in which you enjoy and use it (1 Samuel 2:3).—Tr.]. [Henry: 1 Samuel 2:1-3. Hannah’s triumph in God’s perfections, and in His blessings to her. I. She celebrates His glorious attributes: (1) His purity. (2) His power. (3) His wisdom. (4) His justice. II. She solaces herself in these things. III. She silences those who are enemies to her and to God. 1 Samuel 2:4-8. Providence in the changes of human life: 1) The strong are weakened and the weak strengthened, when God pleases (1 Samuel 2:4). 2) The rich are impoverished and the poor enriched (1 Samuel 2:5). 3) God is the Lord of life and death (1 Samuel 2:6). 4) He advances and He abases (1 Samuel 2:7-8). 5) And in all this we must acquiesce, for God is sovereign. “The pillars of the earth are the Lord’s.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 2:4-8. The unity amid change of the opposite ways which the pious and the ungodly must go: 1) One starting-point, the Lord’s inscrutable will, which determines them; 2) One hand, the almighty hand of the Lord, which leads them; 3) One goal at which they end, humble submission under that hand.—The wonderful guidance of the children of men upon quite opposite ways: 1) The opposite direction in which they go, (a) from the height to the depth, (b) from the depth to the height; 2) The opposite design which the Lord has therein with men, (a) to lead them from the heights of pride and haughty self-complacency to humble submission under His unlimited power,(b) to exalt them from the depths of humble self-renunciation to a blessed life in the enjoyment of His free grace; 3) The opposite end, according as men cause the divine design to be fulfilled or defeated in them: (a) everlasting destruction without God, (b) everlasting salvation and life in and with God. 1 Samuel 2:3-10. The contrasts which the change in the relations of human life presents to us in the light of divine truth: 1) God’s holiness and man’s sin; 2) God’s almightiness and man’s powerlessness; 3) God’s gracious design and man’s destruction.1 Samuel 2:4. Weakness and strength come from the Lord: 1) He makes the strong weak; 2) He makes the weak strong. 1 Samuel 2:5. The Lord alone gives full satisfaction: 1) He leads from false contentment in carnal fulness to wholesome destitution; 2) He changes hunger into blessed fulness with true contentment. [Fanciful and strained.—Tr.]—Blessed are they that hunger: 1) Because the Lord brings them from full to hungry, 2) From hungry to full. 1 Samuel 2:6. How the living God shows Himself as the Lord of life and of death: 1) In that He leads from life into death, 2) From death into life.1 Samuel 2:7-8. The sovereign rule of the grace of God: 1) It makes poor, in order to make rich; 2) It humbles, in order to exalt. 1 Samuel 2:9-10. The Lord our God is a just God: 1) Upon the pious He bestows salvation in His light; 2) The ungodly he causes to perish in darkness.—As man with his whole life places himself towards God, so will God in the judgment place Himself towards him as a just Judge: 1) Either in the severity of His punitive justice; 2) Or in the kindness of His saving grace.—The great Either—Or—which God’s word writes over every human life: 1) Either with the pious for the Lord, or with the ungodly against Him; 2) Either trusting alone in the saving might of divine grace, or wishing to be strong by one’s own power; 3) Either preserved by the Lord with the pious to everlasting life, or banished with the ungodly to everlasting condemnation.1 Samuel 2:10. The judgment of God’s punitive justice (“The Lord will judge”): 1) Whom it threatens—the ungodly, “adversaries.” 2) How God makes it approach with warning signs (“out of heaven shall be thunder”). 3) How it discharges itself against all the world that is opposed to God (“ The Lord shall judge the ends of the earth”). 4) How it promotes the perfecting of His Kingdom.[Providence in the national government of Israel. Not only was the secular spirit in the nation beginning to desire a king (1 Samuel 8:5), but the inspired Hannah here predicts it with devout hope. Theocracy, Monarchy and Hierarchy each contributed in turn to the welfare of Israel, and each helped to prepare the way for the great Anointed, at once Prophet, King, and Priest, who should reign over the spiritual Israel.—Interesting lectures might be made on “Psalms outside of the Book of Psalms.” (See above, additions to Historical and Theological.)—Tr.] Footnotes: [Instead of “Jehovah,” 28 MSS., 3 printed copies, LXX. and Vulg., read “my God,” which some prefer as a variation; Syr. and Ar. omit the word. It is better to keep the Heb. text.—Tr.] [“Because” is omitted in Vat. LXX. (probably by clerical error), retained in Chald. and Syr.—Tr.] [The Heb. here repeats the subst. πְּ ?αֹ ?δָ ?δπְּ ?αֹ ?δָ ?δ, “pride, pride,” in a superl. sense. Wellhausen takes these words as a quotation, and the δ as He local, “do not say, high up! high up!” but this rendering has little in its favor.—Tr.] [Lit. “knowledges.” Ewald and Erdmann render “an omniscient God.” [Kethib is μΰ, “not,” and so Syr. and Ar.; the Qeri μεֹ, “by him,” is found in many MSS., and LXX., Chald. and Vulg. See Dr. Erdmann’s note.—Tr.] [On these interpretations of ηγμε and ςγ see exegetical note.—Tr.] [Heb. ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ, Sheol. See exeget. note.—Tr.] [The Heb. has no pronoun here. Some MSS. have a Yod paragog. which may represent an original Waw in the text. The sense is not affected.—Tr.] [Heb. has the sing. in Kethib, but the plur. of Qeri suits the connection better. (So Vulg.) The Kethib may be only a scriptio defectiva. (In Psalms 16:10 Kethib is plur.; Qeri, not so well, sing.)—ηָ ?νִ ?ιγ is literally “a favored one,” “beloved,” rendered by Erdmann “fromm” (pious).—Erdmann renders “shall perish.” The word means first “ be silent,” and then “perish,”—silence being a sign of destruction.—Tr.] [Here again Kethib is sing., and Qeri plur., and the verb is plur. Lit. “Jehovah—his adversaries shall be broken.” LXX.: “the Lord will make his adversary weak;” Vulg.: “dominum formidabunt adversarii ejus;” Chald.: “Jehovah will destroy the enemies who rise up to hurt his people.” This simpler construction (reading the verb as sing.) is adopted by Wellhausen and the Bible Commentary—but there is not sufficient ground for changing the existing Hebrew text.*—Tr.] [There is no reason for supposing here a reference to the eastern custom among Oriental women, (Druses and others), of wearing silver-horns on the head to which the vail is attached, and which by their position indicate the woman’s position as maiden, wife, or mother. There is no trace of such a custom among the ancient Hebrews. The word qeren “horn,” is used of the horns of beasts, of horns for blowing and drinking, or for any horn-shaped vessel, (so, the name of Job’s daughter Qeren-happuk “paint-horn,” “eyepigment-horn”), and of a mountain-peak. It signifies also “ray of light,” and the derived verb “to emit rays of light,” as of Moses, Exodus 34:29. From the incorrect translation of the Vulg., “horned” probably came (as Gesenius suggests) the custom of the early painters of representing Moses with horns.—Tr.]. [These ideas are not properly indicated by the word “holy,” but may be said to be connected with and suggested by the lofty Heb. conception of the holiness of God.—Tr.] [Bible-Commentary: “That the name was commonly applied to God so early as the time of Moses, we may conclude from the names Zurishaddai, “my Rock is the Almighty,” (Numbers 1:6; Numbers 2:12), and Zuriel, “my Rock is God,” (Numbers 3:35).—Tr.]. [More literally “there is not a rock like our God.”—Tr.]. [This is not correct. The neg. is not omitted before ϊּ ?γαψεּ which is, according to the Heb. syntax, merely an appendage of ϊּ ?ψαεּ, forming with it a compound notion.—This paragraph is improperly assigned in the Germ. to 1 Samuel 2:4.—Tr.]. [The Heb. plu. means not more than “great knowledge;” our author’s exposition cannot be gotten from the simple Heb. word, but is an interpretation into the word (here probably warranted) of ideas gotten from the Scriptures in general.—Tr.]. [The word ηγμִ is used in the Bible either absolutely =“cease to exist” (Judges 5:6-7; Psalms 49:8 (9); Deuteronomy 15:11), or with an explanatory word (Job 3:17; Proverbs 10:9), or its complement is suggested by the immediate action or context (Amos 7:5; Zechariah 11:12). Here the statement is “the hungry ceased to exist as such.” as in Judges 5:6; Deuteronomy 15:11–Tr.] [Dr. Erdmann’s translation of this clause (1 Samuel 2:5) is hardly satisfactory. The word ςַ ?γ (lit.“continuance) is used in the senses “while,” “until,” “so that,” and the question is, which is the appropriate sense here. Erdmann renders: “while the barren bears, the fruitful waxes feeble,”—that is, the clause, according to him, affirms the contemporaneousness of the two things. This would be appropriate in a narration, but is inappropriate and feeble here. To judge from the passages cited, he supposes the sense to be: “and while the barren is still bearing (that is, in the midst of her bearing), the fruitful languishes,” which is plainly out of keeping with the context. Rather we are to take ςַ ?γ—in its well-sustained sense of “till”—as marking the limit of the action involved in the preceding context. The mutations in human life, brought about by God, reach to this astonishing point, namely, that the barren becomes fruitful and the fruitful barren. So Vulg. (donec) and Sept. (ὄτι). The other versions do not translate the ςγ. Gesenius and Fόrst take the word as a preposition: “even the barren, she bears.” But it may also be a conjunction. It sometimes by suggestion (though not properly) includes the fact which it introduces.—Tr.] [It is not necessary to find a geographical theory in this poetical statement. And, even if it expresses the author’s geographical views, it is not the thought of the passage, but only the framework of the thought; the real thought here is solely religious, and has nothing to do with physical science.—Tr.]. [Heb. literally: “Jehovah, broken are His opposers.” Some render, “Jehovah will break His opposers.”—Tr.]. [Equally arbitrary is the procedure of Geiger (Urschrift u. Ueberselzungen der Bibel, page 27), who makes Hannah’s Song an imitation of Psalms 113, and refers the latter to the postexilian period, explaining πְ ?γִ ?ιαִ ?ιν as foreign princes reigning over Israel!—Tr.]. FOURTH SECTIONSamuel’s Service before the Lord in Contrast with the Abominations of the Degenerate Priesthood in the House of Eli1 Samuel 2:11-26I. The conduct of the sons of Eli In contrast with Samuel, the “servant of the Lord.” Vers.‚ 11–17. 11And Elkanah went to Ramah to his house. And the child did minister [ministered12] unto the Lord [Jehovah] before Eli the priest. Now [And] the sons of Eli 13were sons of Belial [wicked men]; they knew not the Lord [Jehovah]. And the priest’s custom [the custom of the priests] with the people was that, when any man offered sacrifice, the priest’s servant came, while the flesh was in seething, with 14a flesh-hook of three teeth in his hand; [,] And he (om. he) struck it into the pan, or kettle, or cauldron or pot; all that the flesh-hook brought up the priest took for himself. So they did in Shiloh unto all the Israelites that came thither. 15Also [Even] before they burnt the fat, the priest’s servant came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give flesh to roast for the priest; for he will not have sodden 16flesh of thee, but raw. And if any [the] man said unto him, Let them not fail to burn the fat presently, and then take as much as thy soul desireth; [,] then he would answer [say] him. [om. him], Nay, but thou shalt give it me [om. me] now; and if not, I will take it by force. Wherefore [And] the sin of the young men 17was very great before the Lord [Jehovah]; for men abhorred the offering of the Lord [Jehovah]. II. Samuel as minister before the Lord. 1 Samuel 2:18-2118 But [And] Samuel ministered before the Lord [Jehovah], being [om. being] a 19child, girded with a linen ephod. Moreover [And] his mother made him a little coat [tunic], and brought it to him from year to year, when she came up with her 20husband to offer the yearly sacrifice. And Eli blessed Elkanah and his wife, and said, The Lord [Jehovah] give thee seed of this woman for the loan which is lent to the Lord [in place of the gift which was asked for Jehovah]. And they went unto their own home [to his place]. And the Lord [Jehovah] visited Hannah, so that [and] she conceived, and bare three sons and two daughters. And the child Samuel grew before the Lord [Jehovah]. III. Eli’s conduct towards his worthless sons. 1 Samuel 2:22-2622 Now [And] Eli was very old, and [ins. he] heard all that his sons did unto all Israel, and how [that] they lay with the women that assembled [served] at the 23door of the tabernacle of the congregation [meeting (or assembly)]. And he said unto them, Why do ye such things? for I hear of your evil dealings [deeds] by 24[from] all this people. Nay, my sons; for it is no good report that I hear; ye 25make the Lord’s people [Jehovah’s people are made] to transgress. If one man sin against another [If a man sin against a man], the judge [God] shall judge him; but if a man sin against the Lord [Jehovah], who shall intreat10 for him ? Notwithstanding [And] they hearkened not unto the voice of their father, because 26the Lord would slay them [for it was Jehovah’s will to slay them]. And the child Samuel grew on and was in favour [grew in stature and favour] both with the Lord [Jehovah] and also [om. also] with men. AND 1. 1 Samuel 2:11-16. In 1 Samuel 2:11 the Sept. again clearly shows the effort to combine explanations with the translation of the Heb. text, rendering: “ and they left him there, and they went away.” [The Vat. MS. reads in both instances “she” instead of “they.”—Tr.]. There is the less need to change the Heb. text to accord with this, because, as Bφttcher (ubi sup. p. 69) rightly remarks, “the Elkanah” of the former is quite sufficient, since this name would suggest to every reader Elkanah and his household, and the only one that remained behind is mentioned immediately afterwards. From 1 Samuel 1:21 Elkanah can be thought of only together “with his whole house.”—The child “was ministering to the Lord,” or “serving the Lord.” These words express the whole work which the growing boy Samuel, conformably to his consecration, had to perform, certain duties connected with the service of God being laid upon him. “Before Eli,” that is, under his supervision, and according to his appointment. 1 Samuel 2:12. The sons of Eli were sons of worthlessness; their character and conduct forms the sharpest contrast with what they ought to have been before the whole people as highest in position, as children of the High-priestly House. Observe the sharp asyndeton in this short sentence: they knew not the Lord, that is, they did not live in the fear of the Lord, they did not trouble themselves about Him; comp. Job 18:21. This godlessness and irreligiousness is the source of their moral worthlessness, which is afterwards described. The two together give the religious-moral characteristics of Eli’s sons. 1 Samuel 2:13. This is not to be rendered: “And the custom of the priests with the people was this”—this would certainly require simply ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τַּ ?θεְ ?ζֶ ?η without δַ ?λֹּ ?δֲ ?πִ ?ιν [“this is the custom” without “ the priests”], comp. Genesis 11:6 (Bφttcher); nor is it: “the right (that is, the assumed right) of the priests in respect to the people was as follows” (Keil), for ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τַּ ?θ [“right”] alone cannot be so understood; but the words are to be connected with the preceding: they troubled themselves not about God, nor about the real, true right of the priests in respect to the people, that is, “about what was the legal due of the priests from the people” (Thenius). [The construction of this difficult clause adopted by Erdmann (with Vulg., Cahen, Wellhausen, Thenius, and perhaps Sept.) is open to grave objections. The reply to Keil is correct; ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ cannot well mean “assumed right.” The objection to Bφttcher’s translation (where read ζֶ ?δξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θָ ?ν instead of Erdmann’s ζֶ ?δξִ ?ωְׁ ?τַּ ?θ) is forcible in so far as we should expect ζְ ?δ to introduce the clause (comp. Deuteronomy 18:3); but the possibility of the omission of the pronoun, and of an apposition of the two clauses must be admitted. To the translation of ξΧ by “legal right” Wellhausen properly objects that the βַּ ?ν (even) in 1 Samuel 2:15 introduces a graver outrage, and therefore the proceeding described in 1 Samuel 2:13 must be illegal.—But against Erdmann’s rendering it is to be said that the meaning assigned to ιγς (know) “trouble one’s-self about” is rare and difficult; it is found only in poetical passages. The phrase “to know the Lord” occurs, and always in the sense of intimate sympathetic apprehension; but this sense will not suit the ξΧ. Moreover, if ξΧ here means “right” we should expect the prep. ξֵ ?ΰֵ ?ϊ“from” (as Deuteronomy 18:3) instead of ΰֵ ?ϊ “ with ” the latter must be retained here, though the former is read in 9 MSS. and in LXX., Syr., Chald. Further, the narrative is, in this construction, introduced very abruptly (“when any man, etc.”). ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ means not only “right,” but also “ custom, manner;” see 2 Kings 11:14; Judges 13:12. The “custom” here described was not the legal right, but was in force under, apparently introduced by, the sons of Eli, the priests (δλΧ); 1 Samuel 2:13 details one imposition of the priests, and a more serious imposition is properly introduced (1 Samuel 2:15) by “even” (βַּ ?ν).—We retain, therefore, the rendering of Eng. A. V. (with Philippson, Bib. Comm, and others).—Tr.]. Then follows the statement of the priests’ legal right.—The connection required that the people’s part in the offering should now be distinctly set forth, in order to put the unseemly conduct of Eli’s sons in its true light. Therefore the participle “sacrificing” in connection with the indefinite subject “every man,” stands first in absolute construction, like the Lat. Abl. absolute (comp. Gesen. § 145, 2, Rem.), = “when any man offered, then came, etc.” Ewald, § 341 e.: “ If the subject of the circumstantial sentence is wholly undefined, then the mere combination of the participle with the subject suffices to express a possible case (Genesis 4:15).” Here is vividly portrayed the grasping selfish conduct of the priests in the preparation of the sacrificial meal after the offering was presented, which had already become the rule (“so they did to all the Israelites”).—But still further. 1 Samuel 2:15. Even before the offering, before (in accordance with the law, Leviticus 3:3-5) the fat was burned that it might be offered to the Lord as the best portion, they committed a robbery on the meat, which they wanted only δַ ?ι, that is, raw, fresh, full of juice and strength, in order to roast it. [Bib. Comm. points out that 1 Samuel 2:13-15 repeat the Language of the Law, and thus give evidence to its existence. See Leviticus 7:31-35; Leviticus 7:23-25; Leviticus 7:31; Leviticus 17:5; also Exodus 29:28; Deuteronomy 18:3. Philippson: “Roast was common in heathen sacrifices, and even now the Orientals do not like to eat boiled meat.”—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:16. The remonstrance of the offerer based on the legal regulation, of which they should be the guardians, is set aside. λַּ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν = “at this time, now,” as in Genesis 25:31; 1 Kings 22:5. The Qeri “not” is preferable to the Kethib “to him:” “no, but now thou shalt give it;” threats were combined with violent seizure. Rude force was added to lawlessness. 1 Samuel 2:17. The “young men ” are not the servants of the priests (Keil) but the priests themselves, the sons of Eli. Their arbitrary conduct was “a very great sin before the Lord,” because the fat burned on the altar pertained to the Lord, and their legal portion of the sacrifice-meat fell to them only after the burning of the fat. What made their sin so great was the fact that they brought the offerings into contempt with the people, in so far as the wicked conduct of the priests took away in the eyes of the people their true significance as offerings to the Lord. Minchah (ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ) “means here not the meat-offering as the adjunct to the bloody offerings, but the sacrificial gift in general as an offering to the Lord” (Keil). In the succeeding narrative Samuel’s “service before the Lord” is contrasted with this wicked conduct of Eli’s sons in relation to the offering. II. 1 Samuel 2:18-21. 1 Samuel 2:18. The “Ephod” can mean nothing but a garment resembling in form the High-priest’s ephod, consisting of two pieces which rested on the shoulders in front and behind, were joined at the top and held about the body by a girdle. Therefore it is said also: Samuel was girded with the ephod, comp. Exodus 28:7-8. In distinction from the material of the High-priest’s ephod, it was made of the same material as the other priestly garments, white linen (αַּ ?γ). That the priests then all wore this ephod appears from 1 Samuel 22:18. It was the sign of the priestly calling, and was worn during the performance of the priestly functions. David was thus clothed, according to 2 Samuel 6:14, when he brought back the Ark, and in connection with this ceremony performed quasi-priestly functions. As the mention of this priestly dress of Samuel is connected expressly and directly with the reference to his calling as minister in the Sanctuary before the Lord, it is thus intimated that he, called to this life-long service, received therewith an essentially priestly calling. [Bib. Comm.: The word minister is used in three senses in Scripture: 1) Of the service of both Priests and Levites rendered unto the Lord, Exodus 28:35, etc.; 2) of the ministrations of the Levites as rendered to the Priests, Numbers 3:6; Numbers 3) of any service, as that of Joshua to Moses, that of Elisha to Elijah, that of the angels in heaven, 2 Samuel 13:17; Psalms 103:21, etc. The application of it to Samuel accords most exactly with his condition as a Levite.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:19. While the ephod was the High-priestly dress, which the boy received on the part of the Sanctuary (Thenius), the little meοl(ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ) was his every-day dress, which his mother renewed for him once a year, when she came with her husband to the Sanctuary to present the annual offering. The unbroken connection which the household thus maintained with the Sanctuary prevented any estrangement between the child Samuel and the house of his parents.—The Impf. “made” (ϊּ ?ςωδ) indicates a continued customary action, and thus answers to the Latin tense which is so called in a stricter sense. 1 Samuel 2:20. Eli’s blessing refers to two things: to the act of consecrating the son to the service of the Lord, and to the compensation which Eli wished the Lord to make for the son who was offered to the Lord. Keil explains the ωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μ (asked [Eng. A. V. “lent”]) as 3 pers. singular instead of 2 pers. singular or plural “from the indefinite form of speech (comp. Ewald, § 249 b with § 319 a) which the narrator chose because, though it was Hannah who in Eli’s presence had obtained Samuel from the Lord by prayer, yet Eli might assume that the father, Elkanah, had shared the wish of his pious wife.” But the circumstance which alone permits such change of person, or rather of gender, in the subject, namely, the indefiniteness of the subject as indicated by the context, does not exist here, since such indefiniteness is undoubtedly excluded by 1 Samuel 1:27-28. Bφttcher properly takes the verb form with altered points as 3 sing. fem. “she asked.”—The sing. pronoun in “his place” (for which we should expect “their place”) does not require the change of “they went” into “the man went,” as Bφttcher and Thenius prefer, following the Sept. καὶἀπῆλθενὁἄνθρωπος; the singular suffix (after the plural verb) is explained “by the fact that the place of residence is determined by the husband or owner of the house.” 1 Samuel 2:21. λִּ ?ι is neither with Bunsen to be translated: “When now Jehovah visited Hannah she conceived,” nor with Thenius to be complemented by “it came to pass,” nor to be referred to “ and Eli blessed” (1 Samuel 2:20), according to the view of Keil, who inserts a sentence (“Eli’s word was fulfilled,” or “they went home blessed”) in order to retain the causal meaning, but it is to be considered as strengthening the following assertion, with reference to the blessing in 1 Samuel 2:20, and = “indeed,” “in fact,” immo [German, ja, in der that]. See Ewald, § 310 c and § 330 b. Comp. Isaiah 7:9; Isaiah 32:13; Job 8:6.—Samuel’s growth “before the Lord” indicates not only that he remained in the Sanctuary, but also that (as the condition of his calling) he grew in fellowship of heart and life with God. III. 1 Samuel 2:22-26. The chief thing in the content of this section is the description of Eli’s conduct towards his sons. But at the same time their worthlessness in relation to the Sanctuary in yet another direction is brought to view. They desecrated the latter not only by the wickedness described in 1 Samuel 2:12-17, but also by their unchaste dealing with the women who served at the Sanctuary. Wherein consisted their service at the door of the Tent of Assembly is not said in Exodus 38:8, where they are mentioned. They formed a body, which was regularly and formally drawn up (φֹ ?αְ ?ΰεֹ ?ϊ) at the door of the Tent for the performance of its duty, which consisted “probably in the cleansing of the vessels used in offerings.” Since, therefore, they were persons dedicated to the holy God, the wickedness of Eli’s sons, who seduced to the service of fleshly lust these persons destined for the service of the Lord, appears in so much the stronger light.—The wickedness of Eli’s sons in what pertained to the sanctuary attached itself to the whole people, who were to hold themselves a holy people to the Lord through this Sanctuary and through the offering and persons connected with it.—Eli’s conduct in connection with their misdeeds is in the beginning by the words “and Eli was very old” represented as the weakness of old age, not thereby to excuse or justify his slackness, but to explain it. 1 Samuel 2:23. The question: Why do ye such things? is but a feeble rebuke of their gross misdoings. It cannot be translated: “Why do ye according to the words which I hear” (Keil)? for the Heb. word (γִּ ?αְ ?ψֵ ?ιλֶ ?ν) cannot mean “reports about you,” nor could these reports be termed “evil,” since they would be true reports of evil deeds; but the proper rendering is: “Why do ye as these things?” that is, such things. “For I hear of your evil dealings from all this people,” that is, those who came to the Sanctuary, and there saw the wickedness. 1 Samuel 2:24. “Do not so (ΰַ ?μ) my sons.” Not good is the “report,” or objectively “the thing heard;” this answers to the “evil dealings (or things).” The “I hear” (ωֹׁ ?ξֵ ?ςַ) corresponds to the “report,” “thing heard” (ωְׁ ?ξֻ ?ςָ ?δ) and [being a particip.—Tr.] shows that it constantly came to his ears. What follows is the explanation of the words: “it is no good report.” The words: “Jehovah’s people are made to transgress” (ξַ ?ςֲ ?αִ ?ψִ ?ιν etc.), express the guilt which the sons of Eli incurred by their misdoing towards “the Lord’s people.” The difficulties in the explanation of the particip. (ξΧ “are causing to transgress”) have give occasion to attempts at alteration, which, however, are unsatisfactory. “Michaelis’ alteration (into ξֵ ?ςֹ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ιν): ‘the report which I hear incidentally (from people passing by) from God’s people.’ is against grammar;” so says Thenius. “But,” says Bφttcher rightly, “Thenius’ own reading (made from Sept. and Arab., and therefore insecure): ‘you plague, oppress the people of Israel’ (ξַ ?ςֲ ?αִ ?γִ ?ινΰַ ?ϊֶּ ?νςַ ?νιΧ) is wholly without ground. For δֶ ?ςֱ ?αִ ?ιγ means only ‘make to serve,’ ‘enslave,’ or ‘make to work,’ plague with work (Exodus 1:13; Exodus 6:5). From the last in the later prophetic style (Isaiah 43:23) has developed the meaning ‘weary,’ ‘burden,’ just as German: schaffen machen [‘to give trouble,’ lit. ‘to make to do’], πράγματαπαρέχειν [‘to cause trouble’], and so always with the idea of ‘work’ as fundamental. Eli’s sons, it is true, robbed and dishonored the people (1 Samuel 2:13 sqq., 22); but they did not burden them in such a way that our term ‘give trouble’ would suit. The expression does not come up to the reality, for it is too narrow for the rebuke. And the addition of ‘ye’ (ΰַ ?ϊֶּ ?ν) here is both violent, and cannot be inferred from the Arab. text, where it was a necessity of Shemitic construction.” The view thus opposed by Bφttcher is maintained by Thenius (in his 2d ed. also) to suit the connection perfectly, though, on the other hand, he declares that Ewald’s explanation, in which there is no change of text, must be accepted; this latter is held by Bφttcher to be the only one permitted by the language and matter, and he gives it thus: “to send forth a cry (δΧχεֹ ?μ), thence to cause to be called out, and to cause to trumpet forth (δΧωׁ ?εֹ ?τָ ?ψ) are common expressions, appropriate to the simplest style, Exodus 36:6; Leviticus 25:9; Ezra 1:1; Ezra 10:7. Why then should not “send forth a report” (δΧωְׁ ?ξεּ ?ς) be said as well as ‘send forth a voice’ (δΧχεֹ ?μ)? ‘The report which (as) I hear, God’s people are circulating,’ is quite proper; the plu. partcp. is joined to the collective ‘people’ as in 1 Samuel 13:15.” To this Thenius properly objects that it is a superfluous statement after 1 Samuel 2:23 (“which I hear from all the people”), and that we should here expect a more significant word. The train of thought requires after the declaration “not good,” etc., a statement of the ground of Eli’s judgment. The usual rendering: “ye make the Lord’s people to transgress,” satisfies the demands of the connection of thought. Only, as the pers. pron. (ΰϊν “ye”) is wanting, the partcp. must be rendered impersonally: “people make … to transgress” (comp. ξְ ?ωַׁ ?μְּ ?ηִ ?ιν, 1 Samuel 6:3, and ΰֹ ?ξְ ?ψִ ?ιν Exodus 5:16). The objection that the object of the transgression, which is elsewhere always fouud with this verb as exacter determination, is not here expressed (comp. 1 Samuel 15:24; Isaiah 24:5; 2 Chronicles 24:20; Numbers 14:41), cannot set aside the meaning: “cause to sin or transgress,” “because the exact definition is contained in the context” (Keil). The sin of the sons was, according to the context, very great before the Lord (1 Samuel 2:12-17), but was at the same time committed against the people of the Lord (1 Samuel 2:13; 1 Samuel 2:22) in reference to their holy calling, and had the destructive effect of bringing the Lord’s offering into contempt (1 Samuel 2:17). The “people of the Lord” not only knew and spoke of the wickedness of Eli’s sons, but were made by the latter partakers of their guilt, were seduced into transgression of the Law by those who ought to have watched over its fulfillment. 1 Samuel 2:25. Pillel (τִּ ?μֵּ ?μ) is used, in connection with wicked actions, in the sense “to give a decisive judgment,” and so between two contending parties, “to compose a strife by judgment;” comp. Ezekiel 16:52; Psalms 106:30. The elohim, however, cannot here mean the judge, or the authority that judges, but God is described as He who composes by judging. The sense of Eli’s discourse is: “When men sin against men, it is God (of course through the appointed human organs), who restores the disturbed relations by composing the strife; but when we have to do with the relation, not between man and man, but between man and God, when a man sins against God, offends against God’s honor, who will interpose to arrange the matter?” Eli sets two things therefore before his sons: 1) that their sin is a sin immediately against God, from which point of view it has been regarded in the whole preceding narration (1 Samuel 2:12; 1 Samuel 2:17); 2) that the consequent guilt is so great, that divine punishment therefor is certain. [Wordsworth: A man may intercede with God for remission of a penalty due for injury to himself; but who shall venture to entreat for one who has outraged the majesty of God?—Tr.]—Eli’s weakly mild words were too indefinite and general to check the bold wickedness of his sons. It was too late. They sinned against the Lord “with a high hand” (αְּ ?ιָ ?γψָ ?ξָ ?δ), as it were, with hardened hearts.—And they hearkened not to the voice of their father.—As reason of this (λִּ ?ι, “because”) is stated, “that it pleased God, was God’s will, to slay them;” that is, they were in a state of inner hardening, which excluded the subjective condition of salvation from destruction, and so they had already incurred God’s unchangeable condemnation. As hardened offenders, they were already appointed by God to death; therefore the word of instruction had no moral effect on them. 1 Samuel 2:26. In contrast with them, Samuel is now again presented, as he developed in his childhood as well physically as morally; while the sons of Eli were a horror to God and men, he was well-pleasing to God and men. On δָ ?μַ ?κְ comp. Ges., § 131, 3, Rem. 3. It is used frequently to express continuance in the sense “advance,” “continue,” and then also expresses advancing increase, the participial construction being not seldom employed in such cases, as here: “The child Samuel grew constantly in stature and goodness.” [See Luke 2:52.—Tr.] AND 1. Since Eli’s judgeship rested on his high-priestly dignity, the High priestship, thus connected with the judicial office, had so much the higher calling to establish the theocratic unity of the people with their centre, the national sanctuary at Shiloh. But, in the person of the weak Eli, it showed itself incapable of fulfilling this calling. The godless priesthood, represented by the sons of Eli, corrupted the inner religious-moral life of the people, whose external centre and theocratic unity were in the Sanctuary. The priesthood could no longer fulfil its calling of mediating between God and His people, because its representatives, lacking the religious-moral conditions of the calling, were unworthy of it; they were not servants of God, but servants of sin. 2. The sins of Eli’s sons were a symptom of their spiritual heart-hardening and ruin in alienation from God and in immorality. They sinned with “a high hand,” boldly, presumptuously (comp. Numbers 15:22-31). To this internal judgment of hardening answered as necessary consequence the judgment of their rejection by God, which was a thing determined on in God’s will, because they knew nothing of God and His law (1 Samuel 2:12). Their crime against the divinely established holy ordinances and the sanctuary, the visible sign of God’s abode with His people, was at the same time a crime against the people of the Lord, and culminated in the crime against God Himself, in which indeed was its root. 3. Samuel, though not a priest, but only a Levite, is (by his repeated designation as “servant of the Lord” (1 Samuel 2:11; 1 Samuel 2:18), and by the reference to his priestly clothing) contrasted with the representation of the official priesthood as God’s chosen instrument for truly fulfilling, in and by the prophetic calling which was to take the place of the priesthood that mediated between God and His people, the priestly mission to fulfil which the existing priestly race had shown itself both powerless and unworthy. The condition of this theocratic calling of Samuel, the earnest, personal fellowship of life with the Lord, is pointed out in 1 Samuel 2:21; 1 Samuel 2:26. The life of the youth, who was chosen and called by the Lord to restore the theocracy, develops itself in the service of the sanctuary before the Lord in conformity to his divine mission, in order that some day he may become in place of the desecrated sanctuary the living personal centre of the theocratic national life, and in place of the corrupted priesthood the consecrated organ of God’s new revelations for His people. AND 1 Samuel 2:12. Starke: Where the true fear of God is lacking in the heart, there ungodliness prevails in the life, and thereby the heart reveals itself. S. Schmid: It is a bad state of things, when those who teach others the fear of God, do not fear God themselves.—J. Lange: Preachers should most carefully guard against scandal, and earnestly strive to pursue a course of life which shall be not merely without offence, but also edifying, 1 Timothy 4:11.—Starke: He who in the office of teacher seeks only his own—namely, how he may become rich and have a good time—but not that which belongs to God and Jesus Christ, is a false prophet, a thief, and a hireling. Mark that, you who bear the vessels of the Lord, Philippians 2:20-21; Philippians 4:17; 2 Corinthians 12:14; 1 Peter 5:2 sqq. [The misconduct of these leaders of worship may well suggest lessons for Christian ministers; but it should never be forgotten that the Christian minister corresponds much more nearly to the Old Testament prophet than to the priest, and that all Christians are priests, 1 Peter 2:5; 1 Peter 2:9; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10.—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:16. Starke: When hearers see something bad in him who has the care of their souls, they should duly remind him of it, and should not approve and commend his bad deeds, much less imitate him therein. 1 Samuel 2:17. Starke: Nobody makes more Atheists than godless teachers, and even if the people still remember so much as to do according to their words and not their works, yet they retain a powerful influence upon the furtherance of godlessness. That wicked teachers with their godless life make great their damnation, is beyond dispute; but it is irrational to infer from this that there is no such thing as religion. [“The sin of the young men was very great” is the text of a sermon by Wesley (Sermon CIX., Vol. II. p. 368) on the question “whether God ever did bless the ministry of ungodly men.”—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:18. Starke: And so he (Samuel) was a right pious lad; for such piety is more acceptable to God than when one leads a good life among only pious people, since there is a greater victory and greater fidelity in living piously among the wicked. Comp. Enoch’s example, Genesis 5:24; Genesis 6:9. 1 Samuel 2:19. Daechsel: Petty little histories, cries unbelief. What matters it whether one knows that Samuel had a little coat or not! Holy Scripture is not written for the wise, but for child-souls, and a child-like soul does not doubt that even the little coat which Hannah prepared for her Samuel has its history. If I think of Hannah as every year sewing this coat at her home in Ramah, I know that at every stitch a prayer for her Samuel rose up to the throne of the Lord.—The coat which she was sewing would remind her that she had given her Samuel to the Lord; and when the coat was ready, and she brought it to Shiloh, then every time with the coat she anew gave Samuel to her God, and said: I give him to the Lord again for his whole life, because he was obtained from the Lord by prayer. 1 Samuel 2:21. Starke: Whoever gives to God what is God’s, to him God also gives what his heart desires.—Osiander: Nothing is better invested than what is given to God the Lord and to His service; for He richly repays it all.—Daechsel: When our faithful God accepts from us poor creatures an offering of love, He takes it only to give it back five-fold, a hundred fold, and a thousandfold; from His fulness we receive grace for grace. Look at our Hannah! It was grace, that the Lord taught her to pray for Samuel; grace, that He gave her the promise; grace, that He made her willing to dedicate Samuel to him; but what shall we say of the fact that in place of the one child whom He had caused to be given to Himself, the Lord gave her five children, three sons and two daughters? When we in His service do for Him the least thing out of love, it is not enough that He gives to the act itself such blessedness, but, consciously or unconsciously to us, He crowns such an act with a rich blessing of grace, and this grace is completed when He blesses us with the greatest of all blessings, eternal life.—[1 Samuel 2:22-25. Starke: O, how often do pious parents, by indulging their wicked children, plait a scourge for their old backs! [Hall: I heard Eli sharp enough to Hannah, upon but a suspicion of sin, and now how mild I find him to the notorious crimes of his own. The case is altered with the persons. With all the authority of an Oriental father, a high-priest, and a judge, he was solemnly bound to do more than mildly censure his sons, 1 Samuel 3:13.—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:25. Cramer: The sins of the first table are much weightier and more perilous than the sins of the second table.—Osiander: Let no one sin purposely or wilfully and heap sins upon sins; for if he does, the door of grace is at last closed to him, and he finds no more place for repentance.—Starke: The purpose of God was not the cause of their disobedience, but their disobedience was a sign that they were now ripe for destruction, and that the righteous purpose of God in their case should now soon be executed. 1 Samuel 2:26. Starke: The best way to make ourselves agreeable and beloved among men is to seek to please God in Christ, act according to our conscience, and lead an exemplary life.—S. Schmid: Whoever uses the grace of God aright, to him God gives more and more grace.—Daechsel: Our history is throughout a strong, firm consolation for parental hearts—for those who have to give back to the Lord in death a dear child which He has given to them in birth, for He can otherwise rejoice and bless them (1 Samuel 2:20 sq.); and also for those who have to let their sons and daughters go out into the wicked world, full of evil examples and corrupting influences, for He can even then shield and preserve their children, and carry them on in faith and godliness (1 Samuel 2:21-26). 1 Samuel 2:18-26. Young Samuel the pattern of a pious life in youth in the service of the Lord: 1) Planted and rooted in the soil of the early habit during childhood of consecrating himself to the Lord, 1 Samuel 2:18-19; 1 Samuel 2) Growing and increasing in the fear of the Lord under the care of godly parents and teachers, 1 Samuel 2:19-21; 1 Samuel 3) Preserved and proved amid the temptations and influences of an evil world, 1 Samuel 2:22-25; 1 Samuel 4) Blessed with favor in the sight of God and man. 1 Samuel 2:23-25. The judgment against obduracy in sin against the Lord: 1) Wherein is it founded? (a) In persistent, conscious sinning on against the Lord in spite of divine and human warning. (b) In the holy, unchangeable will of God, who does not suffer Himself to be mocked. 2) How is it executed? (a) In that God gives up the sinner to the service of sin from one degree to another. (b) In that the punitive divine justice gives over the sinner to the destruction to which he has condemned himself. [1 Samuel 2:12-25. On wicked children of pious parents. 1) The number of such cases is often greatly exaggerated, because men are surprised at them, and notice, and remember; but it is in fact sadly great—in the Scripture histories—in our own observation. 2) The probable causes of this. (a) Piety is not properly hereditary—in what sense it is, and in what sense it is not. (b) Pious parents may, out of mistaken kindness, improperly indulge, and but feebly restrain—as Eli. (c) In other cases, they are too strict and severe. Application—to parents—to the children of the pious.—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:26. The fruit of a godly life: 1) The gracious approval of the Lord; 2) Recognition by God-fearing men. Footnotes: [1 Samuel 2:13. Erdmann attaches this clause to the preceding, putting a full stop after “people.” See Exegetical Notes in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:13. The Heb. has the Def. Art.; but, as the word is more naturally in st. const., the Art. is better omitted with Sept.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:14. The Eng. A. V. here follows the Sept.; Heb. reads αּ ?εֹ “in it;” Erdmann, damit, “therewith.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:16. The Heb. Inf. Abs.: “let them (or, they will) verily burn.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:16. Kethib is “ to him,” Qeri “no” (and so 18 MSS., some printed Eds.,LXX., Syr., Vulg., Arab., and one MS. of Targ. cited by De Rossi); the latter better suits the following λִּ ?ι, which, however, yields a good sense as it stands in the text. It may be translated “but,” supposing a preceding “nay,” as in Eng. A. V.; or regarded as introducing the substantive clause, and rendered “that.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:20. Lit.: “in place of the petition which one asked for Jehovah.” Erdmann changes the form of the verb to the fem., and renders “ instead of the begged one (des Erbetenen) whom she begged from the Lord.” Others point as part. pas. ωָׁ ?ΰֻ ?μ. The 3 sing. fem. is found in one MSS.; 2 sing. “ thou askedest” in one MS., LXX., Syr., Vulg.; and Arab. has “thou gavest.” It is better to retain the Heb. text and render it as impersonal.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:20. The plu. suffix “their” is found in 12 MSS., Syr., Chald., Ar.; Vulg. “in locum suum”; some MSS. of Targ. have the sing. Wellhausen, combining LXX. and Heb., gives as the true reading “he went to his place;” but the more difficult reading seems preferable. See Exeg. Notes in loco. Erdmann’s translation omits, by typographical error, the last sentence of 1 Samuel 2:20.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:22. The verb means “to perform service, military or other.” So in Exodus 38:8.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:25. See Exeg. Notes in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:25. Erdmann: “will adjust” and “who can use his interest (or interpose) to adjust.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:26. See Exeget. Notes in loco.—Tr.] [For meaning of Heb. belial, “ worthlessness,” see on 1 Samuel 1:16.—Tr.]. [ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָ ?θָ ?ν.—Tr.]. [The meοl was the outer garment worn by kings, nobles and others, probably a loose robe. The High-priest’s meοl was peculiar in shape and color (Exodus 28:31 ff.). Bib.Comm.: “The pointed mention of the ephod and robe, taken in connection with his after acts, seems to point to an extraordinary and irregular priesthood to which he was called by God in an age when the provisions of the Levitical law were not yet in full operation.”—Tr.] εְ ?ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ, not εָ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ because the saying as well as the blessing itself (hence also εּ ?αֵ ?ψַ ?κ) was repeated every year; and this is expressed by the Perf. consec. (Bφttcher). [The two Perfects indicate a distinction between the blessing and the saying, but do not necessarily express repeated action; rather they sum up as complete Eli’s action in pronouncing the blessing and uttering the wish.”—Tr.] Bφttcher: “Historically for ωׁ ?ΰμ must have stood ωΰμδ (Song of Solomon 1 Cod. of Kennicott), this alone being correct and connecting itself immediately with the context. But, because ωְׁ ?ΰֵ ?μָ ?δ stood immediately before with the same δ, or because the feminine signification was obvious from the connection, the exceptional form shaala (which appears elsewhere also), without the final δ, was written.” [The 3 sing. masc. ωΰμ may be retained here without great difficulty. See “Textual and Grammatical Notes” in loco. 1 Samuel 1:27-28 (cited by Erdmann above) excludes indefiniteness as to the fact, but not in the expression.—Tr.] [Eng. A. V. here follows Sept., reading εַ ?ιִּ ?τְ ?χγֹ instead of λִּ ?ιτָ ?χַ ?ψ, and this seems the simplest way of taking it: “and Jehovah visited Hannah.”—Tr.] λְּ has a comparative force, Ges. § 154, 3 sq.—The following ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ is a conjunction, and=not so much ὅτι [“because”] as ὡς [“as”], but, like the latter, goes over into the causative sense; it refers to “such things,” and points out the occasion and cause of the rebuke (comp. Ew. § 333, 2 a with § 331 e 3; Ges. § 155, 2 d). [This statement is liable to misconception. This prophet could never take the place of the priest. The priest represented the idea fo atonement by blood, a universal, fundamental religious fact; the prophet expounded the spirituality of God’s law and service. These complementary offices were equally necessary, and existed till they both culminated in Jesus Christ.—Tr.] FIFTH SECTIONThe prophecy of a Man of God of the divine judgment on Eli’s house and of the calling of a faithful priest 1 Samuel 2:27-3627 And there came a man of God unto [to] Eli and said unto [to] him, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah], Did I plainly appear [reveal myself] unto [to] the house of thy father when they were in Egypt in Pharaoh’s house [in servitude to the house 28of Pharaoh]? And did I choose [I chose] him [it] out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest [to do priestly service to me], to offer upon my altar, to burn incense, to wear an ephod before me? [om.?], and did I give [I gave] unto [to] the house of thy father all the offerings made by fire [the fire-offerings] of the children 29of Israel? [om.?]. Wherefore kick ye at [trample ye under foot] my sacrifice and at [om. at] mine [my] offering which I have commanded in my habitation, and honorest thy sons above me to make yourselves fat with the chiefest of all the 30offerings [the best of every offering] of Israel my people? Wherefore [Therefore] the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel saith, I said indeed that thy house and the house of thy father should walk before me for ever; but now the Lord saith [saith Jehovah], Be it far from me; for them that honor me I will honor, and they that 31despise me shall be lightly esteemed. Behold, the days come that I will cut off thine arm, and the arm of thy father’s house, [ins. so] that there shall not be an 32old man in thine house. And thou shalt see an enemy in my habitation in all the wealth which God shall give Israel [thou shalt see distress of house in all that does 33good to Israel]; and there shall not be an old man in thy house for ever. And the man of thine whom I shall not cut off [And I will not cut off every man of thine] from my altar shall be [om. shall be], to consume thine eyes, and to grieve thine [thy] heart; and all the increase of thine [thy] house shall die in the flower 34of their age. And this shall be a [the] sign unto [to] thee, that [ins. which] shall come upon thy two sons, Hophni and Phinehas: in one day they shall die both of 35them. And I will raise me up a faithful priest, that [who] shall do according to that which is in my heart and in my mind [soul], and I will build him a sure 36house, and he shall walk before my anointed for ever. And it shall come to pass that every one that is left in thy house shall come and crouch to him for a piece of silver and a morsel of bread, and shall say, Put me, I pray thee, into one of the priests’ offices, that I may eat a piece of bread. AND 1 Samuel 2:27. The “man of God” (for the expression comp. Deuteronomy 33:1; Judges 13:6) who appears here is undoubtedly to be regarded as a prophet, both from this title, which marks him as standing in a specific relation to God, and from the introduction of his address: “Thus saith the Lord.” This is, however, not the first mention of a prophet after Moses (Thenius); against this are Judges 4:14; Judges 6:8.—[Bib. Comm.: “The term (man of God) is applied to Moses in Deuteronomy 33:1; Joshua 14:6; and to different prophets upwards of forty times in Judg., Sam. and Kings, most-frequently in the latter. In the Prophets it occurs only once (Jeremiah 35:4). It occurs six or seven times in Chron., Ezra and Neh., and in the inscription of Psalms 90, and nowhere else in the Old Testament. The sudden appearance of a man of God, the only prophet of whom mention is made since Judges 6:8, without name, or any notice of his country, is remarkable.”—Tr.]—Thus saith the Lord.—Called and commissioned hereto by the Lord, he is nothing but His instrument; what he says is the very word of the Lord.—Did I reveal myself?—The interrog. particle (δֲ) stands here to strengthen the reality of the fact treated of, a question being introduced to which an affirmative reply is a matter of course, where in German [and in English] a not must be inserted. Comp. Jeremiah 31:20; Job 20:4; Ges. § 153, 2. The Inf. Abs. (πִ ?βְ ?μֹ ?δ) shows the feeling of the question, and strengthens the assurance or assertion contained in it. By Eli’s father’s house we cannot understand Ithamar and his family, since a divine revelation to them in Egypt is out of the question; it is rather the family of Aaron (from whom Eli descended through Ithamar), as the high-priestly house. Aaron and his four sons, Nadab, Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, when they were in Egypt, “belonged to Pharaoh’s house,” were its subjects, property (μְ ?αֵ ?ιϊτּ ?Χ); the suffix Ξָ ?ν (when they were) refers not to the children of Israel, but to “the house of thy father.” During the Egyptian bondage Aaron received the divine revelations by which he was called along with Moses to be God’s instrument for the redemption of His people; and with Moses he received the command to institute the feast of the Passover (Exodus 4:14 sqq., Exodus 4:27;Exodus 12:1; Exodus 12:43). These revelations were the preparation and foundation for the calling of Aaron and his house to the high-priesthood.—[So far as the calling was concerned, the house of Aaron and the house of Eli were identical. Hence Eli is in this discourse identified with Aaron as to his privileges, but distinguished from the whole house as to his sin and its Punishment.—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:28. [Erdmann renders: “I chose it (the house of thy father) to perform priestly service.”—TR.]How that house (Aaron and his sons) were formally called and appointed to the priestly office is circumstantially related in Exodus 28, 29. Comp. especially Exodus 28:1; Exodus 29:9; Exodus 29:30; Exodus 29:44, with Leviticus 8:1 sq. and Numbers 18—The priestly service is described in three grades, corresponding to the three divisions of the Sanctuary: 1) “to offer on my altar,” where the altar of burnt-offering with its service is meant; 2) “to burn incense.” Incense had to be burned daily. The incense-offering alone is named, and represents the other offerings as the indication of the priestly service in the Holy Place, Exodus 30:8; Exodus 3) “to wear the ephod before me.” The high-priest wore the ephod when he went officially into the Most Holy place to represent the people before God, Exodus 28:12; Exodus 28:29-30.—And I gave to the house of thy father, etc.—The divine wages for these priestly services is the maintenance which the priests derived from the offerings. The “firings” (fire-offerings, ΰִ ?ωֵּׁ ?ιαΧ) are the same as “the firing and the firings of the Lord” (Leviticus 1:9; Leviticus 2:10; Deuteronomy 18:1) in the offerings, and so are the things offered. According to Numbers 18:20; Deuteronomy 10:9; Deuteronomy 18:1, the Levites, and therefore the whole priesthood, received no inheritance in land; their support was provided for by the portions of the offerings appointed them by law, that is, all sacrificial gifts, so far as they were not burnt in offering the sacrifice, Leviticus 6:7; Numbers 18. 1 Samuel 2:29. In the preceding verses (27, 28) reference is made to the favor which had been shown the family of Eli in their selection and calling to the service of priests in the Sanctuary, and their maintenance with the offerings is mentioned as proof of the Lord’s care for His servants; there the question (1 Samuel 2:27) was introduced by the simple interrog. sign (δֲ); here the more sharply toned question with “why” (μָ ?ξָּ ?δ) portrays in distinct contrast the wicked conduct of the priests: Why do ye trample under foot? etc.—“Sacrifice and offering” (ζֶ ?αַ ?ηεּ ?ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ) is a “general designation for all altar-offerings” (Keil). αָּ ?ςַ ?θ “is in Aram. first tread (Heb. γψκ), and might thence (as αεν ,γψκ, Judges 5:23; Proverbs 27:7) like ‘tread’ in many languages figuratively mean to treat with contempt” (Bφttcher). ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ο, the “dwelling,” in pregnant sense is the Tabernacle, as the Lord’s dwelling-place in the midst of His people. Though the word has not elsewhere in itself this meaning, yet it follows here and in 1 Samuel 2:32 from the connection, which without difficulty permits the same addition that we find in Psalms 26:8, “of thy house.” There is no need therefore here to suppose (with Thenius) either a wrong reading or in general anything superfluous, particularly not the latter, because the Lord’s abode with His people was in fact the scene of the priests’ enormities, and their guilt thus appeared so much the greater. ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ο is Accus. of place “in the dwelling” (= αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ “in the house”). Bφttcher proposes as a “faultless text” ΰΧφִ ?εִּ ?ιϊִ ?ινςָ ?εֹ ?ο, “why do ye trample under foot,… what I commanded them, sinfully,” where the suffix “them” refers to the Israelites (1 Samuel 2:28), and ςָ ?εֹ ?ο “sin,” is taken in the sense of αְּ ?ςָ ?εֹ ?ο, “in sin,” which is found in Psalms 51:7. But according to the preceding explanation there is no need for such a change, apart from the fact “that the ‘sinfully’ precisely speaking is already contained in the ‘trample under foot’ ” (Thenius). He says: “why do ye trample,” etc., because Eli was partaker in the guilt of his sons; because he, not only as father towards sons, but also as high-priest towards them as priests, was weakly lacking in the proper chastisement and in the enjoined holy strictness. Eli ought to have opposed his sons as a zealous contender for the Lord’s honor; since he did not do this, he not only made himself partaker of their guilt, but honored his sons before the Lord, more than the Lord, because he spared them, and showed unseasonable paternal gentleness. In the plu. pron. “make yourselves fat,” Eli’s guilt is again referred to; what they did, namely, that they took (1 Samuel 2:15) the first (ψֵ ?ΰωִׁ ?ιϊ) of the offering before the best of the offering (ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ) was presented to the Lord by burning it in the fire of the altar, that he did along with them; they made themselves fat. The wickedness of Eli and his sons in connection with the offering is also put here in two-fold form, namely, against God (“my offering”), and against the people as the people of the Lord (all the offerings of Israel, my people). After the reference to the guilt follows now the judgment, the announcement of punishment, which applies to Eli as well as to his sons and his whole house. 1 Samuel 2:30. ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψַ ?ϊִּ ?ι=I had said.—The house of thy father in connection with “thy house,” indicates the whole priestly connection in all its branches from Aaron down, to whom with his sons the same expression in 1 Samuel 2:27 refers. For this reason, if for no other, because “the house of thy father” must mean the same here as in 1 Samuel 2:27, we must set aside the view that here only Ithamar’s family is meant, to which the high-priesthood passed from Eleazar’s family, and to which Eli belonged. But also the expression: should walk before me for ever, is in conflict with this view. The “walking before the Lord” would be understood in too narrow a sense, on the one hand, if it were restricted to the entrance of the high-priest into the Holy of Holies, and in too wide a sense, on the other hand, if it were regarded as a general description of a pious walk before God, as in Genesis 17:1. Rather it points to the life in priestly service before the Lord promised to the house of Aaron for ever (Exodus 29:9). The promise of the “covenant of an everlasting priesthood” was renewed to Phinehas, the son of Eleazar (Numbers 25:13) for his zeal for the Lord’s honor. This fact and its motive contribute essentially to the explanation of what here follows. The “and now” introduces a declaration opposed to that promise, not in the sense that the latter is annulled, but in reference to its non-fulfilment for those in whom the condition of its fulfilment was lacking.— Far be it from me, that is, this promise shall not be fulfilled unless the condition be fulfilled which is expressed in the words: Those that honor me I will honor.—According to the priests’ attitude towards God the Lord in their whole walk will be His attitude towards them in respect to the fulfilment of His promise. 1 Samuel 2:31-32. The general truth of the last words in 1 Samuel 2:30, which emphasize in the distinctest manner the ethical condition of the exercise of the holy sacerdotal office in the priest’s bearing towards God, is applied to Eli and his house in 1 Samuel 2:31, and contains the standard by which he with his sons is judged. I will cut off thy arm.—The “arm” signifies might, power, Psalms 10:15; Job 12:9. “There shall not be an old man in thy house.” Thus will be shown that the strength of the family and the house is broken; for strength is shown in reaching a great age. No one in Eli’s house shall attain a great age. This supposes that sickliness will early consume its members. “On the aged rested the consideration and power of families” (Bφttcher). As the house of Eli will perish, so will also the house of God suffer affliction (1 Samuel 2:32). δִ ?αִּ ?ιθ always means to look with astonishment or attention (Bφttcher, Numbers 12:8; Isaiah 38:11; Psalms 10:14); φָ ?ψ is only “oppressor” or “enemy,” and is not to be rendered “rival” or “adversary,” as Aquila (ἀντίζηλος) and Jerome (�mulus), and also Luther and De Wette give it; ξַ ?ςεֹ ?ο “dwelling” is here to be understood of the dwelling-place of God, not of Eli. From these meanings it follows that Samuel cannot be here referred to, since he was not an enemy of Eli, nor the installation of Zadok in Abiathar’s place (1 Kings 2:27), for Zadok was not Abiathar’s enemy. Something must be meant which Eli lived to see with astonishment or consternation in the house of the Lord, and it can therefore only be the oppression of the house by the oppressor or enemy who met Israel in the person of the Philistines, carried away the ark, and thus robbed the Lord’s house of its heart. We do not need therefore to alter the text to “rock of refuge” (φֻ ?ψρָ ?ςεֹ ?ζ), as Bφttcher proposes. “In all which” (αּ ?λֹ ?μΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ) is not to be rendered with De Wette “during the whole time which.” In ιִ ?ιִ ?μθִ ?ια “shall do good” we must not supply a ι as name of Jehovah (Kennicott), nor, as is commonly done, make Jehovah the subject (De Wette, Keil, etc.). “There is no reason why we should not take “all which” itself as unpersonal subject; precisely where ιΧ has an unpersonal subject, it has, as here, a simple Acc. after it, Proverbs 15:13; Proverbs 15:20; Proverbs 17:22; Ecc. 20:9, while, with a personal subject, a preposition follows, Exodus 1:20; Numbers 10:32; Judges 17:13” (Bφttcher). The affliction of God’s house from the loss of the Ark remained, while under the lead of Samuel there came blessing to the people. This is the fulfilment of this prophecy in reference to the affliction of God’s dwelling. “Not an old man” is repetition of the threat in 1 Samuel 2:31, and return of the discourse to the judgment on Eli’s house. “All the days” [Eng. A. V. for ever], for ever, that is, as long as his family existed. [Both text and translation of 1 Samuel 2:32 offer great difficulties. Vat. Sept. omits it. Al. Sept. and Theod.: “Thou shalt see strength” (κραταίωμα), etc. The Syr. and Arab.: “and (not) one who holds a sceptre in thy dwelling,” which involves a totally different text. Targ. has “thou shalt see the affliction which will come on a man of thy house in the sins which ye have committed in the house of my sanctuary.” The omission in Vat. Sept. was probably occasioned by the similar endings of 1 Samuel 2:31-32; the other versions and all the MSS. contain the verse, one MS. only of De Rossi giving ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ζ, “strength,” instead of ξָ ?ςεֹ ?ο, “dwelling.” We must therefore retain the Heb. text, and explain the repetition of the last clause as intended to give emphasis to the statement in question. But, as φָ ?ψ frequently means “distress,” and as the course of thought here suggests affliction for Eli’s house rather than for God’s, it is better to render: “thou shalt see distress of dwelling in all that brings prosperity to Israel,” the contrast being between the national prosperity and his personal affliction, which would thus exclude him from the national rejoicing, and so from the evidence of the divine favor. And we may regard the latter clause of the verse: “there shall not be an old man,” etc., as defining the “affliction” which is here brought out as a punishment additional to the “weakness” of 1 Samuel 2:31.—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:33. Bφttcher declares De Wette’s explanation: “and I will not let thee lack a ingle man,” to be incorrect, and Thenius’ reference to the definite one “Ahitub” (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 22:20) to be without ground, and then remarks (on εְ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ μֹ ?ΰ): “There remains no other course but to regard it as an infrequent, but not unexampled exceptional case. In Heb., as is well known, a negative in a sentence with ΰִ ?ιωׁ (“man”) and αμ (“all”), whether it stand before or after, negatives these words not alone, but in connection with the whole sentence, and thus ΰַ ?μΰִ ?ιωׁ ,μֹ ?ΰΰִ ?ιωׁ mean not “not every one,” but “no one,” and so too ΰִ ?ιωׁ ΰַ ?μ ,ΰִ ?ιωׁ μֹ ?ΰ, Exodus 16:19; Exodus 34:3; Leviticus 18:6. But when the accent falls on the word expressive of universality by an adversative particle, as here (εְ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ), the following negation may affect this word alone, as in Numbers 23:13. Accordingly we render here: “Yet I will not cut off every one from thee.” The following words: to consume thine eyes and to grieve thy heart, or “that I may consume,” etc., mark the highest degree of punishment which would befal Eli but for the limitation contained in the words “not every man.” Thenius refers this limitation specially to Ahitub, son of Phinehas, and brother of Ichabod, against which Keil justly remarks that it cannot be proved from 1 Samuel 14:3 and 1 Samuel 22:20 that he was the only one who survived of Eli’s house.—The following words: the great majority or mass shall die as men, not only answer to the repeated threat in 1 Samuel 2:31-32, that there should be no old man in the house, but at the same time explain the declaration of 1 Samuel 2:31 : “I will break thine arm;” for “men” (ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν) indicates the power and strength of the house, and is contrasted with “old man” (Luther: “when they have become men;” Van Ess: “in mature age”).—On ξΧαΧ, “multitude,” “majority,” not “offspring,” comp. 1 Chronicles 12:29; 2 Chronicles 30:18.—[Sept.: “And every survivor of thy house shall fall by the sword of men.” Vulg.: “and the great part of thy house shall die when they attain the age of men.” Targ.: “and all the multitude of thy house shall be slain young.” Syr.: “and all the pupils (so Castle renders marbith) of thy house shall die men.” Philippson: “and all the increase of thy house shall die as men.” The Eng. A. V. probably gives the sense. The adj. “all” does not suit the rendering “multitude,” which Targ. and Erdmann adopt. In regard to the first clause of the verse, the rendering of Eng. A. V. seems to be possible, that is, the taking μֹ ?ΰΰΧ as indef. rel. clause. Erdmann regards the reservation of the “man” as a limitation of the punishment (“consume, grieve”); Eng. A. V. better, with most expositors, as an element of the punishment. Mendoza (in Poole’s Synopsis): “I will take from thee the high-priesthood, which thou hast by privilege; I will give thee or thy descendants the priesthood of the second order, which thou hadst by hereditary right.” Grotius: “They shall live that they may be the greatest grief to thee.”—Long afterwards this curse was held to cling to the family of Eli. Gill cites a saying of the Talmud that there was a family in Jerusalem the men of which did not live to be more than eighteen years old, and Johanan ben Zacchai being asked the reason of this, replied that they were perhaps of the family of Eli.—Sept. has “his eyes” and “his soul,” instead of thy; but there is no good ground for altering the Heb. text.—TR.] 1 Samuel 2:34. The fact announced, the death of his two sons in one day (1 Samuel 4:11), was to be a sign to Eli, who lived to see it, that this threat affecting his whole house should be fulfilled. The realization of this threat began with that event. Not all of Eli’s descendants indeed perished in this judgment, and among his immediate posterity were some who filled the office of priest, namely, Phinehas’ son, Ahitub; Ahitub’s sons, Ahiah (1 Samuel 14:3; 1 Samuel 14:18) and Ahimelech (1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Samuel 22:11; 1 Samuel 22:20); Ahimelech’s son, Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20). Ahiah and Abiathar filled the high-priestly office. But Ahimelech and “all his father’s house, the priests, who were at Nob,” were hewn off from Eli’s family-tree. And Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, who escaped that butchery (1 Samuel 22:19), and as a faithful adherent of David enjoyed the dignity of high-priest, was deposed from his office by Solomon. The office of high-priest passed now forever from Ithamar’s family, and went over to Eleazar’s, to which Zadok belonged; the latter from now on was sole high-priest, while hitherto Abiathar had exercised this office along with him.—Thus was to be fulfilled the negative part of the prophetic announcement (1 Samuel 2:31-34): gradually Eli’s house went down in respect to the majority of its members [better, in all its increase.—TR.]; the office of high-priest, which the surviving members for some time filled, was at last taken away from it altogether. 1 Samuel 2:35 sqq. Now follows the positive part of the prophecy.—But I will raise me up a faithful priest.—The priestly office, as a divine institution, remains, though those that fill it perish because they are unworthy, and because their life contradicts its theocratic meaning, and therefore falls under the divine punishment. The “faithful priest” is, in the first place, to be understood in contrast with Eli and his sons, to whom the above declaration of punishment was directed. We may distinguish the following facts in the announcement of this priest of the future, who is to assume the theocratic-priestly position between God and His people in place of Eli and his house: 1) he is to be raised up by God directly, that is, not merely called and chosen, but (according to the exact meaning of the word) set up; his priestly position is to be historically fixed and assigned by God directly and in an extraordinary manner; 2) he will be a faithful priest, that is, will not merely be in keeping with the end and meaning of his calling, but, in order to this, will be and remain personally the Lord’s own in true piety and in firm, living faith, constantly and persistently devoted to the Lord his God, and seeking only His honor; 3) he will do, act, according to the norm of the divine will; as faithful priest of God, he knows what is in God’s heart and soul, he knows His thoughts and counsels; these will be the rule by which (λַּ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶ ?ψ) he will act as a man of God, as a servant after his heart; 4) and I will build him a sure house, his family will continue as one well-pleasing to me and blessed, and will not perish like thine—this shall be the reward as well as the result of his faithfulness; 5) he shall walk before my anointed for ever. The “anointed” is the theocratic king, whom the Lord will call. Walking before Him denotes the most cordial life-fellowship with Him. In this reference of the prophetic announcement to the “anointed of the Lord” is expressed the same expectation of a theocratic kingdom as in the close of Hannah’s song. In 1 Samuel 2:36 is added another feature in the portraiture of the faithful priest: in this close connection with the kingdom, he will occupy so exalted, honorable and mighty a position over against the fallen house of Eli, that the needy and wretched survivors of that house will be dependent on him for existence and support.—On the λּ ?μ before δַ ?πּ ?εֹ ?ϊָ ?ψ, where, on account of the following Article, it signifies all, whole, comp. Ges., § III., 1 Rem., Ew., § 290 c. “All the rest, all that remains.” The ΰֲ ?βεֹ ?ψַ ?ϊαֶּ ?ρֶ ?σ is “a small silver coin collected by begging” (Keil). The lower the remains of Eli’s house sink even to beggary, the higher will the “faithful, approved priest,” of whom the prophet here speaks, stand. In the immediate future of the theocratic kingdom he will see far beneath him those of Eli’s house who are still priests in humble dependence on him. This prophecy found its fulfillment from the stand-point of historical exposition in Samuel. That the author of our Books had him in view in his account of the man of God’s announcement is clear from the narration immediately following in 1 Samuel 3; here the voice of the divine call comes to the child Samuel at the same time with the revelation imparted to him of the judgment against the house of Eli. He is indeed expressly called by the divine voice to be prophet; his first prophetic duty, which he performs as God’s organ, is the announcement of the judgment on Eli in the name of the Lord; it is true, it is said of him in 1 Samuel 2:20, that he was known in all Israel to be faithful and confirmed (πֶ ?ΰֱ ?ξָ ?ο) as a prophet. But the summary statement of his prophetical vigor and work in 1 Samuel 2:19-21, in which the epithet “faithful, confirmed,” points back to the same expression in 1 Samuel 2:35, is connected with the reference to Shiloh and the constant revelations there, which had begun with the one made to Samuel; by the express reference to Shiloh Samuel’s prophetic character and work are at the same time presented under the sacerdotal point of view. An essential element of the calling of priest was instruction in the Law, the announcement of the divine will (Leviticus 10:11; Deuteronomy 33:10), and Malachi 2:7, expressly declares the duty of the priest in these words: “the priest’s lips shall keep knowledge, and they shall seek the law from his mouth, for he is a messenger of heaven;” and so that prophecy of a faithful priest is all the more fulfilled in Samuel (whose words to the people, 1 Samuel 3:19-21, had the pure and the practical word of God in the Law for their content), because the priesthood of his time had proved itself unworthy and unable to fulfil this calling. The further sacred priestly acts which Samuel performed (1 Samuel 3:19-21), and the mediating position between God and the people as advocate and intercessor expressly ascribed to him in 1 Samuel 7:5 characterize him as the faithful, approved priest who is announced here in 1 Samuel 2:35-36. The other single traits in the picture suit Samuel. In the list of theocratic instruments of the succeeding period there is none that surpasses him; he surpasses them all so far, that our gaze fixes itself on him in seeking for a realization of this announcement in connection with the fulfilment of the threat against Eli and his house. Samuel’s bearing and conduct is everywhere such that the declaration “ he shall do according to what is in my heart and soul,” is verified in no other theocratic-prophetic and priestly person so eminently as in him. A sure house the Lord built him according to 1 Chronicles 6:33; 1 Chronicles 25:4-5. His grandson was Heman “the singer, the king’s seer in the words of God,” father of fourteen sons and three daughters. The intimate relation of Samuel to the theocratic kingdom under Saul and David, the Lord’s anointed kings, is an obvious fulfilment of the prophecy “he shall walk before my anointed for ever.” The raising up of the fore-announced priest was to follow immediately on the punishment of Eli and his house. In point of fact Samuel steps into the gap in the priesthood which that judgment made as priestly and high-priestly mediator between God and the people, as is shown by the passages cited and by the whole character of his work. By the corruption of its traditional representatives the hereditary priesthood had come to be so at variance with its theocratic significance and mission, that the fulfilment of this mission could be attained, in this great crisis in the development of Israel’s history into the theocratic kingdom, only in an extraordinary way, through direct divine calling, by such an instrument as Samuel. The statement, in the concluding words, of the walking of the faithful priest before the Lord’s anointed is fulfilled exactly (according to the above explanation) in Samuel’s relation to this kingdom.—It is held by some that the prophecy in 1 Samuel 2:30-36, (compared with 1 Kings 2:27, and Joseph. V. 11, 5; VIII. 1, 3), refers to the transition of the priestly dignity from the house of Ithamar to the house of Eleazar, and therefore that this prophecy, in whole or in some parts, was composed in or after the time of Solomon, (De Wette, Einl. § 178 b.; Bertholdt, Einl. III. 916, and Ewald, Gesch. I. 190); against which Thenius (p. 15) properly points out that even after this change the high-priesthood remained still in the family of Aaron, while the words “and the house of thy father,” (1 Samuel 2:30-31), clearly shows that the prophecy does not speak of a change in the family, and that in 1 Samuel 2:27-36 we have a genuine ancient prediction of a prophet. Against the view that the prophecy of the “faithful priest” was, according to 1 Kings 2:27 fulfilled in the complete transference of the high-priesthood, by the deposition of Abiathar, to the family of Eleazar, to which Zadok belonged, we remark: 1) that (if the advocates of this view mean this family and its succeeding line of high-priests) the words of the prophecy speak of a single person, not of several, or collectively of a body; and 2) that, if Zadok is held to be the “faithful priest” in whom the prophetic word was fulfilled, his person and work have no such epoch-making theocratic significance in the history as we should expect from the prophecy; the expectation is satisfied only in Samuel’s priestly-prophetical eminence. For the rest, the words of 1 Kings 2:27 give no ground for the opinion that the prophecy in 1 Samuel 2:35 is in them referred to Zadok (Thenius), since the passage, having in view Abiathar’s deposition, is speaking merely of the fulfilment of the threatened punishment of Eli’s house, and not at all of the fulfilment of the positive part of the prophecy; there is, therefore, no occasion to speak (with Thenius) of a false conception of this prophecy as early as Solomon’s time. The lofty priestly position, which Samuel took in his calling as Judge and Prophet before the Lord and His people, the priestly work, by which (the regular priesthood completely retiring) he stood as mediator between Jehovah and His people in sacrifice, prayer, intercession and advocacy, and the high theocratic-reformatory calling, in which his “important, sacred duty was to walk before the anointed, the king, whom Israel was to receive through him, while the Aaronic priesthood fell for a good time into such contempt, that, in the universal neglect of divine worship, it had to beg honor and support from him, and became dependent on the new order of things begun by Samuel,” (O. v. Gerlach),—these things prove that, from the theocratic-historical point of view, in him is fulfilled the prophecy of the faithful priest. [Four different interpretations explain the “faithful priest” to be Samuel, Zadok, Christ, or a line of priests, including Samuel and Zadok, and culminating in Christ; the last seems to be the only tenable one. I. We cannot restrict the prophecy to Samuel, for 1) the “established house” promised the faithful priest is clearly a priestly house, as is evident from a comparison of 1 Samuel 2:35 with 1 Samuel 2:30-31, where the everlasting official sacerdotal character of this house is contrasted with the fall of Eli’s priestly house; and Samuel founded no such house. 2) Eli’s house was not immediately deprived of the high-priesthood, nor was it at all excluded from the priesthood. Up to Solomon’s time descendants of Eli were high-priests, and the Jews held that his family continued to exist. Nor did Samuel succeed Eli immediately as Priest and Judges 3) It is an important fact that Samuel is nowhere called a priest, and it is an exaggeration of his position to ascribe to him a complete sacerdotal character. His mediatorial work belonged to him largely as a man of God, and similar work was performed by Moses, David, Solomon, none of whom acted as priests. It is doubtful whether Samuel sacrificed at all, still more whether he usually performed this service. The people are said to have sacrificed (1 Samuel 11:15), where is probably meant that they did it through the priests, and one passage (1 Samuel 9:13), seems to exclude Samuel from the act of sacrifice. At any rate his performance of sacrificial service may be regarded as extraordinary and unofficial like that of Gideon (Judges 6:26-27) and Solomon (1 Kings 3:4). But it is true that Samuel’s life developed the conception of the theocratically pure and faithful priest in contrast with the self-seeking and immorality of Eli’s sons. He was the first protest against their profane perversion of the holy office, the first exemplification after Eli’s time of pure-hearted service of God. II. Rashi, Abarbanel and the majority of modern commentators suppose the reference to be to Zadok, Christian writers usually adopting also the Messianic interpretation. And, though 1 Kings 2:27 mentions only the deposition of Abiathar as the fulfilment of the judgment on Eli’s house, yet this, taken with 1 Samuel 2:35, can hardly be dissevered from the installation of Zadok as sole high-priest; the final exclusion of Eli’s representative is followed immediately by the elevation of the Zadokite family, which continues in an unbroken line to Christ. That the Zadokites were the true divinely-appointed priests, is assumed throughout the following books of the Old Testament, and especially in such passages as Ezekiel 44:15, (quoted by Keil). Erdmann’s objections to this view do not seem conclusive. He urges: 1) that the prophecy (1 Samuel 2:27-36) speaks not of a change within the Aaronic family, but of a setting aside of that family in favor of a non-Aaronic priest.—But this is not the declaration of the prophecy, (1 Samuel 2:30 speaks of the exclusion of unworthy members, and the reference is plainly to Eli’s immediate family), and is contradicted by the facts of history; for the Aaronic priesthood did continue to the end, while the change announced (1 Samuel 2:36) was to take place in the history of Israel. Samuel founded no priestly family, and the restriction of the prophecy to him alone is not in keeping with the broadness of its declarations. 2) That Zadok was not specially prominent, and does not exhibit a commanding character cannot be urged against this view, since the prophecy promises not intellectual vigor in the “faithful priest” but theocratic official purity and personal godliness, which Zadok and his descendants in the main exhibited. III. Augustine (De Civ. Dei 17, 5) explains the priest here announced to be Christ alone, basing his view on the breadth and fulness of the statements made about Him. The text does not allow this exclusive reference to Christ, looking plainly, as it does, to the then existing order of things (as in 1 Samuel 2:36, which Augustine interprets of Jewish priests coming to worship Christ), but it may include Him, or rather point to Him as the consummation of the blessedness which it promises; and the remarkable fulness of the terms in 1 Samuel 2:35 naturally leads us to this explanation. IV. If the prophecy finds a partial fulfilment in Samuel and Zadok, and also points to Christ, then it would seem best to regard it as announcing a line of faithful men who would do God’s will in full official and personal sympathy with His law. First comes Samuel, not indeed an official priest, but a true representative of the spirituality of the divine service (see 1 Samuel 15:22). He is followed by Zadok, the father of a long line of priests, who (with many defects) in the main preserve among the people and in the presence of the king the fundamental ideas of the sacrificial service, and are a type (Ezekiel 44:15) of the perfect priesthood into which they are finally merged. To this Erdmann objects that the reference is plainly (1 Samuel 2:35) to one person, and not to a body of men; but he himself understands the “anointed,” in which the expression of singleness is not less distinct, of Saul and David. If the anointed is to be understood of a line of kings, why not the priest of a line of priests?—This last view then seems best to meet the demands of this confessedly difficult passage. See Keil and Wordsworth in loco.—Tr.]. AND 1. The “man of God” who, by divine commission, predicts the punishment of Eli and his house is a proof that the prophetic gift, which appears sporadically in the Period of the Judges, had in this its gloomy close not yet disappeared. After it had been said: “ there arose not henceforth a prophet in Israel like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face” (Deuteronomy 34:10), nevertheless in the time of the Judges, by whose word as spoken according to the divine calling and commission, the people had to govern themselves, we see prophecy reappearing in the following individuals: Judges 2, the messenger of the Lord, who comes up from Gilgal to Bochim, and exhorts the Israelites to repentance in the name of the Lord; chap. 4, the Judge Deborah, who, expressly described as “prophetess,” combines the offices of Judge and Prophet, being the organ of Jehovah’s communications; chap. 6, the Prophet who was sent by the Lord as His messenger, to rebuke Israel for their idolatry, and to call Gideon to deliver Israel from the Midianitish bondage. The content of the prophetic declarations, in keeping with the history of the times, is: announcement of divine punishment for the people’s idolatry through the oppression of enemies, exhortation to repentance, promise of help. 2. The internal decline of the theocratic life of God’s people showed itself in the close of the Period of the Judges principally in the corruption of the sacerdotal office as cause and effect. In regard, therefore, to the priestly mediation between God and the people, there was needed a thorough reformation and a re-establishment of the proper inner relation between them by a true priestly mediation. For this reason the prophetic announcement of the “faithful, true priest” stands at the beginning of the new period, and, at the commencement of the new theocratic development, has an epoch-making fulfilment in Samuel’s person and work, in which the priestly side is chiefly prominent. 3. Samuel is in this respect a type of Christ; the idea of the priesthood, as here in 1 Samuel 2:35 expressed, found in all respects its completest and most universal fulfilment in Christ’s high-priestly office of mediator between God and man. 4. The conception of the honor of God and of knowing Him is impossible, without the idea of the personal living God, and without the existence of a relation, established by Him, between Him, the living God, and man, in which the consciousness of absolute dependence on Him is connected with that of the obligation to be heartily consecrated to Him and in fellowship with Him. The declaration “he who knows Me,” etc. [1 Samuel 2:30] expresses God’s righteous procedure in regard to the recognition or non-recognition of His honor by men. 5. When the guilt of the corruption and decline of the religious-moral life of the people rests on “the house of the Lord,” “it is time that judgment should begin at the house of God,” 1 Peter 4:17. 6. [The walking of the priest before Jehovah’s anointed indicates a definite separation between the sacerdotal and judicial or governing offices, and a certain subordination of the first to the second. This was a condition of the developed Israelitish state, and appears in proper form first under David. Saul seems to have exercised authority over the priesthood, but in David’s time the relation of political subordination was first united with sincere religious unity of heart and purpose, and thus one step taken towards the perfect and complete form (king, prophet, priest), which was to shadow forth the office and work of Christ.—And, as of Hannah’s anticipation of the king, so we may say of the prediction by this man of God of the united king and priest, that it had its root in the felt need of the times, which, as it existed in its distinctest and intensest form in the most spiritual minds of the nation, was guided and elevated and intensified by the Spirit of God into prevision and prophecy.—Tr.]. AND [1 Samuel 2:27. A man of God. 1) His office is to come to the people with “Thus saith the Lord.” Though inspiration cannot now be expected, he may be “thoroughly furnished” from the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:17). 2) When called to give rebukes and warnings, he should do it with faithfulness, solemnity, and tenderness.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:27-36. The prophet’s sermon of censure, [German Strafpredigt] against Levi and his house. 1) Looking back to the past, it recalls the manifold exhibition of the benefits of God’s grace, 1 Samuel 2:27-28; 1 Samuel 2) Looking around upon the present, it holds before Eli his sins and those of his house, 1 Samuel 2:29-30; 1 Samuel 3) Looking out upon the future, it proclaims the divine judgment, 1 Samuel 2:30-36. 1 Samuel 2:27-30. To what are we bound by the experience of overflowing manifestations of God’s grace? 1) To be always thankfully mindful of them; 2) To proclaim everywhere the praises of God; 3) By a sober and holy walk to promote the honor of His name. 1 Samuel 2:27-36. God’s righteousness and grace in union with each other. 1) Grace in union with righteousness, 1 Samuel 2:27-32; (a) The actual proofs and gifts of God’s grace (1 Samuel 2:27-29) contain serious demands by the holy and righteous God; (b) The promises of grace are in respect of their fulfilment conditioned by the conduct of man towards God, which is weighed by his righteousness, 1 Samuel 2:30; (c) In proportion as man in view of the revelation of divine grace gives God the honor or not, he is requited by God according to his righteousness, 1 Samuel 2:30. 2) The severity of God’s righteousness does not exclude grace, 1 Samuel 2:30. (a) It suffers itself to lean upon forbearing, softening grace, in order that justice may not execute complete destruction, 1 Samuel 2:33; 1 Samuel 2:36; (b) It does not take away the arrangements which grace has established, but guards and preserves them against the sin of men, 1 Samuel 2:27-29; (c) It does not cause the promises of grace to fall away, but makes room for their fulfilment in another way, 1 Samuel 2:35. 1 Samuel 2:30. God the Lord, according to His righteousness, remains no man’s debtor: 1) Whoever honors Him, will He also honor; 2) He who despises Him shall be despised in return.—To honor God the loftiest task of human life: 1) Wherein it consists; 2) How it is performed; 3) What promise and threatening are here concerned.—[I. Some of the ways in which we may honor God. (1) By speaking His name with reverence. (2) By keeping the Lord’s day holy to Him. (3) By propriety of behaviour in public worship. (4) By practically recognizing our dependence on His Providence. (5) By performing all the duties of life as to the Lord (Colossians 3:17). II. Some of the ways in which He will honor us. (1) In causing us to be respected by our fellow-men (Proverbs 3:16). (2) In making us the means of converting others. (3) In receiving us to glory, honor and immortality in heaven (Romans 3:7).—Baxter: Never did man dishonor God, but it proved the greatest dishonor to himself. God will find out ways enough to wipe off any stain upon Him; but you will not so easily remove the shame and dishonor from yourselves.—Tr,]. 1 Samuel 2:35. The exercise of the priestly office, which is well-pleasing to God: 1) Its personal condition and pre-supposition, fidelity, firmness, steadfastness, “I will raise me up a faithful priest;” 2) Its rule and measure, “according to that which is in my heart and in my soul;” 3) Its blessing and reward, “and I will,” etc. [Upon the phrase, “he shall walk before my Anointed forever,” comp. above on 1 Samuel 2:10, Hom, and Pract.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 2:27-30. The heavy guilt of neglecting the office of household-priest in the rearing of children: 1) It wrongs the welfare and honor of the house, so far as in earlier times God has in grace and compassion crowned it with blessings, 1 Samuel 2:27-29; 1 Samuel 2) In indulgent and weak love to the children it robs God of the honor which He demands, 1 Samuel 2:30; 1 Samuel 3) It thereby prepares for the children a sure destruction, 1 Samuel 2:34; 1 Samuel 4) It often thereby brings a curse and ruin upon succeeding generations, 1 Samuel 2:31-33; 1 Samuel 2:36. [Hall: Indulgent, parents are cruel to themselves and their posterity. Eli could not have devised which way to have plagued himself and his house so much, as by his kindness to his children’s sins.…… I do not read of any fault Eli had but indulgence; and which of the notorious offenders were plagued more!—Tr.]. Footnotes: [1 Samuel 2:27. Chald. “a prophet of Jehovah.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:27. μְ often expresses possession, and is here so rendered by Chald. and Sept.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:28. The following εָ ?ΰֶ ?ϊְּ ?πָ ?δ makes it better not to carry on the interrogation here. Erdmann: “I chose it (thy house) to perform priestly service.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:28. The Heb. form here may be Qal (“ascend”) or Hiphil (“offer”) but the sense it the same in both cases.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:29. See Exeg. Notes.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:29. The μ is probably repetition from the last letter of the preceding word; see Joshua 10:21 for similar case.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:30. “Indeed” is merely intensive, Heb. Infin. Absol.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:32. On the text of this verse see Exeg. Notes.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:33. See Exeg. Notes.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:33. Lit. “shall die men;”. Sept. “by the sword of men,” which Wellhausen prefers, but see Exeg. Notes.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:35. The Heb. word is the same as that rendered “faithful” just before.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 2:36. More exactly “a small piece;” Erdmann: eine Bettelmόnze, “a beggar’s coin.”—Tr.] Textual and Grammatical.—The Inf. Abs. αָּ ?δֹ ?ψ stands for the Verb, fin., as a Verb. fin. has preceded in the same sentence (Ges., § 131, 4 a). But the interrog. δֲ does not extend to this Inf. Abs., which stands for the Perf., and makes the discourse absolute.—ΰֹ ?ϊεֹ is better referred to αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ than to ΰָ ?αִ ?ικָ, on account of the following “tribes.” But then we must read with Bφttcher and Thenius μְ ?λַ ?δֵ ?ο instead of μְ ?λֹ ?δֵ ?ο, “as agreeing better with the preceding αַּ ?ιִ ?ϊ and the succeeding Inf.” (Bφttcher). So the Sept. ἱερατεύειν. Comp. Exodus 31:10.—μַ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊ is contracted from μְ ?δַ ?ςֲ ?μεֹ ?ϊ. See Deuteronomy 1:33; 2 Samuel 18:3; Ecclesiastes 5:5. [The Germ. has steigen, “ascend,” error for opfern, “offer.”—Tr.] [Germ. achselkleid, “shoulder-dress,” “amice.”—Tr.] μְ ?ςַ ?ξִּ ?ι “is periphrasis for the Gen., and is chosen in order to make the ‘my people’ more prominent” (Keil). On this periphrasis of the Gen. see Ew. Gr. § 292, a. 3.—[But this does not apply here. See Textual Notes in loco.—Tr.]. Bφttcher: μַ ?ΰֲ ?γִ ?ια is for μְ ?δַ ?γְ ?ΰִ ?ια=μַ ?γְ ?ΰִ ?ια, one of the numerous clerical errors in these books.—[It is by no means clear that there is a clerical error here, since we may suppose a stem γΰα=ΰγα as πΰχ=ΰπχ.—Tr.] [It is doubtful whether the malak can be considered other than an angel.—Tr.]. SECOND SECTIONSamuel’s Call1 Samuel 3:1 to 1 Samuel 4:1 a1And the child Samuel ministered unto the Lord [Jehovah] before Eli. And the word of the Lord [Jehovah] was precious in those days; there was no open 2vision [vision spread abroad]. And it came to pass at that time, when [that]. Eli was laid down [lying down] in his place, and his eyes began to wax dim that he could 3not see. And ere [om. ere] the lamp of God went out [was not yet gone out] in the temple of the Lord, where the ark of God was [om. in the temple……was] and Samuel was laid down [lying down4] to sleep [om. to sleep, ins. in 4the temple of Jehovah where the ark of God was], That [And] the Lord [Jehovah] 5called [ins. to] Samuel, and he answered [said], Here am I. And he ran unto Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou calledst me. And he said, I called not; 6[ins. go back and] lie down again [om. again]. And he went and lay down. And the Lord [Jehovah] called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou didst call [calledst] me. And he answered [said], I 7called not, my son, [ins. go back and] lie down again [om. again]. Now Samuel did not yet know the Lord [Jehovah], neither was the word of the Lord yet [and 8the word of Jehovah was not yet] revealed unto him. And the Lord [Jehovah] called Samuel again the third time. And he arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I, for thou didst call [calledst] me. And Eli perceived that the Lord [Jehovah] 9had called [was calling] the child. Therefore, [And] Eli said unto Samuel, Go, lie down, and it shall be, if he [one] call thee, that thou shalt say, Speak, Lord [Jehovah], for thy servant heareth. So [And] Samuel went and lay down 10in his place. And the Lord [Jehovah] came, and stood, and called as at other times [as before], Samuel, Samuel. Then [And] Samuel answered [said], Speak, 11for thy servant heareth. And the Lord [Jehovah] said to Samuel, Behold, I will [om, will] do a thing in Israel, at which both the ears of every one that heareth it 12shall tingle [the which whosoever heareth, both his ears shall tingle]. In that day I will perform against Eli all things [om. things] which [that] I have spoken concerning his house, when I begin, I will also make an end [from beginning to end]. 13For [And] I have told [I announced to] him that I will [would] judge his house for ever for the iniquity [sin] which he knoweth, because [that he knew that] his sons made themselves vile [brought a curse on themselves], and he restrained them 14not. And therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be purged [expiated] with sacrifice [ins. of blood] nor [ins. unbloody] 15offering forever. And Samuel lay until the morning, and opened the doors of the house of the Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel feared to show Eli the 16vision. Then [And] Eli called Samuel, and said, Samuel, my son. And he answered 17[said], Here am I. And he said, What is the thing that the Lord [om. the Lord, ins. he] hath [om. hath] said unto thee? I pray thee [om. I pray thee] hide it not from me. God do so to thee and more also, if thou hide anything from 18me of all the things [om. the things] that he said unto thee. And Samuel told him every whit, and hid nothing from him. And he said, It is the Lord [He is Jehovah]; let him do what seemeth him good. 19And Samuel grew; And the Lord [Jehovah] was with him, and did let none of 20his words fall to the ground. And all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba knew 21that Samuel was established to be a prophet of the Lord [Jehovah]. And the Lord [Jehovah] appeared again [continued to appear] in Shiloh; for the Lord [Jehovah] revealed himself to Samuel in Shiloh by [in] the word of the Lord [Jehovah].1 Samuel 4:1 a And the word of Samuel came to all Israel. AND 1 Samuel 3:1. The history of Samuel’s call to be prophet is introduced (1 Samuel 3:1) by a brief statement of what it presupposed, and what led to it in Samuel himself and in the condition of the Israelitish theocratic life. As to the first point, the connection shows that the “boy” Samuel had grown to be a youth, and was therefore intellectually capable of receiving the revelation of the Lord; his character as servant of the Lord in the Sanctuary is again stated (comp. 1 Samuel 2:11; 1 Samuel 2:18), and his relation to Eli as his guardian and guide is anew affirmed by the words “before Eli.” (1 Samuel 2:11). The call which Samuel receives supposes the fact that he belongs to the Lord as a gift from his parents, and, as servant in the Sanctuary, is, in this priestly life under the guidance of the High-priest, prepared to be a special instrument of God’s for His people.—As to the second point, the condition of the theocratical life, the religious character of the times is marked by a twofold expression: 1) the word of the Lord was “precious” (ιָ ?χָ ?ψ), that is, the word was rare that came directly from the Lord by prophetic announcement to the people; the proper organs were lacking, persons who were filled with the Spirit of the Lord, that they might be witnesses of His word; there was lacking also in the people the living desire for the direct revelations of God in His word, and receptivity in religious feeling for the living declaration,—and this was true even in the highest planes of theocratical life; 2) “There was no vision spread abroad.” τָ ?ψַ ?υ “break through,” thence “spread out from within,” “become known outwards, become public,” Ps. 3:10; 2 Chronicles 31:5.—Hazon (ηζεֹ ?ο) [vision] is the feeling or perception which corresponds to a direct real divine revelation made to the imagination of the prophet. This “vision” is the means of the reception of the word to be announced. Little was heard of such revelations of the Lord by visions, they were not spread abroad. Therefore the word of the Lord was precious. The second fact had its ground in the first. In the theocratical life there was lacking both a truly God-fearing, living priesthood, and a proclamation of God’s word that should extricate the people from their religious-moral depravation, the vitalizing power of the divine Spirit through prophetic organs. 1 Samuel 3:2-10. The circumstances and individual elements of the calling. In 1 Samuel 3:2 the “and it came to pass” and the statement of time are so connected with 1 Samuel 3:4 that all the intermediate from “and Eli” to the end of 1 Samuel 3:3 is explanatory parenthesis.Samuel might have supposed, when he was awaked by hearing his name called, that he had to render some service to the half-blind Eli; and so it is expressly mentioned at the beginning of these descriptive sentences that Eli was growing blind. The word “began” shows that the statement afterwards made, “he could not see,” is by no means to be understood as meaning complete blindness.—To the chronological datum in the beginning of 1 Samuel 3:2 is added in 1 Samuel 3:3 an exacter and more definite statement in the words: And the lamp of God was not yet gone out;—no doubt this indicates night-time, near the morning, since the seven-lamped candelabrum in the Sanctuary before the curtain, which (Exodus 27:20-21; Exodus 30:7-8) was furnished with oil every morning and evening, after having burnt throughout the night and consumed its oil, usually, no doubt, got feebler or went out towards morning (comp. Leviticus 24:2-3). The words “and S. was sleeping” are not to be regarded, as the Athnach under the last requires, as a parenthesis separated from “in the temple” (as is usually done), if the latter expression is understood to mean sanctuary in distinction from the most holy place; for we cannot suppose that Samuel slept in this Sanctuary. But hekal (ηֵ ?ιαָ ?μ) is here, as in 1 Samuel 1:9; Psalms 11:4, the whole sanctuary, the entire space of the tabernacle, as the palace of God, the King of His people, who has His throne there. This throne is the “ark of God,” for above the ark was the symbol of the presence, yea, of the royal dwelling and enthronement of God in the midst of His people (1 Samuel 4:4). Samuel’s sleeping-place was in one of the rooms, which were built in the court for the priests and Levites on service (Keil). The name Jehovah stands after “temple,” because it is the Covenant-God, who descends to His people and dwells with them, that is brought before us. On the other hand, in connection with the lamp and the ark “Elohim” is used “in the sense of the divine in general,” (Then.), that is, God is viewed in His loftiness and power over the whole world, as He who is to be feared and venerated, as lofty majesty (which conception is made clear by the plural). In 1 Samuel 3:2-3, is described the situation in which Samuel received the call of the Lord,—it is night, the High-priest lies in his place in the sanctuary, the lamps of the candelabrum are still burning, the morning is near, it is the time when dream-life rises to its height; near Samuel was the ark of God, whence the revelations of God came. 1 Samuel 3:4-10 give the whole history of the call, with the attendant circumstances, in its individual elements.—Samuel hears the call of a voice, which has awakened him from sleep, but takes it to be not the call of a divine voice, as it was, but a call from Eli. Eli, to whom he hastens, sends him back to his couch with the answer: “I did not call thee.” This is repeated in 1 Samuel 3:6. 1 Samuel 3:7 gives the reason why Samuel thought he heard not God’s voice, but Eli’s. Knowing God means here not the general knowledge of God which every Israelite of necessity had, but the special knowledge of God, which was given by extraordinary revelation of God. The experience which now comes to Samuel is marked as the first of the sort. The word of God had not yet been revealed to him. He had not yet received such a special revelation of God through His word; therefore he did not yet know the God who revealed Himself in this way.—“It was a gloomy time, poor in revelation, as in exemplary religious life. For Eli, the High-priest, was weak, his sons defiled the sanctuary, the people served idols (1 Samuel 7:3 sq.), and the Philistines ruled oppressively. Hence it came that Samuel did not yet know how the Lord was used to reveal Himself to the prophets, the announcer of His word to men (1 Samuel 3:1; 1 Samuel 3:7)” (Nδgelsbach, Herz. R.-E. XIII. 395 sq.). After the third repetition of the call (1 Samuel 3:8), Eli observed the divine origin of the call, and showed Samuel (1 Samuel 3:9) how he should deport himself towards the divine voice. His answer was to be: “Speak, Lord, for thy servant heareth.”—Up to this point the medium of the divine revelation was the thrice repeated call of a voice, which so strongly impressed Samuel’s hearing, that he was awakened out of sleep. This is the meaning of the narrative; it does not mean a voice, which he thought he heard in a dream merely. In 1 Samuel 3:10 a new factor is introduced: the divine revelation by means of a voice becomes a vision: Jehovah came and stood, that is, before Samuel. That an objective real appearance is here meant is clear from 1 Samuel 3:15, “the vision” (ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ). Three factors are to be combined: the dream-state of Samuel’s soul (the internal sense), the hearing a voice on awakening, the seeing an appearance. 1 Samuel 3:11-14. Here follows the divine announcement of the judgment on Israel and the house of Eli. The Pres. (ςωֶֹׁ ?δ partcp.) brings the act, though still in the future, before us as near, immediately and surely impending. The tingling of both ears is the mark of dread and horror, which comes suddenly on a man, so that he well nigh loses his senses. Clericus’ reference to the Lat. attonitus is excellent, comp. Jeremiah 19:3. The unheard of horror which was to make both ears tingle was (chap. 4) the frightful defeat of Israel in battle with the Philistines, and the loss of the ark to this heathen people.—As in 1 Samuel 3:11 the horror, which is to come upon Israel, is announced, so in 1 Samuel 3:12-14 is declared the judgment of the house of Eli. In 1 Samuel 3:12 the Infs. Abs. (δָ ?ηֵ ?μεְ ?λַ ?μֵּ ?δ) serve to explain and define the verb fin., “beginning and ending,” that is, from beginning to end, fully, entirely. Not one word of the minatory prophecy (1 Samuel 2:27 sq.) is to remain unfulfilled. (See Ew. § 280, 3 a).—In 1 Samuel 3:13 this announcement is recapitulated. The declaration was a threat, no longer a warning. Judging is in sense (comp. Genesis 15:14) identical with punishing. This punishment will be inflicted on Eli’s house “for ever;” the judgment will never again be removed from it. In what did Eli’s sin consist? In the neglect of the duty which he ought to have performed to his sons as father, high-priest and judge, by the employment of severe chastisement and punishment.He knew their crimes, but let them go unpunished. ξְ ?χַ ?μְ ?μִ ?ινμָ ?δֶ ?ν “cursed themselves” is very hard to explain, unless with Sept. and Then., we read ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν for μָ ?δֶ ?ν, and translate “they brought God into contempt,” the Pi. being taken as causative, and Qal=“to come into contempt.” Certainly this rendering would agree with 1 Samuel 2:17; but—aside from the untrustworthiness of the Sept. in relation to the Heb. text, which also may here have been arbitrarily treated on account of this difficulty—against this reading is the fact that God Himself here speaks. The conjecture adduced by Grotius, μִ ?ι (“the Hebrews wrote that for μָ ?δֶ ?ν ‘themselves’ formerly stood μִ ?ι ‘me,’ ”) must be rejected on account of the difference in the letters. There remains no other course than to translate “cursing, bringing a curse on, themselves,” according to the usual explanation. Luther gives the correct sense: “that his sons behaved shamefully.” [So Eng. A. V. “made themselves vile,” but this is not exactly correct. See translation and textual note.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 3:14. The announcement that the punishment is imposed for ever (1 Samuel 3:13) is here marked by the divine oath as irrevocable. (ΰִ ?ν, in view of the ellipsis, with negative force, Ges. § 155, 2 sq.). The transgression of Eli’s house is here spoken of because not only did Eli’s sins of omission and his sons’ sins of commission prove them personally worthy of punishment before God, but the religious depravation that issued from them affected the whole family, even their posterity. (ιִ ?ϊְ ?λַ ?τֵּ ?ψ Pass. for the usual λֻּ ?τַּ ?ψ). Because the guilt can never be expiated, therefore the sentence will never be recalled, but, agreeably to the Lord’s true word, will be carried out on Eli’s house. The double “for ever” at the end of the two declarations (1 Samuel 3:13-14) expresses the terrible earnestness of the divine justice. [As to the relation between this announcement (1 Samuel 3:11-14) and the other (1 Samuel 2:27-36), the latter is founded on and supposes the earlier, but does not exactly repeat it. The first message seems (strangely enough) not to have produced the desired effect, namely to rouse Eli and save his house; for, though it is expressed absolutely, we have to suppose that the doom might be averted by repentance and obedience, as in the case of Nineveh. But the old man was too weak, and his sons (who must have heard of the prophet’s threatened punishment) too far gone in sin. No moral change occurs to remove the implied moral condition of the doom, and the sentence is to be executed. Still God will not leave His old servant without another appeal; He sends another message by Samuel. The first prophecy (chap. 2) reviewed, the history of the sacerdotal house of Eli, exposed its unfaithfulness, announced its deposition, and looked beyond to the glory of a new and faithful priestly house. The second prophecy, given through Samuel, reaffirms the punishment, emphasizes Eli’s personal guilt, and declares the sentence on the priestly house to be irrevocable. Its object, then, would seem to be two-fold: 1) to rouse Eli and his sons to repentance and quickening into spiritual life, (see Eli’s response in verse 18, whereas no answer of his to the first threat is recorded); 2) to accredit Samuel as a prophet by making him the bearer of a message that the whole nation would hear of, and to develop his spiritual-prophetic earnestness and faithfulness by bringing him into personal contact with the most serious events. It is hardly to be supposed that the conduct of Eli and his sons had been unobserved by Samuel. Rather they must have occasioned him (in connection with the man of God’s announcement) much serious thought, so that his message to Eli was not something apart from his own intellectual and spiritual life. We must notice, also, the difference in breadth and maturity between the declaration committed to the (doubtless) full-grown man of God, and that delivered through the youth Samuel.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 3:15-18. Samuel before Eli as called prophet of the Lord in his first prophetic function. Although Eli had already received from the “man of God” (1 Samuel 2:27) the prediction of punishment, yet his conduct gives occasion to the repetition (through Samuel who had a direct call from the Lord) of the prophetic announcement of judgment on his house as a word of immediate revelation from the Lord. 1 Samuel 3:15 sq. describe with such psychological and historical minuteness, such clearness and truth to life Samuel’s external situation and tone of mind after the revelation and appearance, and the conduct of Eli who was roused to earnest interest by the thrice-occurring call to Samuel, that neither here nor in the preceding description (1 Samuel 3:1-14) is there any ground for Ewald’s opinion that this is not an original tradition. After this revelation Samuel sleeps in his bed till morning. Opening “the doors of God’s house” was a part of his duty in the sanctuary. By the doors we are not to understand the curtains, but real doors, which belonged, however, not to the cells which were perhaps built around, but “to the house of God” itself. Originally, indeed, the Tabernacle, being a tent, had no doors, but, after it was fixed in Shiloh with a solid enclosure, it might somehow have been provided with them. “Perhaps it stood within a larger frame, or a solid temple-space of stone built for its protection" (Leyrer in Herzog’s R.-E. XV. 116.)—Samuel is afraid to tell Eli the vision, the appearance (ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ) which had presented itself to his internal sense, in which God’s revelation concerning the house of Eli had been set forth before him—partly from awe at the divine word which formed the content of the revelation, partly on account of the dreadful significance it had for Eli, partly by reason of the sorrow of which, in his reverence and filial piety towards Eli, he could not rid himself. But Eli compels him to tell what he had so wondrously learned.—On “my son,” 1 Samuel 3:16, Thenius admirably remarks: “How much is expressed by this one word!” In 1 Samuel 3:17 observe the climax in the words with which, in three sentences, Eli demands information from Samuel; it expresses the excitement of Eli’s soul. He asks for the word of the Lord; he demands an exact and complete statement; he adjures Samuel to conceal nothing from him. God do so to thee and more also, if, etc., is a frequent form of adjuration, which threatens punishment from God, if the request is not complied with, comp. 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Samuel 20:18. 1 Samuel 3:18. And Samuel told him every whit. His fear was overpowered by Eli’s demand. In obeying Eli he was at the same time obeying the Lord, whose command to enter on his prophetic calling before Eli he must have recognized in the latter’s demand. And he (Eli) said. Two things Eli says: It is the Lord! This is the utterance of submission to the Lord. He sees confirmed what the man of God announced to him, and recognizes the indubitable revelation of the Lord. Let Him do what seemeth Him good. This is the expression of resignation to the unchangeable will of the Lord. To the overwhelming declaration of God Eli shows a complete resignation, giving himself and his house into God’s hands, without trying to excuse or justify himself, but also, it is true, without exhibiting thorough penitence. 1 Samuel 3:19-21. The result of Samuel’s call to the prophetic office, and, at the same time, transition to the description of his prophetical work in Israel. 1) In 1 Samuel 3:19 a the divine principle in his development into a man of God in his prophetic office is expressly emphasized, his growth from youth to manhood (εַ ?ιִּ ?βְ ?γַּ ?μ) being set forth under the highest theocratic point of view, which is marked by the words: And the Lord was with him.—To him were imparted God’s revelations for Israel, because he was a man after God’s heart, who, amid the temptations to evil that surrounded him in Shiloh, was now as a youth mature and tried in true fear of God and sincere fellowship with God; and his growth rested on a childhood consecrated to the Lord. “The Lord was with him.” This refers not merely to the general proofs of God’s goodness and mercy, to the blessing which he received from the Lord throughout his life, but also to the special revelations and gifts of the Spirit which the Lord imparted to him as His chosen instrument. For 2) in 1 Samuel 3:19 b in the words And he let none of his words fall to the ground is emphasized the divine demonstration of Samuel’s prophetic character by God’s fulfilment of what he prophetically announced as the word revealed to him. The expression “did not let fall” indicates that the word was not spoken in vain, but was fulfilled, comp. Joshua 21:45; Joshua 23:14; 1 Kings 8:56; 2 Kings 10:10. 3) 1 Samuel 3:20 exhibits his general recognition in Israel as a tried instrument for the Lord in the prophetic office. The geographical indication of the extent of this recognition supposes that Samuel was made known to the whole people from Dan on the north to Beersheba on the south (Judges 20:1) as a prophet of the Lord by his declaration of the word of God. (πֶ ?ΰֱ ?ξָ ?ο, “found trustworthy,” “tried,” Numbers 12:7). From this it is evident that the people of Israel, in spite of their disruption, yet formed religiously a unit. In spite of the general lack of the declaration of God’s word, there was still altogether a receptivity for it; notwithstanding the decline of the religious-moral life there was not lacking a sense for the self-revelation of the living God through His chosen instrument, the prophet Samuel. It is no doubt intimated in 1 Samuel 3:20 “that Samuel, in contrast with the hitherto isolated appearances of prophets, was known as a man called to a permanent prophetic work” (Nδgelsbach, Herz. R.-E. XIII. 26). For the factual ground of 1 Samuel 3:20 is given in the closely connected v. 21, where 4) are stated the continued direct revelations of God to Samuel in Shiloh. “Jehovah continued to appear in Shiloh.” This points to visions as the form of revelation for the internal sense, and as the continuation of the mode of appearance which is set forth in 1 Samuel 3:10; 1 Samuel 3:15 as “vision.” The words “for the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel in Shiloh by the word of the Lord” leave no doubt that that revelation in visions also was made to Samuel, and that the word was the heart and the guiding star of these revelations of the Lord made to him that they might be imparted to the people. As the people had hitherto had its centre in Shiloh in the Tabernacle with the ark as the symbol of God’s indwelling and presence, so now it found in the same place a new centre in the continued revelations of the Lord to Samuel through His word. From now on God made known His will to the people by the revelation of His word to Samuel, the first representative of the permanent prophetic order. Thus, then, the beginning of the fourth chapter: And the word of Samuel came to all Israel—is closely connected with the preceding. The word of Samuel is in content, “the word of the Lord,” which was directly revealed to him, he being from now on favored with this revelation (1 Samuel 3:21) in the form of the vision (ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰָ ?δ); thus the declaration “God revealed Himself to Samuel” is by no means superfluous (Then.); for it is not “the revelation mentioned above" which is here meant, but that which was constantly repeated in vision, by virtue of which Samuel was the Roeh (ψֹ ?ΰֶ ?δ), seer. In form the word of Samuel was prophetic announcement, as organ of which he was Nabi (πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ), God’s spokesman, interpreter. His word came “to all Israel.” In these words is comprised 5) his prophetic work in all Israel, and the permanent effect of his call to the prophetic office (made by the first revelation) is indicated. The word which came to him from God went by him to the whole people. This close connection of these words with the preceding context, and their closing and comprehensive character shows plainly how incorrect is the ordinary view which connects them with the following, and regards them as a call by Samuel to battle with the Philistines. They are the summary description of his prophetic work, on which his judicial labors rested, the transition to these latter being made in the following narration of Israel’s public national calamity. AND 1. Samuel’s person and labors as prophet. “So the Lord’s training had borne its fruits. Samuel had been preserved amid the temptations of Shiloh. He had grown up to be a consecrated man and faithful prophet of the Lord—a man of God in the midst of an apostate race—a light in the darkness, and much was gained when God’s word was once more to be found in the land.” (Schlier, Die Kφnige in Isr., 1865, 2 ed., p. 5.) “The vigorous and connected ministry of the prophets begins with Samuel, who is therefore to be regarded as the true founder of the Old Testament prophetic order (comp. Acts 3:24). It was that extraordinary time when, with the removal of the ark, the Tabernacle had lost its significance as centre, the high-priest’s functions were suspended, and now the mediatorship between God and the people rested altogether in the inspired prophet. While the limits of the old ordinances of worship are broken through, Israel learns that Jehovah has not restricted His saving presence to the ancient symbol of His indwelling among the people, rather is to be found everywhere, where He is earnestly sought, as God of salvation.” Oehler in Herz. R.-E. s. v. Prophet-enthum des A. T. XII. 214. 2. The time of Samuel’s appearance in Israel as prophet was the time of an internal judgment of God, which consisted in the preciousness of God’s word, that is, in the lack of intercourse of God with His people by revelation. It was a theocratic interdict incurred by the continued apostasy of the people from their God, and inflicted by God’s justice. It had the disciplinary aim to lead their hearts back to the Lord, who had long kept silence, had long suspended His revelations. Such a judgment of the cessation of all revelation-intercourse of God with man came upon Saul, 1 Samuel 28:6; 1 Samuel 28:15; comp. the complaint in Psalms 74:9, “there is no longer any prophet,” and the wail in Amos 7:11 sq. over the famine of God’s word. The same law presents itself in all periods of the kingdom of God; men lose the source of life, God’s revealed word, by a divine judgment, when they withdraw from intercourse with the living God, and will not accept His holy word as the truth which controls their whole life. 3. The form of God’s revelation in prophecy is, as we see in Samuel, internal sight, the vision, to which the original appellation Roeh (ψֹ ?ΰֶ ?δ or ηֹ ?ζֶ ?δ) (according to 1 Samuel 9:9, the earlier usual designation of the prophet) points. “Vision and word of God are in 1 Samuel 3:1 parallel expressions for prophecy.” “The vision is nothing but the inner incorporation, and therefore also symbolizatioii of what is felt in the mind—whether it be in visible shape for the inner eye, or vocally for the inner ear.” (Tholuck, Die Propheten und ihre Weissa-gungen, 1861, p. 54.) The internal sight, by means of which the prophet knows that the content of the prophecy, the matter of the announcement to be made, has been imparted to him by God directly, altogether independently of his own activity, is the vision in the wider sense. For this reason Samuel, like all other prophets, is called a Seer. After his soul, detached from the outer world of sense through the medium of the dream, has thus been brought into a state of more concentrated receptivity for the revelation of God, he sees with the internal sense the matter of the prophetic declaration directly imparted to him by God. “But when the revelation presents its content in visible shape before the prophet’s soul, there results the vision in the stricter sense.” (Oehler, Herz. R.-E. XVII. 637.) 4. In the history of Samuel’s call to the prophetic office are united prototypically all essential momenta of theocratic prophecy: 1) the ethical condition of the absolute consecration of the person and the whole life to God’s service on the basis of sincere life-communion with Him, and of mutual intercourse between God and the prophet—(“Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth;” comp. Jeremiah 33:2 sq.: “call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not”); 2) the definite, direct, clearly recognized and irresistible call of God to be the instrument of His revelation, the declarer of His word which is to be imparted to him, connected with the gift of inspiration and capacity therefor by the controlling power of the Spirit of God; 3) the reception of God’s special revelation by word independently of human teaching and instruction and his own investigation and meditation, together with the consciousness of having been favored with a disclosure of God’s objective thoughts; 4) the internal sight as the subjective medium of the reception of the revelation of God, the psychical form of prophecy; 5) the declaration of the revelation received, with the certainty and confidence (produced by the Spirit) that the announced word will be confirmed by the corresponding divine deed. Comp. Oehler, Weissagung, Herz. R.-E. XVII. 627 sqq.5. The triple repetition of the divine call to Samuel betokens God’s holy arrangement for preparing His inner life, that he might become an exclusive organ of divine revelation (comp. 1 Samuel 3:7-8), freed from human authority, his soul open only to the utterances of the living God, as is shown by Samuel’s answer to the divine voice: “Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth” (1 Samuel 3:9-10); for by this answer Samuel assumes the position of one who has direct converse with the Lord, that he may, as his servant, hear what the Lord will say to him by His revelations, and thereby the end of the threefold preparative call is fulfilled. 6. That the light of the divine word may illuminate the inner life, the latter must be open to this light, as it is given by divine revelation. The humble readiness to hear and accept God’s counsels with the ear of faith is called forth by the awakening call of God’s voice, and leads to the clear knowledge of His word. The way to fellowship with the living God and service in His kingdom is opened and prepared only by God’s act of grace in calling men by the voice of His word; and so living and abiding continually in fellowship with the Lord is conditioned on the word of revelation, in which the Lord speaks to the soul that stands fast in the obedience of faith. Thus the individual elements of this history of Samuel’s call present a picture of the grace of God that calls us, as all they learn or experience, who, like Samuel, occupy such a position towards God’s word, that to God’s call they answer with him: “Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth.” 7. Pardoning grace (1 Samuel 3:14) is open to every sinner, and is denied by God for no sin, if there be, on the man’s part, honest, hearty repentance for sin as enmity against God and violation of His holy will, and confident trust in His grace and mercy, that is, if there be a thorough conversion to the Lord. In Eli’s house, in spite of the preceding divine warnings and threatenings, there was continued, persistent sin, and Eli did not summon the resolution to make an energetic cleansing of his house and thoroughly to remove his sons’ wickedness, which he ought to have felt especially bound to do as high-priest; such sin makes it impossible that God’s grace should be shown in the forgiveness of sin, puts a limit to God’s patience and long-suffering, and draws down on itself His punitive judgments as necessary proofs of His holiness and justice. [The Mosaic Law had no offering for presumptuous sins; but underneath the Law (which was civil-political in its outward form) lay the fundamental principle of the forgiveness of the penitent sinner, developed, for example, in Psalms 51 and others. This principle, however, though doubtless part of the spiritual thought of ancient Israel, did not find full expression till it was announced that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin. But in the New Testament, as in the Old Testament, there is no pardon without repentance.—Tr.] 8. The true permanent unity of Israel, dismembered, as the nation was, during the Period of the Judges, was established by Samuel by means of the word of God which, in his prophetic proclamation, embraced all Israel. Even in times when the national, political and religious-ecclesiastical life is most sadly shattered and disrupted, the divine word, if it is only preached lovingly by preachers that live in it, shows its purifying and unifying power, the receptivity for it being present, and only needing to be called forth. AND 1 Samuel 3:1. Cramer: That is the greatest and most perilous scarcity, when God causes a dearth, not of bread but of His word.—Wuert. Bible: God does not give His holy word to every one and at every time in great abundance, but causes at certain times also a scarcity therein to be suffered, Ezekiel 3:26; Amos 8:11-12. [1 Samuel 3:3-14. Stanley: The stillness of the night—the sudden voice—the childlike misconception—the venerable Eli—the contrast between the terrible doom and the gentle creature who has to announce it—give to this portion of the narrative a universal interest. It is this side of Samuel’s career that has been so well caught in the well-known pictures by Sir Joshua Reynolds.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 3:3-10. Steinmeyer (Testimonies to the glory of Christ, Berlin, 1847): The call of Samuel the Prophet, as an image of our entering into communion with the Lord; 1) How the occasion for this communion is given on the part of God, 2) How the condition of it is fulfilled on the part of Samuel, and 3) How this communion itself was begun.—Awaking from sleep! What a striking designation of the turning point between the old and the new in our life also. We were like them that sleep, them that dream, before we entered into communion with God. It is, however, certainly no arbitrary pre-supposition, that this pure, simple, upright nature had definite presentiments that he must be in what was his God’s, and that he was moved by a longing, even though not understood, after the hour which now struck; and even this position of heart appears to find in the image of sleep its beautiful, exactly-corresponding expression. More or less, however, the comparison will also be applicable to us all. If the grace of the Lord caused us to grow up in the temple of His church, as Samuel in the sanctuary at Shiloh, if we were, like him, from childhood nourished with the sincere milk of the word, then there will always in our awaking be a definite recollection that already long before we found ourselves unawares in this sphere, only that hitherto our eyes were holden, while now we are allowed to look freely and without hindrance into the riches of His grace and His truth. [How far this sort of analogical preaching may be carried, is a question of opinion. There are many who will think it has been carried quite too far in this paragraph.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 3:8-9. The fact that Samuel, notwithstanding the old man’s assurance that he had not called him, appeared again, and came the third time, without consulting with flesh and blood, was a proof of his simplicity and uprightness. This is indeed the same uprightness which the Redeemer commends in Nathaniel, and here we have certainly a striking example of the Scripture saying: The Lord makes the upright prosper.—That the youth was ready without fretting to present himself three times for the service of his fatherly teacher—what else is it than his obedience towards him to whose discipline and service he had now devoted himself, so firmly grounded in obedience that he did not allow himself to be turned away from his simple, quiet path, not even by the most wonderful testimonies, by perfectly incomprehensible directions. And so with us too, if in any relation whatever we have only learned true obedience, if the position and state of our heart has become that of full and humble subjection, then we are no longer far from the Kingdom of God, which demands blind, unshakable obedience, within which one cannot maintain himself without giving himself up unconditionally to the one authority of Christ in faith as well as in life, and which utterly excludes all selfishness, in whatever form it may come up, all self-will, all entering upon a self-chosen path. [The analogy here and in what follows is extremely remote, and such a use of the passage would seem injudicious.—Tr.]—If we too have only first reached in general the point of being able to believe without seeing—for faith too must be learned—able to believe in the first place the human teaching, rebuking, consoling word,—well, then we are on the way, since the voice of the divine word is believingly received by us. [Henry: There was a special Providence in it, that Samuel should go thus often to Eli; for hereby, at length, Eli perceived that the Lord had called the child, 1 Samuel 3:8. (1) This would be a mortification to him, and he would apprehend it to be a step toward his family’s being degraded, that when God had something to say he should choose to say it to the child Samuel, his servant that waited on him, and not to him. (2) This would put him upon inquiring what it was that God said to Samuel, and would abundantly satisfy him of the truth and certainty of what should be delivered, and no room would be left for him to suggest that it was but a fancy of Samuel’s.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 3:10. So then for the first time Samuel stands with consciousness in the presence of the majesty of God—and immediately all the riddles of life begin to be solved for him, and the meaning of his own life to become clear. What he says bears the clearest stamp of a really begun communion with the Lord. Is it not the resolve to say and to do all that the Lord might show him of his lofty thoughts and ways—is it not this, and nothing but this, that is expressed in Samuel’s words: Speak, Lord, for Thy servant heareth? Has he not thereby once for all renounced self-knowing and self-will? That was the faithfulness as a prophet, which all Israel from Dan even to Beersheba recognized in him (1 Samuel 3:20). And that which thus first established a true communion with the Lord could also alone be the power that maintained it. The constant prayer, “Speak, Lord,” and the constant vow, “Thy servant heareth,”—that is the hand which takes hold of God’s right hand, to be held fast by it with everlasting life. 1 Samuel 3:10. “Speak, Lord, thy servant heareth,” a testimony of unconditional devotion to the Lord: 1) How such a testimony is reached, (a) through the Lord’s awakening call, (b) through receptivity of heart for God’s word, and (c) through the deed of self-denial in the renunciation of all self-knowing and self-will; 2) What is therein testified and praised before the Lord: (a) humble subjection (Speak, Lord), (b) steadfast dependence on the Lord in free love (thy servant), (c) unconditional, joyful obedience to His will (thy servant heareth.)—Conditions of a blessed fulfillment of one’s calling for the Kingdom of God: 1) The experience of the power of the divine word: I have called thee by thy name; 2) The repeated call in prayer, “Speak, Lord!” and 3) The fulfillment of the vow: “thy servant heareth.” 1 Samuel 3:11. Lange: It is God’s design that when He causes great judgments to occur, men shall with holy terror accept them as a warning. God begins in good time to bring into holy fear the hearts of those whom he wishes to make special and great instruments of advancing His honor. 1 Samuel 3:12. Starke : The Lord’s word is true; Psalms 33:4 [in German; Eng. Ver. correctly: right.—Tr.] Let men therefore not mock at God’s word and threatenings.—Calvin: The guilt becomes so much the greater, when God warns sinners of their transgressions, and they notwithstanding persevere in them. 1 Samuel 3:13. Eli’s guilt becomes so much the greater from the fact that it was known to him how shamefully his sons behaved, and he did nothing to remove this abomination from his house and from the sanctuary. Calvin: Those who are set for the purpose of chastising the wicked make themselves partakers of a like guilt with them, and go quite over to their side, when at most they express censure with words, and so give themselves the appearance of strictness and earnestness, but do not use the power conferred on them to interfere with the godlessness by deeds.1 Samuel 3:14. If the sons of Eli had earnestly repented, they would have obtained grace. But as they were given up to their godless disposition, they must of necessity be hardened in their sins, and in spite of the offerings they presented, which were an abomination in the sight of the Lord, must suffer judgment. [1 Samuel 3:11-14. Compare this warning with that previously sent to Eli (1 Samuel 2:27-36). 1) It is simpler, as was appropriate when given through a youth. 2) It is mainly a repetition of what he had been told before, as are so many of God’s messages to men;—the sin mentioned is ‘the iniquity which he knoweth’ (1 Samuel 3:13), and the punishment is ‘all, that I have spoken’ (1 Samuel 3:12). 3) It contains a still more severe threatening, as the former had not led to repentance; (a) an unknown horror is predicted, (b) a punishment of his family that shall never cease. 4) It arouses Eli to enough of spiritual life for submission (1 Samuel 3:18), but not enough for amendment. (Comp. addition by Tr. to Exegetical on 1 Samuel 3:14).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 3:18. We should never venture to dispute with God nor wish to speak against and oppose His purpose, but must, even when we do not recognize the ground of His judgments, yea, when we think we are suffering unjustly, adore the righteousness and holiness of His judgments. Eli bowed himself, it is true, in humility and reverence before the Divine Majesty, but we do not see that he stirred himself up to fulfil his duty towards his godless sons, whereby he would have made known by action the earnestness of his own conversion from the slackness and yielding compliance, which made him the sharer of his sons’ guilt. We should therefore lay it earnestly to heart, not merely with the mouth to give God the honor for His wisdom and righteousness, but upon His call to repentance to subject our own life to an earnest self-examination, in order that then we may beseech God to forgive our sins, and may with our whole heart avoid and flee from evil. 1 Samuel 3:19. The word of God does not return void, whether it promises or threatens, and preachers of the word of God learn with Samuel that none of their words fall to the ground, and this just in proportion as they are diligent to preach nothing else than God’s word. [1 Samuel 3:15-18. Evil Tidings. 1) Samuel shrinks from telling them, as a painful duty. 2) Eli is anxious to be told, (a) He apprehends ill news for himself—accusing conscience—reminded of the warning given through the prophet (1 Samuel 2:27 sqq.) (b) But he desires to know the worst—earnestly conjures Samuel to tell him all. 3) Eli hears evil tidings with submission, (a) ‘He is Jehovah’—the sovereign God—the covenant God—‘too wise to err, too good to be unkind.’ (b) ‘Let him do,’ etc. He submits humbly, trustfully, lovingly. Hall: If Eli have been an ill father to his sons, yet he is a good son to God, and is ready to kiss the very rod he shall smart withal.)—Tr.] 1 Samuel 3:20. Samuel a true prophet of the Lord; 1) Whereby he was such. 2) How he proved himself such before the whole people. 3) How he was recognized as such by them. 4) How he is an example for the faithful in the ministry of God’s word. Cramer: Not only of the whole church in general, but of every Christian hearer in particular is it demanded, that with reference to the doctrine taught he shall perceive whether it is right and true or not, and stand his ground. In the case of Samuel the word did not hold good: The prophet has no honor in his own country. He comes before us here as a prophet who has much honor in his own country, 1) Because he was a faithful prophet of God, 2) Because he was counted worthy by God of continual revelations through his word, and 3) God confirmed his proclamations by the publicly manifested fulfillment of them as a fulfillment of his word. [1 Samuel 3:19-21. Henry: The honor done Samuel as a prophet: 1) God did him honor (a) By further manifestations of Himself to him. (b) By fulfilling what He spake by him. 2) Israel did him honor. (a) He grew famous. (b) He grew useful and very serviceable to his generation. He that began betimes to be good, soon came to do good.—Tr.] Footnotes [1 Samuel 3:1. = “ rare,” see Isaiah 13:12; Chald. renders “hidden.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:1. This word (πτψυ) is variously rendered: Sept. διαστέλλουσα, “distinguishing,” “explaining,” whence some would (without ground) change the text to τֹּ ?ψֵ ?υ (which perhaps the Alex. translator read, the Nun omitted from preceding Nun); Chald. “revealed” = “broken open;” Syr. as Heb.; Arab., “the Lord had deprived the children of Israel of revelation in those days, and there was no revelation, to any one of them, and nothing appeared to him;” Vulg. “manifesta;” others, “broken,” “diffused,” “multiplied;” the Jewish interpreters (Rashi, Kimchi, Ralbag) follow the Targ.: Luther, wenig weissagung, “little prophecy;” Erdmann, verbreitet, “spread abroad;” Cahen, “repandu.” This last is probably the correct sense, see 1 Chronicles 13:2; 2 Chronicles 31:5.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:2. Erdmann renders “when” (as Eng. A. V.) in order to show that the description from this point is introductory to 1 Samuel 3:4; but the literal translation, given above, clearly indicates the connection of thought, and avoids the interpretation of a construction into the text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:2 and 1 Samuel 3:4, Or, “was sleeping.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:3. θֶ ?ψֶ ?ν with Impf. following the subject = “not yet.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:3. The Eng. A. V. in making this unwarranted inversion of clauses, was probably controlled by the same motive which led the Masorites to separate ωֹׁ ?λֵ ?α (“was lying”) from αְּ ?δֵ ?ιαַ ?μ (“in the temple”) by the Athnach, namely, to avoid the seeming assertion that Samuel was sleeping in the sacred building. The Targum accordingly renders “was sleeping in the Court of the Levites,” borrowing this term apparently from Herod’s temple. For explanation see Exeg. Notes, in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:3. This is the only place where ΰμΧ (“God”) in the phrase ΰψεֹ ?οΰμΧ (“the ark of God”) occurs without the Art.; ΰμΧ often occurs with the force of a proper name, but no reason is apparent why the Art. is omitted here in this standing phrase. For discussion of the difference between ΰμΧ and δΰμΧ see Quarry’s “Genesis and its authorship,” pp. 270 sqq.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:7. Erdmann: “had not yet learned to know,” which is substantially the same as Eng. A. V. On pointing of ιγς see Exeg Notes, in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:8. The “didst” might now suggest an emphasis not given by the Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:9. The impersonal subject is proper, as Samuel did not know who the caller was.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:10. Chald. softens this anthropomorphism into “revealed himself,” and the Rabbis add, by a voice from the Holy of Holies.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:13. αַּ ?ςֲ ?εֹ ?ο is difficult. It can be understood here only as in stat. const. with the following clause: Eli’s sin was “that he knew, etc.” So the Vulg. The Targ. and Syr. render as Eng. A. V.; Sept. gives “the iniquities of his sons,” and omits “that he knew;” Wellhausen omits αςιο.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:13. μδν is here taken as reflexive. The true reading here is not clear; the old translators and critics treated it variously. Sept. has θεὸν as if it read ΰμδιν, which Geiger (Urschrift, p. 271) and others adopt. See Erdmann’s remark on this in Exeg. Notes, in loco. Chald. reads as the Heb. (Targ. renders χμμ by ψβζ here and elsewhere); Syr. has “his sons brought ignominy on the people,” reading apparently μςν. This is one of the eighteen cases of the “correction of the Scribes” (see Buxtorf’s Lex. s. v. ϊִּ ?χεּ ?ο), who are said to have changed the original reading μִ ?ι “me” to μδν “themselves,” to avoid the blasphemy, for which reason also Geiger holds that ΰΧ “God” was changed. Others suggest that the μι stood for μιδεδ “Jehovah.” But it is hard to say how much reliance is to be put on these alleged corrections of the old Jewish critics, and here (as Wellhausen remarks) we expect the Acc. ΰεֹ ?ϊִ ?ι not μִ ?ι after χμμ. The external critical evidence is in favor of the reading ΰμδιν “God,” but, the objection to this urged by Erdmann being strong, we can only, with him, retain the present text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:14. It seems desirable to express in an Eng. translation the difference between ζαη and ξπηδ.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:15. Sept. here adds “and rose in the morning,” which Thenius and Wellhausen think stood originally in the text, and fell out by similar ending. On the other hand, it is a natural filling out of a terse account, quite in the manner of the Sept.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:17. The Eng. “I pray thee” is too strong for the Heb. πָ ?ΰ, for which we have no good equivalent.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 3:21. On the addition of the Sept. here see Thenius and Wellhausen.—Tr.] [Hazon, which is used chiefly in the later books of O. T., Isaiah 1) the picture presented to the mind in the ecstatic prophetic state; 2) the body of truth thus given to the prophet. It is the technical word for divine revelation (so contrasted with ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?δ).—Tr.] [See the remark of Tr. under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] λּ ?ηεϊ is either verbal adj. λֵ ?δεֹ ?ϊ, which forms a single conception with the preceding fin. verb (“they began dim,” i.e., “began to become dim”)—as in Genesis 9:20 the same verb is connected with a subst., Ges., § 142, 4, Rem.—or Inf. Qal αְּ ?δεֹ ?ϊ (comp., Isaiah 3:7; Genesis 27:1; Deuteronomy 34:7 : Job 16:8; Zechariah 11:17), “which the punctuators avoided only because they had not elsewhere met with it” (Bφttch.). [This whole note, quoted by Erdmann and Thenius from Bφttcher, is somewhat unclear. The passages cited for the Inf. hardly bear on the question. Wellhausen declares the Inf. here without μְ impossible; but see Deuteronomy 2:25; Deuteronomy 2:31. Winer makes it Piel. Inf.—Tr.] [The Sept. has “before the lamp was prepared,” which may point to the custom of keeping one light burning during the day, and thus indicate the late night or early morning.—Tr.]. θֶ ?ψֶ ?ν is seldom used, as here, with the Perf. of past time; comp. Psalms 90:2; Ew. § 337, 3, c. We might however point also ιִ ?γִ ?ςַ with Bφttcher, and thus read, “in accordance with the following ιִ ?βָּ ?μֶ ?δ, a Fiens [Impf.] with θֶ ?ψֶ ?ν, as is usual.” On the intrans. ϊְּ ?φִ ?μֶּ ?ιπָ ?δ see Ew. §196 d [comp. Green’s Heb. Gr. §141, 2.—Tr.]. λִ ?δָ ?δ Pi. here trans. “to make faint, weak, frighten” by threatening, terrifying conduct, as elsewhere βָּ ?ςַ ?ψ with αּ, increpare aliquem.[The words “Eli who was roused to earnest interest” have been supplied by the translator, something amounting to this having fallen out of the text, probably by typographical error.—Tr.] [This means not, “may God do to you as you do to me,” but “may God visit your refusal with appropriate punishment.”—Tr.] [The origin of the figure has been sought for in various occurrences, as the spilling of water, the fall of an arrow, or any weapon of war, or of a house, but it is better understood in a general way as signifying “failures,” in contrast with a firm, upright position.—Tr.] [It is an old opinion that there is here a reference to the personal Word, the second Person of the Trinity. The Targ. has “the word of Jehovah was his help,” and so some modern commentators, as Gill. But plainly there is no ground for this.—Tr.] [On Roeh and Nabi see on 1 Samuel 9:9.—Tr.] [The Papal Interdict forbids the celebration of divine service, the administration of the sacraments, ecclesiastical burial and marriage (by Romish ministers), and enjoins fasting and prayer.—Tr.] [On the relation between ψΰδ and ηζδ see below, 1 Samuel 9:9.—Tr.] [Momentum, translation of Germ. “moment,” “essential or important element.”—Tr.] [See also Fairbairn on Prophecy, Chap. 1, and Lee on Inspiration.—Tr.] [In the Germ. versφhnungs-gnade—“grace of expiation.”—Tr.] SECOND ’S WORK AS PROPHET, PRIEST AND JUDGE 1 Sam. 4:1b— 7FIRST SECTIONInfliction of the Punishment prophesied by Samuel on the House of Eli and on all Israel in the unfortunate Battle with the Philistines1 Samuel 4:1 to 1 Samuel 7:1I. Israel’s double defeat and loss of the Ark. 1 Samuel 4:1-111 Now [And] Israel went out against the Philistines to battle, and pitched beside 2Ebenezer; and the Philistines pitched in Aphek. And the Philistines put themselves in array against Israel, and when [om. when] they joined battle, [ins. and] Israel was smitten before the Philistines, and they slew of the army in the field 3about four thousand men. And when the people were come [And the people came] into the camp, [ins. and] the elders of Israel said, Wherefore hath the Lord [Jehovah] smitten us to-day before the Philistines? Let us [We will] fetch the ark of the covenantof the Lord [Jehovah] [ins. to us] out of [from] Shiloh unto us [om. unto us], that, when it cometh [and it shall come] among us [into our midst] 4it may [om. it may, ins. and] save us out of the hand of our enemies. So [And] the people sent to Shiloh that they might bring [and brought] from [om. from] thence the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, which dwelleth between the cherubims [who sitteth upon the cherubim]; and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were there with the ark of the covenant of God. 5And [ins. it came to pass], when the ark of the covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] came into the camp, all Israel shouted with a great shout, so that the earth rang 6again. And when [om. when] the Philistines heard the noise of the shout [ins. and] they said, What meaneth the noise of this great shout in the camp of the Hebrews? And they understood that the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] was come into 7the camp. And the Philistines were afraid, for they said, God is come into the camp. And they said, Woe unto us ! for there hath not been such a thing heretofore. 8Woe unto us! who shall deliver us out of the hand of these mighty gods? these are the gods that smote the Egyptians with all the plagues [every sort of 9plague] in the wilderness? Be strong, and quit yourselves like men, O ye Philistines, that ye be not servants unto the Hebrews, as they have been to you; quit 10yourselves like men and fight. And the Philistines fought, and Israel was smitten, and they fled every man to his tent [tents]; and there was a very great slaughter [the slaughter was very great], for [and] there fell of Israel thirty thousand footmen. 11And the ark of God was taken, and the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas, were slain [the two sons of Eli perished, Hophni and Phinehas.] AND 1 Samuel 4:1. Israel’s march to battle against the Philistines does not stand in pragmatical connection with the preceding words ‘ and the word of Samuel came to all Israel,’ as if this latter meant a summons to war with the Philistines (as is held by most of the older expositors, and, among the later, by Keil and O. v. Gerlach.) Rather these words conclude and sum up the description of the origin and commencement of the prophet’s work and of his announcement of the word of the Lord. We are now introduced immediately to the scene of the history, on which Samuel will henceforth appear as the Lord’s instrument, a position he has reached by the call in 1 Samuel 3:1 to 1 Samuel 4:1 a. The narrative sets us straightway into the midst of Israel’s conflict with the Philistines. That the latter were now already in the land is assumed in the narrative, since not only is nothing said of an incursion by them, but the expression “ the Israelites went out against the Philistines” in connection with the succeeding statement of the place of encampment points to the fact that the Philistines had already possessed themselves of the land. In support of the view that Samuel summoned the Israelites to war Clericus remarks that he did it in God’s name, that they might be punished by a defeat; but this is inconsistent with the divine justice. The pressure of the Philistine yoke, under which Israel groaned, was already a punishment from God. If this defeat also is so regarded, it can be only on the supposition that the Israelites hazarded this battle not by God’s will, and therefore without a summons by Samuel. The name of the Israelitish camp, Ebenezer, is here given by anticipation, its origin being related in 1 Samuel 7:12, on the occasion of the victory of the Israelites over the Philistines, twenty years after this defeat. According to 1 Samuel 7:12 it was near Mizpeh in Benjamin, Joshua 18:26; from which we must distinguish the Mizpeh in the lowland of Judah, Joshua 15:38. Aphek cannot have been far from this, and is therefore “perhaps the same place with the Canaanitish royal city Aphek (Joshua 12:18), and decidedly a different place from the Aphekah in the hill-country of Judah (Joshua 15:53); for the latter lay south or southeast of Jerusalem, since, according to Josh. loc. cit., it was one of the cities which lay in the neighborhood of Gibeon.” (Keil)—In 1 Samuel 4:2 an orderly battle-array on both sides is described. The εַ ?ϊִּ ?θּ ?ωׁ does not describe the spreading of the tumult of battle (as is clear from the following statement that the Israelites were beaten in the line of battle, and thence made an orderly retreat to their camp), but the sudden mutual assault of the opposing lines (Vulg.: inito proelio). It is said: “Israel was smitten before the Philistines,” with reference to the local relation and the victorious superiority of the Philistines, but at the same time in respect of God’s punishing hand which therein showed itself, as is expressly declared in In 1 Samuel 4:3. The Israelites lost in the battle—“in the field,” that is, in the plain, about 4000 men. 1 Samuel 4:3. After the return to the camp, it is assumed as a fact in the ensuing deliberation of the elders, that God had smitten them before the Philistines, and the cause is discussed. The whole people here appears as a unit, which is represented by the elders.—The ark here spoken of is no other than the Mosaic, the symbol of God’s presence with His people, the place of His revelation to them. Cf. Exodus 25:16-22. When the Israelites say: “ We will fetch the ark of the Lord out of Shiloh unto us, and it shall come into our midst and save us from our enemies,” they assume that the Lord and the ark are inseparably connected, and that they can obtain His help against the foe, (of which they recognize their need), only by taking the ark along with them into battle. They connected the expected help essentially with the material vessel, instead of bowing in living, pure faith before the Lord, of whose revealing presence it was only a symbol, and crying to Him for His help. This is a heathenish feature in the religious life of the Israelites, and shows that their faith was obscured by superstition, there being no trace here of earnest self-examination with the question whether the cause of the defeat might not lie in God’s holiness and justice thus revealing itself against their sins. Grotius therefore well remarks: “ It is in vain that they trust in God, when they are not purged from their sins.”1 Samuel 4:4. Jehovah as covenant-God is more precisely designated in a twofold manner, corresponding to the situation, in which the Israelites desire His almighty help, which they think to be externally connected with the ark. As Jehovah Sabaoth He is the almighty ruler and commander of the heavenly powers. As Jehovah who “ dwells above the Cherubim ” [or, “ is enthroned upon the Cherubim”—Tr.], He is the living God, the God of the completest fulness of power and life, who reveals Himself on earth in His glory, exaltedness and dominion over all the fulness of the life which has been called into existence by Him as Creator. The designation of God, “ enthroned on the Cherubim,” is never found except in relation to the ark, which is conceived of as the throne of the covenant-God who dwells as King in the midst of His people. Comp. Hengstenberg on the Psalms 99:1. The Cherubim are not representatives of the heavenly powers, since they are, as to form, made up of elements of the living, animate, earthly creation which culminates in man. Representing this, they set forth, in their position on the ark, the ruling might and majesty of the living God, as it is revealed over the manifoldness of the highest and completest life of the animate creation. In these two designations of God, then, reference is had to the glory and dominion of God, which embraces and high-exceeds all creaturely life in heaven and on earth, and whose saving interposition the Israelites made dependent on the presence of the ark. In sharpest contrast to this indication of God’s loftiness and majesty stands the mention of the two priests Hophni and Phinehas, whose worthlessness has been before set forth, and who represent the whole of the moral corruption and sham religious life of the people. They brought the ark. Berlenburger Bibel: “taking the matter into their own hands, without consulting the Lord, and also without example, that what was testified of Hophni and Phinehas, 1 Samuel 2:24, might be fulfilled.” The loud exulting cry of the people in the camp (1 Samuel 4:5) was the expression of the joyful conviction that, now that the ark was with them in battle, victory would not fail. Probably this confidence was strengthened by the recollection of former glorious victories, gained under the presence of the ark in battle. 1 Samuel 4:6-9. And the Philistines heard, 1 Samuel 4:6 sqq. The Philistines’ camp was so near that of the Israelites that they could hear the latter’s shout of joy. For this reason the Aphek, near which the Philistines now had their camp, cannot have been the Aphekah in the hill-country of Judah (Joshua 15:53), which was south orsoutheast of Jerusalem, while, on the contrary, the Mizpah, near which we must put Ebenezer, was about four [English] miles northwest of Jerusalem. Noteworthy is here the lively, distinct description of the contrasted tone of the Philistines, the psychological truth of which, in the transition of feeling from consternation to fear, from fear to despair, and from despair to encouragement was most strikingly confirmed. The victors must have been at first astonished and dismayed by the shout of joy of the vanquished. Their astonishment then must have turned into fear and terror, when they learned through scouts that “the ark of the Lord” had come into the camp of the Israelites. First, from their heathen stand-point, to which, as we have seen, that of the Israelites here approached very near, they saw therein the actual presence of the God of the Hebrews. “ As all heathen feared to a certain extent the power of the gods of other nations, so also the Philistines feared the power of the god of the Israelites, and the more, that the fame of his deeds in former times had come to their ears.” (Keil.) Further, they look from this dreaded god at the supposed dangerous position in which they now suddenly find themselves in contrast with their preceding success. As certainly as the Israelites see their victory in the ark of the Lord, so vividly do the Philistines, with the cry “ woe to us!” conceive the defeat which the god of the Israelites will prepare for them. They even fall into despair. The thought of a possible averting of the threatened danger turns into a picturing of the invincibility of the God of the Israelites, and the impossibility of deliverance from him. The predicate “mighty” (ΰַ ?γּ ?ιψִ ?ιξ) stands with elohim in the Plu. and not in the Sing., because here the polytheistic view of heathendom is set forth. Calvin: “ It is not strange that they say ‘ gods’ in the plural, for unbelievers ever feign many gods. Therefore this is the speech of unbelieving men, ignorant of the truth. Though the Hebrew word is often used in the Scripture in the plural of the true and only God, yet in this case the attached adjectives and verbs are always in the Sing.” “ ΰֶ ?μδִ ?ιּ ?ν (Elohim) is only used very frequently and purposely with the Plu., where polytheism or idolatry is meant, Exodus 30:11; Exodus 30:4; Exodus 30:8, 1 Kings 12:29, or a visible spirit (God), 1 Samuel 28:13, or where heathen speak or are spoken to, Genesis 10:13” (Ew. Gr. § 318 a). The fear and despair of the Philistines were founded on the revelation of the irresistible power of this God in the history of the deliverance of the people of Israel out of Egypt. The acquaintance of the heathen nations with the wonderful demonstrations of the power of the God of Israel in this His deliverance was wide-spread. As this deliverance from Egypt was engraved indelibly in the religious consciousness of Israel, and is very often cited in the Old Testament as a type of all mighty self-revelations of God for the salvation of His people, so it was to the surrounding heathen nations the frightful instance of the invincible power of the God of Israel. This is stated, for example, in Exodus 15:14 sq. in reference to the Philistines: “The nations heard, they quaked, fear seized the inhabitants of Philistia,” and in Joshua 2:10 sq. “ We have heard how Jehovah dried up the water of the Red Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt . …, and when we heard it, our hearts melted, and there remained no longer courage in any man, because of you.”—With every kind of plague in the wilderness.—As the “every kind of plague” can only refer to the plagues inflicted by God on Egypt before the exodus of Israel, and the “in the wilderness,” which can mean only the catastrophe in the Red Sea, does not agree with this, Sept. and Syriac have inserted “and” before “in the wilderness;” and Bunsen accepts this as probable, in order to refer the “and in the wilderness” to the destruction in the Red Sea. Against this Bφttcher rightly remarks: “the wherewith and the where of two actions are not usually so connected by and.” So against Ewald’s expedient, to insert “in their land” before “and in the wilderness,” Bφttcher excellently says, that this would be very tame and flat, that there was no occasion for the supposed omission, and that the expression “ with every kind of plague” cannot in any case suit the destruction in the Red Sea, even if the word ξַ ?λָּ ?δ “blow” should be applied to the downfall of the army. Bφttcher proposes to remove the difficulty by two insertions, of “and ” before “in the wilderness,” and after the latter phrase some expression of a greater demonstration of power, as “destroyed them” (δֶ ?ΰֶ ?αִ ?ιγεּ ?δεּ) from Deuteronomy 11:4, but this is too bold. Over against such arbitrary additions to the difficult text, it is by no means a “worthless expedient,” as Thenius calls it, if we suppose that the narrator represents the Philistines as expressing their incorrect and confused view, which corresponds also psychologically with the excitement and precipitation with which they here speak. There is a sort of zeugma here, the recollections of two facts, the plagues and the destruction in the Red Sea, being combined into one expression, whence results a statement in itself incorrect. Keil thinks that, according to the view of the Philistines, all God’s miracles for the deliverance of Israel were wrought in the wilderness, because Israel had dwelt in the land of Goshen on the border of the wilderness; but the phrase“ in the wilderness” is against this. A confusion of view in the Philistines, and an exact relation of it by the narrator may be the more readily assumed, because, on the one hand, the Philistines were not investigators of history, and from their heathen stand-point, had no interest in an exact statement of those remote miracles of God for Israel, and, on the other hand, for these words of the Philistines the narrator had [possibly] before him a lyriclike song of real lamentation, as the Philistines then uttered it; just as, on the Israelitish side, he had similar bits of poetry in David’s lament over Jonathan, and in the song of the women on David’s victory. In 1 Samuel 4:9 the tone of fear, of despair, which had hitherto shown itself, suddenly, and without cause, turns to the opposite. Clericus’ insertion, “others said,” is, certainly, inadmissible; but, from the context, it hardly admits of doubt, that here different speakers from the former are introduced, that now the leaders enter, and, with encouraging words, urge the terrified body of the army to bold struggle. The repeated “be men!” is set over against the twofold expression of despondency “woe to us!” The “be strong—fight!” is directed against the “who will save us?” The reference to the disgrace, which subjection would bring on the Philistines as servants of the Israelites, is based on the pride of the people, and its force is strengthened by reference to the dependency, on the other hand, of the Israelites on them. Comp. Judges 13:1. It is a martial, curt, energetic word, which is in striking contrast with the wide lamentation just heard, and therefore cannot have come from the same mouth as that. The false, secure, superstitious reliance of the Israelites on the present ark, their advance to battle not in the fear of the Lord and in proper trust in Him, and the newly-kindled courage of the Philistines resulted in terrible defeat of the former; the defeat was very great, especially in comparison with the first, in which 4000 fell. The result of the battle was 1) for the Israelitish army a complete dispersion (“every man fled to his tents”) with the terrific loss of 30,000 footmen (the Israelitish army consisted at this time of footmen only); 2) for the ark, its capture by the Philistines, and 3) for the sons of Eli, death. Thus a terrible divine judgment was executed on Israel and its whole religious system, dead, as it was, and void of the presence of the living God. The priesthood was judged in its unworthy representatives; the loss of the ark to the heathen was the sign that the living God does not bind His presence to a dead thing, and withdraws its helpfulness and blessings where covenant-faithfulness to Him is wanting; the mighty army was destroyed, because it had not the living, Almighty God as leader and protector, and He gave Israel, as a punishment of their degeneracy, into the power of the enemy. AND 1.The Tabernacle was, according to the divine arrangement, to be the consecrated place, where the covenant-God, dwelling among His people, would be enthroned in the revelation of His holiness, mercy and majesty; according to its designation, it was “the place where God met with the people.” It contravened, therefore, this sacred ordination of God, that Israel should without authority separate the sacred tent and the ark that belonged to it, and drag the latter into the tumult of battle, under the superstitious impression that, removed from the quiet holy place where the people assembled, and where they met with God, it would secure the mighty intervention of God. Thereby was God’s holy method of meeting with His people disturbed and destroyed. For the space outside the Holy Place and the Most Holy was the appointed place where the people assembled and drew near to God through the priesthood; and the place of the priests, symbolizing their mediating office, was between the court and the Most Holy Place; and the Most Holy Place, symbolizing God’s dwelling enthroned amid His people, did this for the whole sanctuary and for the theocratic people only through “the ark of the covenant or of the testimony,” and through its symbolic representation of God’s gracious presence; and therefore the removal of the ark of God from this consecrated place, and its separation from what was intimately connected with it by the idea of the indwelling of God in His people and their meeting together, not only stripped the Holy of Holies of its holy meaning, but also destroyed the whole order and comprehensive aim of the sanctuary. According to this divine order and aim, the people were here to draw near to their God. The people here, on the contrary, demand that God shall come to His people with His help, while they have not approached Him with penitence and humility, with prayer and sacrifice. Herein is set forth the deepest inward corruption of the priestly office, which not only did not prevent, but positively permitted such, an inversion of the theocratic order. 2. The ark, as the most essential part of the sanctuary, whose signification as “dwelling of God” it alone fully expressed, was the symbol of God’s presence with His people in the chief aspects of His self-revelation as covenant-God: first in His holiness and justice, the testimony of which in the covenant-record of the Law as the revelation of the holy and righteous will of God to His people, formed the content of the ark; secondly, in His grace and mercy, indicated by its cover, the kapporeth [mercy-seat], as the symbol of God’s merciful love, which covered the sin of His penitent people; and thirdly, in His royal majesty and glory, whose consoling and terrifying presence over the cover of the ark was symbolized by the cherubic forms. These forms are to be regarded, not as a symbolical representation of real personal existences of a higher spirit-world (Kurtz, Keil), but, both in the simpler shape in which the human form is the prominent and governing one (Exodus 25), and in the more elaborate composite form, as in Ezekiel (1 Samuel 1), as the symbolical representation of the majesty of God (presented in full glory to the covenant-people), as it is set forth in the completest creaturely life of the earthly creation. The people of Israel, evil-counselled by their elders (1 Samuel 4:3), uncounselled by their high-priest, perverted now the saving covenant-order symbolized by the ark thus constituted, in that, by the external conveyance of the ark into the battle, they severed the mighty unfolding of God’s majesty and glory against His enemies and His saving presence from the ethical condition necessary on their part—that is, in that they did not observe covenant-fidelity in obedience to the law of God, nor sought His grace and mercy in sincere penitence, but rather, in fleshly security and in dead, superstitiously degenerate religious service, deluded themselves into believing that God’s presence would secure protection and help without the moral condition of obedience to His holy will, without penitent approach to Him, and without free appropriation of His offered grace, and that it was, in its essence and working, connected with the sensely and natural. This was in open contradiction to the fundamental view of the religion of Israel, by which the idea that God dwelt above the ark amid His people in a sensely way was excluded. 3. The unauthorized, self-determined inversion of the holy order, in which is founded the fellowship of God with man and of man with God, is followed by the opposing manifestation of God’s punitive justice. It does not suffice to see and confess, like the elders of Israel, under the pain of self-incurred misfortune and misery, the revelation therein of the smiting hand of the almighty God; but there must be joined with this the penitent, sorrowful recognition of our own sin as its cause, and the penitent seeking after God’s mercy and help, of which there is no trace in the people and their elders. He who does not, by penitence, living trust in His mercy and obedience, make himself absolutely dependent on God and subject to Him, comes by his own fault into this inverted relation to Him, that he seeks to make Him, the holy and righteous God, subject to himself, and to secure His helping grace according to His own perverse will. Theodoret says in Qu�st. in I. Reg. Interrog. X.: “By the loss of the ark God taught the Hebrews that they could rely on His providence only when they lived obedient to His law, and when they transgressed His law, could rely neither on Him nor on the sacred ark.”—Berl. Bibel on 1 Samuel 4:2 : “The elders were right in recognizing the fact that the Lord had smitten them (Amos 3:6). But they were arch-hypocrites in that they did not lay the blame on themselves, and make a resolution to cleanse themselves from sin and idolatry (1 Samuel 7:3-4), and turn to the Lord in downright earnest and with the whole heart, but only counselled to carry the ark of the covenant into battle, put their trust in the outward, and so directed the people. If only the ark were with them, thought they, the Lord must help them. Very differently did David, and in his deep need would hold directly on the Lord; therefore he had the ark of the Lord carried back into Jerusalem (2 Samuel 15:24 seq.). But they had to learn also that, as they had let obedience to the Lord go, so the Lord would let these outward signs go, with which He was not so much concerned as with obedience.—Out of God we seek in vain for help; nothing can protect us against His wrath. We must give ourselves up to Him, and that is the best means of quieting His anger. And we must so give ourselves up to Him, that we do not once think of trying to quiet His anger.” 4. There is a merely fleshly natural joy in the external affairs and ordinances of religious life and service, in that we think of and use these, not as means of glorifying God and furthering His honor, but as means of satisfying vain desires, selfish wishes and earthly-human ends. The Lord punishes such pretence, not only by thwarting these ends, but by sending the opposite, privation and distress, and even taking away the outward supports and forms of hypocritical godliness and piety, as the ark was taken from the Israelites by the Philistines. “He who has, to him shall be given; and he that has not, from him shall be taken what he has.” [Wordsworth refers, for a similar state of things, to Jeremiah 7:4 sq.—Tr.] 5. It is one of the weightiest laws in the Kingdom of God, that when His people, who profess His name, do not show covenant-fidelity in faith and obedience, but, under cover of merely external piety, serve Him in appearance only, being in heart and life far from Him, He gives them up for punishment to the world, before which they have not magnified the honor of His name, but have covered it with reproach. AND 1 Samuel 4:1-2. Berlenb. Bible: Israel smitten before the Philistines, is to-day also the spectacle presented by the condition of God’s people. The enemies of the Divine name, the hostile powers of darkness have for the most part the upper hand. Anxiety about sustenance or love for earthly things everywhere plays the master, and even the best Israelites are thereby overcome and made to fall.—Starke: It is indeed not wrong to defend ourselves against the enemy who attacks us; but such defense must be undertaken in true penitence, that we may have a reconciled God and His assistance. 1 Samuel 4:3-4. Starke: In the punishments of God men seldom think of their sins committed, but only of outward means of turning away the punishments, Deuteronomy 26:18; Psalms 78:56-62. Schmid: Hypocrites leave the appointed way, and wish to prescribe to God how He shall help them. [1 Samuel 4:3. Failure in religious enterprises, as in efforts to evangelize a particular community, or in some field of home or foreign missions. We are prone to see only the external causes of such failure, instead of perceiving and lamenting our lack of devotion and spirituality, and to ask, as if surprised or complaining, “Wherefore has the Lord smitten us before the Philistines?” And in seeking remedies, we are apt merely to hunt out striking novelties in outward agencies, instead of forsaking our sins and crying for God’s mercy and help. Such novelties may be employed, provided a) they are lawful in themselves, and b) we do not take it for granted they will be accompanied by God’s presence and blessing. 1 Samuel 4:4. The tabernacle and its leading contents, 1) as symbols of God’s manifested presence, His majesty, justice, and mercy, and of the need of purification, sacrifice, and priestly intercession in approaching Him; and 2) as foreshadowing the incarnation of God’s Son, and His work of atonement and intercession.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 4:5. Osiander: So joyful are the ungodly in their carnal security that they let themselves dream of a happy issue, while yet they do not think of repentance and reformation of life. [Hall: Those that regarded not the God of the ark, think themselves safe and happy in the ark of God.—Tr.].—Berlenb. Bible: The holiest things and the most precious institutions of the Lord may, as we here see, be most horribly misused contrary to God’s intention, and bring on men the utmost ruin, if they are not handled and read in a holy way and according to the will of God. How clearly is here depicted that false confidence of hypocritical Christians, which they place in outward signs, yea, in Christ Himself, without true repentance and reformation of life. 1 Samuel 4:7-8. Schmid: Even the mere rumor of God and of His works fills the ungodly with fear; how much more God’s written Word. God convinces even unbelievers of His majesty, that they may have no excuse, Romans 1:20. 1 Samuel 4:9. Starke: O ye children of God, do learn here by the example of the Philistines, that as they encourage one another for the conflict against God’s people, you, on the contrary, may encourage yourselves for the conflict against the children of Satan, Ephesians 6:10 sq.—Schmid: So desperately wicked is the human heart, that it opposes itself to God in perfect desperation rather than submit itself to Him in repentance. 1 Samuel 4:10-11. Starke: When the ungodly have filled up the measure of their sins, God’s anger and punishment is sure to strike them.—Schmid: When unbelievers show themselves so brave that it appears as if they had overcome God and His people, they gain nothing by it except that they at least experience God’s heavy vengeance.—Wuertemberg Bible: The outward signs of God’s grace are to the impenitent utterly unprofitable, Jeremiah 7:4-5.—Tuebingen Bible: God often punishes a people by taking away the candlestick of His word from its place, Revelation 2:5.—Schlier: The Lord’s arm would first chastise the secure and presumptuous people, before help could be given; the blows of the Philistines were the Lord’s rods of chastening. But there also was help near to those who would only open their eyes, for the Lord’s chastisements are meant to be unto salvation. And Israel was soon to be able to see that with their eyes. The Lord had chastised His people; but they were not to despair or to perish.—[Hall: The two sons of Eli, which had helped to corrupt their brethren, die by the hands of the uncircumcised, and are now too late separated from the ark of God by Philistines, which should have been before separated by their father. They had lived formerly to bring God’s altar into contempt, and now live to carry His ark into captivity; and at last, as those that had made up the measure of their wickedness, are slain in their sin.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 4:1. The LXX here insert: “and it came to pass in those days that the Philistines gathered themselves together against Israel to battle,” a natural introduction which we should expect in this place, but for that very reason suspicious, since it might easily be added by a copyist to fill out our brief and abrupt text. It is not unlikely, as Bib. Comm. suggests, that the account is taken from a fuller narrative, and is introduced here chiefly to set forth the fulfillment of the prophecy against Eli’s house, that is, from the theocratic-prophetic point of view. See Erdmann’s Introduction to this Comm. § 4. The Vulg. here agrees with the Sept., the other vss. with the Hebrew.—Tr.] [Two articles as in John 3:14; 2 Samuel 24:5, to give prominence to each word.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:2. Chald.: “The combatants spread themselves out,” Syr.: “there was a battle,” Sept.: ἔκλινενὁπόλεμος “the battle turned (against Isr.),” Vulg.: inito certamine, Erdmann: “der Kampf ging los.” The stem βθωׁ means “to put away, scatter;” here literally “the battle spread out,” of which the rendering in Eng. A. V. is probably a fair equivalent. Thenius suggests that the Sept. read εַ ?ϊָּ ?ξָ ?ωׁ, but Abarbanel also renders the verb by ςζα “leave,” as if the defeat of the Israelites was referred to.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:3. Sept. omits “covenant,” and had a different text from ours, but it has no claim to reception.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:4. Sept. καθημένουχερουβίμ, Chald. and Syr. “on” (as in 2 Samuel 22:11), Vulg. “super.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:4. Sept. omits “there” and thus gives a very good sense; Vulg. supports Sept., and Heb. is supported by Ch. and Syr. Wellhausen thinks the word was inserted from 1 Samuel 1:3.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:5. or “shook.” So Erdmann: erbebte.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:7. The Chald., to avoid seeming irreverence, has “the ark of God is come.” The text of Sept. is here very bad.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:8. To avoid the historical difficulty here LXX. and Syr. insert “and” and Chald. “and to his people wonders” before “in the wilderness .” See Exeg. Notes in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:10. Ch. “cities.”—Tr.] [On the chronology see Trans.’s note on p. 54. The dates are difficult, but the first battle of Ebenezer may be put approximately B. C. 1100. about the time of Samson’s death, when Samuel was about 20 (or perhaps 30) years old. The third battle of Ebenezer (1 Samuel 7) falls about 1080.—Tr.] [Mr. Grove (in Smith’s Diet, of the Bible) thinks it likely that the Aphek is the same as that mentioned in 1 Samuel 29:1, and different from the places mentioned in Joshua 12, 15, but not far from Jerusalem on the north-west. But see on 1 Samuel 29:1.—Tr.] [This fact is not involved in the word before, which belongs to the common formula for a defeat, but is a part of the religious belief of the Israelites.—Tr.] [It was the army that hero acted, rather than the people in a political capacity; but the word “people” perhaps points to the absence of a regular army.—Tr.] [Neby Samwil, which is identified hy Robinson with Mizpah, is about five miles from Jerusalem. Bonar and Stanley prefer Scopus (about a mile from Jerusalem), as the site, and this view is favored by Mr. Grove. Smith’s Bib. Dict. s. v. Mizpah.—Tr.] [And, therefore, it should be rendered plural,—“mighty gods,” and not, as Erdmann in his translation, dieses mδchtigen Gottes, “this mighty god.” Tr.] [But see Genesis 1:26; Genesis 11:7; Genesis 20:13, 2 Samuel 7:22, Ps. 58:12, where the renderings “gods,” “deity,” etc., are not quite satisfactory.—Tr.] [These two battles are the first and second battles of Ebenezer; for the third, see 1 Samuel 7.—Tr.] [We must guard, however, against laying too much stress on the ceremonial, symbolical order, which David violated (1 Samuel 21) without wrong. The Israelites were punished, not because they violated symbolic logic in removing the ark from the sanctuary, but because their whole religious life was perverted and disobedient. This was only the occasion of the lesson.—Tr.] II. The Judgment on the House of Eli. 1 Samuel 4:12-2212 And there ran a man of Benjamin out of the army, and came to Shiloh the 13same day with his clothes rent, and with earth upon his head. And when [om. when] he came [ins. and] lo, Eli sat upon a [his] seat by the wayside watching; for his heart trembled for the ark of God. And when [om. when] the man came into the city and told it [came, in order to tell it in the city] [ins. and] all the city 14cried out. And when [om. when] Eli heard the noise of the crying, he [om. he, ins. and] said, What meaneth the noise of this tumult? And the man came in 15hastily [hasted and came] and told Eli. Now Eli was ninety and eight years old, 16and his eyes were dim [set] that he could not see. And the man said unto Eli, I am he that came out of the army, and I fled to-day out of the army. And he said, 17What is there done, my son? And the messenger answered and said, Israel is fled before the Philistines, and there hath been also a great slaughter among the people, and thy two sons also, Hophni and Phinehas, are dead, and the ark of God 18is taken. And it came to pass, when he made mention of the ark of God, that he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate, and his neck brake, and he died; for he was an old man [the man was old], and heavy. And he had judged 19Israel forty years. And his daughter-in-law, Phinehas’ wife, was with child, near to be delivered; and when she heard the tidings that the ark of God was taken, and that her father-in-law and her husband were dead, she bowed herself and travailed, 20for her pains came upon her. And about the time of her death the women that stood by her said, Fear not; for thou hast borne a son. But she answered 21not, neither did she regard it. And she named the child Ichabod, saying “ The glory is departed from Israel,” because the ark of God was taken, and because of 22her father-in-law and her husband. And she said, The glory is departed from Israel, for the ark of God is taken. AND 1 Samuel 4:12 sq. The persons and events of the following narrative are described with peculiar vividness, so that we may here without doubt suppose the narration to rest on the direct account of an eye-witness. A man of Benjamin.—Thenius: “ This exact statement vouches for a faithful tradition.” That he comes with mournful tidings is shown by his rent garment and the earth strown on his head, as signs of sudden deep grief, in which the heart is rent with sorrow. Comp. Genesis 37:29; Genesis 37:34; Numbers 16:6; Joshua 7:6; 2 Samuel 15:32; Ezekiel 27:30.—To Shiloh the man came straight from the army (ξַ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?λָ ?δ, Vulg. ex acie). According to the Jewish tradition this man was Saul, who snatched from Goliath the Tables of the Law, taken out of the ark, in order to save them. Instead of the ιַ ?κְ (he slew) of the text, which is unintelligible, we must read ιַ ?γ (side)1 Samuel 29 : He sat by the side of the way, watching. Thenius remarks: “ What a strange expression !” But the sitting in the way, or on the side of the way by which the first message must come, answers precisely to the intense expectation in which Eli, though blind, had taken this position, so as, if not with the eyes (which, however, had perhaps still a glimmer of light), yet with the sense of hearing to learn straightway the arrival of the first messenger. Eli sits, as in 1 Samuel 1:9 at the inner, so here at the outer gate of the Sanctuary, on his seat, and, as appears from 1 Samuel 4:18, on the side of the gate, which was also, therefore, the side of the adjacent way.—His heart was heavy, not merely “ from anxiety and care for the ark, which without divine command he had let go from its dwelling-place into the camp” (Berl. Bib.), but also in respect to the issue of the battle itself for the people of Israel.—Eli’s blindness explains the fact that he failed to observe the messenger, who ran hurriedly by without noticing him. It is the cry of lamentation, raised by the people of Shiloh at his news, that directs Eli’s attention to the announcement. His question concerning the loud outcry around him, on which the messenger came to inform him, is explained in 1 Samuel 4:15 by reference to his blindness, the result of old age.—Eli was 98 years old, and his eyes were set. (The Fem. Sing. χξδ with ςιπιε is explained, according to Ewald, § 317 a, by the abstract conception which connects itself with the Plu. of the Subst. by the combination into an abstract idea of the individuals embraced in it, “especially in lifeless objects, beasts, or in co-operating members of one body, in which the action of the individuals is not so prominent—and so in the Dual,” as here). For “were set” comp. 1 Kings 16:4, where occurs the same expression for blindness caused by old age. It is the vivid description of the lifeless, motionless appearance of the eye quenched by senile weakness, “a description of the so-called black cataract, amaurosis, which usually ensues in great old age from the feebleness of the optic nerves” (Keil, in loco). In 1 Samuel 3:2 the process of this blinding is indicated by the word λδδ as “waxing dim.” 1 Samuel 4:16 sq. The sorrowful tidings. The remark in 1 Samuel 4:15 concerning Eli’s senile weakness and blindness explains both the preceding 1 Samuel 4:14 and the statement in 1 Samuel 4:16 as to the way in which the messenger personally announces and introduces himself with the words: I am he that came out of the army.—But he says, “ I am he that came” not merely on account of Eli’s blindness, but also on account of the importance of the announcement with which he approaches the head of the whole people. It is not allowable, therefore, to translate: “I come” (De Wette). At the same time the messenger declares himself a fugitive, and so intimates that the army is completely broken up. Eli’s question refers not to the How (how stood the affair? De Wette, Bunsen), but to the What: “What was the affair?” (Thenius), Vulg.: quid actum est?—The answer of the messenger to Eli’s question (1 Samuel 4:17) contains nothing but facts in a fourfold grade, each statement more dreadful than the preceding. There is a power in these words which comes out in four sharp sentences, with blow after blow, till its force is crushing: Israel fleeing before the Philistines, a great slaughter among the people, Eli’s sons dead, the ark taken. The double “and also” (εβν) is to be observed here as characteristic of the lapidary style of the words, and the excitement with which they were spoken.—The narrator remarks expressly that the fourth blow, the news of the capture of the ark by the heathen, led to Eli’s death. This is again a sign of the fear of God, which was deeply rooted in his heart; the ark represented the honor and glory of the God who dwelt in His people; the people’s honor and power might perish; the destruction of his house might be irretardable, unavoidable; prepared beforehand for it, he had said: “ It is the Lord, let him do as seemeth him good !” But the loss of the ark to the heathen was his death-blow the more surely, the firmer had been his hope that, as of old in the time of Moses and Joshua, the host of Israel would win the victory over the Philistines under the lead of the ark which he, a weak guardian of the Sacred Vessel, had sent off to the battle without Divine command, weakly yielding to the elders of the people whose trust was not in the living God. His judicial and high-priestly office, lacking as it was in honor and renown, he closed with honor; though the manner of his death was terrible, and bore the mark of a divine judgment, he nevertheless died in the fear of God. Berl. Bib.: “It is besides an honorable and glorious death to die from care for God’s honor.” His judgeship had lasted 40 years. The Sept. reading, 20 years for 40, results, according to Thenius, from the confusion of the numeral letters ξ and λ, as the reading 78 (Syr., Arab.) for 98 in 1 Samuel 4:15, according to the same critic, may be due to the confusion of φ and ς. Further, our text “ is sustained by the fact that Eli hardly became Judge in his 78th year" (Thenius). 1 Samuel 4:19 sq. Here follows the pathetic narrative of Eli’s daughter-in-law, in which is shown how the judgment on Eli’s house is still farther fulfilled in his family. The wife of Phinehas was so violently affected by the horror and sorrow that her pains came prematurely on her. Literally it reads: “ her pains turned upon her,” or “ began to turn themselves within her.” This expression is suggested by the ground-meaning of the word (φִ ?ιψִ ?ιν), “something turning, winding, circling.” 1 Samuel 4:20. The comforting word of the women who stood by: “ thou hast borne a son ” does not rouse the mother’s joy in her heart, and cannot overcome or soften its sorrow at the loss of the ark, which is more to her than the loss of husband and father-in-law—and this is set forth by two expressions in the narration: “ she gave no answer, and laid it not to heart,” did not set her mind on it. Comp. Psalms 62:11 ωׂ ?εּ ?νμֵ ?α. What is commonly for a mother’s heart at such a time the greatest joy (John 16:21), was for her as if it were not; so is her soul occupied and taken up with sorrow for the lost ark. This shows the earnest, sincere piety, in which she is like her father-in-law. Eli’s house, made ripe by his weakness for so frightful a judgment, was not in all its members personally a partaker of the godlessness and immorality of those who certainly, before the Lord and the whole nation, stamped it as ripe for God’s righteous punishment. “ The wife of this deeply corrupt man shows how penetrated the whole people then was with the sense of the value of its covenant with God ” (O. v. Gerlach).1 Samuel 4:21. She gives expression to what fills her heart by naming the child Ichabod. This name is not ” where is glory?” (ΰֵ ?ιλΧ) that is, nowhere, but it = “not glory.” She explains the name Not-glory, Un-glory by saying (μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ): “the glory of Israel is carried into captivity.” (The ΰֵ ?μ, as in verse 19, is “ in reference to,” “ having regard to,” and belongs to μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ as the continuation of the words of the narrator, not of the dying woman). The narrator has in mind her words, on which she based that ejaculation, but does not state them as hers till afterwards; here he states beforehand the fact contained in them as a historical explanation. We must note, however, the difference between his explanation and her reason for that exclamation in 1 Samuel 4:22. While he mentions the reference (ΰֶ ?μ) to the two dead, she bases the name (λִּ ?ι) on the one thing only, the capture of the ark. The honor or glory is the divine majesty, the glory of God, which is enthroned above the ark. Grotius: “ The ark above which God was accustomed to appear in glory.” With the capture of the ark “Israel’s glory is carried into captivity;” “with the abandonment of the earthly throne of His glory, the Lord seemed to have annulled His covenant of grace with Israel; for the ark, with the tables of the law and the kapporeth [mercy-seat], was the visible pledge of the covenant of grace which Jehovah had made with Israel” (Keil). Eli’s son’s wife dies, as Eli himself, in consuming sorrow over what was the core of this national and domestic misfortune, over the judgment of the turning away of the almighty living God from the covenant-people, the outward sign of which was the removal of the ark, on which, in accordance with His promise given in the law, He would sit as Israel’s God and dwell in the midst of His people. Comp. Exodus 25:22; Exodus 30:6; Exodus 30:36; Exodus 40:35 (“the glory of the Lord filled the dwelling”), 1 Kings 8:10-11. [Bib. Comm. refers to Psalms 78:61; Psalms 78:64 as containing allusions to this incident. Wordsworth: “With God there is no Ichabod.”—Tr.] “The necessary result of this national view of the ark is that there was only one sanctuary, so that all those passages which affirm it may be cited as direct testimony to the fact that there was only one sanctuary.” (Hengst. Beit. [Contrib.] 3:55.) AND 1. In the history of His kingdom on earth God the Lord often permits times to come, when it seems as if the victory had been forever borne away from His people by the hostile world, and the holy ordinances of His kingdom, and its gracious benefits forever abandoned to the power of unbelief. Such times are times of judgment on the house of the Lord, the purpose of which is to make manifest all who truly belong to the Lord’s people, to put an end to the hypocrisy of dead belief and of the unbelief which is concealed under outward forms and the appearance of godliness, to lead to earnest, honest repentance, and bring men to seek again God’s mercy in true living faith. 2. Outcry over inbreaking outward and inward corruption, in which God’s judgments are inflicted, is nothing but an expression of the sorrow which flesh and blood feels, a sign of the distance and alienation of the fleshly heart from God, unless therein the cry is heard: “It is the Lord, this the Lord hath done,” and the confession is made: “We have deserved it by our sins,” and unless recourse is had in penitence and faith to God’s grace and mercy. And all this was lacking in the outcry of that whole city and its loud tumult. 3. “Being in God”—that is, the union of the heart with Him in the deepest foundation of its being, reveals itself in times of great misfortune and suffering in this, that the sorrow and mourning is not restricted to the loss of earthly-human possessions, but directs itself chiefly to the loss and lack of God’s gracious presence, and thus shows that for the inner life the glory of God and blessedness in communion with Him is become the highest good. So here in this refraining from grief over the loss of what to the flesh was the nearest and dearest, and in the outspoken sorrow only over the violence done to God’s honor and the contempt cast on His name, is verified the Lord’s word: “He who forsaketh not father or mother, or brother, etc., is not worthy of me.” 4. Eli and his son’s wife are shining examples of true heartfelt piety in the gloom of the corruption that reigned in the high-priestly family and the judgments that came on it, in that they are not taken up with their own interests, but bewail the violation of the sanctuary, the contempt put on God’s honor as the highest misfortune; and so in times of universal confusion and degradation which God the Lord lets befall His kingdom in this world, He has always His people in secret, who look not on their own need and tribulation as most to be lamented, but sorrow most deeply and heavily that the ends of His grace are thwarted, the honor of His name violated, and the affairs of His kingdom in confusion. 5. Even a sudden terrible death under the stroke of a merited judgment of God may be a blessed death in the living God, if the heart breaks with the cry: “To God alone the glory!” AND 1 Samuel 4:12. The outward signs of mourning, such as were usual among the people of Israel—rending the garments and putting ashes or dust on the head—ought to be a symbolical representation of godly sorrow for sin, in which the heart is broken to pieces by the word of the holy and righteous God, and the whole man casts himself humbly and penitently into the dust before his God. [Very fanciful.—Tr.] But, as then under the oppression of Philistine rule in Israel, there is nowhere a trace to be found of such repentance, when the misfortune over which men mourn and lament is not regarded and felt as a punishment of God for sin, and the smiling hand of the righteous and holy God is not therein recognized. 1 Samuel 4:13. S. Schmid: We must take care not to do any thing with a doubtful conscience, that we may not have always to stand in fear, Romans 16:23.—Those who will not cry out over their sins in true repentance must at last cry out over the punishment and their misfortune. 1 Samuel 4:17-18. Starke: When men sin without distinction, God also punishes without distinction, and regards no person, dignity, age, nor condition, Wis 6:7.—S. Schmid: The honor of God and the true service of God must lie more on our hearts than our own children and parents.—Berl. Bible: It is a wonderful thing that whereas the people were so powerful and had gained so many victories, as long as God protected them, they now fly and let themselves be overcome almost without a struggle, as soon as ever God ceases to be on their side. If God protects us in a special way, we are a match for our enemies; but if He leaves us only for a little to ourselves, into what weaknesses do we not then fall! So that we unite with our enemies in contributing much to our downfall.—We must, however, regard it as an effect of God’s compassion when He permits us to be smitten. For if this did not happen, we should not sufficiently recognize our weakness, and our great need of His assistance.—It is an honorable and glorious death to die from concern for the honor of God. 1 Samuel 4:21-22. Berleb. Bible: As soon as we lose this presence (God’s), we fall into the utmost weakness and into powerlessness, so that we can no more do what we have done before. We also cease to be a terror to our enemies; for these, on the contrary, now rejoice over our defeat.—Wunderlich (in Daechsel): So prevalent in Israel was a regard for the glory of God, which streamed down upon the people, so deeply implanted was the theocratic national consciousness that a woman in travail forgot her pains, and a dying woman the terrors of death, a mother did not comfort herself in her new-born son, and sorrow for the lost jewel of the nation outweighed even sorrow for the death of a father and of a husband, and this in a family and in a period which must be regarded as degenerate. 1 Samuel 4:12-22. A terrible and yet an honorable end—if 1) With the humble confession “ It is the Lord ” the hand of God as it smites down is held back; 2) In complete unselfishness one’s own misfortune and ruin is quite forgotten over the shame brought upon the honor and the name of God; and 3) The hidden man of the heart, with all his striving, turns himself alone towards the honor and glory of God as his supreme good.—The defeats of God’s people in the conflict with the world which is hostile to His kingdom. 1) Their causes: a) on their side: unfaithfulness towards the Lord, arbitrary, self-willed entrance into the strife without God, cowardice and flight; b) on God’s side: punitive justice, abandonment to the hands of their enemies. 2 Their necessary consequences: deep hurt to the yet remaining life of faith, injury to the honor of God, and shame brought upon His glorious name. 3) The results contemplated by God in permitting them, or their design: sincere repentance, all the more zealous care for the Lord’s honor, glorifying His name so much the more.—Without honor to God no honor to the people: 1) In the inner life of the people—error and heterodoxy, where the light of His revealed truth does not shine, sin and unrighteousness, where there is a lack of faithful obedience to His holy will, spiritual-moral wretchedness and ruin, where God must withdraw His gracious presence; 2) In the outer life of the people in relation to other peoples, oppression and subjection, introduction from without of godlessness and immorality, loss of their good name.—The cry, Ichabod, the glory is departed from Israel, is a cry which 1) as a lamenting cry, is grounded in the proper recognition of the cause, greatness and significance of the ruin and wretchedness which come from being abandoned by God, and 2) as an awakening cry is designed to admonish to earnest repentance and returning to the Lord, that the light of His glory may again break forth out of the gloom. [1 Samuel 4:19-22. The pious wife of Phinehas. 1) Pious, though living in an age of general corruption. 2) Deeply pious, though the wife of a grossly wicked husband. 3) So pious, that in her devout grief all other strongest feelings were swallowed up: a) maternal feeling, b) conjugal and filial feeling, c) patriotic feeling.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 4:12. Instead of the Gen. construction, as here, the Heb..has more commonly the tribal name as Adj. (gentilie), as in Judges 3:15; 2 Samuel 20:1; but for ex. of this form see Judges 10:1.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:13. The Art. here points to some well-known or accustomed seat.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:13. It is generally agreed that we must here read, with the Qeri and Syr., ιγ instead of ικ, but the absence of the Art. in γψκ makes a difficulty, and the Sept. and Chald. seem to hare rendered from a slightly different text. Sept. has: “Eli was near the gate, watching the way,” and Chald.: “Eli sat in the path of the way of the gate watching.” So in 1 Samuel 4:18 the Heb. text “side of the gate.” It would seem probable, therefore, that δַ ?ωַּ ?ςַ ?ψ “the gate” has fallen out here.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:15. Sept. here gives 90 years, and Syr. (followed by Arab.) 78.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:18. Wellhausen objects to αςγιγ, rejects the ςγ as repetition by error, and reads αιγ. But this is unnecessary; comp. the ΰֵ ?μ in 2 Samuel 18:4, and the force of αςγ in Job 2:4.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:18. Sept. gives 20 years, other verss. 40.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 4:19. μַ ?ϊ for μֶ ?γֶ ?ϊ, the only place where this contraction occurs (so Rashi).—Tr.] [On the importance of “runners” see note in Bib. Comm. on this verse, which remarks also, that as the messenger came from Ebenezer within the day (1 Samuel 4:16) it must have been near.—Tr.] [See Talmudical Tract Sota, and the Midrash of Samuel, and comms. of Rashi and Abarbanel.—Tr.] [See “Textual and Grammatical” note on this word.—Tr.] [This word (λρΰ) everywhere else clearly means “throne” (unless perhaps in 1 Kings 2:19; Psalms 9:14), and comp. Zechariah 6:13. Yet, in the infrequent occurrence of any word for an ordinary seat (and see Ezekiel 28:2, ξεֹ ?ωַׁ ?αΰΧ “seat of God”), though the word seems to imply something of official dignity, the rendering throne (Josephus: ἐφ’ ὑψηλο͂υθρόνου) would here be not so good as “seat.”—Tr.] [The messenger probably entered the city by the gate where Eli was sitting.—Tr.] The μְ before μֶ ?γֶ ?ϊ=μַ ?ϊ is that of time, our towards, on, about; comp. Joshua 2:3, “the gate was for closing,” that is, was to be closed immediately; Ew. Gr. 217, 2 b. So here: towards bearing, near to bearing. On the contraction of μֶ ?γֶ ?ϊ into μַ ?ϊ comp. Ew. Gr. § 236,1 b, and § 80.—ΰֵ ?μ is often used, as here, to point out the object to which the narration relates—with the verbs “say, relate.” Comp. Genesis 20:2; Psalms 2:7; Psalms 69:27; Isaiah 38:19; Jeremiah 27:19; Job 42:7. It is explained by the fact that, in narrating or speaking, the mind is directed to the object, stands in relation to it. Comp. μִ Isaiah 5:1. That it here depends on a subst., and not, as usually, on a verb, does not affect the principle, since a verbal conception lies in this subst. [We can hardly draw a conclusion concerning the whole nation from the example of one person, and Gerlach’s inference is, for other reasons, doubtful.—Tr.] ΰִ ?ι is not ΰָ ?αִ ?ι contracted, as in ΰִ ?ιςֶ ?ζֶ ?ψ, Numbers 26:30; Ew. § 84 c, but = “not,” “without,” Ew. § 273 b, A. 1, p. 667, comp. § 209 c, to which the context points. III. The Ark and the Philistines. 1 Samuel 5:1 to 1 Samuel 7:11. The Chastisement of the Philistines for the Removal of the Ark 1 Samuel 5:1-121 And the Philistines took the ark of God, and brought it from Ebenezer unto 2Ashdod. When [And] the Philistines took the ark of God,they [and] brought 3it into the house of Dagon, and set it by Dagon. And when [om. when] they of Ashdod arose early on the morrow, [ins. and] behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the earth before the ark of the Lord [Jehovah]. And they took Dagon, and 4set him in his place again. And when [om. when] they arose early on the morrow morning,1 [ins. and] behold, Dagon was fallen upon his face to the ground [earth] before the ark of the Lord [Jehovah], and the head of Dagon and both the palms of his hands were cut off upon the threshold; only the stump of [om. the stump of] 5Dagon was left to him. Therefore neither the priests of Dagon, nor any that come into Dagon’s house, tread on the threshold of Dagon unto this day. 6But [And] the hand of the Lord [Jehovah] was heavy upon them of Ashdod, and he destroyed them, and smote them with emerods [boils], even [om. even] Ashdod 7 and the coasts thereof. And when [om. when] the men of Ashdod saw that it was so, [ins. and] they said, The ark of the God of Israel shall not abide with us, for his hand is sore upon us, and upon Dagon our god. [ins. And] they sent therefore 8[om. therefore] and gathered all the lords of the Philistines unto them, and said, What shall we do with the ark of the God of Israel? And they answered [said], Let the ark of the God of Israel be carried about [removed] unto Gath. And they carried [removed] the ark of the God of Israel about thither [om. about 9thither]. And it was so [And it came to pass] that, after they had carried it about [removed it], the hand of the Lord [Jehovah] was against the city with a very great destruction [; there was a very great consternation]; and he smote the men [people] of the city, both small and great, and they had emerods in their secret parts [and boils broke out on them]. Therefore [And] they sent the ark of God to Ekron. 10And it came to pass, as the ark of God came to Ekron, that the Ekronites cried out, saying, They have brought about [om. about] the ark of the God of Israel to 11us [me], to slay us [me] and our [my] people. So [And] they sent and gathered together all the lords of the Philistines, and said, Send away the ark of the God of Israel, and let it go again [return] to his [its] own [om. own] place, that it slay us [me] not, and our [my] people; for there was a deadly destruction [consternation] 12throughout [in] all the city; the hand of God was very heavy there. And the men that died not were smitten with the emerods [boils]; and the cry of the city went up to heaven. AND 1 Samuel 5:1-5. Jehovah’s demonstration of power against the Philistine heathenism.1 Samuel 5:1 sqq. From Ebenezer to Ashdod.—On the anticipatory use of the name Ebenezer, with reference to 1 Samuel 7:12, see 1 Samuel 4:1. Ashdod, ̓ ?́Αζωτος, one of the capital cities of the five Philistine princes (Joshua 8:3), named in 1 Samuel 6:17 as that seat of Dagon-worship, which comes first to be considered in the course of this narrative—according to Jos. Ant. V. 1, 22 a border-city of Dan; according to Joshua 15:46-47, assigned to the Tribe of Judah (Judah was to receive “from Ekron on and westward all that lay near Ashdod, and their [Ashdod’s and Ekron’s] villages”), but never really held by the Israelites, though the Philistines were at times subject to the Israelites (Joshua 13:3)—a mile from the sea, now the little village Esdud, on an elevation on the road from Jamnia to Gaza, nine miles south of Jamnia, and about thirty-two miles north of Gaza. 1 Samuel 5:2. The house of Dagon is the temple of one of the chief Philistine deities, for which there were places of worship not only in Ashdod, but also, according to Jerome on Isaiah 46:1, in the other Philistine cities; but, according to Judges 16:23 sqq., there was certainly a central sanctuary in Gaza, where, after the capture of Samson, the princes and the people assembled to hold a sacrifice and feast in honor of Dagon as the supposed bestower of their victory over Samson. Along with the male deity, a corresponding female deity was, according to Diodorus, worshipped, called by the Syrians Derceto (=Atargatis). As this idol-image had the face of a woman, and terminated below the waist in the tail of a fish, so the statue of Dagon, which in 1 Samuel 5:3-4, is expressly represented as male, had a human head and hands, and a fish-body; he is thus characterized as a marine deity, the symbol of the fruitfulness which is represented in the element of water by the fish, like the Babylonian ’Ωδάκων. Comp. Movers, Religion der Phφniz. I. 143 sq., 590 sq.; Stark, Gaza und die philistδische Kόste, Jena, 1852, p. 274 sq. The name is to be derived, not from γָּ ?βָ ?ο, “grain” (Philo Bybl. in Eus. Pr�p., pp. 26, 32, Bochart, Hieroz. I. 381, Movers in Evang. 1, 10, Sanchon., fragm. ed. Orelli, Ersch, Phφniz., p. 405 b) with Bunsen, Ewald and Diestel (Jahrb. fόr deutsche Theol., 1860, p. 726), according to which Dagon was the god of land-fruitfulness, of agriculture, but from dag γָּ ?β, “fish” (Winer, s. v.). Compare Kimchi’s reference to an old tradition: “It is said, that Dagon had the form of a fish from the navel down, and was therefore called Dagon, and the form of a man from the navel up.” Comp. J. G. Mόller in Herzog, R.-E. III. 255 sq. Thenius and Keil recognize this personage in a figure found by Layard at Khorsabad, the upper part of whose body represents a bearded man, adorned with a royal crown, the lower part of the body from the navel on running into the form of a fish bent backwards; that this is a marine deity is beyond doubt, since he is swimming in the sea and surrounded by all sorts of sea-beasts (Layard, Nineve und seine Ueberreste, Germ. ed. of Meissner, p. 424 sq. [Nineveh and its remains]). Keil rightly remarks: “As this relief, according to Layard, represents a battle between the inhabitants of the Syrian coast and an Assyrian king, probably Sargon, who had a hard struggle with the Philistine cities, especially Ashdod, it is scarcely doubtful that we here have a representation of the Philistine Dagon” (Comm. in loco).—The Philistines ascribed their victory over the Israelites to Dagon; therefore they brought the ark as votive offering to his temple, where, by its position near his statue, it was to set forth for the Philistines the subjection of the God of Israel to the power of their “god” (1 Samuel 5:7).—But the overthrow of the image, and its recumbent position on its face before the ark (—Theodoret: they saw their God showing the form of worship, τήςπροσκυνήσωςἒπιδεικνῦτατὸσχῆμα—), was to be a sign to them that the God of Israel was not the conquered, but that before Him, who had temporarily delivered Israel into the hands of their enemies, every other power must sink into the dust. They set up the statue again under the impression that the cause of the overthrow was an accidental one. But in the following night not only is the prostration of the image at the feet of the ark repeated—it is besides mutilated; the head and the hands are cut off (not “broken off”). They did not lie “towards the threshold;” it is true, this is the proper meaning of ΰֵ ?μ, but it also signifies rest, instead of movement, and is =“on,” “at;” comp. 1 Samuel 18:3; Deuteronomy 16:6; 1 Kings 8:30. From 1 Samuel 5:5 it is clear that the parts cut off lay on the threshold, and this was not only destruction, but contempt, since what lies on the threshold is exposed to be trodden on, the extremest act of contempt. “To him,” that is, to the whole represented in the image, was left only the fish-stump, since what was human in him, head and hands, was cut off. Kimchi: “Only the form of a fish was left in him.” The “threshold” is without doubt the door-sill of the chamber in which the image stood. Nothing is said directly of a divine miracle. But the matter is so represented by the narrator that we must recognize a special arrangement of the God of Israel for the exhibition of the powerlessness and nothingness of the god of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 5:5 gives an account of a ceremonial custom derived from this occurrence: the threshold of Dagon was not trodden on by his priests, etc. The “threshold” of Dagon, that is, of the place where his statue was set up, is distinguished from the house of Dagon, into which they went. This threshold was considered as made especially holy to Dagon by that occurrence, because his head and hands had lain on it. Sept.: ὐπερβαίνοντεςὑπερβαίνουσι, “ they carefully step over it.” Comp. Zephaniah 1:9. According to this passage and 1 Samuel 6:2, there was a special body of priests for the worship of Dagon. The word kohen (λֹּ ?δֵ ?ο) is used in the Old Testament also of heathen priests, Genesis 41:45. The formula “to this day” usually indicates a long time (comp. 1 Samuel 6:18; 1 Samuel 30:25; 1 Samuel 27:6; 2 Samuel 4:3; 2 Samuel 6:8; 2 Samuel 18:18), and establishes the remoteness of the narrator from the time of the occurrences described. 1 Samuel 5:6-12. God’s chastising manifestation of power against the Philistine people by plagues and sickness. 1 Samuel 5:6. The hand of the Lord is here figuratively put for God’s might and power, as it made itself felt by the Philistines in the infliction of grievous severe sufferings as chastisement for the violation of His honor. The sufferings are viewed partly as an oppressive burden, in which God’s hand is felt to be heavy (comp. 1 Samuel 5:11; 1 Samuel 6:5; Psalms 32:4; Psalms 38:2; Job 23:2), partly as a grievous blow, in which it is felt to be hard (1 Samuel 5:7, comp. Job 9:34).—In two ways the hand of the Lord was heavy on the inhabitants of Ashdod: 1) it wasted, destroyed them, and 2) it smote them with boils. The one calamity fell on their land (De Wette: wasted their land); the other was a bodily disease which extended over Ashdod and all its district. The Sept. adds to 1 Samuel 5:6 : “and mice were produced in the land, and there arose a great and deadly confusion in the city;” but this does not furnish, as Thenius maintains, “the original, though somewhat corrupt, text, which contained this statement;” rather, as a second translation of this 1 Samuel 5:6 has been wrongly inserted at the end of 1 Samuel 5:3 by a copyist of the Greek, so the second part of this addition is taken word for word from 1 Samuel 5:11, and the first had its origin in an explanation (in itself appropriate enough) of 1 Samuel 6:4 sq. For from 1 Samuel 6:4-5; 1 Samuel 6:11; 1 Samuel 6:18, where, besides the expiatory or votive offering referring to the bodily disease, a second, the golden mice, is expressly mentioned, it is clear that, in addition to the corporal plague, another, a land-plague, had fallen on the Philistines. Taking into view the passages in 1 Samuel 6 the words: “he destroyed them” (like “destruction” [desolation] in Micah 6:13, used of persons) denote a wasting of the land, that is, of the produce of the fields, as the support of human life, by mice, “which destroy the land,” 1 Samuel 6:5. There is no gap in the Heb. text; but the expression “he destroyed them” is a brief description of the universal land-plague, the nature and cause of which appears from the after mention of the votive and expiatory present brought by the Philistines. “The most prominent characteristic of the field-mouse, especially in southern countries, is its voracity and rapid increase. At times these animals multiply with frightful rapidity and suddenness, ravage the fields far and near, produce famine and pestilential diseases among the inhabitants of the land, and have not seldom forced whole nations to emigrate” (see examples, cited from Strabo, Diodorus, Aelian, Agatharchides, and others, in Bo-chart, Hieroz. III., cap. 34). Sommer, Bibl. Abhandl., p. 263. The ravaging of the land by field-mice probably stood in causal connection with the second plague, the boil-sickness.—And he smote them with ophalim (ςֳ ?τָ ?μִ ?ιν), which, from the connection, must have been a bodily disease. The points of the word belong to the Qeri tehorim (θְ ?ηֹ ?ψִ ?ιν), which was substituted for the Kethib (and in 1 Samuel 6:4-5, has even gotten into the text), because the word, which properly signifies “swelling,” “elevation,” “hill,” was supposed to designate the anus, and in its place tehorim, “posteriora,” as a more decent expression, was read. It was thence rendered: “He smote them on the anus;” and this view seemed to be supported by Psalms 78:66, where, in reference to God’s judgment on the Philistines after the removal of the ark, it is said: “And he smote his enemies ahor” (ΰָ ?ηεֹ ?ψ), which was taken in the above sense particularly from the following word “reproach;” for ex. Vulg.: “and he smote his enemies in posteriora;” Luther: “in the hinder parts” [so Eng. A. V.]. But this rendering of the Psalm-passage is incorrect; the proper translation is: “And he smote his enemies back, and put everlasting reproach on them” (Geiger, Hengstenberg, Hupfeld). The above rendering has occasioned on the part of the expositors the suggestion of various affections of the hinder part of the body; some think of diarrh�a (Ewald), others of tumors, mariscζ, chancres (Keil), others of hemorrhoids [the “emerods” of Eng. A. V.], and the like. But, apart from the fact that no definite local disease of the sort is indicated, the verb (δִ ?λָּ ?η with αְּ), as Thenius conclusively shows, never means “to strike on something” (for ex., on a part of the body), but means in this connection “to strike with something” (with a disease or plague). According to the radical meaning of the word ophalim, we must render: he smote them with a skin-disease, which consisted in painful boils or large swellings, and was perhaps caused by the plague of field-mice, which Oken (cited by Thenius in loco) calls “the plague of the fields, often producing scarcity, and even famine.” This explanation is supported by Deuteronomy 28:27, where the word in question stands along with the names of two skin-diseases, of which one (ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιο) is the Egyptian leprosy-like botch, and the other (βָּ ?ψָ ?λ and ηֶ ?ψֶ ?ν) “scab and itch.” Only by supposing such a plague-like disease, which became infectious on the breaking out of the boils (1 Samuel 5:9), can we explain its immediate universal spread (indicated by the words “and its coasts”), and its deadly effect (1 Samuel 5:11-12; 1 Samuel 6:19), facts not explained by the other suppositions. Comp. Win., Realw. II., s. v. Philister. 1 Samuel 5:7. In consequence of “its being so,” under such circumstances (λֵּ ?ο here as Genesis 25:22), the people of Ashdod recognized the fact that the power of the God of Israel was here manifested on them and their god, and resolved to get rid of the medium of this manifestation, for so they regarded the ark. 1 Samuel 5:8 furnishes a contribution to the history of the political constitution of the Philistines. The princes (ρְ ?ψָ ?πִ ?ιν, seranim) of the Philistines are the heads of the several city-districts (Joshua 13:3), which formed a confederation, each one of the five chief cities holding a number of places, “country-cities” (1 Samuel 27:5), “daughter-cities” (1 Chronicles 18:1), as its special district. The constitution was oligarchical, that is, the government was in the hands of the College of princes, whose decision no individual could oppose, comp. 1 Samuel 29:6-11. Grotius: “the Phil, were under an oligarchy.” The resolve of the princes is: “the ark shall be carried to Gath,” and is forthwith executed. According to this there was no Dagon-temple in Gath; for the purpose was to remove the ark from the sanctuary of Dagon, who, in their opinion, called forth the power of the God of Israel, without being able to make stand against him. The location of Gath, also one of the five princely cities—Gitta (Joseph.), Getha (Sept.), Getha (Euseb.)—is doubtful. In this passage (1 Samuel 5:8-10) the connection points merely to the fact that it is to be sought for in the neighborhood of Ashdod and Ekron; but it does not thence necessarily follow (Ewald) that it lay between these two. Jerome’s statements indicate a location near Ashdod and near the limits of Judea: “Gath is one of the five cities of Palestine, near the border of Judea, on the road from Eleutheropolis to Gaza, and still a very large village (on Micah 1); Gath is near and bordering on Ashdod (on Jeremiah 25).” Comp. Pressel in Herzog, R. E. s. v., The Sept. takes Gath as subject, inserts “to us” (ΰֵ ?μַ ?ι or ΰֵ ?μֵ ?ιπεּ) after Israel, and translates: “And the Gittites said, Let the ark of God come to us.” But this addition is uncalled for. Thenius indeed prefers this reading on the ground that such a voluntary offer to receive the ark in order to show that the calamity was merely accidental, is completely in accordance with the whole narrative; but, on the other hand, we may conclude from 1 Samuel 5:6 that they regarded as the cause of the evil the relation of the God of Israel to their god. Dagon, and the object of the transportation of the ark was to remove it from the region of Dagon-worship. 1 Samuel 5:9. The same scourge was repeated in Gath; the plague of boils fell upon all, small and great. Its painful and dangerous character is here more precisely indicated by the once-occurring word (hapaxleg.) sathar (ωׂ ?ϊψ) which means, following the corresponding Arabic verb (Niph. findi, erumpi), the bursting of the plague-boils. The Acc. “great consternation” (ξδΧβγΧ), giving a sensible representation of the direction and motion, in which an action reaches a definite aim or end, sets forth the final effect or result in the minds of the Philistines of this new manifestation of God’s power; generally, where the point reached is to be indicated, the pref. “to” (μְ) is used (as in 1 Samuel 4:9). “The hand of the Lord was on the city unto great consternation.”1 Samuel 5:10 sqq. Further removal of the ark to a third princely city, Ekron, according to Robinson (Pal. III. 229 sq. [Amer. Ed. II. 227 sq.]) three miles east of Jamnia and five miles south of Ramleh on the site of the present village Akir, that is, in a northerly direction from Gath. Comp. Tobler, 3 Wand., 53; Joshua 13:3. “Although first assigned to the Tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:45), and for a time held by it (Judges 1:18, on which see Bertheau), then made over to Dan (Joshua 19:43), it could not be retained permanently by the Israelites, but, when the Philistines advanced, fell again into their hands, and continued in their possession (Joshua 15:11; 1 Samuel 6:17; 1 Samuel 7:14).” Rόetschi in Herzog s. v. In 1 Samuel 5:10 is related how the inhabitants of Ekron, when the ark was brought to them, thinking of the late occurrences, made complaint and protest against its entrance. 1 Samuel 5:11-12. The failure of their protest is here silently assumed, and the universal prevalence, and particularly the deadly effects of the plague described. There was every where a “deadly consternation,” that is, a consternation produced by the sudden death of many persons from the plague, which was connected with the boil-sickness. Observe the climax in the triple description of the plague; in Gath it is severer than in Ashdod; in Ekron it has reached its greatest height. The words at the end of the description—And the cry of the city went up to heaven—assume that the Philistines saw clearly that in this plague the almighty hand of the God of Israel was revealed. A second council of princes, it is expressly stated (1 Samuel 5:11, beginning), was called to consult in reference to the restoration of the ark to the Israelites. The proposition of Ekron (as yet undecided on) is indeed based on the deadly effects of the plague on its inhabitants (1 Samuel 5:11), but at the same time it takes for granted that the removal of the ark to other Philistian places would be attended with the same results, and that the punishment of the God of Israel would of necessity continue so long as the insult offered Him by the abduction of the ark was not done away with. [Bib. Comm. compares this scourge in its object and effects with the plagues of Egypt. See Exodus 12:33, and also Numbers 17:12. With the phrase “went up to heaven” Bp. Patrick compares the classical expressions (Virg. Ζneid. II. 223, 338, 488): Clamores simul horrendos ad sidera tollit; Sublatus ad �thera clamor; Ferit aurea sidera clamor.—Tr.] AND 1. Though God brings the judgment on His house and people through world-powers without His kingdom and hostile to His name, He yet shows Himself towards these hostile powers a God that judges righteously in the punishment of the evil they do to the honor of His name in their purpose (though it be by His will or His permission) to oppose His kingdom and hinder its coming. The Philistines, by His counsel and will victorious over the children of Israel, had with His permission taken away the sign of His presence with His people, and brought it into the presence of the idol, that Israel might be right sorely humbled and punished; yet they are chastised as having refused to honor Him as the living God, though the manifestation of His might and glory was set before their eyes. 2. The downfall of the idol-image before the ark and the excision of its most important parts (head and hands) is not merely a symbol, but also a type of the truth which is illustrated in the history of God’s kingdom, even in its gloomiest periods, namely, that the powers of the world must sink again into the dust before His glory, after they, in truth taken into His service, have done their work, and that the time appointed by Him comes, when His enemies are made His foot stool. Comp. the declarations in Exodus 9:16; Exodus 14:18 in reference to Egypt. “Where God comes with His ark and His testimony, there He smites the idols to the ground; idolatry must fall, where His gospel finds a place” (Berlenb. Bible). 3. The heavy pressure and the hard blows of the hand of God, to which repeated and significant reference is made in connection with the severed hands of the idol-image, was intended not only as a deserved punishment for the Philistines, but also as a disciplinary visitation. All suffering is punishment, but also (as a chastisement of God’s hand) an instrument of correction; that is, under suffering and affliction, as the outflow and result of sin, man is not merely to recognize the causal connection between His sin and the divine punitory justice on the one hand, and the affliction on the other, but also to have His eyes opened to the purposes of God’s holy love, which by adversity and tribulation will draw him to itself, and humble him under God’s powerful hand to reverence His name. 4. When man’s heart will not give up its worthless idols, though God’s hand draws it to Himself by affliction and suffering, then the distance between Him and the God that offers to be with him becomes greater in proportion to the severity and painfulness of the suffering felt by the soul alienated from God and devoted to idolatry. We shall at last desire to be entirely away from God, as the Philistines at last resolved to carry the ark over the border, that they might have nothing more to do with the God of Israel, while, on the contrary, the ark should have warned them to give glory to the God of Israel, who had so unmistakably and gloriously revealed Himself to them. 5. The cry that ascends to heaven over sufferings and afflictions that are the consequences of wickedness is by no means a sign that need teaches prayer; it may be made from a wholly heathen point of view. The cry that penetrates into heaven is “Against thee have I sinned,” and is the expression of an upright, earnest penitence which is awakened in the heart by the chastisement of God’s hand. 6. The Philistines do not deride and scorn the sanctuary of the Israelites, but from their standpoint show it reverence and treat it with forbearance and awe; and herein is exemplified the truth that even the enemies of God’s kingdom and the opponents of the honor of His name in the affairs of His kingdom stand involuntarily and unconsciously under the influence of His power and glory, and a restraining higher power is near, from which they cannot withdraw. “They cannot advance, whom the Lord’s greater power restrains. The supreme controller of affairs so orders all things that the wicked are restrained by fear—though their souls are haughty and they swell with pride and arrogance; and they cannot execute what their minds purpose. For God fetters and holds captive, as it were, their hands, and suffers not. His glory to be obscured” (Calvin). 7. Often in the history of His kingdom, amid frightful victories by the hostile powers of the world, God’s hand seems bound, and His people fall into the deepest affliction, so that even the most sacred possessions seem to have fallen into the rapacious hands of the world, which is contending against God and His kingdom; yet even then He knows how to maintain His honor inviolate, and His hand is yet free, and (as in the history of this war between Israel and the Philistines) in secret makes the preparation for the liberation and redemption of His people, and the restoration of the sanctuary and the possession of His kingdom, while human eyes do not see it, and human thought does not suspect it. The Lord is mighty and powerful even in the sorest defeats of His kingdom in the battle with the world. He brings every thing to glorious accomplishment. 8. Calvin: “The Philistines seek hiding-places from God’s presence. Let us learn that the same thing happens to all God’s enemies when they are given over to a reprobate mind. For though they are under the dominion of the lethargy of sin, yet, when God urges them more closely, and their own conscience presses them, they seek hiding-places against the majesty of God, and would save themselves by flight.” 9. [This chapter, with the following, strikingly illustrates the non-missionary character of the Old Dispensation. For centuries the Israelites were near neighbors of the Philistines, and had some acquaintance (apparently not much) with their political and religious institutions. Yet the Philistines had at this time only a garbled and distorted account (1 Samuel 4:8) of the history of the Israelites, derived probably from tradition, and seemingly no particular knowledge at all of their religion, nor did the Israelites ever attempt, though they were in the times of Samson and David in close connection with Philistia, to carry thither a knowledge of what they yet believed to be the only true religion. This religious isolation was no doubt a part of the divine plan for the development of the theocratic kingdom, guarding it against the taint of idolatry, and permitting the chosen people thoroughly to apprehend and appropriate the truth which was then to go from them to all the world. But if we look for the natural causes which produced this moral isolation in ancient times, we shall find one in the narrowness of ancient civilization, where the absence of means of social and literary communication fostered mutual ignorance and made sympathy almost impossible, and another in the peculiarly national local nature of the religion of Israel, with its central sanctuary and its whole system grounded in the past history of the nation, presenting thus great obstacles to a foreigner who wished to become a worshipper of Jehovah. These might be overcome, as in Naaman’s case, but it was not easy to throw off one’s nationality (as was necessary for the convert) either at home or by going to live in the land of Israel. All this may palliate the unbelief of the ancient heathen peoples—palliate, but not excuse it, for Jehovah revealed Himself in mighty works which ought to have carried conviction (comp. 1 Samuel 6:6) and led to obedience and love. On the other hand, the Israelite ought to have tried to bring the heathen to the true God, and indeed in the Pss. we find exhortations to them to come and acknowledge Him. But the Jews, as a nation, never freed themselves from the narrowness to which their institutions trained them.—Tr.] AND [Henry: God will show of how little account the ark of the covenant is, if the covenant itself be broken and neglected; even sacred signs are not things that either He is tied to, or we can trust to.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 5:1-5. The ruinous folly of the idolatrous mind: 1) It places God beside the idols, as if one could serve two masters (1 Samuel 5:1-2; Matthew 6:24); 2) It does not allow itself to be pointed to the living God by the nothingness of its idols in contrast with Him (1 Samuel 5:3); 3) In spite of the destruction of its idols through the power of the Lord before its eyes, it always sets up again the old idolatrous service, and carries it still further (1 Samuel 5:4); 4) Sinking from one degree of superstition to another, it gives itself up, and is given up by God ever deeper and deeper into selfish idolatry.—Dagon before the ark, or Heathenism conquered at the feet of the living God: 1) In the domain of its power, its own abode (1 Samuel 5:1-2); 2) Through the secret demonstration of the power of the Lord (1 Samuel 5:3-4); 3) Amid the destruction of its power and glory (the face as a sign of its worthless glory and vain beauty struck down to the earth, the head also as the seat of the wisdom which is alienated from God and opposed to God, the hands as a symbol of the powers of darkness which work therein, cut off) (1 Samuel 5:3-5).—The fall of heathenism: 1) It is thrown down before the power of God manifesting Himself as present in His word (the law and the testimony in the ark) (1 Samuel 5:1-3); 2) Its power (head and hands) is broken and destroyed through the secretly working power of the Spirit of God (1 Samuel 5:3-4); 3) There is an ever more and more glorious revelation of the power of God which casts down heathenism in the light of the day of salvation, which overcomes the darkness of heathenism.—The defeat which the kingdom of the world suffers in its victory over the kingdom of God: 1) In quiet concealment; 2) Through the miraculous action of God; 3) In open publicity.1 Samuel 5:6-7. Calvin: Here it is clearly shown how great is the stiff-neckedness of unbelievers in their error, that when the manifest signs of the divine judgments press ever nearer, and there is no more room at all for excuses, and when they can no longer conceal their fear of the judgment and the power of God, yet they do not recognize their contumacy, and lay aside their hardness of heart, but only seek hiding-places and places of refuge, in order to withdraw themselves as far as possible from the divine power that it may not reach them. What sort of effect do unbelievers let the experience and apprehension of the infinite power of God produce in them? Not a change of disposition, not a zealous striving after the knowledge of the truth in His word, and willingness to give Him the honor which belongs to Him, not humility of heart in subjection to the majesty of God, but rather fear and terror at His presence, and the striving to fly as far from Him as possible, and to keep God removed as far as possible from them.—God avenges Himself on the enemies of His people, in that, even when they have obtained a victory over the people of God, it yet turns out worse for them than for the people of God who are defeated, Job 20:5-7.—Cramer: God can even with ease constrain His enemies to confession. 1 Samuel 5:8. Starke: Foolish men, to think that the almightiness of God can be thwarted by change of place.—Seb. Schmidt: Against God the devices of men, even the wisest, avail nothing. [1 Samuel 5:9. “Boils.” There are many other passages in our English version of the Bible in which an apparent indelicacy is due to erroneous translation.—Hall: They judge right of the cause; what do they resolve for the cure? .… They should have said: Let us cast out Dagon, that we may pacify and retain the God of Israel; they determine to thrust out the ark of God, that they might peaceably enjoy themselves, and Dagon.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 5:10. God has the hearts of all men in His hands (Proverbs 21:1), and can speedily turn them to change their will and purposes, so as to promote His honor and the best interests of the Church. 1 Samuel 5:12. Calvin: We should not imitate the Ekronites, who fill heaven with their cry, but with their heart are far from God; rather should we, when the ark of God comes so near us, come with our heart to God. To Him should we cry, when He comes in His judgments, and beg Him for help without complaining, while we confess to Him our sins, and acknowledge that we receive from Him righteous punishment, and that the sufferings which He has inflicted on us are wholesome for us.—Schlier: Then could Israel clearly see what an almighty God they had, stronger than the gods of all the heathens and that this strong God wished to be their God, and had interested Himself in behalf of His people. Footnotes: [1 Samuel 5:2; 1 Samuel 5:4. This verbal repetition is quite after the manner of Hebrew historical writing.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:3. Here Sept. inserts: “and went into Dagon’s house and saw.”—a very natural explanation, but, for that very reason, suspicious as the probable addition of a copyist or annotator.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:4. It seems better to omit this explanatory phrase, which is not found in the Heb., and to leave the word “Dagon” to be explained in the exposition; for, though the phrase is probably correct (see Erdmann’s account of Dagon), it is still an interpretation rather than a translation.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:6. The text of the Sept. here deviates decidedly from the Heb.; for attempts to reconcile the two see Thenius and Wellhausen, in loco. There is no good ground, however, for departing from the Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:6. The versions here all follow the Qeri tehorim, which word most of them take to mean a part of the body (posteriora), and not a disease. Chald. and Syr. have this very word. Chald. “mariscζ,” Syr. “posteriora,” Arab. “sedes,” Vulg. “in secretiori parte natium,” Philippson “schambeulen.” Geiger thinks that the Kethib means “posteriora,” and the Qeri a disease of that part of the body, the change of reading having been made for decency’s sake. This was probably the reason of the change, but the Kethib seems to mean the disease, while the Qeri means both a disease and a part of the body. No explanation has yet been given of the reading of the Sept. “ships” (ναῦς); it may be simply an error of transcription for ἕδρας, which is found in 1 Samuel 5:9.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:7. The word “coasts,” not now used in its original sense of “sides,” has here been retained because of the difficulty of finding another equally good rendering of the Heb. word (βαεּ ?μιν).—TR. [1 Samuel 5:9. Erdmann: “zu grossem schrecken,” but it is better, with the versions, to take it as an independent sentence.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:9. Eng. A. V. takes the verb ωϊψ as =ρϊψ, “concealed,” but the connection does not favour this. Gesenius’ suggestion “broke out” is adopted by Erdmann, and seems best, but Philippson, from the Arab. root which Gesen. compares, shatara, “ruptus fuit,” prefers “broke,” as indicating the culmination of the disease—auforechen instead of hervorbrechen. Philippson’s rendering is etymologically better founded, but does not so well suit the connection.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 5:10. The Sing. here points to the prince or other person who was spokesman for the people.—Tr.] [Dagon was probably originally an old Babylonian fish-deity.—Tr.]. [Eusebius (Onom.) mentions two places called Gath, one between Antipatris and Jamnia (which cannot be the place here meant), the other five miles from Eleutheropolis (identified by Robinson, II. 59 sq., with Beit Jibrin) towards Diospolis. Mr. J. L. Porter, Art. “Gath,” in Smith’s Bib. Dict., accordingly identifies Gath with the hill called Tell-es-Safieh, ten miles east of Ashdod, and about the same distance south by east of Ekron.—Tr.] [But on the reading of this verse see “Textual and Grammatical” note.—Tr.] [Dr. Erdmann here uses the word type, not in the scientific theological sense of a fact of the Old Dispensation, which is intended to set forth the corresponding (spiritually identical) fact of the New Dispensation, but in the general sense of a representative or specimen fact. It is a method of the divine providence inferred from the Scripture and illustrated in history, rather than a spiritual fact of God’s spiritual kingdom prefigured by an outward object or fact in His ancient people or service. The ark symbolized God’s presence in law and mercy, but was not in itself a type, except as a part of the Tabernacle which typified God’s people. The lesson from the punishment of the Philistines, then, is the same as that contained in the slaughter at Samson’s death, the plagues of Egypt, the destruction of Babylon (Psalms 137:8), and other cases in which God has interfered to save His cause; only here the procedure is more dramatically striking.—Tr.] 2. Restoration of the Ark with Expiatory Gifts. 1 Samuel 6:1-111 And the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] was in the country of the Philistines seven 2months. And the Philistines called for [together] the priests and the diviners, saying, What shall we do to [with] the ark of the Lord [Jehovah]? Tell us 3wherewith we shall send it to his [its] place. And they said, If ye send away the ark of the God of Israel, send it not empty, but in any wise [om. in any wise] return him a trespass-offering; then ye shall be healed, and it shall be known to 4you why his hand is not removed from you. Then said they [And they said], What shall be [is] the trespass-offering which we shall return to him? [Ins. And] they answered [said], Five golden emerods [boils] and five golden mice, according to the number of the lords of the Philistines; for one plague was [is] on you all 5and on your lords. Wherefore [And] ye shall make images of your emerods [boils], and images of your mice that mar [devastate] the laud; and ye shall give glory to the God of Israel; peradventure he will lighten his hand from off you, 6and from off your gods, and from off your land. [Ins. And] wherefore then [om. then] do [will] ye harden your hearts, as the Egyptians and Pharaoh hardened their hearts? [ins. Did they not], when he had [om. had] wrought wonderfully among them, did they not [om. did they not] let the people go, and they departed? 7Now therefore [And now] make a new cart, and take12 two milch kine, on which there hath come no yoke, and tie [yoke] the kine to the cart, and bring their calves 8home from them. And take the ark of the Lord [Jehovah], and lay it upon the cart, and put the jewels of gold [golden figures], which ye return him5 for a trespass-offering, in a [the] coffer by the side thereof, and send it away, that it may 9go. And see, if it goeth [go] up by the way of his [its] own coast to Beth-Shemesh, then he hath done us this great evil; but if not, then we shall know that it is not 10his hand that smote us; it was a chance that happened to us. And the men did so, and took two milch kine, and tied [yoked] them to the cart, and shut up their 11calves at home; And they [om. they] laid the ark of the Lord [Jehovah] upon the cart, and the coffer with [and] the mice of gold [golden mice] and the images of their emerods [boils].3. Reception and Quartering of the Ark in Israel. 1 Samuel 6:12 to 1 Samuel 7:112 And the kine took the straight way [went straight forward] to the way of [on the road to] Bethshemesh, and [om. and] went along the highway [on one highway they went], lowing as they went, and turned not aside to the right hand or to the left; and the lords of the Philistines went after them unto the border of Bethshemesh. 13And theyof Bethshemesh were reaping their wheat-harvest in the valley; 14and they lifted up their eyes, and saw the ark, and rejoiced to see it. And the cart came into the field of Joshua a Bethshemite [the Bethshemeshite], and stood there, where [and there] there was a great stone; and they clave the wood of the 15cart, and offered the kine a burnt-offering unto the Lord [Jehovah]. And the Levites took down the ark of the Lord [Jehovah], and the coffer that was with it, wherein [ins. were] the jewels of gold [golden figures] were [om. were], and put them on the great stone; and the men of Bethshemesh offered burnt-offerings, and 16sacrificed sacrifices the same day unto the Lord [Jehovah]. And when [om. when] the five lords of the Philistines had seen [saw] it, they [and] returned to Ekron 17the same day. And these are the golden emerods [boils] which the Philistines returned for [as] a trespass-offering unto the Lord [Jehovah]: for Ashdod one, for 18Gaza one, for Askelon one, for Gath one, for Ekron one. And the golden mice [ins. were] according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines belonging to the five lords, both of fenced cities and of country villages,even unto the great stone of Abel whereon they set down the ark of the Lord, which stone remaineth unto this day in the field of Joshua the Bethshemite [And the great stone, on which they set down the ark of Jehovah, remaineth to this day in the field of Joshua the Bethshemeshite]. 19And he smote the men of Bethshemesh, because they had [om. had] looked into [at] the ark of the Lord [Jehovah], even [and] he smote of the people fifty thousand and three-score and ten men [70 men, 50,000 men]; and the people lamented, because the Lord [Jehovah] had smitten [smote] many of [om. many of] the people 20with a great slaughter. And the men of Bethshemesh said, Who is able to stand before [ins. Jehovah], this holy Lord [om. Lord] God? and to whom shall he go 21up from us? And they sent messengers to the inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim, saying, The Philistines have brought again [back] the ark of the Lord [Jehovah]; come ye down, and fetch it up to you. 1 Samuel 7:1 And the men of Kirjath-jearim came, and fetched up the ark of the Lord [Jehovah], and brought it into the house of Abinadab in [on] the hill, and sanctified [consecrated] Eleazar his son to keep the ark of the Lord [Jehovah]. AND . 1 Samuel 6:1-11. The ark is sent back with expiatory gifts. The designation of place: in the field is here to be taken in the wider sense of territory, country, as in Rth 1:2.—The seven months, during which the ark was in the country of the Philistines, was a time of uninterrupted plagues. In addition to the disease of boils came the plague of the devastation of the fields by mice. That the plague of mice was something over and above the disease is plain from 1 Samuel 6:5; 1 Samuel 6:11; 1 Samuel 6:18; in 1 Samuel 6:1 the Sept. adds, “and their land swarmed with mice,” which the narrator has not expressly mentioned. Thenius’ supposition that, from similarity of final syllables ((Ξִ ?ιν), a clause has fallen out of the Heb. text, is too bold a one. Maurer remarks correctly: “it is generally agreed that the Hebrew writers not infrequently omit things essential, and then afterwards mention them briefly in succession.” 1 Samuel 6:2. After it had been determined in the council of the princes to send back the ark to the Israelites, the priests and soothsayers are now to tell how it shall be sent back. Alongside of an honorable priestly class appear here the soothsayers [diviners] (that is, the organs of the deity, who reveal his counsel and will through the mantic art) as authorities, whose decision is final. The princes had to consider the political-national and social side, these the religious side of the question., Inasmuch as it has already been determined to send the ark back, the question “what shall we do in respect to the ark of God?” is only introductory to the succeeding question, “wherewith or how shall we send it to its place?” The αַּ ?ξֶּ ?δ may mean either, but the rendering “how, in what way” (Vulg. quomodo) is favored by the connection, since the priests would else not have answered that the ark was not to be sent back without gifts. 1 Samuel 6:3, We must here not supply the pronoun “ye” to the Particip. (ξְ ?ωַׁ ?μְ ?ηִ ?ιν), but must render (as in 1 Samuel 2:24) impersonally,1 Samuel 25 : “if one sends, if they send.” The ark must be restored, not empty, but with gifts. These gifts are to be an asham (ΰָ ?ωָׁ ?ν), a debt-offering or expiatory offering; the gift is thus designated, because it is a question of the payment of a debt. Satisfaction must be made to the angered God of the people of Israel for the contempt put on Him by the abduction of the ark. The word “return, make compensation” (δֵ ?ωִׁ ?ια) refers to the unlawful appropriation; it is a matter of compensation. Vulg.: quod debetis, reddite ei pro peccato. μεֹ [“to him,” “to it”] is to be referred not to the ark (Sept.), but to God. Send Him a “gift, by which His anger shall be appeased, lest He torment you more” (Cleric). According to Exodus 23:15 no one was allowed to appear empty-handed (ψֵ ?ιχָ ?ν) before God. Whether, as Clericus supposes, this was known to the Philistine priests, is uncertain. The words ΰַ ?ζϊֵּ ?ψָֽ ?τְ ?ΰεּ may be taken either as conditional or as assertory. The latter rendering “then you shall be healed” would suit the connection and the whole situation, but that these priests expressly declare it to be possible (1 Samuel 6:9) that this plague was to be ascribed not to the God of Israel, but to a chance. The hypothetical rendering is therefore to be preferred, which is grammatically allowable, though the conditional particle is wanting. (Comp. Ew. Gr., § 357 b). We must therefore translate: “and if ye shall be healed.”, In the words “and it shall be known to you why His hand is not removed from you” the present tense offers no difficulty, the sense being: “you shall then by the cure learn why His hand now smites you; His hand is not removed from you, because the expiation for your guilt, which will be followed by cure, is not yet made.” Bunsen: “It was a universal custom of ancient nations to dedicate to the deity to whom a sickness was ascribed, or from whom cure was desired, likenesses of the diseased parts.” This was true also of the cause of the plagues. The Philistines therefore (1 Samuel 6:4 sq.), when they inquired what they should send along as trespass or expiatory offering, received the answer: “five golden boils and five golden mice.” The number five is expressly fixed on with reference to the five princes of the Philistines, who represent the whole people (ξִ ?ρֻ ?τָּ ?ψ is Acc. of exact determination “according to, in relation to,” with adverbial signification. Ges. Gr., § 118, 3). The change of person in the words “one plague is on them all and on your princes” has occasioned the reading “you all,” which is for this reason to be rejected. People and princes are here regarded as a unit, the latter representing the former, and therefore the number of the gifts to be offered for the whole is determined by the number (five) of the princes. 1 Samuel 6:5 makes in a supplementary way express mention of the devastation which the mice made in the land. “This plague is often far greater in southern lands than with us; so that the Egyptians use the figure of a fieldmouse to denote destruction; there are many examples, it is said, of the whole harvest in a field having been destroyed by them in one night” (1 Samuel 5 : Gerl.). Comp. Boch. Hieroz. II., 429 ed. Ros.; Plin. Hist. Nat. X. c. 65. By the presentation of the likenesses in gold they were to “give honor to the God of Israel.” These words of the Philistine priests explain the expression “pay or return a trespass-offering.” By the removal of the ark, the seat of the glory of the God of Israel, His honor is violated; hence the punishment in this two-fold plague; by these gifts they are to attempt to make compensation for the violation of honor, and the wrath of the God who is wounded in His honor is to be turned aside. “By bringing precisely the instrument of their chastisement as a gift to God, they confess that He Himself has punished them, and do homage to His might, hoping therefore all the more by paying their debt to be made or to remain free,” (v. Gerlach). The expression “perhaps He will lighten His hand from off you” agrees with that in 1 Samuel 6:3, “if ye be healed,” and with 1 Samuel 6:9. [It is not clear that the Philistines were visited with a plague of mice. In spite of Maurer’s remark (on 1 Samuel 6:1) endorsed by Erdmann, it is strange that no mention is made of the mice in chap. 5. Philippson (who translates akbar not “mouse” but “boil”) further objects that the assumption of a mouse-plague different from the boil-disease is incompatible with the assertion in 1 Samuel 6:4, “one plague is on you and on your lords,” which supposes a bodily infliction (on which, however, see the discussion of the Sept. text of 1 Samuel 6:4-5, in note to 1 Samuel 6:18). Nor does the Heb. text expressly state that there was such a plague. In 1 Samuel 6:5 nothing more is necessarily said (so Wellhausen) than that they were exposed to land devastations by mice, and that the whole land had suffered, and 1 Samuel 6:18 (however interpreted) adds nothing to the statement in 1 Samuel 6:4. We may on critical grounds keep the present Masoretic text (discarding the Sept. addition to 1 Samuel 6:1) without finding in it the mouse-plague. On the other hand, the figure of a mouse was in Egypt a symbol of destruction, and so might have been chosen here as a fitting expiatory offering. Possibly, as there was a Baal-zebub, “lord of flies” (Ζεὺς ’Απόμυιος), worshipped at Ekron, so there was a Baal-akbar, “lord of mice,” and this animal may have been connected with religious worship.—Others explain the figures of the boils and mice as telesms or talismans. So Maimonides, quoted in Poole’s Synopsis, in which are cited many illustrations of the wide use of talismans (figures made under planetary and astral conjunctions in the likeness of the injurious object or of the part affected) among the ancients (expanded by Kitto, Daily Bible Illust., Saul and David, p. 86 sq.). But, supposing there was a plague of mice, these figures were prepared, not by their own virtue to avert the plague (which the talismans were supposed to do), but to appease the wrath of the God of Israel.—Tr.].—Lighten from off you, etc., is a pregnant expression for “lighten and turn away from you,” so that the burden of the punishment shall be removed from you. In 1 Samuel 6:6 the case of the Egyptians is referred to in order to strengthen the exhortation. We have already seen in 1 Samuel 4:8 the mark of the deep impression made on the neighboring heathen nations by the judgments of the God of Israel on the Egyptians. The Philistine priests see in these plagues judgments like those inflicted on the Egyptians, and set forth the universal and comprehensive significance of this revelation of the heavy hand of God in the words “on [rather from] you, and your god [better, perhaps, gods, as in Eng. A. V.], and your land.” They thus refer this general calamity not only to its highest cause in the God of Israel and His violated honor, but also to its deepest ground in the Philistines’ hardening of the heart against Him after the manner of Pharaoh and the Egyptians, and so show exact acquaintance with the pragmatism of the history of God’s revelations towards Egypt and its king. Comp. Exodus 7:13 sqq. with Exodus 8:32. It is evident from the connection that the words of the priests are to be referred only to the obligation to “give honor to the God of Israel” by expiatory presents, not to the restoration of the ark, which was already determined on. The hardening or obduration of the heart is the stubborn and persistent refusal to give to the God of Israel His due honor, after His honor had been violated. The word δִ ?ϊְ ?ςַ ?μֵּ ?μ [“ wrought”] points to God’s mighty deeds against Pharaoh and the Egyptians; it is found in the same sense “work, exercise power” [“work one’s will on”] in Exodus 10:2 and 1 Samuel 31:4. In view of these exhibitions of God’s power, they are warned against such a persistent stiff-necked opposition to it. 1 Samuel 6:6 is not inconsistent with the doubt expressed in 1 Samuel 6:9, whether the plagues come from the God of Israel or from a chance, since it is (in 1 Samuel 6:9) at any rate regarded as possible that the God of Israel has thus exhibited His anger. “The mere possibility of this makes it seem advisable to do every thing to appease the wrath of the God of the Israelites, which the heathen, from their fear of the gods, dreaded under the circumstances not less, yea, more than the anger of their own gods” (Keil). 1 Samuel 6:7-9. The arrangements respecting the mode of sending back the ark. In 1 Samuel 6:7 the arrangements are made for a restoration of the ark worthy of and proportionate to the honor of the God of Israel. The Philistines are not, for this purpose, to have a new cart made, but, as the preceding χְ ?ηεּ shows, to take, one already made, in order to fit it up and prepare it for this end; this is shown by the εַ ?ςֲ ?ωׂ ?εּ [“and make”]. A new cart and two hitherto unyoked milch cows (comp. Deuteronomy 21:3) are to carry back the ark with the presents; only what had not been used, what was still undesecrated, was an appropriate means for the honor destined to be shown to the dreaded God of Israel. ςֲ ?βָ ?μָ ?δ, properly the “rolling thing,” means the transport-wagon, which, according to this, was in use in Philistia, and was usually yoked with oxen. The calves were to be taken along, but afterwards to be carried from behind the drawing cows, back into the house—that is, into the stall. In reference to the cows the Masc. is thrice used in 1 Samuel 6:7 for the Fem., “because the writer thinks of the cows as oxen” (Thenius); and so in 1 Samuel 6:10; 1 Samuel 6:12. In 1 Samuel 6:8 a minute description is given of the manner of loading the cart with the ark and with the coffer (ΰַ ?ψְ ?βָּ ?ζ, found only here and 1 Samuel 6:11; 1 Samuel 6:15) in which the golden expiatory gifts were to be carried. “And send it away, that it may go.” From the connection it appears that the cart, with the ark, is left to the cows to draw; the direction which they take without being led or driven is decisive of the question whether the plagues are from the God of Israel or not. 1 Samuel 6:9. This is stated more precisely by the priests. If the cows went straight to its (the ark’s) territory, this would be the sign that the plagues were from the God of Israel; if not, it would show that it was only a matter of chance. From their stand-point the heathen distinguished with perfect logical consistency between the providence of the God of Israel and a mere chance. “Its territory or coast” (βְּ ?αεּ ?μεֹ) is the land of Israel as its home. Bethshemesh is one of the Israelitish priestly cities on the border of Judah and Dan (Joshua 21:16), the nearest of them to Ekron, and the nearest point of entrance from Philistia into the hill-country of Judah (Joshua 15:10-11). The valley in or on which (1 Samuel 6:13) it lay, was the same with the present Wady Surar. The present Ain Shems which rests on it is the ancient Bethshemesh. S. Robinson, II. 599, III. 224 sq. [ Amer. Ed. II. 14, 16, 223–225. If this direction was not taken by the cows, that was to be the sign that “this was a chance (ξִ ?χְ ?ψֶ ?δ is not adverb. “by chance” (Keil), but Nom. of the subject; and this is no ground for reading (with Bφttcher) ξִ ?χָּ ?ψֶ ?δ, “by chance”). The meaning of the priests was, that the cows, being unaccustomed to the yoke, and being, besides, milch cows, from which their calves had been separated, would, in obedience to their natural impulse, wish to turn about and go back to their stall, unless a higher power restrained them, and compelled them to take the road to Bethshemesh and keep it. By God’s ordination this was done, and so was for the Philistines the factual confirmation given by the God of Israel of the opinion that He had inflicted the plagues on them. 1 Samuel 6:10-11 relate the carrying out of the arrangements which the priests had made. The restoration is performed in the manner prescribed by the priests. II. 1 Samuel 6:12-21. The ark is transported to Bethshemesh. 1 Samuel 6:12. They kept the road exactly—lit. “they were straight on the way.” Mesillah (ξְ ?ρִ ?μָ ?δ) is a thrown up, raised way, a highway. On one highway—that is, without going hither and thither, as is afterwards added by way of explanation, “without turning aside to the right or to the left.” They went going and lowing; that is, constantly lowing, because they wanted their calves; yet they did not turn about, but went on in the opposite direction. The Philistine princes went behind, not before them, because, in accordance with the suggestion of the priests, they had to observe whither the animals went. 1 Samuel 6:13. Bethshemesh is for “the inhabitants of Bethshemesh.” Though it was a priestly city, the inhabitants of Bethshemesh are expressly distinguished from the Levites. The Bethshemeshites, who were reaping wheat in the valley (Wady Surar), rejoiced to see the long-lost ark. [The wheat harvest points to May or June as the time of the return of the ark. Robinson: “May 13. Most of the fields (near Jericho) were already reaped. Three days before we had left the wheat green upon the fields around Hebron and Carmel; and we afterwards found the harvest there in a less forward state on the 6th of June” (I. 550, 551). We do not know what species of wheat the ancient Hebrews had; but the crop was the most important one in the country (see 1 Kings v. 11). Mr. W. Houghton says (Smith’s Bib. Dict. Art. “Wheat”): “There appear to be two or three kinds of wheat at present grown in Palestine, the Triticum vulgare (var. hybernum), the T. spelta, and another variety of bearded wheat, which appears to be the same as the Egyptian kind, the T. compositum.” The phrase “they lifted up their eyes and saw,” being the common Heb. formula for “looking,” does not show that the object looked at was on a higher elevation than the spectator. Thus Stanley’s argument (Sin. and Pal., p. 248) from Genesis 22:4 as to the site of “Moriah” has no weight.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 6:14. The great stone in the field of the Beth-shemeshite Joshua was probably the occasion of the cart’s being stopped here, with the design of using the stone as a sacred spot for the solemn removal of the ark and the presents, as appears from 1 Samuel 6:15. The Levites are expressly mentioned in connection with the setting the ark down on the great stone, a sacred act which pertained to them alone. Since the ark betokened the presence of the Lord, it could be said that they, namely, the Bethshemeshites, offered the kine to the Lord by using the wood of the cart for the burnt-offering. With this they joined a blood-offering. It was lawful to offer the sacrifice here, because, wherever the ark was, offering might be made. Though the people of Bethshemesh are expressly said to be the offerers [1 Samuel 6:15], this does not exclude the co-operation of the priests, especially as Bethshemesh was a priestly city. From the single burnt-offering in 1 Samuel 6:14, which was offered with the cart and the kine, the burnt-offerings [1 Samuel 6:15] and the slain-offerings, which were connected with a joyful sacrificial meal, are to be distinguished as a second sacrificial act, which, in its first element (the burnt-offering), set forth the renewed consecration and devotion of the whole life to the Lord, and in its second (the meal) expressed joyful thanksgiving for the restoration of God’s enthronement and habitation amid His people, of which they had been so long deprived. 1 Samuel 6:16. The five lords of the Philistines saw in this occurrence, in accordance with the instruction of their priests, a revelation of the God of Israel; they returned to Ekron the same day. 1 Samuel 6:17-18. A second enumeration of the expiatory gifts, comp. 1 Samuel 6:4. The statement here made varies from that of 1 Samuel 6:4 only in the fact that, while the priests had advised the presentation of only five golden figures of mice, here a much greater number, “according to the number of all the cities of the Philistines,” are offered; because, from the expression “from the fenced city to the village of the inhabitants of the low land” (δַ ?τְּ ?ψָ ?ζִ ?ι Deuteronomy 3:5) [rather “fenced cities and country villages”], which shows that every Philistine locality was represented in the mouse-figures, we learn that the mouse-plague extended over the whole country, while the boil-plague prevailed only in the largest cities, In the second clause, instead of εְ ?ςַ ?γ [“and unto”] read εְ ?ςֵ ?γ [“and witness”], and instead of ΰָ ?λֵ ?μ [“Abel”], we must, on account of the attached Adj. and the repeated reference to the “field of Joshua” (1 Samuel 6:14; 1 Samuel 6:16), read ΰֶ ?αֶ ?ο [“stone”], and translate: “and a witness is the great stone (εְ ?ςֵ ?γ is found in the same sense, Genesis 31:52)… to this day.” Kimchi’s explanation of ΰָ ?αֵ ?μ as the name [the Heb. word means “mourning”] given to the stone on account of the mourning made there (1 Samuel 6:19) is a fanciful expedient, which has also no support in the context, since nothing is afterwards said of a mourning at this stone. 1 Samuel 6:19-21. The ark in Bethshemesh. A punishment is inflicted by God on the Bethshemeshites because they had sinned respecting the holiness of God, which was represented before their eyes by the ark. Wherein this sin consisted is stated in the words “because they looked,” &c. (αִּ ?ιψָ ?ΰεּ αְּ ?Χ), which are to be connected with the question in 1 Samuel 6:20. From 1 Samuel 6:13 (if we retain the text) it could not have been the mere looking at the ark, which stood on the cart, and was necessarily visible to every body, but, as the αְּ shows, consisted only in the manner of looking at it. As the unauthorized touching (Numbers 4:15; 2 Samuel 6:7), so the profane, prying, curious looking at the ark, as the symbol of the holy God who dwells amid His people, is forbidden on pain of death. The fundamental passage, to which we must here go back, is Numbers 4:20. The deepest ground of the strict prohibition to touch and look at the ark lies in the opposition which exists between man, impure through sin, and the holy God, which cannot be removed by immediate and unmediated connection with God on man’s part, but only through the means which God has by special revelation ordained to this end. Against Thenius, who holds that this explanation cannot be based on Numbers 4:20, it is to be remarked that this passage speaks expressly not only of unauthorized intrusion, but also of a similar looking at the inner sanctuary. There is no contradiction between this verse and 1 Samuel 6:13, if we regard the Ace. in the latter, and the Prep. “at” (αְּ) here; this difference in the designation of the object indicates a difference in this connection in the seeing. In Numbers 4:20 also the seeing is more exactly defined by an added word. Other explanations, as: “because they were afraid at the ark” (Syr., Arab.), or: “looked into it” (Rabb.), are entirely untenable. It is true, however, that the words of the text (according to which the above would be the only tenable explanation) present great difficulties, which Thenius expresses in the remark: “One does not see why ‘and he smote’ (εַ ?ιַ ?κְ) is repeated, and why we have ‘the people’ (αָּ ?ςָ ?ν) again after ‘the men of Bethshemesh’ (αְּ ?ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιαΧ).” Moreover, the following words of this verse, which give the number of the slain, undoubtedly offer an incorrect, or rather a corrupt text; whereby the preceding words would be involved in the corruption. The supposition of a defective text being here so natural, we should be inclined to adopt (with Thenius) the reading of the Sept.: “And the children of Jechoniah among the Bethshemeshitcs were not glad (5:13) that they saw the ark, and he smote of them,” etc.; but that the objection “that we elsewhere find nothing at all about the race of Jechoniah” is by no means so unimportant as Thenius thinks it. The reading “70 men, 50,000 men” is evidently corrupt. If a process of addition were here intended, then “and” (ε) must necessarily stand before the second number. If a partition were meant (70 out of 50,000 men), then, besides the grammatical difficulty, there is the objection that the city of Bethshemesh (and it alone is here spoken of), could not possibly have had so many inhabitants. The last objection applies with still more force to Ewald’s translation, “beginning with 70 and increasing to 50,000 men,”—which would require us to suppose a still larger population. The words “50,000 men” are wanting in Jos. (Ant. 6,1–14), and in some Heb. MSS. (Cod. Kenn. 84, 210, 418), and are [to be rejected], since they give no sense, and probably “came from the margin into the text as another solution of the numeral sign which stood there (in the original text stood ς [70], while in another π̈ ? [50,000] was found)” (Thenius).—The ground of the sudden death of the 70 of the race of Jechoniah is their unsympathizing, and therefore unholy bearing towards the symbol of God’s presence among His people, which showed a mind wholly estranged from the living God, a symptom of the religious-moral degeneracy, which had spread among the people, though piety was still to be found.1 Samuel 6:20. Who can stand before this holy God?—This question expresses their consciousness of unworthiness, and their fear of the violated majesty of the covenant-God of Israel. The people of Bethshemesh recognize in the death of the 70 a judgment of God, in which He punishes the violation of His majesty and glory, and defends His holiness in relation to His people. God is called the holy in this connection, in that He guards and avenges His greatness and glory, which He had revealed to Israel, when they are violated and dishonored by human sin, by unholy, godless conduct.—From the connection only “God” can be the Subj. of “shall go up” (ιַ ?ςֲ ?μֶ ?δ). The question “to whom shall he go up from us?” refers then indeed to the ark, in connection with which the sin and the punishment had occurred, and supposes that the Bethshemeshites were unwilling to keep it among them, from fear of farther judgments which its stay might occasion. A superstitious idea here mingles with the fear of God, since the stay of the ark is regarded as in itself a cause of further misfortune. 1 Samuel 6:21. Kirjath-jearim, that is, “ city of forests” [Forestville, Woodville], in the tribe-territory of Judah, belonged at an earlier period to Gibeon (Joshua 9:17; Joshua 18:25-26; Ezra 2:25; Nehemiah 7:29), and is the present Kuryet el Enab= “city of wine” [literally “grapes”] (Rob. II. 588 sq. [Amer. ed. II. 11], and Bibl. Forschung. 205 sq. [Am. ed. III. 157], Tobler, Topogr. II. 742 sqq.). The embassy to the inhabitants of Kirjath-jearim had two objects: the announcement of the return of the ark, and the demand that they should take it. They are silent as to the misfortune which was connected with its restoration, and as to their reason for not wishing to keep it. 1 Samuel 7:1 mentions the safe transportation of the ark by the Kirjath-jearimites to their city. The ark is placed in the house of Abinadab αּ ?βִּ ?αְ ?ςָ ?δ, “on the hill,” not in “Gibeah” (Vulg., Luther), as if the latter were a suburb of Kirjath-jearim. The house of Abinadab was on a hill, and for this reason probably was chosen as the resting-place of the ark. “They consecrated Eleazar,” the son of Abinadab, that is, they chose and appointed him as a person consecrated to God for this service: he had to keep watch and guard over the ark. It is hence probable that the ark found shelter in the house of a Levite. “Nothing is said of Eleazar’s consecration as priest.…. He was constituted not priest, but watchman at the grave of the ark, by its corpse, till its future joyful resurrection” (Hengst., Beitr. III. 66 [Contributions to Int. to O. T.]). Why it was not carried back to Shiloh, is uncertain. The reason may be, that the Philistines after the victory in ch. iv. had conquered Shiloh, and now held it, as Ewald (Gesch. II. 540 [Hist, of Isr.]) supposes; though his conjecture that the Philistines had destroyed Shiloh together with the old sanctuary, is to be rejected, since it is certain that the Tabernacle afterwards moved from Shiloh to Nob, and thence to Gibeon, and that the worship in connection with it was maintained (1 Samuel 21:6; 1 Kings 3:4; 2 Chronicles 1:3). Or, it may be that, without a special revelation of the divine will, they were unwilling to carry the ark back to the place whence it had been removed by a judgment of God in consequence of the profanation of the Sanctuary by the sons of Eli (Keil); or simply that the purpose was first and provisionally to carry it safely to a large city as far off as possible, inasmuch as, in view of the sentence of rejection which had been passed on Shiloh, they did not dare to select on their own authority a new place for the Sanctuary (comp. Hengst., ubi sup., 49). It was not till David’s time that the ark was carried hence to Jerusalem (2 Samuel 6). AND 1. Outside the sphere of His revelations in the covenant-people, the living God has not allowed the heathen nations to be without positive testimonies to His glory; He has, by severe chastisements, made them feel His might and power over them, when they, though they were the instruments of His punitive justice on Israel, did violence to His honor, and transgressed the limits assigned them. 2. The exact knowledge that the Philistine priests and soothsayers had of the punitive revelations of God against the Egyptians, and of the cause of them in the fact that that people hardened itself against Him, is an eminent example of His government of the world, which was closely interwoven with the history of revelation in His kingdom, and in which He penetrated with the beams of His revealed light the darkness of heathenism which surrounded His people, and made preparation for the revelation of the new covenant, which was to embrace the whole world. They were in such light to seek the Lord in their ways, if haply they might feel after Him and find Him (Acts 17:27). 3. The need of expiation, as well as the demand for it, is deeply grounded in the relation of man to the holy God; through sin against God’s will and ordinances man finds himself in custody under His punitive justice, whence there is no redemption except by an expiation, failing which judgment is pronounced against him. Ail need of expiation and all means thereto, not only in the sphere of Old Testament revelation, but also in heathendom, are predictions of Christ, who made the universal and all-sufficient expiation for the guilt of the world. 4. The enemies of God’s kingdom cannot and are not permitted to retain the possessions of God’s sanctuary which they have gotten by robbery, but must bow beneath His mighty hand, and give them up, yea, restore them increased by counter-gifts on their part. 5. “ Who can stand before the Lord, this holy God!” The more clearly God’s holiness is seen in the mirror of His justice, the deeper and more energetic is the feeling of sin and unworthiness in the human heart before the holy God. The depth of the divine holiness becomes clearest and most sensible to sinful man in those of its manifestations, by which he sees God as “this holy God,” that is, in the vigorous exercise of His holiness, of which he has experience in God’s punitive justice directed against himself. But the deeper and more thorough the knowledge of one’s own sin, the clearer the knowledge of the divine holiness. Yet, to sinful men the light of the divine holiness, which is always for him dulled, must not become intolerable, so that he shall avoid God’s face, and abandon fellowship with Him; rather must sinful man bear this light which discloses all his sin and alienation from God, and seek to learn in it the ways of grace and salvation (Psalms 51:5-6 [4,5]). The contrary result of the revelation of God’s holiness and justice leads to a sundering of relations between sinful man and Him, which by man’s fault makes of no effect God’s purposes of salvation. 6. “The blow which fell on the inhabitants of Bethshemesh in connection with the arrival of the ark, showed the people that they were not yet worthy of the fulfilment of the promise ‘I dwell in your midst.’ A condition of things had come about like that in the wilderness after the calf-worship, and in the Babylonian exile. The people must first become again inwardly God’s people before the sanctuary could be again placed among them. In what had happened they saw God’s factual declaration that He wished to dwell no longer in Shiloh” (Hengst. Beitr. 3, 48 sq. [Contrib. to Introd.]). AND 1 Samuel 6:1. [Henry: Seven months Israel was punished with the absence of the ark, and the Philistines punished with its presence.… A melancholy time no doubt it was to the pious in Israel—particularly to Samuel—but they had this to comfort themselves with, as we have in the like distress, when we are deprived of the comfort of public ordinances, that, wherever the ark is, the Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord’s throne is in heaven, and by faith and prayer we may have access with boldness to Him there. We may have God nigh unto us, when the ark is at a distance.—Tr.]. S. Schmid: God cannot bear with His enemies too long, but knows how at the right time to save His honor. 1 Samuel 6:2-3. J. Lange: Bad men, when they are chastised for their sins, are commonly disposed not to recognize the true cause, but maintain that it all comes only from chance or from merely natural causes.—Wuertemberg Bible: Even false prophets and teachers often have the gift of prophecy: Numbers 24:2; John 11:50-51; Matthew 7:22-23. We must therefore not trust to outward gifts.—Tuebingen Bible: Even the heathen have recognized that the justice of God must be appeased if sin is to be forgiven. 1 Samuel 6:6. Cramer: God is wonderful, and often even speaks His word through unbelievers and ungodly men (Numbers 22:28). The word of God loses nothing in certainty, power, and worth, though it is preached by ungodly men (Philippians 1:15). [Hall: Samuel himself could not have spoken more divinely than these priests of Dagon: they do not only talk of giving glory to the God of Israel, but fall into an holy and grave expostulation.… All religions have afforded them that could speak well. These good words left them both Philistines and superstitious.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 6:7. S. Schmid: That the irrational brutes are under God’s providence and control, even the heathen have recognized. 1 Samuel 6:9. Starke: Great and wonderful is the long suffering of God, that He condescends to the weakness of men and suffers Himself to be tempted by them.—S. Schmid: That in which men prescribe to God and tempt Him, cannot indeed bind God; but it binds the men themselves in their consciences, who prescribe to Him. 1 Samuel 6:13. S. Schmid: Even in troublous times God does not cease to do good to His people.—Cramer: When God brings forth again the light of His word, it ought to be recognized with the highest thankfulness. 1 Samuel 6:14. Seb. Schmid: It is a great favor when God comes forward before men, and voluntarily appears among them. 1 Samuel 6:15. Wuert. Bible: When, after we have borne trouble and need, God again manifests to us His favor and help, we should not forget to be thankful. 1 Samuel 6:19. Seb. Schmid: An untimely and venturesome joy God can soon turn into great sorrow.—The plague is fortunate that brings the impenitent to repentance. 1 Samuel 6:20. Berlenb. Bible: When God so to speak only passes by us, through some temporary taste of His presence, it is a favor which He may also impart to sinners. But that He may make His abode in us, as He promises in so many passages of Holy Scripture, that He may be willing to remain with us and in us,—for that there is demanded great purity in every respect.—S. Schmid: Better is quite too great a fear of God than no fear, if only it does not wholly take away confidence in God’s mercy (Psalms 119:120). Footnotes:[1 Samuel 6:2. So the verb is not unfrequently used, as in Joshua 23:2.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:2. Or, “how.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:3. The Pron. is not in the present Heb. text, but is found in 7 MSS., in Sept., Syr., Chald., Arab., and apparently in Vulg. It may have fallen out, as Houbigant suggests, from similarity to the following word (ΰϊνΰϊ). Others (so Erdmann) take the construction as impersonal, and render: “if one sends back,” etc.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:3. This phrase in Eng. A. V. is intended to express the Heb. Inf. Abs.; but where the proper shade of intensity or emphasis cannot be given in Eng., it is better to write the verb simply, and not introduce a foreign substantive idea.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:3. Some ancient vss. and modern expositors refer this to the ark, and render “to it,” relying on the grammatical connection, and on 1 Samuel 6:9; but the Philistines throughout seem to regard God, and not the ark, as the author of their sufferings. Yet it is possible that, even with this view, their idolatrous ideas might have led them to appease the instrument or visible occasion of the divine infliction.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:3. Erdmann and others take this sentence as conditional (which is here possible, but somewhat hard) on the ground that the priests are not sure that the atonement-offering will be successful, but propose an experiment (as in 1 Samuel 6:9). Yet in 1 Samuel 6:5-6 they are sure, and the experiment in 1 Samuel 6:9 seems an afterthought.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:3. The Heb. text is here supported by Syr., Arab. and Vulg., nor is there any variation in the MSS. (De Rossi); but Sept. has “expiation shall be made for you” (πִ ?λַּ ?τֵּ ?ψ), and Chald. “healing shall be granted you” (ιִ ?ϊְ ?ψְ ?εַ ?η). To the first of these the repetition is an objection, to the second the order of ideas (healing, expiation). It does hot appear whether they are loose renderings of our text, or represent a different text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:4. Philippson renders “tumors” (geschwόlste), setting aside the supposed plague of field-mice. See Exeg. Notes in loco. The Sept. here departs from the Heb. text in the order of statements and in the number of mice; see the discussion in the note on the passage.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:4. This clause stands first in the original.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:4. Heb.: “them all,” and so Erdmann and Philippson. But all the VSS. and 10 MSS. read “you,” Which the sense seems to require.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:6. The verb (δϊςμμ) is Aor., rendered “wrought” in Exodus 10:2 by Eng. A. V.; Sept. and Vulg. render freely “smote;” but Syr. has “they mocked them, and did not send them away, and they went,” where the wrong number of the first vb. required the negation in the second.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:7. Or, “take and prepare” (so Erdmann). But the verb χְ ?ηεּ may properly be taken as expletive or pleonastic here, as in 2 Samuel 18:18 (see Ges. Lex. s. v.), though it must be understood before the second accusative “kine.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:8. The word λְּ ?μִ ?ι means any instrument or implement, and is used of utensils, implements, armor, weapons, vessels and jewels; here, however, it is none of these, but figures, copies or works: Luther, bilder, Erdmann, gerδthe, D’Allioli, figures, Cahen, empreintes, and the other modern VSS., of Martin, Diodati, D’Almeida, De S. Miguel, have “figures;” only the Dutch has “jewels,” Vulg. vasa, Sept. σκεύη.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:8. The Art. here points out the coffer which belonged to the cart; but as this is not otherwise known or mentioned, the insertion or omission of the Art. in Eng. makes little or no difference. The Al. Sept. inserts a neg. before the word “put” in this verse, perhaps to avoid a supposed difficulty in the number of golden mice.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:11. The Vat. Sept. (but not Al.) omits the words “and the images of their boils,” perhaps in order to indicate that the mice were not in the argaz or box, and thus avoid the difficulty above-mentioned (see 1 Samuel 6:18). Wellhausen, taking exception to the inverted order here (mice, boils), to the word tehorim, and to the ambiguity of the phrase, omits all of 1 Samuel 6:11 after “coffer,” regarding the Heb. as a gloss on the already corrupt Greek. But this is improbable, and the Heb. is sustained by all the VSS. The tehorim is not improbably a marginal explanation of ophalim which has crept into the text (so Geiger and Erdmann); but the text, though not perfectly clear, must, on critical grounds, be retained, since there would have been no special reason why a scribe should insert it, but on the other hand ground for its omission, as the Greek shows tampering with the text to avoid a difficulty.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:12. On the form of the Heb. word see Erdmann in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:12. Ges. Gram. (Conant’s transl.), § 75, Rem. I. 2.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:13. The Heb. has simply “Bethshemesh,” the place put for its inhabitants.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:13. Sept.: “to meet it” (μִ ?χְ ?ψָ ?ΰϊεֹ), error of copyist.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:18. The first clause of this verse (and along with it 1 Samuel 6:17) is stricken out by Wellhausen on the ground of its incompatibility with 1 Samuel 6:8. The external evidence for the clause is complete; on the internal evidence see the Comm. in loco and Translator’s note.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:18. Or: “witness is the great stone,” etc., omitting the word “remaineth;” so Erdmann, see Comm. in loco. The simpler translation given above is that suggested in Bib. Comm.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:19. This is the common meaning of the verb (ψΰδ with α).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 6:19. These numbers, though probably incorrect, are left in the text, because no satisfactory reading has been settled on. The clause should be bracketed. See discussion in Comm.—Tr.] [The word here employed for “priests” (kohanim) is the same as that used to designate the priests of the true God, the distinctive word for idol-priests (kemarim) occurring only three times in O. T., though frequent in the Syriac and Chald. translations. The Arabic here renders “chiefs” or “doctors” (ahbara), probably to avoid a scandalous application of the sacred name. For etymology of kohen see Ges., Thes., and Fόrst, Heb. Lex.—The word rendered “soothsayer” (qosem) is probably from a stem meaning “to divide, partition, assign fortunes,” and seems to be employed to denote divination by processes such as shaking arrows, consulting teraphim, inspecting livers (Ezekiel 21:26-28 [21–23]), perhaps differing thus from the mantic art proper, which involved possession or inspiration by the deity (which two methods Cicero calls divination with and without art, Div. 1, 18). The word is used in O. T. only of false diviners (for wider use in Arabic see Freytag, Ar. Lex. s. v. qasama). Comp. Art. “Divination” in Smith’s Bib. Dict. Articles “Wahrsager” and “Magier” in Winer’s Bib. R. W., and Ges., Thes.—Tr.] [On this see Translator’s note in “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] [The word asham rather means not “debt,” but “offence” and its “punishment” (comp. Genesis 26:10; Ps. 14:9; Isaiah 53:10, and the Arab. athama), and is not restricted in the Mosaic Law to cases of restitution (see Leviticus 5 (Eng. A. Leviticus 5:1 to Leviticus 6:7), Leviticus 14:12; Numbers 6:12). Here it may be used in this latter sense, and is in general more appropriate than hattath, since the Philistines cannot be supposed to have the deeper conception of sin involved in the latter word. It is, of course, a question whether they employed this very word asham.—Tr.] [Against this see note under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] [For defence of the reading “you all” see “Textual and Grammatical” notes in loco.—Tr.] [Erdmann translates: “take and make a new cart, and take two milch cows,”—on which see note under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] [Robinson: “Just on the west of the village (Ain Shems), on and around the plateau of a low swell between the Surar on the North and a smaller Wady on the South, are the manifest traces of an ancient site. Here are the vestiges of a former extensive city, consisting of many foundations and the remains of ancient walls of hewn stone. The materials have indeed been chiefly swallowed up in the probably repeated constructions of the modern village; but enough yet remains to make it one of the largest and most marked sites which we had any where seen. On the north the great Wady-es-Surar—itself a plain—runs off first west and then north-west into the great plain; while on the south the smaller Wady comes down from the south-east, and uniting with the one down which we had traveled, they enter the Surar below the ruins.”—Tr.] ιִ ?ωַׁ ?ψְ ?πָ ?δ is for ιιִ ?ωָּׁ ?ψְ ?πָ ?δ, and the ι for ϊ. On this form comp. Ew. §191 b, and Gesen. §47, R. 3. [The word τְּ ?ψָ ?ζָ ?δ is explained by the Mishna and the Jews generally, and by Gesenius, to mean “open country,” and this signification for the adj. form in the text is required by the contrast with “fenced cities.” See Ges. Thes. s. v. The Arab. stem pharaza is “to separate”—and the derived nouns have the sense of “planeness,” whence the rural districts may have been called “plane,” that is, “unwalled.”—Tr.] [On the supposition that there was no mouse-plague, the mouse-figures equally represented the whole country. In this connection the Greek text of 1 Samuel 6:4-5 is worthy of attention. It reads: “(1 Samuel 6:4), five golden hedras (ophalim, ‘boils’), according to the number of the lords of the Philistines; (1 Samuel 6:5), and golden mice, like the mice,” etc.; thus separating the two statements, and omitting the second number five. If this reading were adopted, it-would relieve the Heb. text, which, in several places in this chapter, shows traces of corruption. See note under “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] [The words in brackets are not in the German—omitted probably by typographical error.—Tr.] [On the criticism of this verse see De Rossi, Var. Lcct., and a good note in Bib. Comm. As to the numbers, it seems impossible to determine anything with certainty, and the conjecture of Thenius (that we read 70, omitting the 50,000) is as probable as any other. That the first part of the verse is corrupt is evident from the variations in the VSS. and the confused character of the Heb. text itself. Two hints for the reconstruction of the true text appear to be given us, one by the Chald., the other by the Sept. The former reads: “and He slew among the men of Bethshemesh, because they rejoiced when they saw the ark,” etc. (where the “rejoiced” is apparently taken from 1 Samuel 6:13); the latter reads: “and not pleased were the sons of Jechoniah among the men of Bethshemeshites, that they saw the ark,” etc. Combining these, we may perhaps infer 1) that the “rejoice” or “pleased” was inserted by a translator or copyist and 2) that a phrase of several words preceded the words “with the men of Bethshemesh,” The verse then, may have begun somewhat so: εַ ?ιηֲ ?ψΰַ ?σιδεδ ,αּ ?ΰֲ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιαΧ, and read “and Jehovah was angry with the Bethshemeshites, because, etc., … and smote among them” (reading λδν for αςν). From this the present Heb. text might have come by substituting εַ ?ιִַ ?κְ (by hom�oteleuton or otherwise) for the first words, and omitting ιι or ιδεδ, and the Sept. text might be explained as a duplet, in which the αְּ ?πֵ ?ιιְ ?λָ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δεּ is a corruption of the Heb., and the “displeased” taken from the same source as the Chald.—Wellhausen translates the Sept. into Heb. by the words εְ ?μֹ ?ΰπִ ?χּ ?εּ αְ ?πֵ ?ιιְ ?λָ ?πְ ?ιָ ?δεּ, and adopts this as the true text. But this is not in itself very satisfactory (“and the sons of Jechoniah were not guiltless,” etc.), and does not answer the demands of the VSS. and the context.—Tr.] [Mr. Grove (Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art.“ Kirjath-jearim ”) suggests that the ancient sanctity of Kirjath-jearim (it was called Baalah and Kirjath-Baal, and may have been a seat of worship of the Canaanitish deity Baal) was the ground of the ark’s being sent thither. He points out also a difficulty in its identification with Kuryet el Enab from the distance (ten miles over an uneven country) between it and Bethshemesh (Ain Shems), and further from the absence (so far as known) of a hill corresponding to that mentioned in 1 Samuel 7:1. But see Porter, p. 270.—Tr.] SECOND SECTIONThe Reformation of Israel by Samuel1 Samuel 7:2-17I. Israel’s Repentance and Conversion by Means of Samuel’s Prophetical Labors. 1 Samuel 7:2-62 And it came to pass, while the ark abode in Kirjathjearim, that the time was long; for it was twenty years. [And it came to pass, after the day when the ark rested in K., a long time, even twenty years, elapsed], and all the house of Israel 3lamented after the Lord [Jehovah]; And Samuel spake unto all the house of Israel, saying, If ye do return unto the Lord [Jehovah] with all your hearts, then put away the strange gods [ins. from among you] and [ins. the] Ashtaroth from among you [om. from among you], and prepare [direct] your hearts unto the Lord [Jehovah], and serve him only; and he will deliver you out of the hands of the Philistines. 4Then the children of Israel did put away [ins. the] Baalim and [ins. the] Ashtaroth, 5and served the Lord [Jehovah] only. And Samuel said, Gather all Israel to Mizpeh 6[Mizpah], and I will pray for you unto the Lord [Jehovah]. And they gathered together to Mizpeh [Mizpah], and drew water, and poured it out before the Lord [Jehovah], and said there, We have sinned against the Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpeh [Mizpah]. AND 1 Samuel 7:2-4. The penitential return of the people from idolatry to the sole service of the living God. First, as to the union and connection of these sentences, their close union is so distinctly marked by the five-times occurring Waw [“and”] that to suppose (with Thenius) a gap between 1 Samuel 7:2-3 is unwarranted. And also the connection of the individual statements is opposed to such a view. In 1 Samuel 7:2 the phrase “ after or from the day” [ ξִ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν Eng. A. V. “while”] marks a terminus a quo, on which follows the statement of a period of time, of a condition of things which lasted during this period, and of a definite fact which introduced a new era. The point of time, from which reckoning is made, is the day when the ark rested at Kirjathjearim, important enough, after its long absence, to form the beginning of a new development. The following period of twenty years is characterized as disproportionally long by the added words “and the days grew many.” [The sentence reads literally: “and it came to pass, from the resting of the ark in K., and the days were many, and they were twenty years”]. This is done to set forth more distinctly the condition of the people during this period, after the restoration of the ark. The condition of “all the people of Israel” is described by the words εַ ?ιִּ ?πָּ ?δεּ, etc. [Eng. A. V. “ lamented, etc.”] according to the inner side of their life in relation to God. The meaning assigned to this verb (εַ ?ιִּ ?πָּ ?δεּ) by Gesenius and others, “assembled,” rests merely on Buxturf’s “congregati sunt” (Lex. Chald., p. 1310), which is here and elsewhere an utterly incorrect translation of the Chald. Reflexive. Bφttcher (Ζhrenlese I., p. 111) translates: “the people of Israel quieted themselves, and (in quiet devotion) followed Jahveh,” and sees in this the contrast to the “great disquietude” mentioned in 1 Samuel 6:19 sq. But, in the first place, against this view is the phrase “after Jehovah,” which, in this translation, requires the arbitrary insertion of another verb “and followed,” without which insertion the expression “and quieted themselves after Jehovah” gives no sense. Further, the reference to 1 Samuel 6:19 sq. is irrelevant, because there it is only a local “disquietude” that is spoken of, not one that touched all the people. Rather, according to Bφttcher’s own remark—that πηδ, in the first place, expresses remarkable breathing in general, heavy respiration, with sighing and lamentation, and hence πָ ?δָ ?δ is used of wailing—we must accept as well-grounded the translation: “And sighed or lamented after the Lord.” (So πָ ?δָ ?δ is used in Micah 2:4; Ezekiel 32:18). The matter or the cause of the lamentation is determined by the connection between these words and the following, and by the external condition of Israel during this period. In respect to the latter, Bφttcher asks: “Why should the Israelites still mourn after twenty years of immunity and quiet? And how could they have lamented ‘after Jahveh,’ unless it was that their sanctuary had to move again?” To which we reply by pointing to the uninterrupted oppression of the Philistine domination; for, though the Philistines had brought the ark humbly back (Then.), there is no conflict between this and 1 Samuel 7:3 “He will save you from the hand of the Philistines,” since according to the narrative, the restoration of the ark had a definite religious ground, and noways involved the abandonment of the dominion which had been gained anew over Israel by the victory recorded in chap, iv. Indeed, it is expressly assumed in 1 Samuel 7:3 that this dominion had continued. It is, therefore, incorrect to suppose that the Israelites could have had cause and occasion for lamentation only by a new loss of the ark. Their external condition under the weight of the Philistine rule was cause enough for sighing and lamenting. The tone and content of the lamentation is more precisely stated by the context. The succeeding address of Samuel (1 Samuel 7:3) “if ye return” (properly, “ if ye are returning,” “are in a state of conversion”) and the mention of the sincere penitence of the people (1 Samuel 7:6), presuppose a very deep sorrow and suffering, in which the foreign Philistine rule was felt to be a judgment of God, there being throughout the whole people a tone of feeling, which led them to return humbly to God, and to sigh and long after Him, now that He had turned away from His people: a return back to the living God, on whom they had often turned their back, to whom, however, they now, in consequence of His continuing judgments, again turned, just as, in the period of the Judges, return so often alternated with apostasy. The “lamenting after the Lord” therefore expresses the penitent disposition and decided direction of the innermost life of the people to their God, in which, with sorrow and pain over the self-incurred national misfortune under the rule of the Philistines, they seek God’s mercy and saving help, He having hitherto turned His back on them, and forsaken them. The image is that of a child that goes weeping after its father or mother, that it may be relieved of what hurts it. An allusion to such a relation might perhaps be found in the expression “the whole house of Israel.” S. Schmid: “The phrase ‘lament after God’ is taken from human affairs, when one follows another, and entreats him with lamentations till he assents. An example of this is the Syrophenician woman, Matthew 15”—After the lapse of the twenty years occurred this decided return of the whole people to their God. As, besides the constant pressure of the Philistine rule, no special calamity is mentioned, we must suppose a gradual preparation for this penitential temper of the people, which now, after the lapse of twenty years from the return of the ark, was become universal. The preparation came from within. By what means? by the prophetic labors of Samuel, from the summary description of which, according to their intensive power, their extensive manifestation, and their results in the whole nation (1 Samuel 3:19-21), we may clearly see, that Samuel without ceasing proclaimed to the people the word of God. And as in 1 Samuel 3:19 it is said that “none of his words fell to the ground,” we shall have to recognize this penitential temper and this following after God with sighing and lamentation from the consciousness of being forsaken and needing help, as a fruit of Samuel’s prophetic labors, which were directed to the relation of the innermost life of the people to their God. So by his influence the way was secretly and gradually paved for a reformation of the religious-moral life from within outwards. Certainly the lamentation of the people after the Lord was already the turning-point to a better God-ward direction of the inner life (against Keil); the important thing was only that the people should maintain this following after God, should anew devote themselves in heart firmly and decidedly to the living God, and should give an outward confirmation of their resolution by completely breaking with idolatry. This it is to which Samuel will yet further lead the people; on this it depended whether the help of the Lord should be obtained, and the true covenant-relation restored; in this was first thoroughly completed the reformation of the innermost life of the people; therefore the narrator describes this in detail in 1 Samuel 7:3 sqq., while he sets forth that preparation for the reformation only in its last stage of development, and even then merely by hints. In 1 Samuel 7:3 Samuel’s word of exhortation is in the first place described as addressed to the whole people (comp. 1 Samuel 3:20); we see him here in the performance of his prophetical work, which embraces all Israel. The content of this word is first a conditionally expressed preliminary: “ If ye return to the Lord with all your hearts.” Two things are here assumed and recognized as facts: 1) That a conversion to God had already taken place in the whole nation, and 2) that this conversion was a permanent condition, and that a permanent tendency towards God existed, as we may see from the Particip. “if ye are turning.” He thus points back to what is said before of Israel’s sighing and lamenting after the Lord. The phrase “with all the heart” involves an exhortation to what must be inseparably connected with conversion, if the latter is to be true and thorough, demands, that is, an internalizing and deepening of what is described in 1 Samuel 7:2 as lamenting after the Lord, in order that the right attitude of soul towards God may exist. Since the heart is the centre and source of all movements of the inner life, as the bodily heart is the centre of the bloodflow and the life thereon founded, to turn “with all the heart” is so to turn one’s self to God, from the central innermost kernel of the personal life, that is, of all thinking, feeling, desiring, willing, that the whole life shall be controlled by the fellowship with Him. To this deeply and thoroughly heartfelt turning, conversion of the whole inner life to the holy God, must now correspond the external confirmation of such a disposition. The demand is in conformity with the condition: “Put away the strange gods from among you,” which is exactly the same with the demand that Jacob (Genesis 35:2) once made of his house, and Joshua (Joshua 24:23, comp. 1 Samuel 14.) of his people. “After the return of the ark an earnest longing after the Lord arose among Israel. Samuel, availing himself of this, exhorted them to remove all idolatry from their midst” (Hengst., Beitr. [Contrib.] I. 153 sqq.). The strange gods here spoken of, and called Ashtaroth and Baalim (comp. 1 Samuel 7:4) are the gods of the Philistines, whose worship had gained entrance during the decline of the theocratic life and of the worship of the living God, as indeed during the whole Period of the Judges the idol-worship of the heathen nations was constantly forcing its way in, wherefore the Lord gave them again and again into the hand of the latter (Judges 2:11; Judges 2:13; Judges 10:6-7). The fellowship with the living God, to which conversion with all the heart leads, is incompatible with idol-worship, the putting away of which is therefore the sign of an upright and thorough conversion. As to the “from among you,” comp. Genesis 35:2; Joshua 24:23.—To this negative side of the renovation of the religious life is to be added the positive, which is stated in the following two-fold demand. “Fix your hearts towards or in trust in God.” The fix (εְ ?δָ ?αִ ?ιπεּ) is opposed to the wavering, vacillating state of mind, which may always co-exist with sighing and lamenting, and sets forth, as an indispensable condition, the energy of religious-moral life, with which the man who turns heartily to God must put away everything opposed to God. The “to Jehovah” expresses the fact that movement and tendency towards God must be the aim, as it is the centre and source, of the whole inner life. In this tendency and movement it is required that there be stability, fixedness, steadfastness, proceeding from a heart which is immovably and unshakably fixed on Him alone. Thereby is the second requirement fulfilled: serve Him only; for the heart fixed firmly on Him excludes completely everything, consecration to which might bring it into opposition with God, and cause the surrender of the whole inner life; it attaches itself to God alone, and excludes all other gods.—The following words “and He will deliver you,” etc., suppose that the hand, that is, the might and power, of the Philistines was on Israel, and that the foreign rule continued; they contain the promise of deliverance from the Philistine power, holding it out as the consequence of the previously described conversion. The foundation-thought here is this: Re-establish your covenant-relation to God by honest and thorough conversion, manifested by the putting away of all idol-deities, and then God also will turn to you, so that you shall no longer have to lament after Him, and will again announce His relation to you as your covenant-God by saving you from your enemies. 1 Samuel 7:4 witnesses that, in these circumstances also, no word of Samuel fell to the ground. Two things are stated: the complete removal of the worship of the strange gods, and the restoration of the exclusive worship of the living God. On the one hand, the designation of the strange gods is here enlarged (see 1 Samuel 7:3) by the addition of Baalim to Ashtaroth; it is thus intimated that there was a complete and comprehensive purification of the religious life and service. On the other hand, the word “only” is repeated from 1 Samuel 7:3, and it is thus expressly said, that the covenant-God alone and exclusively became the object of worship, while it is at the same time involved that the general service of Jehovah had not ceased, but that the worship of strange gods had existed only along with Jehovah-worship. According to the preceding explanation of the section, 1 Samuel 7:2-4, its particular parts stand in close connection with one another, and there is nothing at all which compels us to suppose either a gap in the narrative, or interpolations of foreign matter, in order to make a connection. The second supposition is adopted by Ewald, who conjectures that 1 Samuel 7:3-4 are interpolated, assuming without ground that they break the connection; the first is adopted by Thenius, who assumes a gap between 1 Samuel 7:2 and 1 Samuel 7:3, of which he himself, however, says, that it is possibly as old as our Book, since it is not filled up by any of the old translations. Since, now, he throws the alleged defect back on the original authorities which are here used, the question is, whether his grounds for its existence are tenable, apart from the fact that the context and the narrative exhibit no gap in any essential point. When the Philistines brought back the ark, their dominion over Israel, as Keil properly remarks, was not thereby given up; its continuance is assumed in the words “He will save you,” and did not need to be expressly mentioned. As little need was there for express mention of an apostasy to idolatry, when it is stated that Samuel exhorted them to give it up; for in this period, as in that of the Judges, it was a usual thing for idolatry to make its way into Israel, and besides, there had been no complete apostasy from the living God. On the incorrect presupposition that, in consequence of the unmentioned apostasy, Israel had again been given into the hand of the Philistines, Thenius supposes that Samuel, in this time of stress, had been chosen Judge, and that the account of this choice, which, however, is implied in the words: “And Samuel judged Israel in Mizpah,” has fallen out. Against which Keil remarks well: “The appearance of Samuel as Shophet [Judge] does not imply that the assumption of this office must have been before mentioned. In general there was no formal assumption of the office of Judge, least of all in the case of Samuel, who had already been recognized by all Israel as an authenticated prophet of Jehovah (1 Samuel 3:19 sqq.).” Bunsen: “There is no gap here, but a chronological statement.” 1 Samuel 7:5-6. The day of penitence and prayer in Mizpah exhibits the whole people there assembled as sincerely penitent, and Samuel as their representative with his petition in the presence of the Lord. The content of these verses is the carrying on further of what is related in 1 Samuel 7:3-5. After idolatry has been expelled, and the worship of God alone restored, Samuel takes another step forward: he calls at Mizpah an assembly of the whole people, through their elders and representatives, for an exclusively religious purpose; they are to declare and set forth as a body the sincere, hearty conversion of their individual members, while he, Samuel, as their head chosen by God, will perform the priestly function of prayer for them before the Lord. “His purpose in this,” as Keil well remarks, “could be only to bring the people back to the proper relation to their God, and so to pave the way for their deliverance from the bondage of the Philistines.” This assembly was, however, by no means intended, as Keil supposes, to make immediate preparation for the war of deliverance against the Philistines. That the people did not regard the assembly as a military one, and that Samuel therefore had not spoken of such a one, is clear from 1 Samuel 7:7, where it is said, that the children of Israel were afraid of the Philistines, when they heard that their lords had marched forth to fight with them. The Philistines, indeed, thought the assembly a military one, and opened hostilities in the opinion that the assembly was called to make an attack on them, so that Samuel was compelled to consecrate the people to battle against the Philistines, though they had been called together for a purely religious end (1 Samuel 7:8 sq.), and to go out with them to battle against the Philistines. The place of assembly is Mizpah (“watch-tower”) in the Tribe of Benjamin on its western border, north of Jerusalem, and to be distinguished from Mizpeh in the lowland of Judah (Joshua 15:38). According to Robinson, Tobler, v. d. Velde, Furrer, it is the present Neby Samwil (“Prophet Samuel”), five hundred feet above the elevated table-land, two thousand, four hundred and eighty-four feet above the level of the sea, near Ramah and Geba (comp. 1 Kings 15:22; 2 Chronicles 16:6), visible from Jerusalem, 1Ma 3:46 (κατέναντι ’Ιερουσαλήμ, “over against Jerusalem,” comp. Jos. Ant. XI. 8, 5), affording an extensive prospect as far as the sea and the transjordanic mountains. The present place is, however, neither the ancient Shiloh, as some hold, nor Ramah of Samuel, as others suppose. The latter view, which Ewald also (Gesch. II. 583) is inclined to maintain, has been completely set aside by Robinson (II. 356–362 [Amer. ed. I. 458–460]). Samuel chose this place for the assembly of the people, not, as Keil supposes, because, “being on the western border of the mountains, it was the fittest place at which to begin the struggle against the Philistines,” but because it was one of the holy places of the land, and, being in the middle of the territory on an extensive plateau, and thus protected against the attacks of enemies, was specially suited for such assemblies. While Shiloh, from Joshua’s time on, was the permanent seat of the Sanctuary, the Tabernacle remaining there, even after the removal of the ark, till its transference to Nob (1 Samuel 21:6), there were, especially in the central part of the land, several other places, “which, for various reasons, from before or after the time of Moses, had a certain sanctity, and where smaller altars were found” (Ew. II. 583); thus, Shechem (Joshua 24:25-26), famous from the Patriarchal time on account of its conquest by Simeon and Levi, and as the resting-place of Joseph’s bones (Genesis 34; Genesis 47:1)—Gilgal, sacred as the first camping-place of the people after the passage of the Jordan, as the memorial-spot of God’s saving help, and as the place where the old covenant-fellowship with God was renewed by the circumcision and passover which were anew ordained by Joshua (Joshua 5:2-12—especially 15), and Bethel, consecrated as a holy place by Jacob, and temporarily the seat of the ark during the civil war between Benjamin and the other tribes (Judges 20:18; Judges 20:23; Judges 20:26; Judges 21:2). At that time Mizpah—which also was one of the holy places (Judges 11:11)—was the place where Israel assembled “unto the Lord” (Judges 20:1), to save the honor of the people against the outrage of the inhabitants of Gibeah, and resolved on the war against Benjamin. In this place, consecrated to the worship of God, called therefore in 1Ma 3:46 an ancient τόποςπροσευχῆς [“place of prayer”] for Israel, remarkable by its historical antecedents (Judges 20:21), and favorably situated in the middle of the land, Samuel appointed an assembly of the people. “In the wearisome oppression of a trying time the people gathered at last, like frightened chickens around the hen, with more and more accord about Samuel, in whom they learned to trust; he calls an assembly of the people, which willingly allows itself to be guided, instructed, warned and directed by him” (Ew. II. 510).—The words “and I will pray,” etc., exhibit the highest end which Samuel had in calling this assembly: “I will pray for you to God.” That is, his purpose is to bring the people back to their God and renew the old covenant-fellowship with him by the intercession of prayer, by a priestly representation of the people before God by prayer and intercession. The object of the prayer is not mentioned, but, from the connection, can have been nothing else than the manifestation of the divine grace and mercy in the forgiveness of sins and the blotting out of the guilt of sin. Thenius: “For your sins up to this time, that they may be forgiven you.” That deliverance from the hand of the Philistines was not, at least not immediately, the object of the intercession, is clear not only from the phrase “for you” (αַּ ?ςַ ?γְ ?λֶ ?ν), since otherwise Samuel must have used another expression, so as to include himself, but also from the following words, which can be referred only to the deep consciousness of sin and of guilt which was awakened in the people.—In 1 Samuel 7:6 the symbolic act of drawing and pouring out water does not set forth the confirmation of an oath, as some have supposed: “as the poured out water cannot be gathered again, so our word shall not be taken back”—for this signification of the act must in that case have been somehow intimated in the narrative; nor does it appear from the context that an oath, and what sort of a one, was to be confirmed. The water, drawn and poured out, can no more indicate simply tears, as Grotius and others think. Others, again, referring to 1 Samuel 1:15, explain it of prayer (Clericus: “to pour out the heart before God, i.e., to pray to Him from the heart, and open the heart to Him”); but they overlook the fact that then it would have been necessary to annex a preciser statement of this meaning to the symbolic use of water. Nor can the pouring out of water be regarded as signifying purification from sin, or as the sign of their hope that their sins were now blotted out (so O. v. Gerlach), since the water is not here designated at all as a means of purification, and there is no mention of an act of purification. It is rather a symbolical act of penitence that is here described. Water, which is poured out and disappears, is a frequent image of the state of dissolution and melting away which characterizes human life, especially on its inner side, and is used sometimes of particular aspects of life, sometimes of the whole personality. It is thus used to set forth moral dissoluteness and ethical godlessness in Genesis 49:4; Genesis 11 comp. Jude 1 Samuel 7:13. It further denotes the destruction, the perishing of all the happiness and prosperity of the physical life, Psalms 58:8; 2 Samuel 14:14; and often also the complete dissolution and breaking up of the psychical-spiritual life in fear and spiritlessness, Joshua 7:5, in care, anxiety, deep misery, Psalms 22:15. The latter application of the image is the one here employed, and (since it is the act of pouring out water “before the Lord” that is described) in the sense that the people make confession and present themselves before the Lord in deepest consciousness of their wretchedness and in sadness for their sin and the misery that flowed from it. Comp. Lamentations 2:19.—That we have to regard the action as symbol of the heart and the whole inner life poured out “before the Lord,”—that is, completely carried away and dissolved by the feeling of guilt and consequent misery,—is clear from what follows. The fasting which was performed the same day is the sign of the repentant, humble soul, bowed down before God, the expression of grief in sincere penitence, designated in the Law as “afflicting the soul” (ςִ ?πָּ ?δπַ ?τְּ ?ωׁ ?εֹ), and ordained, as symbol of the humiliation of the whole people in repentance and penitence, for the festival of the great Day of Atonement, Leviticus 16:29; Leviticus 16:31; Leviticus 23:27; Leviticus 23:32; Numbers 29:7. The word φεּ ?ν[“fast”], which denotes the form of “wearying and chastening the soul,” is not found in the Law, comp. Isaiah 58:3 sqq. The bodily deprivation which the man imposes on himself expresses his prostration and humiliation of soul. To the twofold confession of sin and guilt, thus set forth in the symbolical act of pouring out water and fasting, answers, as indication of the contrition thus expressed, the verbal confession: “We have sinned against the Lord.” The “there” (ωָׁ ?ν) is not to be understood of time, to which it never refers, but of the place, Mizpah. The person against whom the sin is committed is here introduced by the Prep. μְ [“to,” “against,”] as in 1 Samuel 2:25. While the two symbolical acts set forth their state of grief and suffering on account of the disturbance through sin of their relation to God, and their consequent misery, these words point not only to sin as the source and object of this prostrate and humbled feeling, but also to the proper essence of sin as opposition to the holy will of God as Lawgiver and Judge of His people. It is a grand and touching self-presentation of the whole people before their God in true, thorough penitence and conversion, which is here (1 Samuel 7:3-6) portrayed in its separate features. Samuel’s position in this picture exhibits him in his prophetic work, which takes deep hold on the whole people, and brings them back to the Lord; his words to the people, here reported, form the culmination of all preceding announcements of God’s word, and complete the work of the conversion of the people to the Lord, with which he had as faithful prophet hitherto occupied himself. The people, who repent before the Lord in this powerfully moving way, are the fruit of his previous prophetic work. And Samuel judged the children of Israel in Mizpah.—These words cannot, with Keil, be considered as embracing the whole work just before narrated; that is, as showing that Samuel’s judging consisted in “Samuel’s calling the people together to Mizpah for humiliation before Jehovah, effecting there by his intercession the forgiveness of their sins, bringing back the divine favor, and so restoring Israel’s true relation to their God.” All this belongs to Samuel’s work as Prophet of Israel, comp. 1 Samuel 4:1. Since the statement “Samuel judged Israel in Mizpah” follows immediately on the narration of the solemn act of repentance instituted by Samuel, and afterwards (1 Samuel 7:15) his judicial work is again mentioned in connection with all that precedes, we must here understand by this “judging” something else than those labors in connection with the religious relation of the people to their God. After Samuel had restored this last by his prophetic work, his succeeding labors were those not only of a prophet, but also of a judge. His judicial office is here named for the first time. The connection in which it occurs shows how it proceeded from and was founded on his prophetic office. It is not, however, the beginning or origin of this office that is here mentioned, as if the Verb (ιִ ?ωְׁ ?τֹּ ?θ) meant “he became judge,” but Samuel is here set before us in the exercise of his judicial position. It is too narrow a view of this to restrict it to judicial decisions proper, or (as Thenius does) to the punishment of individuals (R. David: “he punished every one according to his offence”). We must rather regard Samuel’s judging as a directing and ordering, in accordance with the above act of repentance, of the inner affairs of the people, who were by that religious act inwardly again purified. It consisted both in the administration of right and justice according to the law of the Lord, and in government proper, in the wise carrying out of measures that looked to the good of the people. In their history hitherto the deliverance of the people from the power of their enemies belonged also to the judicial office; with the Judges this, as a judicial function, generally came first, and then followed the direction of internal affairs. With Samuel it was the reverse. The deliverance of the people from the dominion of the Philistines began under his rule as Judge, after he had, as Prophet, brought them back into their right relation to God, and ordered and purified them in their inner life. AND 1. The course of true penitence and conversion consists in mourning after God, in a sorrowful seeking after Him, in a complete devotion of the heart to the Lord, which attests itself by a decided breaking with the power of evil, in energetic putting away of everything opposed to God, and in humble subordination of the will to the sole authority of the Lord (1 Samuel 7:2-4). 2. After the ark had lost its significance as theocratic centre of the national life, and Shiloh had ceased to be the central seat of the national sanctuary, after, too, the priesthood, with the rejection of the sanctuary, had lost its prominent middle place between God and the people, then the prophetic office, in the person of Samuel filled with the Spirit of the Lord, took this position, in order to restore the true covenant-relation between God and the people. For this it was necessary that Israel, confessing and repenting of their sin against the Lord, should return in sincere penitence to their God, and put away the abomination of heathendom, which they had taken to them, that God should turn again to His people with grace and mercy, and that the whole national life should assume a completely new form in a righteous disposition and walk, whereby God’s holy will would be performed. The point of time to which we have now come is the great turning-point between the Period of the Judges which was just ending and the new era of the theocracy which was just beginning, when Samuel in a threefold point of view forms the centre of the people, and in his mediating position between them and their covenant-God, becomes the instrument and founder of a new life: 1) as Prophet, in the power of God’s Spirit, by which he was filled, he announces to the people the word of the law, in order to lead them to repentance and conversion, and to a life again devoted to the Lord in faithfulness and believing obedience; 2) he appears in the exercise of the priestly function, praying and sacrificing, between God and the people, in order to turn His grace and mercy to the people, that the return of God to His people in the manifestation of His help may correspond to the return of the people to God; 3) as Judge, he governs and directs the whole national life, which was inwardly united and bound fast together on the basis of a religious-moral elevation and renewal, in order that they might be consecrated to the Lord in all their members and in all the affairs of life, and serve Him in right and righteousness.—“ Samuel’s judicial work not only proceeded from the prophetical, but was constantly guided by it. For we may presume not only that he gave legal decisions with prophetical wisdom, but also that in general he conducted the affairs of the people as a man who had the Spirit of the Lord.—Samuel showed himself here (1 Samuel 7:12 sq.) a hero by the spiritual power of faith and prayer (Hebrews 11:32 sqq.). This latter may be called an inreaching of his priestly work into the judicial. For certainly it is especially the business of the priest to pray for the people.” (Nδgelsbach, Herz. R.-E. XIII. 397.) 3. The reality of a thorough conversion to the Lord with all the heart must be shown by an earnest and decided breaking with everything that is opposed to God, especially with everything to which the heart clings as its idol. The heart must not desire to be divided between the service of idols and the service of God, and cannot be divided between two mutually exclusive powers. “No one can serve two masters,” Matthew 6:24. God the Master lays claim to the whole heart; He requires that its service be given to Him alone and exclusively in the obedience of faith. Exclusiveness in respect to the living God, who claims all honor exclusively for Himself, is of the essence of revealed religion; and in this exclusiveness is grounded its universality, everything must serve and be subject to Him alone. 4. The true welfare of a people’s life is based on its proper attitude towards the living God. As defection from Him brings calamity and destruction on all the inward and outward possessions of the national life, infringement or suppression of freedom by foreign power, disruption of unity by strife and discord, so only by return to Him can true inward freedom and elevation and true unity be secured. And, when the national life, in consequence of defection from God, is covered with moral abominations, purification from the defilement of sin must proceed from the innermost life by the complete and thorough conversion of the hearts of individuals to the Lord. Sanctification, purification, unification of the whole national life to a life consecrated to God, serving Him alone, happy under His rule in His kingdom, exists only so far as the individual life has its root in the right attitude of heart towards God, and there stands firm and immovable. 5. The fixed heart (“fixing [Eng. A. V. ‘preparing’] the heart unto the Lord ”) is, on the one hand, the attestation of the conversion and purification of the inner life, and, on the other hand, the condition, on which alone the whole life can remain permanently and exclusively in the Lord’s service, temptations to defection from Him be victoriously withstood, and idolatry in the lust of the eyes, the lust of the flesh and the pride of life be thoroughly put away. The exhortation “confirm, prepare your hearts,” does not exclude, but presupposes the truth “it is good that the heart be confirmed by grace” [Hebrews 13:9]. 6. Samuel’s intercession for the whole people was a priestly act, whereby he, with the same right as Moses, who also was not officially a priest, could come into God’s presence as representative of the people. “He, too, who by His personal dignity stands near to God, the Prophet, may thus approach with intercession and expiatory acts for his people. So Moses, Exodus 32:10 sq., 32; Numbers 14:12 sqq. (Leviticus 8:15; Leviticus 8:19; Leviticus 8:28). But it pertains, to the office of the priesthood, and may be done by them, therefore, in the whole body of their official acts.” (Schultz, Alttest. Theol., 189 sq.). 7. The confession “We have sinned against the Lord,” made by the whole people, presupposes the correct knowledge of the essence of sin as the transgression of His holy will, involves the admission that they were worthy of punishment before the Lord, to whom man is bound by his sin as a debtor, and is the condition of help and salvation from the living God. As the individual can regain his proper relation to the Lord only by such humble, sincere, penitent confession, so for the people in general there is no other way out of grievous sin-wrought corruption and self-incurred misery to a new national life in the fear of God but this way of a common abasement before the Lord, with reflection on their relation to the holy God, and the penitent confession “Against thee have I sinned.” Comp. Psalms 51:6 [4]. 8. Fasting is one of those outward things which are an expression and therefore a symbol of the sorrowful spirit and humble disposition before the Lord, like rending the garments, strewing ashes on the head, and putting on a coarse garment (comp. Joe 2:12-13). Later this religious-morally significant fasting was expressed by a word (φεּ ?ν) which indicated its form, namely, bodily privation; but in the Law itself we find only a phrase which expresses its significance, namely, “afflict the soul” (Leviticus 16:24; Leviticus 16:31; Leviticus 23:27; Leviticus 23:32; Numbers 29:7; comp. Isaiah 58:3 sq.; Psalms 35:13 sq.).—Legal provision for fasting by the whole people was made only in the single case of the Day of Atonement, when they were as a body thus to manifest the penitent, humble disposition, without which they could not hope for forgiveness of their sin, Leviticus 16:29. Elsewhere fasting is merely allowed by Moses. AND 1 Samuel 7:3. Osiander: Those who wish to be shielded against misfortune or delivered from it, must begin, not with weapons of warfare, but with true repentance, Jeremiah 3:12.—Cramer: True repentance is the best reformation in religious matters, Ezra 9:6 sq.; 1 Samuel 10:1 sq.—Halle Bib.: Conversion that is not with all the heart, is only a hateful hypocrisy, Deuteronomy 4:29.—S. Schmid: Only that is a true conversion which does away with all ungodliness, and especially with idolatry, and thus prepares the heart to serve God alone, Hosea 7:16.—[Hall: How happily effectual is a word spoken in season! Samuel’s exhortation wrought upon the hearts of Israel, and fetched water out of their eyes, confessions and vows out of their lips, and their false gods out of their hands.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 7:4. “And served Jehovah only.” It is a mournfully common thing among those who have knowledge of the true God to be striving to combine His service with that of idols, or of the world. Not only is it seen here, but in Elijah’s exhortation: Either Jehovah or Baal, whichever is God, but not first one and then the other (1 Kings 18:21); in our Lord’s great word: “No man can serve two masters.……Ye cannot serve God and Mammon” (Matthew 6:24); and in that of the last surviving apostle: “Love not the world..… If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him” (1 John 2:15). Yet how many of us to-day are endeavoring, perhaps with painful earnestness, to love both the Father and the world, to serve both God and Mammon. The many cases of this sort do far more weaken our current Christianity than the few cases of gross vice.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 7:5-6. [Henry: Ministers should pray for those to whom they preach, that God by His grace would make the preaching effectual. And when we come together in religious assemblies, we must remember that it is as much our business there to join in public prayers, as it is to hear a sermon.—Tr.]—Starke: No intercession, not even that of Christ Himself, can stand a man in stead, if he is not truly penitent.—Legislatures and Congresses, if any thing good is to be done in them, should be opened with penitence and prayer.—S. Schmid: Then especially is it proper to pray for our neighbor, when he is so conducting himself as to afford hope that, according to the divine plan, the prayer may be heard.—If candid confession of sin is wanting, the repentance is not honest. 1 Samuel 7:2. The blessing of national mourning in a time of universal distress: 1) Penitent recognition of the national sin which has occasioned the distress; 2) Painful experience of the mighty hand of the Lord which has inflicted it; 3) Sorrowful, penitent seeking after the Lord’s consolation and help, which ends in finding. 1 Samuel 7:3. Samuel’s sermon on repentance to Israel when again seeking the Lord’s face: 1) The instruction as to what true repentance is (if ye return with all your hearts); 2) The demand for that by which this repentance shall be really and fruitfully shown: (a) put away the strange gods from among you, b) direct your hearts unto the Lord, and serve Him only); 3) The promise of deliverance and help (and He will deliver you). 1 Samuel 7:4. Proofs of genuine and hearty repentance by actions: 1) By doing away with all idolatry of worldly life; 2) By serving the Lord only in a life exclusively consecrated to him. 1 Samuel 7:5. Intercession to the Lord, for the salvation of others: 1) Its exercise unlimited, the individual as well as the whole people being its subject (comp. 1 Timothy 2:1-2); 2) Its answer conditioned by the need of salvation and the capacity for salvation of those for whom it is made. 1 Samuel 7:6. The penitent confession—“We have sinned against the Lord:” 1) Who has to make it (the individual, family, congregation, school and church, the whole people); 2) How it is to be made (with attestation of its truth and uprightness by deeds of repentance); 3) What are its consequences (forgiveness of sin, deliverance from the power of the wicked one, salvation). II. Israel’s Victory over the Philistines under the Lead of Samuel. 1 Samuel 7:7-147 And when the Philistines heard that the children of Israel were gathered together to Mizpeh [Mizpah], the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And 8when the children of Israel heard it, they were afraid of the Philistines. And the children of Israel said to Samuel, Cease not to cry unto the Lord [Jehovah] our 9God for us, that he will save us out of the hand of the Philistines. And Samuel took a sucking lamb, and offered it for a burnt-offering wholly unto the Lord [Jehovah], and Samuel cried unto the Lord [Jehovah] for Israel, and the Lord 10[Jehovah] heard [answered] him. And as Samuel was offering up the burnt-offering, the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel; but [and] the Lord [Jehohovah] thundered with a great thunder [noise] on that day upon the Philistines, 11and discomfited them, and they were smitten before Israel. And the men of Israel went out of Mizpeh [Mizpah], and pursued the Philistines, and smote them 12until [as far as] they came [om. they came] under Bethcar. Then [And] Samuel took a stone, and set it between Mizpeh [Mizpah] and Shen, and called the name of it Eben-ezer, saying [and said], Hitherto hath the Lord [Jehovah] helped us 13So [And] the Philistines were subdued, and they [om. they] came no more into the coast of Israel; and the hand of the Lord [Jehovah] was against the Philistines all 14the days of Samuel. And the cities which the Philistines had taken from Israel were restored to Israel, from Ekron even [om. even] unto Gath; and the coasts thereof did Israel deliver out of the hands of the Philistines. And there was peace between Israel and the Amorites.III. Summary Statement of Samuel’s Judicial Work. 1 Samuel 7:15-1715, 16And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life. And he went from year to year in circuit to Bethel, and Gilgal, and Mizpeh [Mizpah], and judged Israel 17 in all those places. And his return was to Ramah,13 for there was his house; and there he built an altar unto the Lord [Jehovah]. AND 1 Samuel 7:7-14. Israel’s victory over the Philistines under the lead of Samuel.—The last words in 1 Samuel 7:6 referred to Samuel’s judicial work in Mizpah, after the general assembly for repentance and prayer had been held with the whole people. The express mention of this judicial work at the end of the narrative in 1 Samuel 7:2-6 confirms the view (which is besides suggested from the whole connection) that this popular assembly was not concerned with military preparations for an attack on the Philistines, but only with arranging the internal affairs of the national life, the religious-moral and civil, according to the divine law. We have seen how Samuel there acted at the same time as prophet and judge, and how the function of priest connected itself immediately with that of prophet. It now falls to his lot, like the earlier judges, to fulfil his judicial mission against foreign enemies also, and show himself the leader of the people against their oppressors; this he does indeed in quite a different manner, not sword in hand, but wielding the weapons of prayer, and gaining for his people a victory, from which dates the history of Israel’s deliverance from the hands of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 7:7. The Philistines hear of the assembly of the children of Israel. Either they supposed it to be a military one, knowing nothing of its real end (Berl. Bib.), or they well knew this end, and wished to surprise the Israelites in their unarmed condition (Joseph.). Their princes went up, since the assembly was held on the high land, and on Mizpah, which was still higher than this.—The following description of the behaviour of the children of Israel and the conduct of Samuel, there being no hint of arming against the Philistines, or of an attempt by Israel to make a military movement against the advancing foe, shows clearly that the Israelites were not in readiness for such an attack, and had made no military preparations. Not the arms of Israel put the Philistines to flight, but the prayers of Samuel, and the thunders above their heads manifesting the might of the Lord, the terrors of which the Philistines had not forgotten since their experience with the ark.—When the Israelites heard of the advance of the Philistine princes with their hosts, they were afraid of them. This is inconceivable, if the assembly was held to equip themselves inwardly and outwardly for the war of freedom against the Philistines. In 1 Samuel 7:8 the people press Samuel to beseech God with unceasing and instant crying for their deliverance out of the hand of the Philistines. The solicitude corresponds with Samuel’s previous promise to pray to the Lord for the people in this assembly (1 Samuel 7:5). The object of the petition, salvation out of the hand of the Philistines, had already been promised by him on the condition of sincere return to the Lord (1 Samuel 7:3). Now the moment of fulfilment has come. The condition is complied with, the children of Israel beseech Samuel: “cease not to cry to the Lord, our God.” They have found their God again, after whom they had till now sighed and mourned. Samuel, having by his intercession first restored the covenant-communion between the penitent people and the pardoning God, now intercedes for the deliverance of the people, and thus performs the judicial act which, for the earlier judges, was coincident with their entrance into their office. Samuel had first, as prophet and judge, to lead the people to a thorough reformation of their inner life, before he could begin the work of external deliverance. He began it as judge and as priest at the same time, as is further related in 1 Samuel 7:9. Samuel represented the people in twofold priestly function before the Lord, with offering and prayer. The offering consisted of a young tender lamb, which was still nourished with milk; though, according to the Law, Leviticus 22:27, it must have been seven days “with its mother.” A burnt-offering (ςεֹ ?μַ ?δ) is offered as sign of the complete consecration of the whole man, here of the whole people, to the Lord in the consecration and devotion of the whole life to Him, as is set forth by the fact that the whole animal (δַ ?λֹּ ?μ Leviticus 1:9) was burnt in the fire of the altar, and so ascended [the Heb. word means “that which ascends”], in distinction from the offerings which were only partially burnt on the altar. This is expressed by the addition of the word “wholly” (αָּ ?μִ ?ιμ) which is also used of the vegetable and meat-offerings which were to be wholly burned (Leviticus 6:15). In poetic language (Deuteronomy 33:10) it stands for ςεֹ ?μָ ?δ, burnt offering, while here, as in Ps. 51:21 [19] (there connected by εְ “and”) it is an explanatory addition to indicate that the burnt-offering is a whole-offering, the offerers not receiving a part of it, as in the Shelamim [peace-offerings] or Zebachim [slain-offerings]. The idea of the whole-offering is thus specially again expressed, because the resolution to devote themselves to the Lord fully and undividedly, a devotion conditioned on the whole-hearted conversion and the purpose to serve the Lord alone (1 Samuel 7:3 sqq.) is expressed by the presentation of the burnt-offering. In accordance with the people’s demand (1 Samuel 7:8) Samuel combined with the offering earnest, instant prayer for them.—And the Lord answered him, is the declaration that the prayer for help and deliverance was heard, comp. Psalms 3:5; Psalms 4:2. [See also Psalms 9:6; Jeremiah 15:1, for the estimation in which Samuel’s power in prayer was held.—Tr.]. The answer of the Lord is given in the occurrence related in 1 Samuel 7:10 sqq. in the factual help of the Lord, not merely in the thunder (Keil), though the latter was the cause of the consternation and confusion of the Philistines. The vividness of the description is noticeable: Samuel is engaged in offering the sacrifice, during which the Philistines approach nearer and nearer, Israel is waiting on Samuel’s prayer for the Lord’s help, terrific peals of thunder follow one after another, thereby the Philistines are confused and confounded (comp. Joshua 10:10), they take to flight, their plan is frustrated. 1 Samuel 7:11. The men of Israel now advance from Mizpah, and pursue them as far as under Bethcar = “House of the lamb or of the meadow, the field.” Jos. Ant. VI., 2, 1 Samuel 2 : Corr�. A place called Corr� lay between Jericho and Bethshean; V. Raumer (4 ed., p. 178, R. 158 sq.) thinks that it could not be this place. It remains at least doubtful.—After this victory was won, a monument was set up in remembrance of the help of the Lord there experienced. Samuel set a memorial stone between Mizpah and Shen (“Tooth,” either a prominent rock-formation (comp. 1 Samuel 14:4) or a place situated on a crag near Mizpah). The name Ebenezer [“stone of help”], which he gives it, is at the same time explained: Hitherto hath the Lord helped us.—This was the thanksgiving in the name of the whole people as answer to the Lord’s answer, the accompanying explanation of the act of thanks. The “hitherto” points to the fact that this victory did not complete the deliverance from the yoke of the Philistines. [Wellhausen would explain Ebenezer as = “this be witness (ςֵ ?γ) that Jahveh hath helped us.”—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 7:13-14, state the happy results for Israel of this victory over the Philistines, gained without arms, the wonderful gift of God’s hand. First is mentioned the humiliation [Eng. A. V. “subdued”] of the enemy, in consequence of the manner in which this victory was gained. It is then declared that, in consequence of this victory, the Philistines made no more such incursions into the coasts of Israel. The following words: “and the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel,” are improperly restricted to the period of his active judgeship (Lyra, Brent, Nδgelsb., Herz. XIII. 403 sq.); since Samuel, according to 1 Samuel 7:15, judged Israel all the days of his life, they must be understood of his whole life-time. During this time the Philistines continued to occupy the land (1 Samuel 9:16; 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 13:5; 1 Samuel 13:13), though the occupation was territorially restricted. The continuance of the Philistine oppression is presupposed in these words themselves: “the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines,” comp. 1 Samuel 14:52. After the victory at Mizpah they could gain no more territory, and in Israel’s battles with them, however much of the land they still held, the hand of the Lord was mighty against them so long as Samuel lived, therefore during Saul’s reign also, since Samuel died only a short time before Saul; the help of the Lord against these mightiest foes of the land continued during Samuel’s life-time. See Introduction, p. 9 sq. Thus is intimated the mediating position which Samuel in this respect also assumed between God and the people of Israel as their representative and intercessor. 1 Samuel 7:14. A further consequence of the victory was the regaining of the cities which belonged to the land of Israel with the territories appertaining to them, lying on the Philistine frontier from Ekron to Gath. These two cities are not included, but indicate on the Philistine side the direction and limits of the space in which the Israelites regained the lost cities and territories. The sense is: “Israel recovered their cities which lay on the Philistine borders, reckoning those borders from Ekron to Gath” (Seb. Schmid). Finally, a consequence of the abasement of the Philistines was the peace between Israel and the Amorites. These “are mentioned here, because they were in the region in question next to the Philistines the mightiest enemies of Israel, comp. Joshua 10; Judges 1:34 sqq.” (Thenius). According to the latter passage (Judges 1:34) they “especially forced the Danites back out of the plain into the mountains” (Keil).1 Samuel 7:15-17. Summary view of Samuel’s judicial work. 1 Samuel 7:15 gives the duration of his office; that the latter dates from the day of Mizpah (Keil) is by no means certain; but its precise commencement is not stated. All the days of his life denotes the period up to his death. His sons were his assistants up to the establishment of the kingdom. During Saul’s government he kept unchanged the position of a prophet, who employed the authority of the divine will for the direction of the national life, the mediating priestly position between God and the people; but he also, as last Judge, held in his hands the highest control of the theocracy and the kingdom. 1 Samuel 7:16 sqq. The way in which he fulfilled the dnties of the office. He went round every year, holding court at three places: Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah. These were at the same time holy places, in which Jehovah was worshiped, where therefore the people could be more easily brought together in large assemblies, and those who desired legal decisions could more easily meet Samuel. Ewald’s supposition that Samuel visited one of these places at each of the great annual feasts is properly objected to by Thenius, with the remark “that at that time there was hardly a regular feast.” The question whether this Gilgal was the old place in the Jordan-valley between the Jordan and Jericho (Joshua 4:19), or the one southwest of Shiloh near the Jerusalem-road, now Jiljilia (Deut. 11:38; 1 Kings 2:1), must be decided in favor of the former, for the reason that Samuel would certainly choose for such assemblies the place which was consecrated by its historical association and its religious importance. The order of the names here does not warrant us in deciding (Keil) in favor of the other, the northern Gilgal.—ΰֵ ?ϊλָּ ?μΞδַ ?ξְּ ?Χ [Eng. A. V.: “in all those place”] must be taken as local Accus., and ΰֵ ?ϊ as Acc. particle. It cannot here mean “near;” “it is used indeed to express the proximity of one place to another (Judges 4:11; 1 Kings 9:26), and still oftener of things or persons to persons, but not that things or persons are close by places, for which we find only ςִ ?ν or αְּ (Joshua 24:26; Judges 18:3)” (Bφttcher). 1 Samuel 7:17. From his circuits Samuel returned always to Ramah. Here was his permanent residence as householder. In respect to his work there, we have two brief statements: 1) he acted as judge, when he was not absent on his circuit. (On ωָׁ ?τָ ?θ, Ew., Gr., § 138 a: “the γ of the Perf. becomes β only in pause, except once in 1 Samuel 7:17.”) His judicial labors were therefore uninterrupted. 2) There he built an altar to the Lord.—The priesthood had declined, the central sanctuary was broken up; instead of the local and the institutional-personal uniting point in the high-priest, Samuel forms from now on for the religious life and service also of Israel the personal centre consecrated by God’s choice and guidance. His priestly work continues along with his judicial, both embraced and supported by the prophetical. Besides the already-existing holy places, where prayer and sacrifice were offered to God, he makes his residence a place of worship. The direction and furtherance of matters of religious life and worship is in his hands. Having effected a thorough reformation of the deep-sunken theocratic life on the basis of the renewed relation between God and the people, he now proceeds vigorously, as judge, priest and prophet, to build it up and finish it on this foundation. AND 1. On the significance of the burnt-offering as a whole offering, see on 1 Samuel 7:8. It is the sacrificium latreuticum [latreutic sacrifice, or sacrifice of service], since, by the complete consecration of the animal, it denotes, for the individual and the nation, the complete consecration and devotion of the whole life to the Lord. The burnt-offering has a propitiatory significance for the offerer in a general way (not, however, in respect to particular offences which require special expiation), on which see Oehler in Herz., R. E. X. 635. The fresh, tender, sucking lamb, which was used in the offering at Mizpah, was intended, perhaps, to set forth how the people, new-born by their conversion, should, in the first freshness of their new life, dedicate themselves wholly and undividedly to the Lord, to be His property and serve Him. The conjunction of the burnt-offering with prayer is founded on the fact, that both express the same disposition of complete consecration of the heart to God. 2. The sacrificial service, together with prayer, was conducted for the whole people by Samuel (as formerly by Moses, Exodus 17:9; Exodus 32:25 sqq.), though he was simply a Levite, and not a priest; for he acted as mediator between God and His people by virtue of His prophetical character and work alone. He therefore filled the office of priest in an extraordinary way, sentence of rejection having been passed on its legal incumbents. On Samuel’s further priestly work in offering sacrifices at the holy places of the land, comp. 1 Samuel 9:12; 1 Samuel 10:8; 1 Samuel 11:15; 1 Samuel 13:8 sqq.; 1 Samuel 16:2 sqq. Samuel exercised the priestly function of prayer and intercession elsewhere, 1 Samuel 12:16 sqq.; 1 Samuel 15:11; 1 Samuel 15:35. 3. In the period of the Judges the prophetic work was completely (with the single exception of Deborah, Judges 4:4 sqq.) separate from the judicial, and the former was as good as absorbed in the latter; both are again united in the person of Samuel, in that he thus shows how the external guidance of the covenant-people can and ought to rest essentially only on an internal, religious-legal foundation. “As he is thus the founder of the Kingdom in its genuine theocratic form, so is his priestly work also the preparation for the flourishing condition to which the cultus attained in the Davidic-Solomonic period; it was necessary to break with the law-opposing priesthood of Eli and his race, in order that the establishment of a true priesthood, as it was new-formed under David and Solomon, might become possible” Hδvern., Vorles. όber bibl. Theol.). The basis for this was given in the Law itself by its teaching of the ideal priesthood, which was to find its realization in the whole people, comp. Exodus 19:6 : “Ye shall be to me a kingdom of priests.” Like Moses, who during the seven days of the consecration of the ordinary priests, acted as priest (Leviticus 8.), and with priestly petition interceded for the people with the Lord (Exodus 32:31-32; Psalms 106:23), so Samuel also, on the ground of this ideal priesthood, whose essential elements were sincere union and communion with God, the might of faith, and the gift of the Holy Spirit and the power of prayer, had the divinely-given right, under existing circumstances, when the institution of the priesthood had sunk and left a terrible gap, to discharge the duties of the ordinary priesthood in sacrifice and prayer; and the first exercise of this priestly calling, to represent the people before God with intercession and prayer, was at the request of the people themselves who through him had been turned to God. See the two-fold testimony of the Scripture to Samuel’s power in prayer, Psalms 99:6; Jeremiah 15:1, and comp. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND PART. SAUL1 Samuel 8-31 ________________ FIRST Establishment By Samuel Of The Israelitish Kingdom Under The Rule Of Saul. 1 Samuel 8-12 ______________ FIRST SECTIONThe Preparations. Chapters 8–9I. The Persistent Desire of the People after a King conveyed through their Elders to Samuel1 Samuel 8:1-221 And it came to pass, when Samuel was old, that he made his sons judges over 2Israel. Now [And] the name of his first-born was Joel , 1 and the name of his [the] 3second Abiah; they were judges in Beersheba. And his sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgment. 4Then [And] all the elders of Israel gathered themselves together, and came to 5Samuel to Ramah, And said unto him, Behold, thou art old, and thy sons walk 6not in thy ways; now make us a king to judge us like all the nations. But [And] the thing displeased Samuel when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel 7prayed unto the Lord [Jehovah]. And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee; for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.8According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt even unto this day, wherewith they have forsaken [forsaking] me and served [serving] other gods, so do they also [om. also] unto thee [ins. also]. 9Now therefore [And now] hearken unto their voice; howbeit [om. howbeit] yet protest solemnly unto [solemnly warn] them, and show them the manner of the king that shall reign over them. 10And Samuel told all the words of the Lord [Jehovah] to the people that asked 11of him a king. And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen [put them in his chariot and on his horses], and some [they] 12shall run before his chariots [chariot]. And he will appoint him captains over thousands and captains over fifties, and will set them [some he will set] to ear [plough] his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war and [ins. 13the] instruments [equipment] of his chariots. And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries [perfumers], and to be [om. to be] cooks, and to be [om. to be] 14bakers. And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, 15even [om. even] the best of them, and give them to his servants. And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his 16servants. And he will take your men-servants, and your maid-servants, and your 17goodliest young men [oxen], and your asses, and put them to his work. He will 18take the tenth of your sheep; and ye shall be his servants. And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which [whom] ye shall have chosen you, and the Lord [Jehovah] will not hear you in that day. 19Nevertheless [And] the people refused to obey [hearken to] the voice of Samuel. 20And they said, Nay, but we will have a king over us; That [And] we also may [will] be like all the nations, and that [om. that] our king may [shall] judge us, 21and go out before us, and fight our battles. And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he rehearsed them in the ears of the Lord [Jehovah]. And the 22Lord [Jehovah] said to Samuel, Hearken unto their voice, and make them a king. And Samuel said unto the men of Israel, Go ye every man unto his city. AND 1 Samuel 8:1-3. Samuel’s sons, Joel and Abiah, associated with him as judges over Israel.—The reason here given, why Samuel made his two sons judges, is his age, for which his work, as sketched in 1 Samuel 7:15-17, had become too hard. The two sons, Joel and Abiah, are also mentioned in 1 Chronicles 6:13 [Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 8:28], where, however, in the masoretic text, the name of the first has fallen out. [These names may be taken as indications of the father’s pious feeling. The first, Joel, “Jehovah is God,” was, not improbably, a protest against the idolatry of the Israelites. Hebrew names thus frequently serve as historical finger-signs, pointing out prevailing tendencies or modes of feeling at certain times. Comp. Ichabod (1 Samuel 4:21-22), Saul’s ’sons Meribbaal (Mephibosheth) and Ishbaal (Ishbosheth), David’s sons (2 Samuel 3:2-5), Manasseh the King, Malachi. The name of Samuel’s second son, Abiah, “Jehovah is father,” expresses trust in the fatherhood of God, an idea which hardly appears in O. T. except in proper names. “It records, doubtless, the fervent aspiration of him who first devised it as a name, and, we may hope, of many who subsequently adopted it, after that endearing and intimate relationship between God and the soul of man, which is truly expressed by the words ‘father’ and ‘child.’ It may be accepted as proof that believers in ancient days, though they had not possession of the perfect knowledge of ‘the mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ,’ or of the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, nevertheless ‘received the Spirit of adoption,’ that God ‘sent forth the Spirit of His Son into their hearts, whereby they cried, Abba, Father’ ” (Wilkinson, Personal Names in the Bible, page 169 sq.).—Tr.].—They acted as judges in Beersheba, “Well of the seven (that is, lambs), or of the oath” (Genesis 21:28-33), the spot consecrated by the Patriarchal history (Genesis 22:19; Genesis 26:23; Genesis 28:10), in the extreme south of the country, on the border of Edom, now Bir-es-seba [“Well of the seven, or of the lion”] (Robins. I. 337 [Amer. Ed. L., 204 sq.]). Josephus (Ant. VI., 3, 2) adds, “in Bethel” after “judges,” thus intimating that one son acted in the North, the other in the South, both together comprising the whole country in their judicial work, according to which Samuel had wholly retired; but against this is the previous statement that Samuel exercised his office “all the days of his life,” and therefore his sons could only have been appointed by him assistants in the performance of duties which his old age rendered too arduous for him. Ewald’s opinion that this addition of Josephus “suits so well,” that “he must have gotten it from a still better account in the histories of the Kings,” is a mere surmise, over against which we may put with equal right the opinion that Josephus was indebted for this addition (Nδgelsb.) to his “very lively fancy” (Then.), and that the Masoretic text fits in so well with the whole historical situation, that the integrity of the passage cannot be assailed. Since, on the one hand, our attention is directed to Samuel’s age, which compelled him to make his sons judges, while yet he did not lay down his office, and, on the other hand, the desire after a firm and energetic royal power was based on the dangerous condition of the country by reason of foreign enemies, it appears that Samuel, in order to lighten the burden, set his sons as judges in a part of the land, and in the part which occasioned the greatest difficulties and exertions, that is, the southern. 1 Samuel 8:3 affirms that this measure was a failure. In consequence of the division of the judicial power between the father and the sons, the authority of the office was so debased in the eyes of the people by the crimes of the latter, as the sacerdotal dignity was by the sons of Eli, that the desire for a higher authority to guide the people found utterance.—They took bribes and perverted judgment.—They thus transgressed the law of the Lord (Exodus 23:6; Exodus 23:8; comp. Deuteronomy 16:19), and destroyed the foundation of the judicial office as the office for the administration of right and justice. Their official unfaithfulness is contrasted with their father’s walk: they walked not in his ways.—This fact or judgment alone is given, and Samuel is not, like Eli, charged with the blame of his sons’ misconduct. The words: they inclined or turned aside (namely, from the ways of their father) after lucre, exhibit the roots of their wicked official procedure in a mind directed to gain. Luther gives the correct sense: “they turned aside to covetousness.” 1 Samuel 8:4-9.The demand for a king1 Samuel 8:4-5, how it was made, 1 Samuel 8:6, how it was received by Samuel and carried before the Lord, 1 Samuel 8:7-9, how he, and through him the people, was instructed concerning it by the Lord. 1 Samuel 8:4-5. “All the elders of Israel” assemble in Ramah, Samuel’s judicial seat. Thus the whole nation is in motion against the existing condition of things; it appears before Samuel officially and formally in the body of its representatives. Two things they adduce as ground of the demand which they wish to make: 1) Samuel’s age, that is, the lack of vigor and energy in the government, which, with his advancing age, made itself perceptible to the whole nation, and was not supplied by the assistance of his sons, which he had for that reason (1 Samuel 8:1) called in; 2) the evil walk, the misgovernment of his sons, the moral and legal depravation which they produced. The demand is: Make us a king (Acts 13:21); and two things are added: 1) in reference to his judicial work: he was to judge; the royal office was to take the place of the judicial, and so the meaning of the demand is a complete abrogation of the hitherto existing form of government under Judges 2) in reference to the royal-monarchical constitution of the surrounding nations: the Israelitish constitution is to be like that (λְּ). After the words “as all the nations,” we must supply “have such a one.” Israel will not be behind other nations in respect to the splendor and power of royal rule. The accordance of the last words: “like all the nations” with Deuteronomy 17:14 is to be noted.—In 1 Samuel 8:6 two things are said of Samuel’s conduct in reference to this demand. First, that he received it with displeasure (εַ ?ιֵ ?ψַ ?ς, properly: “the thing was evil in the eyes of Samuel”). But the cause of his displeasure is expressly said to be, that they made the demand: “Give us a king to judge us.” He did not, therefore, take it amiss that they blamed the wrong-doing of his sons, nor that they referred to his age, and thus intimated that he was no longer able to bear the whole burden of the office, while his sons did evilly. What displeased him was the expression of desire for a king as ruler. How far and why this demand was the occasion of his displeasure appears from the connection. From the words of Samuel (1 Samuel 12:12) we see 1) that the people, pressed anew by the Ammonites, demanded a king who should give them the protection against enemies, which was not expected from the aging Samuel; 2) that, in this demand, they left out of view the kingdom of God in their midst, turned away their heart from the God who had hitherto as their almighty king so often saved them from the power of the enemy, and put their trust in an external, visible kingdom as means of safety and protection against their enemies, over against the invisible royal rule of their God, whose instrument, Samuel, they rejected. The same thing is expressed in the words of Samuel, 1 Samuel 10:18-19. In both passages, however, Samuel’s discourse is an echo of the word of God Himself, imparted to him in answer to the question which he had asked God in prayer. This, namely, is the second important factor in Samuel’s procedure: He prayed to the Lord. Deeply moved by the sin which, in this demand, the people committed against the Lord as their king (and this was the real occasion of his displeasure and unwillingness in reference to the desired revolution in the political constitution, which was connected with the rejection of himself as representative and instrument of the divine government), he carried the whole matter before the Lord in prayer, and, in this important crisis also of the history of his people, who would no longer be guided by him, showed himself the humble, consecrated man and hero of prayer.—In 1 Samuel 8:7-9 we have the declaration, in which the Lord instructs Samuel as to the question of his prayer, and at the same time decides on the demand of the people. Prayer was the best means by which Samuel could learn the purpose and will of God in reference to this demand of the nation. The words: Hearken to the voice of the people, express the divine fulfillment of the people’s request. Here a discrepancy might be supposed to exist between this statement and Samuel’s reception of the request in 1 Samuel 8:6. But the appearance of such a discrepancy vanishes before the following considerations. An earthly-human kingdom could not at all, merely as such, stand in opposition with the revealed theocratic relation of the covenant-God with His people, in which the latter (Exodus 19:5 sq.) were to be His property and a “kingdom” of priests, and He was to be their king (comp. Exodus 15:18 : “Jehovah is king forever,” with Psalms 44:5; Psalms 68:25; Psalms 74:12; Psalms 10:16). For, if hitherto under the Theocracy chosen instruments of the Lord, like Moses, Joshua and the Judges, were the leaders of the people, governing them by His law, in His name and according to His will, then also a leader and governor of the people, depending solely on God’s will, governing solely in His name, and devoted to His law, intended and desiring to be nothing but the instrument of the invisible king in respect to His people, might rule over them with the power and dignity of a king. A king, as God’s instrument, chosen by God the royal ruler of His people out of their midst, could no more stand opposed to the fundamental idea of the theocracy, than all the former great leaders and guides of the people, who were chosen by Him for the realization of His will. This conception of the absolute dependence of an earthly-human kingdom in Israel on the invisible King of the nation is expressed in the so-called law of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20. As to the theocratical idea of a king, comp. Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 35:11; Numbers 24:17. There is little occasion to suppose a contradiction between this idea of a theocratically-conditioned Israelitish kingdom and the Theocracy in Israel, when we consider the need of a unifying power for the whole national life within and without, as in Gideon’s time against the Midianites (Judges 8:22-23), and now, in the time of the aged Samuel, both against the arbitrary rule and legal disorder of his sons, and against the Ammonites (1 Samuel 12:12) and the Philistines (1 Samuel 9:16). If Israel’s desire for a king had been in itself opposed to the theocratic principle, Samuel would not have carried the matter to the Lord in prayer, but would have given a decided refusal to the Elders, and the divine decision would not have been: “ Hearken to the voice of the people, make them a king” (1 Samuel 8:22). But the reason of Samuel’s necessary displeasure at this desire clearly appears from the judgment passed on it in the divine response: they have not rejected thee; but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.—In their request for a king, they did not assume the attitude of heart and of mind to the Lord, which was proper for them as His people, towards Him as their sole and exclusive ruler. They put out of sight the divine rule, to which, in view of its mighty deeds in their history, they ought to have trusted implicitly, that it would extend to them the oft-verified protection against external enemies and maladministration of the office of Judge; this protection they expect from the earthly-human kingly rule, instead of from God; instead of crying to God to give them a ruler according to His will, they demand from Samuel that a king be made according to their will and pleasure; instead of their holy civil constitution under the royal rule of their covenant-God, they desire a constitution under a visible kingdom, as they see it in the heathen nations. This was a denial of that highest truth which Gideon once (Judges 8:23), in declining the royal authority offered him, held up before the people: “The Lord is your king.” In rejecting Samuel’s government, they rejected the rule of God, and, straying from the foundation of covenant-revelation to the stand-point of the heathen nations,, they put themselves in opposition to the royal majesty of God revealed among them, and to the high calling which they had to maintain and fulfil in fidelity and obedience towards the holy and almighty God as their king and ruler. In 1 Samuel 8:8 is shown how this disposition and conduct had been exhibited in the history of the people from God’s first great royal deed, the deliverance out of Egypt, till now, and how this new demand addressed to Samuel was only the old sin showing itself, the faithless and apostate disposition which had exhibited itself again and again up to this time. “With such a disposition the desire for a kingdom was a despising and rejecting of Jehovah’s kingdom, and no better than forsaking Jehovah to serve other gods” (Keil, in loco). (It is not necessary to insert a Pron. “to me” after “they have done” (Thenius), since this is involved in the following words: “they have forsaken me”). In 1 Samuel 8:9 Samuel is again expressly instructed to yield to the desire of the people; but there is added the twofold injunction: 1) bear witness against them, that is, attest and set before them their sin and guilt against me, and 2) announce to them what kind of right the king, who according to their desire shall rule over them like the kings of the heathen nations, will claim, in the exercise of unlimited and arbitrary power, after the manner of those rulers. By the first the people are to be made to see how, in the disposition of heart in which they demand a king, they stand in opposition to the absolute, holy royal rule of their God, and to their own theocratic calling. The fulfilment of the people’s desire after a king which had its root in an apostate and carnally proud temper, is in accordance with the same fundamental law of the Old Covenant, by which the holy God, on the one hand, judges Israel’s sin as a contradiction of His holy will, but at the same time, on the other hand, uses it as a means for the realization of the ends of His kingdom, as an occasion for a new development of His revealed glory. The other injunction, to set before the people the right [or, manner] of the king they demanded, is intended to exhibit to them the human kingdom apart from the divine rule, as it exists among the other nations, with all its usual and established despotism, as the source of great misfortune and shameful servitude, in contrast with the freedom and happiness offered to the people under the despised Theocracy. Comp. 1 Samuel 8:18. 1 Samuel 8:10-18. The right of the king. 1 Samuel 8:10. And Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people.—This declaration of Samuel was therefore essentially an exhortation to repentance, which set before the people that, by their desire for a king, they had principially rejected God’s sole rule over them. Clericus: ‘ Therefore God declares that He was despised by the Israelites, inasmuch as they were not content with the theocracy, which had heretofore existed.”—The mishpat (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ, “right,” “manner”) is here what pertains to the king in the maintenance of courtly state, and what he claims from his subjects, according to the custom of heathen rulers and to kingly usage; for it was with their eyes on the kings of other nations that the people had demanded a king. Joseph.: τὰπαρὰτοῦβασιλέωςἐσόμενα, morem regis et agendi rationem [“the manner of the king”]. Maurer: id quod rex suo arbitrio vivens impune faciet [“what the king, following his own will, would do with impunity”]. Clericus: “It signifies the manner of his life (1 Samuel 2:13; Genesis 40:13; Judges 13:12),—not legal right (jus), for several unjust things are afterwards mentioned, such as were practiced by the neighboring kings, whom in fact the Hebrew kings afterwards imitated.” Sept. δικαίωμα [“legal right or ordinance”]. The words: he will take your sons… his chariot, present a single comprehensive statement of the employment of the young men of the people in the royal court. The first sing. of the text “in his chariot” is to be retained (against Then., who, after Sept., Chald., and Syr., reads the Plu., and refers it to war-chariots), and the chariot is in both cases to be understood as the court and state-chariot, the service of which is described in accordance with the actual manner of oriental courts. In this there were 1) Chariot-drivers, who are referred to in the words “he will put them in his chariot;” 2) Riders, indicated by the phrase “on his horses” (τָּ ?ψָ ?ωׁ is here “saddle-horse,” as in 1 Kings 5:6 [Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 4:26])—“he will put them on his saddle-horses,” and 3) Runners—“and they will run before his chariot.” It is a description of the usual royal equipage of chariots and horses. Comp. 1 Kings 5:6 [1 Samuel 4:26], 2 Samuel 15:1. 1 Samuel 8:12 refers partly to military service, partly to agricultural service. “And to set” depends on “he will take;” the twice-used μεֹ [“for himself”] indicates his purely selfish aim. The “captains over thousands and fifties” represent the whole army in all its grades between these highest and lowest positions. For the charge of the “captain over fifty” comp. 2 Kings 1:9-14.—All the tillage of the royal possessions must be performed by them; it is described by its beginning and end (ploughing and reaping). To this is added the work of the royal artificers for war and peace. 1 Samuel 8:13. The daughters of the people will be employed in the service of the royal household. [Women were, in ancient times, cooks, bakers, and preparers of ointments and spices. This last work embraced the preparation of highly-seasoned food, meats and drinks, and of perfumed oils for anointing the body. The household of oriental princes is even now organized on a gigantic scale, and there are indications that a similar luxury was practiced by the nations who lived about the Israelites. All this, as well as the use of horses and chariots, though not absolutely forbidden in the Law, was contrary to its spirit.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 8:14 sqq. describe the arbitrary dealing of the king with the property of the people in order to enrich his courtiers. ρַ ?ψִ ?ιν is properly “a eunuch,” then any court-officer. 1 Samuel 8:16 sqq. The king will use the serving-classes also, men-servants, maid-servants, and cattle, for himself, and will take the tenth of the small cattle [sheep, etc.]. For “young men” (αηψ) we must read “cattle” (αχψ) with Sept. (τὰβουκόλια), since the young men are already included in the sons in 1 Samuel 8:11 [and the menservants in 1 Samuel 8:16.—Tr.], and here both the juxtaposition of servants and animals and the correspondence between the two clauses, men, maids—oxen, asses (comp. Exodus 20:17) would be destroyed by this inappropriate word. Small cattle are here named in addition to large cattle, to show how completely the king would claim their property for his own uses.—And you shall be his servants. These words include all that is said before; the loss of political and social freedom is connected with the kingdom which the people demand “as among the heathen nations.” Thus the folly of their reference to the example of other nations is held up before them in contrast with the freedom and blessing, which they enjoyed under the rule of their invisible king, the living God. 1 Samuel 8:18. Their painful condition under such a government will be matter of unavailing lamentation before the Lord. ξִ ?μִּ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ιξΧ is not “because of your king,” but properly “from your king,” that is, to the Lord. It is herein hinted that they will wish to be delivered from the oppressive royal government. But the Lord will continue to shut His ears. Clericus: “God will not for your sake change the government of a master into the free commonwealth which you have hitherto enjoyed. The yoke once assumed you must hear forever.” The evil which their own sin has brought on them they must bear—so divine justice ordains. 1 Samuel 8:19-22. The result of the transactions between Samuel and the people. 1 Samuel 8:19-20. The reply of the people (through the elders). They “refused to hearken to Samuel’s voice.” The voice or address of Samuel contained enough to detach the people from their desire. Instead of this there follows, with a decided “no, the repetition of the demand: “There shall be a king over us.” The dehortatory description of the royal privilege and custom among the surrounding nations is met with the declaration: “And we also will be as all the nations.” In this there is an ignoring and denying the lofty position which God the Lord had given His people above all nations by choosing them as His people, and establishing His royal rule among them. The demand for a kingdom like that of other nations was an act of sin against the Lord, who wished to be sole king over His people, and had sufficiently revealed Himself as such in their former history. “Judging” and “leading in war” are summarily mentioned as representing the duties of the king to be chosen. Without and within, in war and in peace, he was to be leader and governor of the people. 1 Samuel 8:21 sqq. Samuel’s intermediation. As mediator between God and the people he had hitherto striven with God in prayer, and with the elders of the people in earnest dealings and warnings concerning this important and eventful question. We see him wrestling anew with God in prayer; again he carries before the Lord in prayer the whole matter, as it now stands after the unsuccessful dealing with the people. God’s answer is: Make them a king. The demand, made in sin, from a disposition not well-pleasing to God, is fulfilled. The element of sin and error must, in the history of the kingdom of God, aid in the preparation and realization of the divine plans and ends. Samuel dismisses the men of Israel to their homes. We must here read between the lines, that Samuel communicated the divine decision to the people, and, dismissing the elders of the people, took into consideration, in accordance with the Lord’s command, the necessary steps for the election of a king. Following the sense, Josephus adds to the words of dismissal the following: “And I will send for you at the proper time, when I learn from the Lord whom he will give you as king” [Ant. VI. 3, 6]. AND 1. The demand for a human kingdom like the kingdom in other nations, and its fulfilment, is one of the most important turning-points in the development of the Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Historically occasioned by constant danger from without, against which there was no one sufficient leader, and by the arbitrary and illegal procedure of the judges, it was more deeply grounded in the need (felt by the people and supported by public opinion) of a sole, continuous, and externally and internally firm and energetic rule. And this rule, even if it took the shape of royalty, needed not to be in conflict with the monarchical rule of God over His people (Exodus 19:5 sq.; Judges 8:23; 1 Samuel 12:12); for 1) the human king, if his relation to God’s kingdom were rightly apprehended, need be nothing more than the instrument and representative of the theocratic kingdom; 2) from the Patriarchal time on, through the Mosaic period and that of the Judges till now, there had been defined hopes of and allusions to the rise of a mighty and glorious kingdom within the nation under the lead of the Divine Spirit Himself (Genesis 17:6; Genesis 17:16; Genesis 35:11; Numbers 24:17; comp. Deuteronomy 17:14-20; Judges 8:23; Judges 9:22; 1 Samuel 2:10, 3:35); and 3) the existing government was no longer able to perform the duties incumbent on it. Ew. Gesch. [History of Israel, 2, 606 sq.]: “As, then, even under Samuel, in his latter years, the judicial office showed itself without and within too weak and unable to give permanent security, the time was at last come when the people must either submit to a more perfect human government, or perish irretrievably. “The unfavorable decision on the demand given nevertheless by Samuel and in the divine declaration, refers to the sinful disposition of mind out of which the demand sprang—a disposition not trusting unconditionally in God’s power, anticipating the plans of His wisdom and His chosen time, controlled by vain and proud desire to imitate the royal magnificences of the heathen peoples. “In this there was a two-fold ungodly element. 1) They desired a king instead of the God-established and nobly attested Judge Samuel …… The scheme is characterized as an injustice against Samuel, and therefore a sin against the Lord, who sent him, 1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Samuel 8:2) At the bottom of the people’s desire for a king lay the delusion, that God was powerless to help them, that the reason of their subjection was not their sin, but a fault in the constitution, that the kingdom would be an aid in addition to God. This point of view appears oftener in the narrative than the first. Isaiah 10:18-19; Isaiah 12. The kingdom desired in such a mind was not a form of God’s kingdom in accordance with revelation, but opposed to His kingdom.” (Hengst. Beit. 3, p. 256 sq.) Calvin: “They ought to have waited patiently for the time predetermined by God, and not have given place to their own designs and methods apart from God’s word. They ought not, therefore, to have anticipated God’s purpose, but ought to have waited till the Lord Himself should show by indubitable signs that the foreordained time had come, and should direct their counsels. Moreover, though they recognized Samuel as a prophet, they not only did not inquire of him whether they were to have a king or not, but wanted him to aid in carrying out their design. They do not think of invoking God; they demand that a king be given them; they adduce the customs and institutions of other nations.” Nevertheless, Samuel yields to the desire of the people, “because he knows that now God’s time has come; but, at the same time, he does all that he can to bring the people to a consciousness of their sin.” (Hengst. ib. 258.) The fulfilment of the demand for a human kingdom is distinctly granted by God, because, though as a human factor in the movement it is rooted in sin, yet, foreseen by God, it fits into His plan, and is to be the means of elevating and confirming the Theocracy in His people, and of laying the foundation for the further development of the nation’s history, till the preparation should be complete for salvation in the person of Him, of whom the kingdom of Israel in David was to be the prefiguration and type. Herein the law, which runs through the whole history of the development of revelation, repeats itself: by the guilt of the covenant-people God’s arrangements for salvation reach a point where they no longer serve; then their guilt is revealed most strongly in open disobedience to God; but, in permitting what the people sinfully wish, God grasps the reins and directs events to a point, of which the people in their sinful blindness had thought nothing, so that He only the more glorifies Himself by the elevation of His revelation to a higher place.” (O. v. Gerlach.) 2. We are not to think of the relation between the theocracy and the kingdom established through Samuel, as if the latter were an addition to the former “to aid it in accomplishing its task, and to supply what was lacking to the times,” as if a “mixed constitution and rule” had arisen, and “out of a divine government” had come a “royal-divine government,” a Basileo-Theocracy. Ew. Gesch. [Hist.] 3, 8. This conception of a co-ordinate relation does not agree with the governing principle of the theocracy, that God is and remains king of His people, that God’s law and truth is the authority to which the kingdom must unconditionally submit, in dependence on which it is to govern as visible instrument of the theocracy in the name and place of the invisible king. The rejection of Saul, who would not pay unconditional obedience to God’s rule, and the divine recognition of David’s government as one which was thoroughly in unison with the rule of Israel’s true king, their God and Lord, and which continued to prepare the way for its realization in the people, laying the historical basis for the future manifestation of the Messianic kingdom, confirm the view that the relation of the Israelitish kingdom to the Theocracy (as Samuel, under God’s direction, founded it) was one of unconditional subordination; it was to be the instrument of the latter. The statement that there was an encroachment on the pure Theocracy in the fact “that Jehovah could no longer be the sole Lawgiver, that the earthly king must execute his will with unrestrained authority” (Diestel, Jahrb. fόr deutsche Theol., 1863, p. 554) rests on an incorrect presupposition, since, according to the principle of the Theocracy, even the established monarchy was expressly subject to the legislative authority of the covenant-God, and both king and people must unconditionally conform their will to the will and law of God. 3. This history of the people’s desire for a king and its fulfilment by God exhibits the relation of the divine will to the human will, when the latter stands sinfully opposed to the former. God never destroys the freedom of the human will. He leaves it to its free self-determination, but when it has turned away from His will, seeks to bring it back by the revelation in His word. If this does not succeed, human perversity must nevertheless minister to the realization of the plans of His kingdom and salvation, and also, in its evil consequences, bring punishment, according to His righteous law, on the sin which man thus freely commits. 4. Samuel appears, in this crisis of Old Testament history, among the men of God whom the Bible represents as heroes in prayer, as Abraham, Moses, Joshua, David, Elijah. Speaking to the people, he represented God as his prophet; praying to God, he represented the people as their priestly mediator. Comp. Schrφring, Samuel als Beter (“Samuel as a praying man”), in the Zeitschr. fόr luth. Theol. ό Krit., 1856, p. 414 sq. 5. [The relation between this narrative of the demand for a king and the “law of the king,” Deuteronomy 17:14-20, requires a brief notice. It seems strange that Samuel, if he was acquainted with this law, makes no mention of it. There is no difficulty in his characterization of the demand as a rejection of the divine rule over them (Jehovah Himself (1 Samuel 8:7-8) does the same thing), for the sin was in their feeling and purpose, not in the demand per se, as Dr. Erdmann well brings out; and Samuel might have so spoken, if he had known that the Law contemplated the possibility of a regal government. The real difficulty lies in the fact that the narrative in 1 Samuel 8-12 seems to be unconscious of the law in Deuteronomy. Allowing much, it might be said, for the simple, unscientific, historical method of the times, in which quotations are rare, and things omitted which are commonly known, it would yet seem that there should be in the addresses of the people, of Samuel, and of Jehovah, some recognition of the fact that this was a thing which did not make its first appearance now, and some reference to the obligations imposed on the king in the Mosaic Law. But, is there no recognition in the later transaction of the earlier law? If we compare the two, we shall find the relation between them to be the following: the form of demand in Deuteronomy 17:14 is given almost verbatim in 1 Samuel 8:5, but the former adds “about me,” while the latter adds the ground of the desire, “that he may be judicial and military head;” for choice by Jehovah in Deut. (1 Samuel 8:15), we have choice by the people in 1 Sam. (1 Samuel 8:18); and by Jehovah (1 Samuel 10:24); the reference to horses is nearly the same in form in both, but in tone quite different, Deut. 1 Samuel 8:16; 1 Samuel 8:11; on the other hand, the mention of returning to Egypt, of wives, silver and gold, and the study of the law (Deut. 1 Samuel 8:17-20) is not found in Samuel. It will be seen from this comparison, and still more from a comparison of the whole tone and drift in the two, that the act described here was probably performed without reference to the statute in Deut.; that the desire of the people was a natural, historical growth, and the course of events was determined by the circumstances of the time. So in the history of Gideon we see a similar unconsciousness of the Deuteronomic statute (though there is recognition of the theocracy), and a similar determination of action by existing circumstances. Where, then, was the Mosaic law all this time? and was Samuel ignorant of it? The answer to these questions seems to be suggested by the statement in 1 Samuel 10:25, in which there are three distinct affirmations: 1) “that Sa muel told the people the law or manner of the kingdom, which is plainly different from the law of the king in chap. 8, and is most naturally to be identified with Deuteronomy 17:14-17; Deuteronomy 2) that he wrote this law in a book; and 3) that he put it somewhere in safe keeping. It seems probable, therefore, that we have here the political adoption of the essence of the Mosaic “law of the king” (which, in its prohibition of a return to Egypt, for example, has the stamp of Mosaic times). The law had been announced by Moses, transmitted through the priests, and was known to Samuel (though perhaps not generally known among the people). But it was a permission of royalty merely, not an injunction, and its existence did not diminish the people’s sin of superficial, unspiritual longing for outward guidance, nor prove at first to Samuel that the time for its application had come. He therefore says nothing about it. But when the transaction is concluded, the king actually chosen, then he announces the law, and with obvious propriety commits it in its constitutional form to writing, and deposits it before Jehovah as a part of the theocratic constitution. Thus the history seems to become natural and intelligible when regarded as exhibiting Samuel’s doubts as to whether the proper time had come for the historical realization of what Moses puts merely as a possibility. Apparently Samuel was not in sympathy with the movement, and seems to have felt after this that he had outlived his time.—Tr.] AND 1 Samuel 8:1-3. Starke: Even good intentions do not always turn out well, but often fall through.—Upright parents cannot always be blamed for it, if their children turn out badly.—Avarice is a root of all evils, 1 Timothy 6:9-10; earnestly to avoid it is a great part of the wisdom of the righteous.—Calvin: Parents should feel the duty laid upon them, amid great anxiety and sorrow, to pray to God for the prosperity of their children, and with earnest admonitions diligently to hold them to the task of making their life holy. They should earnestly beg God to lead and govern, by His Holy Spirit the children whom He has given them, and to let the mercy which has been their own portion pass over to their children also, and to grant them the gift of perseverance and constancy. For if so holy and exalted a prophet was not spared the having such wicked and corrupt sons, how will it be with those who are far removed from his piety. 1 Samuel 8:4-6. Starke: Even good things may sometimes be ill desired. A pious government is greatly pained when it traces among its subjects nothing but mere ingratitude.—Cramer: When something disagreeable and repugnant befalls us, we can better bring it home to no one than to God; for He consoles the lowly, 2 Corinthians 7:6.—Calvin: We ought, when anything is done or said against the honor of God, to be aroused and zealous, but not to suffer ourselves to be provoked when in regard to ourselves or ours an injustice is done us. 1 Samuel 8:7-9. Starke: What is done to servants of God, God accepts as done to Himself, Acts 19:5.—Berleb. Bible: God hears in manifold ways when we cry to Him for human guidance, and then we imagine we have obtained a great favor. But what a great misfortune it is when one draws himself off from the richly instructive guidance of the Lord, to allow Himself to be led by creatures which withdraw us from the guidance of God! Then from freemen, which we formerly were, we become mere bondmen, and can also rightly say, if only we are so happy as to forsake the human guidance: “O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us; but by thee only will we make mention of thy name” (Isaiah 26:13). An upright guide like Samuel does not appropriate to himself the souls of men, but guides them to God, and serves only the purpose of bringing them to Him.—Wuertemb. Bible: Old sins are not forgotten with God, if they are all the time kept up, and not repented of (Exodus 32:34).—Schmid: The fountain of all sins is in not fearing God; and he who fears not to sin against God, also fears not to sin against men. 1 Samuel 8:9. Schmid: If God has cause enough to punish, yet out of His long-suffering He will also have cause enough merely to chide and admonish (Hosea 11:8-9). 1 Samuel 8:15-16. Berleb. Bible: If we owe so much to the earthly king, what do we not owe to the heavenly king? O Thou King of Glory, do but come and reign over us! Let Thy kingdom come to us! Lift up your heads, ye everlasting doors, and the King of Glory shall come in.—[1 Samuel 8:18. Cries that will not be heard: 1) Self-will often brings us into distress. 2) This distress makes us cry to the Lord. 3) Such cries the Lord does not promise to hear.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 8:19. Schmid: Among wretched men there is no constancy save in wickedness (Isaiah 5:18).—Calvin: We learn here how God, according to His righteous judgment, blinds men and gives them up to error, when they persistently go after their foolish and perverse desires. Therefore we ought to learn from this example to be wise, that when we are entangled in sore temptations, we may not give too much room to our own plans and thoughts, as if they rested on a firm foundation and were wholesome. We will beg God to rule us by His Spirit, and not to give us over to ourselves, and not even in the least to suffer us to depart from His Word, but rather work in us that that Word may maintain its dominion over us, and we may rejoice in its guidance. 1 Samuel 8:21. Starke: A Christian should bewail and tell his need to no one rather than to the faithful God, and learn from Him how he shall rightly behave himself. 1 Samuel 8:22. S. Schmid: God’s forbearance should not confirm men in wickedness, as if it were well done, but should lead them to repentance, that they may at last recognize their unrighteousness (Psalms 50:21). Footnotes: [1 Samuel 8:2. That is “Jehovah is God”—the only God (ιַ ?δְ ?εְ = ιְ ?δַ ?ε = ιְ ?δεֹ = ιεֹ for ιַ ?δְ ?εֶ ?δ Jahveh), a name borne by several persons in O. T., and said by Schrader to occur on the Assyr. inscriptions as name of a king of Hamath, Jalu, borrowed, no doubt, from the Israelites.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:2. That is, “my father (or, simply, father) is Jah, Jahu, Jahveh, Jehovah.” The word ξִ ?ωְׁ ?πֵ ?δεּ means the “second,” not of Samuel, but of Joel.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:3. αφς is sometimes “profit” in general, as in Genesis 37:26, but usually “unjust gain,” as here. The Targ. renders “mamon (mammon) of deceit,” see Luke 16:9. In Talmud and Targ. mammon moans “money,” “riches.” and Augustine (Qu�st. Evan. 34) says that it was the Punic word for “money.” It is not found in Heb., and its origin is obscure.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:7. Better: “not thee have they rejected, but me have, etc.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:8. Literally: “according to all … they have done … and have forsaken me and served, etc.” The ε consec., according to Heb. usage, introduces an appositional explanatory phrase, properly rendered by Eng. particip. On the Sept. insertion of “to me” after “have done,” see Exeg. Notes in loco.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:9. ΰַ ?κְ is restrictive-adversative, “yet,” “nevertheless;” λִּ ?ι is the subst. conjunct. “that,” introducing the following affirmation. The verb means literally “testify to them,” the word “solemnly” well expresses the force of the Inf. Abs.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:9. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָ ?θ is “judgment,” then “law,” then “right, privilege,” but also “manner,” and this last is preferable here, because Samuel states what the king will do, not what he will have the right to do. His “manner” will be the “law” as determined by himself—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:11. The word signifies either “horses” or “horsemen;” the former better suits construction and context.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:12. Lit. “and to appoint,” Inf. dependent on the verb “take” in 1 Samuel 8:11. The vss. vary greatly in the designation of the officers here mentioned, and some critics would read (with Sept.) “hundreds” instead of “fifties,” as being the more usual and natural. This is, however, a ground of objection to the change (from the harder to the easier), and there is no sufficient reason for abandoning the Heb. text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:13. The word ψχη is used to express the preparing of fragrant ointments (Exodus 30:22-35), and the noun is here best rendered “ointment-makers,” so Sept., Vulg., Erdmann, Philippson, and others. The Syriac renders “weavers” (websters) as if it read ψχν, and the Chald. has the general designation “servants” (comp. Arab. raqaha, “provide for”). The Heb. text is to be maintained. The Eng. word “confectionary” (=confectioner) formerly included the making of ointments and spiced preparations, see Exodus 30:35, Eng. A. V., but would now convey an incorrect idea here.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 8:16. The reading “oxen” instead of “young men” (αχψ for αηψ) seems required by context, and is given by Sept., and adopted by Erdmann and others. Maurer admits the bearing of the context, but keeps the text on the ground of the θεֹ ?αιν; but θεֹ ?α is applied to oxen in Genesis 41:26, and to flesh of beasts in Ezekiel 24:4 (in 1 Samuel 8:5 Ezek. uses αηψ of the flock), and may be here understood of oxen.—Tr.] [The Vashni in 1 Chronicles 6:13 (28) is the same word as that rendered “second” in this passage.—Tr.] [Beersheba (a mere watering-place in the Patriarchal time) was probably at this time a place of some importance from the trade between Egypt and Asia. It was re-settled after the exile, was a large village with a Roman garrison in Jerome’s time, and now exhibits only scattered ruins. Two large, and five small wells are still to be seen. The name does not occur in the New Test. See Robins. ubi sup., Smith’s Bib. Dict., s. v.—Tr.] [If Samuel was born B. C. 1146, he would be sixty years old at the third battle of Ebenezer, 1086, and now, say ten years later, seventy years old. This would leave twenty years for Saul’s reign up to B. C. 1056, when David was made king in Hebron.—But it is possible that these dates may have to be put forward some years.—Tr.] [Or, from the ways of truth.—Tr.] [Eng. A. V. has here, not so well, “horsemen.”—Tr.] [This is the literal translation. Eng. A. V. gives the sense more freely.—Tr.] [On the variations in the vss. as to these numbers, see “Text. and Gram.” in loco.—Tr.] On the doubling of the μ in μֹ ?ΰ see Ew. Gr., § 91 d. II. Samuel meets Saul and Learns that he is Destined by God to be King over Israel 1 Samuel 9:1-271 Now [And] there was a man of Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Abiel, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath, the son of Aphiah, [ins. the son of] a Benjamite, a mighty man of power. And he had a son whose name was Saul, a choice young man and a goodly [young and goodly]; 2and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier person than he; from the shoulders and upward he was higher than any of the people. 3And the asses of Kish, Saul’s father, were lost. And Kish said to Saul, his 4son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go seek the asses. And he passed through mount Ephraim [the hill-country of Ephraim], and passed through the land of Shalisha, but [and] they found them not, then [and] they passed through the land of Shalim [Shaalim], and there they were not, and he passed through the 5land of the Benjamites, but [and] they found them not. And [om. and] when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his servant that was with him, Come and let us return, lest my father leave caring for the asses and take thought 6for [be anxious about] us. And he said unto [to] him, Behold, now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honorable man [the man is honorable]; all that he saith cometh surely to pass; now let us go thither; peradventure he Song of Solomon 7[will] show us our way that we should go. Then said Saul [And Saul said] to his servant, But, [And] behold, if we go, what shall we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is not a present to bring to the man of God; what have 8we? And the servant answered Saul again and said, Behold, I have here at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver, that will I give [and I will give it] to the 9man of God to tell [that he may show] us our way. (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he spake, Come and let us go to the seer; for Hebrews 10 that is now called a prophet was beforetime called a seer.) Then said Saul [And Saul said] to his servant, Well said; come, let us go. So [And] they went unto the city where the man of God was. 11And [om. and] as they went up [were going up] the hill to [on which was] the city, they found [came upon] young maidens going out to draw water, and said 12unto them, Is the seer here? And they answered them and said, He is; behold, he is before you [thee]; make haste, now, for he came to-day17 to the city, for 13there is a sacrifice of the people to-day in [on] the high place; As soon as ye be come into the city, ye shall straightway find him, before he go up to the high place to eat; for the people will not eat until he come, because he doth bless the sacrifice; and [om. and] afterwards they eat that be bidden. Now therefore [And now] get 14you up, for [ins. he], about this time ye shall find him. And they went up into [to] the city; and [om. and] when they were come [As they were going] into the city, behold, Samuel came out [was coming out] against [towards] them, for [om. 15for] to go up to the high place. Now [And] the Lord [Jehovah] had told Samuel 16in his ear [had informed Samuel] a day before Saul came, saying, To-morrow, about this time [About this time to-morrow] I will send thee a man out of the land of Benjamin, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain [prince] over my people Israel, that he may [and he shall] save my people out of the hand of the Philistines; for I have looked upon my people, because their cry is come unto me. 17And when [om. when] Samuel saw Saul, [ins. and] the Lord [Jehovah] said unto [answered] him, Behold the man whom I spake to thee of! this same [the man of whom I said to thee, he] shall reign over my people. 18Then [And] Saul drew near to Samuel in the gate, and said, Tell me, I pray 19thee, where the seer’s house is. And Samuel answered Saul, and said, I am the seer; go up before me unto the high place, for [and] ye shall eat with me to-day, and to-morrow I will let thee go, and will tell thee all that is in thine heart [and I 20will let thee go in the morning, and all that is in thy heart I will tell thee]. And as for thine asses, that were lost three days ago, set not thy mind on them; for they are found. And on whom is all the desire of Israel [And to whom belongs all that is desirable in Israel]? is it not on [does it not belong to] thee, and on [to] 21all thy father’s house? And Saul answered and said, Am not I a Benjamite, of the smallest of the tribes of Israel? and my family the least of all the families of the tribe of Benjamin? [ins. and] wherefore then [om. then] speakest thou so to 22me? And Samuel took Saul and his servant, and brought them into the parlor [eating-room], and made them sit in the chiefest place among [and gave them a place at the head of] them that were bidden, which [and they] were about thirty 23persons. And Samuel said unto [to] the cook, Bring the portion which I gave 24thee, of which I said unto thee, Set it by thee. And the cook took up the shoulder, and that which was upon it, and set it before Saul, and Samuel [om. Samuel, ins. he] said, Behold that which is left! set it before thee [what was reserved is set before thee]; and [om. and] eat, for unto this time hath it been kept for thee since I said,I have invited the people. So [And] Saul did eat with Samuel that day. 25And when they were come [And they came] down from the high place unto [to] the city, Samuel [om. Samuel, ins. and he] communed [spake] with Saul upon the 26top of the house [the roof]. And they arose early; and it came to pass about the spring of the day [at day-dawn] that Samuel called [ins. to] Saul to [on] the top of the house [roof], saying, Up [Rise], that I may [and I will] send thee away. And Saul arose, and they went out both of them, he and Samuel, abroad [on the 27street]. And [om. and] as they were going down to the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul, Bid the servant pass on before us (and he passed on), but [and] stand thou still a while, that I may [and I will] show [tell] thee the word of God. AND 1 Samuel 9:1-2. Saul’s family and person.—The statement that Kish was the son of Abiel is opposed to that of 1 Chronicles 8:33; 1 Chronicles 9:39, according to which Ner was the father of Kish, but agrees with 1 Samuel 14:51, according to which Ner was the father of Abner and the son of Abiel, and therefore the brother of Kish. This difference is not to be set aside by the arbitrary assumption that Ner in Chron. is not the father, but the grandfather, or a still remoter ancestor of Kish (Keil), but the statement in Chron is to be corrected by this and 1 Samuel 14:51. [Keil’s supposition of an omitted name in the list is scarcely “arbitrary,” since such omissions are elsewhere found in genealogical records. To construct Saul’s genealogy it is natural to compare the various statements in the Scriptures, and attempt to make them accord. Bringing together Genesis 46:2; 1 Samuel 9:1; 1 Samuel 14:51; 1 Chronicles 7:6-8; 1 Chronicles 8:29-33; 1 Chronicles 9:35-39, the following line may be made out: 1. Benjamin. 2. Becher. 3. Aphiah—perhaps same with Abiah. 4. Bechorath. 5. Zeror or Zur. 6. Abiel or Jehiel. 7. Ner. 8. Kish. 9. Saul, in which, however, some links may be omitted, as Matri, mentioned 1 Sam. 1 Samuel 10:21. Abner is thus Saul’s uncle, as in 1 Samuel 14:50. If Ehud in 1 Chronicles 7:10 be the judge of that name (Judges 3.), he was not of the same family with Saul. In 1 Chronicles 9:35 Jehiel, the ancestor of Saul, is said to have been the father, that is, the first settler of Gibeon; but it is uncertain how far back we have to put him. The name “Saul” was borne by others, see Genesis 36:37-38; Genesis 46:10; 1 Chronicles 6:24; Acts 7:58. See Bib. Dicts., s. v. Ner and Saul, and Comms. on “Chronicles.”—Tr.]. The phrase βִּ ?αּ ?εֹ ?ψηָ ?ιִ ?μ [Eng. A.V. “a mighty man of power”] here means a rich well-to-do man (Ges., De Wette) and not as in 1 Samuel 16:18, a strong, valiant man (Vulgate, Cler., Then.); for it undoubtedly refers to Kish, who is, indeed, “not represented in the history as specially wealthy” (Then.), but is all the more distinctly described as in easy circumstances and prosperous. It is intended to state that Saul came from a substantial family. This accords much better with the connection than the representation of him as a man of vigor and strength by the statement that his father was a valiant man.—The genealogical statement about Saul’s descent is followed (1 Samuel 9:2) by a short description of his person. The name Saul means the “asked” (comp. Genesis 46:10); “it occurs frequently, and was, probably, usually the name of the desired (asked) first-born” (Then.). Saul was a choice and handsome man. αָ ?ηεּ ?ψ is to be rendered electus (Vulg.), not only because he had a grown son (1 Samuel 13:1-3), but also because it is expressly said (1 Samuel 10:24) that the Lord elected and chose him, because his like was not to be found in all the people, that is, in respect to his distinguished personal appearance; in spite of the first-mentioned fact, he might else still have ranked as a young man. He excelled all other Israelites both in warlike beauty and in height, according to the vivid description “from the shoulder upward;” his person was in keeping with the lofty position to which, as ruler over Israel, he was chosen by God, as is expressly said in 1 Samuel 10:24.1 Samuel 9:3-10. The occasion of Saul’s meeting with Samuel: The loss of and search for the asses of Kish. 1 Samuel 9:3. Kish’s preparations for recovering the lost asses show him to be a substantial and propertied man. His command to his son “take a servant, arise, go, seek,” gives a vivid description of what occurred. 1 Samuel 9:4 sqq. contain a similarly fresh and animated description of Saul’s wandering search with his servant. The mention of the hill-country of Ephraim first as scene of the search is explained by the fact that these hills stretched from the north down into the territory of Benjamin, and Gibeah, Saul’s home and starting-point (comp. 1 Samuel 10:26; 1 Samuel 11:4; 1 Samuel 15:34; 1 Samuel 23:19; 1 Samuel 26:1) lay on their slope. The land of Shalisha, which they next traversed, probably takes its name from ωָׁ ?μωׁ [“three”], because there three valleys united in one, or one divided into three = Threeland (see then. in Kδuffer’s Stud. d. sδchs. Geistl. II., 142); it is the region in which, according to 2 Kings 4:42, Baalshalisha lay [15 miles north of Diospolis or Lydda.—Tr.]. Thereupon they traversed the land of Shaalim, according to Then., “perhaps a very deep valley (comp. ωׁ ?ςַ ?μ ‘the hollow of the hand,’ and ξωְׁ ?ςֹ ?μ ‘a hollow or narrow way’ ”), probably the region which lay eastward from Shalisha, where on the maps of Robinson and Vandevelde the Beni Mussah and Beni Salem are marked (comp. Keil in loco). The next statement that they traversed the land of Benjamin, indicates that from Shaalim they go from north-east to south-west. Thence they came into the land of Zuph, which, as Keil supposes, lay on the south-west of the tribe-territory of Benjamin, since “Saul and his follower on the return home pass first (1 Samuel 10:2) by the tomb of Rachel, and then come to the border of Benjamin.”—[Kitto remarks that Saul’s tender regard for his father’s feelings (1 Samuel 9:5) is a favorable indication of character.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 9:6. The servant prevents Saul from returning home immediately, pointing out to him the city before him standing on an eminence, where they would find the man of God, who would perhaps tell them how they might attain the object of their search. The way, on which they came, is the way on which they now are, that they may find what they are seeking; the seer will now perhaps tell them the direction in which they must go on this way, in order to find the asses. From the connection of the whole history of Samuel the city can be no other than his residence, Ramathaim (or, Ramah) Zophim (1 Samuel 1:1), that is, in the district of Zuph, in the Tribe of Benjamin (Joshua 18:25). Keil is wrong in pressing against this general assumption the fact that the servant does not say “here dwells,” but “here is” a man of God, which is plainly farfetched. Equally forced is his explanation of the answer of the maidens (1 Samuel 9:12): “He came today to the city, for there is a great sacrifice of the people on the high-place,” from which he infers that the seer’s house was not in the city, but that he had only come thither to the sacrificial feast; their answer rather confirms the former view, since the question “is the seer here?” referred to the city, while the place of offering was on the eminence behind the city, where Samuel in those days worked and dwelt. Samuel has his residence in this city (comp. 1 Samuel 9:25 with 1 Samuel 9:18); Keil’s supposition of a temporary residence, which he occupied during his presence at the festival, is wholly untenable. As Samuel had built an altar to the Lord at Ramah (1 Samuel 7:17), it is more natural to think of this residence of Samuel than of any other place, the name of which would no doubt otherwise have been given. Finally, it is to be added that Samuel is known to the servant, and the latter knows that he is here. On the other supposition, how should he know that Samuel was here precisely at this time, if it was not his residence? [These arguments are replied to in various ways by expositors who hold that this city was not Ramah. But Erdmann is undoubtedly right in saying that the impression made by this narrative is that it was Samuel’s residence to which Saul came. The difficulty lies in reconciling this statement with the itinerary in 1 Samuel 10:2-5. See the exposition and translator’s note on 1 Samuel 1:1. As Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem, and Saul was going towards Bethel, one would suppose the city in 1 Samuel 9 to be south or southwest from Bethlehem, that is, not in the territory of Benjamin at all. And if it was not Ramah it is impossible to say what it was.—It is worthy of note that Saul seems to know nothing about Samuel; it is the servant that knows and does everything. Saul rather appears as a simple-minded rustic youth, who has rarely left his pastoral occupations, and knows little of the political and religious elements of the time.—Tr.].—From this passage it appears (comp. 1 Samuel 9:9) that the earliest prophets were consulted by the people about ordinary matters of life, of which they were looked on as having superior knowledge. It is, however, undetermined, whether Samuel would have answered the question about the asses, if the loss of and search for them had not been, according to the revelation made him from above, the divinely-appointed means for bringing him into connection with the person of the designated king. 1 Samuel 9:7-8. Those who went to question the prophets carried them presents (comp. 1 Kings 14:3). These are in the first place to be regarded as honorary gifts, intended to show respect. But this does not exclude the supposition that they depended for support on these voluntary gifts offered in return for information desired. Saul fears that he has no gift worthy of the man, but the servant, who is drawn to the life, is ready with the reply: “There is in my hand (I have here at hand) the fourth of a shekel of silver” (called zuz (ζεּ ?ζ) by the later Jews, see Targ. Jon. in loc). The silver-shekel and its parts (½,⅓ ?,Ό), are not pieces weighed in transference, but already of determined weight and value, coins “current with the merchant” (Genesis 23:16), which were “counted.” The Shekel was in German money about 26 silbergroschen, the quarter, therefore, about 6½ silbergroschen. [There is no means of determining precisely the value of the shekel in Samuel’s time. In our Lord’s time a stater = shekel seems to have been about 70 cents United States currency, and a quarter about 18 (equivalent perhaps to two dollars now). A German Silbergroschen is about 2½ cents in our currency. There is no evidence that coined money existed in Israel before the captivity, and the first native coins were probably struck some centuries after the Return.—Tr.]. The Preterites give an admirably true picture of the animated manner of the servant, who is intent only on the object of their search, and willingly makes the sacrifice of the money for the asses. 1 Samuel 9:9. “The man” (δָ ?ΰִ ?ιωׁ) is the indef. subject (Germ. man [Eng. one]), though the Art. makes the individual personality more prominent. Ew. Gr. § 294 d. An express difference is made here between the ancient designation of the prophet Roeh (ψֹ ?ΰֶ ?δ), for which later in the solemn, poetic language the synonymous Chozeh (ηֶ ?ζδ “gazer“) was used, and the term in use in the author’s time Nabi (πָ ?αִ ?ιΰ). The former (Roeh, seer), points only to the form in which “the insight” into what was hidden came to them, the latter (Nabi), on the contrary, “to the source of the divinatory insight, to God” (Tholuck, Die Propheten, p. 21). The remark in 1 Samuel 9:9 belongs according to its content to 1 Samuel 9:11. [Note on Roeh.—The statement in 1 Samuel 9:9 has special interest in connection with the history of prophetic work in Israel. The three terms named above have each its peculiar meaning and its special use, though to a certain extent employed interchangeably. Besides in this chapter, Roeh occurs three times of Samuel (1 Chronicles 9:22; 1 Chronicles 26:28; 1 Chronicles 29:29), twice of Hanani (2 Chronicles 16:9-10), once with a general application (Isaiah 30:10), and once apparently of Zadok the priest in a passage (2 Samuel 15:27) where the text is somewhat involved in suspicion; it is used, that is, c. B. C. 1100–700. Chozeh is found in 2 Sam., in the prophets, and in Chron., about B. C. 800–400. Nabi occurs from Gen. to Mai., in nearly every book of the Old Testament. As to the meaning, Nabi is clearly one who speaks for God (see the general meaning in Exodus 7:1), announcing or representing His will by His command. Cnozeh, the “gazer,” is one who sees visions of God; the verb, where it means “behold,” is used only in poetry, and always of divine visions, and the noun was employed as synonymous with Nabi, meaning prophet in the fullest sense. So, too, Roeh the “seer,“ in the one passage (Isaiah 30:10) where it occurs with a general application, is used as synonymous with Chozeh, while our verse here affirms the substantial identity of Roeh and Nabi. But, as the Nabi always claims inspiration, whether he be true or false, we must regard the Roeh also as an inspired person. Dr. R. Payne Smith (“Prophecy a prep. for Christ,” Lect. II.) holds that the Roeh was simply a man of acute understanding, uninspired, to whom the people were in the habit of resorting for advice in difficult matters. He bases his view chiefly on this chapter, and especially on the Sept. reading of 1 Samuel 9:9 : “the people called Roeh him,” etc., a reading which can hardly be sustained; and, for the reasons given above, it seems necessary to regard the Roeh as inspired. The change of name from Roeh to Nabi and Chozeh had its ground probably in the development of the religious constitution. Up to some time before the author of “Samuel” wrote, the non-sacerdotal, non-Levitical religious teacher was one distinguished by seeing visions, or by seeing into the will of God. This is God’s definition of the prophet in Numbers 11:6; it is involved in 1 Samuel 3:1; 1 Samuel 3:15, and in the visions of the patriarchs. The Law of Moses was the complete and sufficient guide for life and worship, and it was only in special individual matters that the divine direction was given, and then it was through the medium of a vision. He who saw the vision was a Roeh, and it was natural enough that he should be consulted by the people about many matters. But in process of time the mechanicalness and deadness to which the legal ritual constantly tended called forth an order of men who expounded and enforced the spirituality of the Law, speaking as God bade them, speaking for God, entering as a prominent element into the religious life of the nation. He who thus spake was a Nabi, and, as he too might have visions, he was sometimes called Chozeh “the gazer” (the verb ηζδis not necessarily always to “gaze” as Dr. Smith maintains (ubi sup.), as, for ex., in Proverbs 22:29, but is the poetic conception “behold” as distinguished from “see,” though in the visional use it is appropriately rendered “gaze”). As this speaker for God gradually took the place of the old seer of visions, the word Nabi replaced Roeh in popular usage. It seems that the change began in or about Samuel’s time, and was completed about three centuries later, Roeh still maintaining itself in the language, though rarely used. On the other hand, Nabi may have been used infrequently in early times, in reference to Abraham and Moses, and have become afterwards the common term, or the occurrence of the word in the Pentateuch may be the transference of a late word to earlier scenes.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 9:11-14. The announcement of the “Seer” (δֵ ?ξָּ ?δςֹ ?μִ ?ιν, Just as they were going up … then (εְ ?δֵ ?ξָּ ?δ); the Partcp. with preceding subject denotes a circumstance or fact, synchronously with which or at the occurrence of which another fact or circumstance takes place, which is introduced by εְ before the subject (Ew, Gr., § 341 d). A similar construction with δξδ ... εδξδ follows in 1 Samuel 9:14 and 1 Samuel 9:27)—The word “here” (αַּ ?ζֶּ ?δ) refers to the city, which was on an eminence, since they met the water-drawers as they were going up The answer of the maidens (1 Samuel 9:12) “before thee” is a “direction to go simply straightforward” (Bunsen). Here too the description is very lively, answering perfectly to the peculiarities of the persons. “He came into the city” presupposes either that his residence was without it, or that he had been absent from it some time (Then.). The “height” on which the offering took place must be distinguished from the height on which the city stood. The name Ramathaim [= the two Ramahs, or heights] refers to those two heights. The Bamah, high-place (comp. Micah 3:12, where it is synonymous with δַ ?ψ “mountain,” and Micah 1:3-4; Jeremiah 26:18 with Amos 4:1) is the sacred place of sacrifice on the mountain which rose still higher than the city (comp. 1 Samuel 9:11 with 1 Samuel 9:13; 1 Samuel 9:25; 1 Samuel 9:27). Of such “Bamoth,” holy places on heights, where the people assembled for sacrifice and prayer, there were several during the unquiet times of the Judges, especially after the central Sanctuary at Shiloh ceased to exist, till the building of the Temple (comp. 1 Samuel 7:9; 1 Samuel 10:8; 1 Samuel 13:8 sq.; 1 Samuel 16:2-3; 1 Kings 3:2 sq.), as indeed the Patriarchs sacrificed on high places (Genesis 12:8). It was not till after the building of the Temple that the high-place-worship, which easily degenerated into idolatry (wherefore the Law forbade sacrifice except in Jehovah’s dwelling, the Sanctuary) was completely done away with (2 Kings 23:4-23).—In 1 Samuel 9:13 λֵּ ?ο corresponds to λְּ, both expressing identity of time, or the concurrence of the acts of coming and finding = “as … forthwith,” or “when … straightway.” Ew. Gram. § 360 b.—The seer is just going to a sacrificial meal on the high-place. The “people” await him there. A large assembly is therefore gathered to-day on the high-place for a thank-offering, αֵּ ?ψֵ ?κְ here = ἐυλογεῖν, ἐυχαριστεῖν [“bless,”. “give thanks”]. The “him” is repeated in this animated discourse, because the somewhat garrulous and circumstantial women wish to bring the chief person prominently before the inquirer. “They that are bidden” are those whom Samuel had invited to this sacrificial meal, comp. 1 Samuel 9:24. 1 Samuel 9:14. The course of events now, according to the very precise and detailed account of the narrator, is as follows: First Saul and his servant go up to the city. Pursuant to the directions of the maidens they pass quickly in. The curt, rapid character of the narration corresponds to the movement. Next, they are already in the midst of the city, when, this is the third fact, Samuel, going out of the city, meets them; they meet in the middle of the city, he going outward toward the high-place, they going inward. That they had gone through the gate was a matter of course and did not require mention. And the statement of 1 Samuel 9:18 : “And Saul drew near to Samuel in the midst of the gate,” or, stepped up to him, the fourth fact, need not be regarded as contradictory to the preceding statement: “in the midst of the city;” for, from these two statements it is clear that Saul did not go up to Samuel as soon as he met him, as appears also from 1 Samuel 9:17, where it is expressly said what intervened: Samuel saw Saul, and received from God the disclosure that this was the man in reference to whom He had before made a revelation to him. We must therefore suppose a pause between the meeting in the city and the talk in the gate, during which Saul followed Samuel till he approached him in the gate. Thus there is no need for the conjecture that the verse read originally “gate” instead of “city” (Then.), nor the supposition that the narrator was guilty of carelessness (Reuss), nor the artificial, unclear explanation that the words mean “to go into the city, enter, and the entrance was through the gate” (Keil). Ewald’s remark that, since Raman, Samuel’s city, was certainly not large, “in the midst of the city” (1 Samuel 9:4) is not very different from “in the midst of the gate” (1 Samuel 9:18), comes in excellently, in the sense that the distance between the middle of the city and the middle of the gate was small, to explain satisfactorily why Saul, after the meeting in the city, did not approach Samuel to speak to him till he was in the middle of the gate. Further it is to be noted that conversation and consultation were usually held “in the gate,” not on the street, and the pause which Saul’s question supposes Samuel to have made could properly occur only in the place set aside for public interviews. 1 Samuel 9:15-17. The revelation which Samuel received the day before Saul’s arrival, that a man of Benjamin would come to him, whom he was to anoint prince over Israel, was psychologically based on his constant prayerful expectant reflection as to how God would establish the monarchy promised to the people. “To uncover the ear” when said of God, signifies, as in 2 Samuel 7:27, the divine Spirit’s announcement to the human spirit, the inbreathing of divine thoughts from above through the word.—I will send to thee, (1 Samuel 9:16): The “I will send” sets forth the divine providence, which so guides the ways of Saul, the chosen king, that he must come to Samuel, the head of Israel and mediator between God and his people. Clericus: “I will take care that he come to thee. For Saul was ignorant of the whole matter, and, while vainly seeking asses, found an unexpected kingdom.” The future king came from the most warlike tribe, and this revelation to Samuel declares that his mission was a warlike one, the deliverance, namely, of Israel from the domination of the Philistines. Israel’s victory over the Philistines (1 Samuel 7:13) was not followed by a complete liberation of land and people from these enemies; rather the words: “The hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel” point to repeated successful battles against them. It was these that Saul fought, and Samuel survived during the greater part of his reign. Comp. the remarks on 1 Samuel 7:13. “I have looked upon my people” means not “I have had regard to their prayers” (Cleric.), but, as in Exodus 2:25, in reference to the Egyptian bondage, which was the type of every oppression of Israel by external means, that God, ever present to help His people, had a compassionate knowledge of their needs and misery. The insertion of the Sept. of the words “affliction of,” before “my people,” is a correct explanation, but not necessary as a part of the original text; for the following words: “their cry is come to me” explain sufficiently in what sense God’s seeing, to which the hearing of the people’s cry corresponds, is to be understood. 1 Samuel 9:17. At the moment when Samuel saw Saul, he received by divine revelation the inward assurance that this man was the king chosen by God. The phrase “answered” refers to the question which Samuel internally asked God when he saw Saul, whether this was the Benjamite of whom he had been divinely told the day before. The word “bind, restrain” (ιַ ?ςְ ?φֹ ?ψ) characterizes his government as a sharp and strict one, as a coercere imperio. To this mental experience of Samuel’s corresponded the short interval between his passage to the gate and Saul’s approach to him in the gate with the question about the seer. 1 Samuel 9:18-27. Saul Samuel’s guest, and the tatter’s talk with him. 1 Samuel 9:18 takes up the thread from 1 Samuel 9:14, after the parenthesis, 1 Samuel 9:17. In reply to Saul’s question as to the seer’s house, Samuel announces himself (1 Samuel 9:19) as the” seer.” The direction: “go up before me” is a mark of respect, like the invitation to take the chief place (1 Samuel 9:22), and the selection of the best portion at the meal (1 Samuel 9:24). Ye shall eat with me today includes the servant, while the courtesy could only be meant for Saul as the master. All that is in thy heart I will tell thee—not: “whatsoever thou shalt desire” (Cleric.) in reference to the object of his coming; for in respect to the asses he gives him information immediately (1 Samuel 9:20), but Samuel will reveal to him his innermost thoughts (Bunsen). He speaks to him as prophet, and prepares him for what he has to communicate to him as prophet. Thenius’ reference of the words to what Saul does in chap. 13, as if he had “long had it in mind,” seems too particular for the general connection here. The reference is rather to the powers and impulses of an aspiring soul, which lay latent in Saul, and fitted him for his destined calling, as well as to his sinful nature, which, by opposing God, might prove a hindrance. In 1 Samuel 9:20 Samuel says two things, by which he showed Saul that he was a prophet. First, he announces to him that the ground of anxiety for the asses is already removed.—Which were lost to-day three days, that is, “to-day is the third day,” day before yesterday, see Ew., Gr., § 287, k [Ges., Gr., § 118, 2].—Set not thy mind on them stands over against the preceding “what is in thy heart.” From now on his heart is to claim and accomplish something higher. To this Samuel’s second expression refers, which hints indistinctly at the great and noble destiny to which God has elected him, in order to awaken and call out what was hidden in his heart. All the desire (λָּ ?μΞηֶ ?ξְ ?γַּ ?ϊιΧ), omnis eupiditas, omne desiderium Israelis, but in the objective sense: everything worthy of desire, valuable, optima qu�que (Vulg.): This signifies, in contrast with the sought and found asses, that noblest possession, which pertained to all Israel, and was destined for him and his father’s house, was to be his, unsought and undesired: the royal dignity. Samuel “draws him away from caring about the asses, and first lifts him up to high thoughts and hopes” (O. v. Gerlach). Samuel’s obscure, enigmatic words only give him a glimpse of something great and lofty pertaining to himself and his house, and give occasion (1 Samuel 9:21) to a disclamatory reply, which exhibits that which is now in his heart, namely, humility and modesty. The supposition that Saul “well understood that Samuel spoke of the honor of the kingdom” (Dδchsel) does not accord with the purposely general and indefinite character of Samuel’s words. It is without support from the connection and inconsistent with 1 Samuel 10:20-21, to explain Saul’s “answer—that the best thing in Israel could not belong to him and his house, because his tribe was the smallest in Israel, and his family the least in this tribe—in reference to his later very different bearing, as “pretended modesty” (Then.). Saul came only afterwards to be untrue to this disposition of mind, which was the condition of his election. (Instead of the obviously erroneous plural, ωִׁ ?αְ ?θֵ ?ι, “tribes,” read sing., “tribe”). The warlike tribe of Benjamin, one of the smallest already in the census of Num 1:36 sq., had been reduced by the frightful execution recorded in Judges 20:20 to an inconsiderable power. The consciousness of this fact is expressed in Saul’s words. Looking at his tribe and family, he will not presume to claim so high a consideration as the seer has intimated. Samuel makes him no answer. “He wishes to awaken in him astonishment, expectation, hope” (O. v. Gerlach). 1 Samuel 9:22-24 now relate how Samuel entertains him as an honored guest at the sacrificial meal.1 Samuel 9:22. A select number of thirty men of note were invited to this festival, and had taken their places in the room (μִ ?ωְׁ ?λָּ ?δ) provided for the purpose. The uppermost place, as the place of honor, is assigned to Saul and his companion. All the people could not be in the room, but held the feast in the open air. Samuel (1 Samuel 9:23) orders the reserved piece of the meat, as the best, to be set before them. This is more exactly described in 1 Samuel 9:24 as the thigh or shoulder, and “what was on it” [attached to it] (δֶ ?ςָ ?μֶ ?ιδָ Art. with Rel. force), not “what was over it,” the broth with which the meat was eaten (Maur.). That which was attached to it was the best of the flesh of the offered animals; whether the fat on it, not used in the offering, or the flesh near the shoulder, cannot be determined; it could not be the kidneys (Then., Bunsen), for they, with the attached fat (ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψςֲ ?μֵ ?δֶ ?ο), were burned in the slain-offering (Leviticus 3:4). It was probably the right leg, which Samuel, as priest, had ordered to be reserved; for it belonged to the priest, according to the Law, Leviticus 7:32 sqq.—“The resemblance to Genesis 42:34 is rather from the facts themselves, not from an imitation of one passage by the other.” Ew. Gesch. III. 29, Rem. 3.—The minute description of the cook’s procedure is worthy of note: “and the cook took up,” etc., corresponding to the precise account of Samuel’s conduct as host. The insertion of “Samuel to Saul” (Sept.), or “Samuel” (Vulg.), after “and he said,” is not necessary (Then.), for, considering 1 Samuel 9:23 and the first sentence of 1 Samuel 9:24 as a parenthesis (like 1 Samuel 9:15-17), the “and he said” continues the principal matter, the speech of Samuel. The following words so obviously suit Samuel and not the cook, that a misunderstanding was impossible. Here also the translation of the Sept. is explicative. ωִׂ ?ιν [Eng. A. V. “set”] is not Imper., but Pas. Partcp. (as in Obadiah 1:4; Numbers 24:21). For the construction see Ew., Gr., § 149 sq., Bφttcher, Neue Ζrenlese in loco. As to the occurrence, the latter properly remarks that Saul could not be bidden to do what the cook had already just done (εַ ?ιָ ?ωֶׂ ?ν). Render: “behold, the reserved piece is set before thee.” The following words, in which Samuel invites Saul to eat, present great difficulties in the text.—[The literal rendering is: “eat, for at (or unto) the time (or festival) it was preserved for thee, saying (this is the word which makes the grammatical difficulty), the people I have invited.”—Tr.] The translation: “for it is kept for thee for the time when I said, I have invited the people,” is unclear (De Wette, Keil), and labors under the rendering “when I said” for μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ [“saying”]. Thenius (following the Sept., and reading μְ ?ςֻ ?ξַּ ?ϊ for μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ, and χְ ?ψָ ?υΞπַ ?ΰ for χָ ?ψָ ?ΰϊִ ?ι) renders: “it has been kept for thee for a sign with (or, in reference to) the people (namely, that thou from now on will be the first), fall to (that is, begin);” against which Bφttcher shows that ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ cannot mean sign, and that this conjectured text is untenable (p. 114 in loco). But Bφttcher’s own view is equally untenable: he holds that an Aceus. Pron. has fallen out (for χָ ?ψָ ?ΰϊִ ?ι stood originally Ξϊִ ?ικְ or Ξϊִ ?ιε), and renders: “eat, for to the end (or for the time) it has been kept for thee, that the people might say (think), I have invited thee (or him).” But the people knew without this that he had invited this guest; no special indication of the invitation was needed, and the reserved portion would rather suggest a reference to the distinction thus conferred on Saul, as Thenius rightly remarks. Thenius further supposes that the original reading may have been “invited him” (χְ ?ψָ ?ΰָ ?δεּ), and renders: “to this end it is kept for thee, in order (thereby) to say, the people have invited him,” that is, he came in accordance with the general desire as honored guest, as chief person. But for this sense there is no historical authority; for the reservation of the portion of honor had nothing to do with an invitation of Saul by the people, and this invitation was in fact given by Samuel alone. Ewald (ubi sup., p. 29, Rem. 3) renders: “for a sign that thou wast invited before the rest of the people (1 Samuel 9:22), or that thou art marked out from the rest of the people,” which gives no clear sense. Bunsen retains the masoretic text, and translates: “the chief portion was kept for thee to this time; the meal was in fact arranged in honor of thee, as chief person, though I said, the people of the place shall be guests,” but himself admits that this is somewhat forced. “Though I said” is still less possible as translation of μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ than “ when I said.” All the difficulties centre in this word. If a corruption of the text is to be supposed, it seems best to adopt Haug’s reading (see in Bunsen) μַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ,and translate: “it was kept for thee for the feast, or festive gathering, to which I invited the people.” Luther: “for it was reserved for thee just at this time when I invited the people.” The sense of Samuel’s words is, that he knew by divine revelation (1 Samuel 9:15-16) that he would come. He sees a divine providence in Saul’s coming just at this time. In accordance with the intimation which he had received from above, he showed honor not merely to the guest as such, but to him whom God had chosen king of Israel, for such Samuel by the divine instruction had recognized him to be (1 Samuel 9:17). [As it stands, the Heb. of this clause does not admit of translation, the vss. do not suggest a satisfactory reading (Chald. follows Heb. literally, and Syr. omits the words “ saying, I have invited the people”), and the emendations proposed are all unsatisfactory. Yet the purpose seems clearly to be to inform Saul that this was not a chance-piece that was offered him, but one that had been set aside for him when the feast was prepared. This at once showed the intention to confer honor on Saul, and exhibited the prophetic foresight of Samuel.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 9:25-27. Samuel’s secret conversation with Saul. This took place, according to the narrative, on two occasions, and its purpose was, as the context shows, to prepare Saul for the important announcement that God had chosen him to be king, and for its confirmation by the act of anointing. 1 Samuel 9:25. After the return from the feast on the height, Samuel receives Saul into his house. He spoke with Saul on the roof.—There is no ground for adopting (with Then, and Ew.) the text of the Sept.: “and they prepared (in-def. subj.) Saul a bed on the roof, and he lay down.” To the Heb. text (which is supported by Chald., Syr. Arab., and Jerome) the Vulgate makes an addition “probably from the Itala” (Keil): “Saul spread a bed on the roof and slept.” This is a circumstantial description of what was self-evident from the connection (see 1 Samuel 9:26). Our text, on the contrary, furnishes simply the fact, the mention of which is of great importance for the pragmatical connection of the events related. The unmentioned subject-matter of the talk is not the election of Saul to be king (according to 1 Samuel 9:27). Thenius, wrongly assuming this to be the subject-matter, regards this talk as premature. Samuel prepared Saul for the important communication which he had to make to him, having already before the feast given him an indefinite hint (1 Samuel 9:20) of the honor that awaited him. This conversation (1 Samuel 9:25) is the connecting link between that on the height and the communication which Samuel made to Saul the following morning. The flat roof, arranged so that stay on it was safe (Deuteronomy 12:8), was the place to which people withdrew for quiet contemplation, prayer, undisturbed conversation and rest, and where also a guest-chamber was arranged, the place of honor of the house, comp. 1 Kings 17:19 with 2 Kings 4:10. There Saul slept (1 Samuel 9:20). The conversation which Samuel there held with Saul, probably at the close of the day, referred, as Otto von Gerlach well remarks, “not to the royal dignity, but surely to the deep religious and political decline of the people of God, the opposition of the heathen, the causes of the impotency to oppose these enemies, the necessity of a religious change in the people, and of a leader thoroughly obedient to the Lord.” 1 Samuel 9:26. And they arose early—each from his bed. What follows is a different thing from this—for the words: And when the morning dawned, etc. state not the rising from sleep, but the getting up and getting ready to depart; they are neither an exacter definition of “and they rose early,” as Keil thinks, who renders: “And they arose early in the morning—namely, at day-dawn,” nor is it a “singular mode of narration” (as Thenius says) to write first “they arose early,” and then “when the day dawned,” as if we could not suppose that they rose before the dawn, especially after so exciting a conversation the preceding evening and night, and as if Samuel’s call to Saul, “rise,” were not more naturally to be understood of preparation for the journey than of rising from sleep. That they are to be so taken is evident from the following words, “ that I may send thee away,” from Samuel’s calling to Saul up on the roof, and from the words, “and he arose, and they both went out” (on the street). [In spite of Dr. Erdmann’s ingenious defence of the Heb. text, the reading of the Sept. has much to recommend it. It accords better with the character of Hebrew historical narration (which delights in detailing self-evident circumstances), agrees better with the simple, objective nature of the transaction between Samuel and Saul (a protracted political and religious conversation between the two men hardly suits Saul’s character, as far as we know it), and removes the somewhat difficult necessity of supposing that they rose before the dawn. (If this had occurred, the Heb. would hardly have failed to mention it; nor is it quite natural to think of the rustic youth Saul, wearied with the walk and the ceremony of the day, as so excited by a general conversation (in which, according to Erdmann and 1 Samuel 9:27, nothing was said of his elevation to the throne) as to be unable to sleep his accustomed time, and so rising before the dawn—some time before, it would seem and remaining on the roof till he is called, how employed, it is not said). On the other hand, the reading of the Sept. gives a simple and natural narrative: “and a bed was spread for Saul on the roof, and he lay down, and it came to pass when the morning dawned,” etc.; and whatever conversation was proper under the circumstances may be understood. Throughout the narrative is occupied with objective facts, and not with interior psychological descriptions, as we should expect in a modern work. Thus not a word is said of Samuel’s labors among the people preceding the great popular movement in chap. 7; nor is he elsewhere ever said to have had private conversations with his sons, with Saul, or with David. He may have had these, but it is not the manner of the narrative to mention them.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 9:27. As a mark of honor, Samuel accompanies Saul, and, when they reached the extremity of the city, directs him to send the servant on, in order that he might be alone with him, and impart to him in confidential conversation what the Lord had revealed concerning his appointment to be king of Israel. That I may show thee the word of God.—Up to this time he had said nothing to him of his choice as king. The declaration “I will show thee” is not to be understood (with Dδchsel) as the “factual fulfilment” of that word, but as the introduction and announcement of its content. It is not related what Samuel said to Saul, since that is evident from the immediately following fact, the anointing of Saul. The whole ninth chapter sets forth the preparation of Saul for this communication and anointing, which were at first meant for him alone, and confirmed to him his call to be king of Israel. In regard to the preceding conversations, Calvin remarks: God is said to have instructed Saul in good time, so that when he came to the throne he might not be ignorant of his duties, but yet to have trained him gradually, and indeed (a point worthy of attention) not openly, but, as it were, in secret.” AND 1. The preparations (in 1 Samuel 9) for carrying out the divine decision in reference to the kingdom of Israel to be established exhibit the prophetic office, represented by Samuel, as here also the immediate organ of God, to execute God’s positive command: “make them a king.” In Samuel’s person and in his conduct and discourse towards Saul is concentrated the combination of two factors: divine revelation, which lays hold immediately of the general history of Israel as well as of the little affairs of an unknown family, and the earthly-human factor, which shows itself in apparently accidental and trivial occurrences; but at the same time is exhibited the absolute control of the divine providence, which, independently of human-earthly views and relations, employing apparently unimportant human accidents and trivial occurrences, yet, to secure the highest ends of God’s kingdom, advances firmly and securely, though by circuitous ways, to the appointed goal. And this goal is the realization of the theocracy in a new form, in the form of the kingdom, which was based on the essential character of the theocracy and the character of the times, though it was sinfully demanded by the people out of envy of the splendor of royalty among the heathen, and dissatisfaction with the invisible glory of Jehovah’s kingdom. 2. The choice of Saul to be king, and the circumstances which prepared the way for his consecration and anointing, as well as his meeting with Samuel, constitute a divine act which enters immediately into the history of Israel, in which we must recognize: 1) The condescension of God, both to human weakness and sin (which, as in the sinful longing after a king, must subserve the plans of His providence), and also to the seemingly smallest and most unimportant events of human life, which, as here the lost asses and Saul’s search after them, must be the foil to set off His providential government and the accomplishment of His purposes. Without meaning to set forth a mechanical theory of inspiration, we may exclaim with Hamann: “How has God the Holy Ghost stooped, to become a historian of the smallest, most contemptible affairs on earth, in order to reveal to man, in his own language, in his own business, in his own ways, the purposes, the secrets, and the ways of the Deity!” 2) The independence of earthly and human relations in God’s counsel and deed, shown in the fact that not a notable man of a prominent family was chosen for this high calling, but an unknown man, “from the smallest family of the smallest of the tribes” (1 Samuel 9:21) without His knowledge or desire. 3) God’s free grace is not conditioned on human conduct. Calvin: “Only by a special exhibition of divine grace did Saul come to this high dignity. By choosing him from the smallest and most insignificant tribe, God purposed to glorify His grace, and exclude all appearance of human coφperation.” Ewald: “Qualified for the royal office, he does not seek to obtain it; for a great good, gained by artful effort of one-sided human grasping, can never become a true one. And so it is a charming history—how Saul, sent to seek the lost asses, after a long and vain search, comes, on the third day, almost against his will, to Samuel, whom he scarcely knew, to ask him about them, and instead of them to receive from him a kingdom. For He, who purposes just at this time to establish the kingdom in Israel, has already chosen him before he knows it.” (Gesch. III. 27, 28.) 4) The wisdom of the divine providence, which so guides and orders what seems to be accidental and trivial, that it is subservient to His ends, and procures their accomplishment. Calvin: “ What seems to our reason accident, God makes into a sign that the seemingly fortuitous is to be referred to the admirable plans of His providence, and is ruled and guided by God’s hand, though against this our thoughts protest. Saul wanders uncertainly around, and thinks only how he shall find the asses; meantime, Divine Providence, which had already determined and revealed to Samuel his lot, does not sleep. So all these incidents and wanderings were only preparations and mediate causes by which God accomplished His design concerning Saul. By God’s ordainment the asses were lost, that Saul, in seeking them, might find Samuel; God guided the tongue of his father when He commanded him to go in search of the asses; it was God’s providence that directed the steps of Saul and his servants, as they went from one place to another, in order to bring them to Samuel.” 3. The conditions under which alone the theocratic king as such could hold and exercise his office in Israel, as typically set forth in Saul’s elevation to the throne, were: 1) natural, in respect to his person, which must be such, in body and soul, as worthily to sustain the royal office; 2) supernatural, namely, divine choice and equipment; “to the man, feeble in himself, the grace and predestination of God comes to help him with its complete strength for this highest of all callings, to complete him, with the required divine power and holy consecration of mind, into that for which he was naturally endowed” (Ewald); 3) historical, confirmatory signs; these are partly signs given by God in definite occurrences, which attest the royal call to the people, partly the man’s own deeds, which accord with and confirm the royal call; 4) ethical, absolute dependence on the divine will in all thought, word and action; the king must “never forget the beginning from which he sprang, and so must always remember that another, the Eternal King, is still above him,—and that any earthly king can be a king after the heart of the King of all kings only so far as he works together with God, and therefore with all spiritual truths.” (Ew. Gesch. III. 25.) To this fourth condition Samuel’s words referred: “All that is in thy heart I will show thee.” See Exposition. 4. The account of Samuel’s conduct in this stadium of the preparation for the establishment of the kingdom in the person of Saul characterizes the prophet: 1) in his position towards God in respect to this beginning of a new phase of development of the theocracy: by direct enlightenment of the divine Spirit it is revealed to him that the king of Israel has already been chosen by God (1 Samuel 9:15-16), who is chosen (1 Samuel 9:17), and what he has to announce to him in God’s name (1 Samuel 9:27); 2) in his conduct as organ of God towards the designated king, Saul, and in him towards the kingdom: he gradually prepares his mind for the revelation concerning his future calling which he has to make to him in God’s name; through the divine enlightenment he is able not only to instruct him as to his lofty mission and position in Israel, but also, by means of his intensified presaging-faculty, to deliver him from the lower earthly care which filled his heart; this declaration about the recovered asses is not merely an example “of accidental predictions, where the presaging-faculty, disjoined from its ethical aim, becomes subservient to the subjective interest” (Tholuck, Die Propheten, 2d ed., p. 14), but is an element in the whole organism of this first prophetic history of the Old Testament—an element which is determined by the divine purpose in Samuel’s communication to Saul respecting “the most precious in Israel” which was to be his; by this communication Saul’s soul was to be lifted up into the presence of his God, that in His light he might see the glory of his theocratic calling; to lead him to this point, Samuel must free his soul from the burden of care for the beasts, and release him from his duty in respect to them; the certainty that the asses were found (divinely revealed to Samuel) gave Saul the inward freeness and receptivity which he needed in order to advance step by step to the height to which Samuel’s words (1 Samuel 9:27) lead. Thus this prophetic prediction concerning something altogether external and trivial has in this connection a high ethical and psychological importance, and is subservient to the objective theocratic interest. It belonged to the pedagogic momenta in the conduct of the prophet towards the future king, among which also we must reckon that which is indicated in the words: “All that is in thy heart I will show thee.” Samuel searched into Saul’s inner being in its good and bad sides. AND 1 Samuel 9:1. Osiander: That which is despised before the world, God chooses and brings forward, 1 Corinthians 1:26 sq. 1 Samuel 9:3 sq. Cramer: God makes in His great matters an insignificant beginning. 1 Samuel 9:4. Calvin: How wonderful are the ways of God’s wisdom, which lie far remote from human expectation. We see here how winding go the ways of God, so that it seems as if there were only an uncertain swaying to and fro; but yet with Him there is always a clear light away into the infinite, and what proceeds from Him is never confused and fortuitous. We draw from this the wholesome lesson that God leads us His hand like blind men, and that we should ascribe nothing to our own prudence and exertion when any thing great becomes our portion. Our thoughts were not only far removed from that which finally happens, but exactly opposed to it. 1 Samuel 9:6. Starke: Man’s doing is not in his own power, and no one can mark out his own going.—Even insignificant people can often give wholesome counsels, 2 Kings 5:13; 2 Kings 7:13. [The servant teaching the master. In like manner many an eminent minister has learned true religion from some servant or humble acquaintance. The lowly are often unconsciously training others for lofty station.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 9:9. Cramer: Teachers are seers, for through preaching they open our eyes, to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God, 2 Corinthians 4:6.—S. Schmid: Even the meeting of men, whether for good or evil, is not a matter of chance, but is directed by divine Providence, Acts 8:29 sq. [1 Samuel 9:3-8. Matt. Henry: Here is: I.A great man rising from small beginnings. II. A great event rising from small occurrences. “ Peradventure he can show us.” To make prophecy, the glory of Israel, serve so mean a turn as this, discovered too plainly what manner of spirit they were of. Note, most people would rather be told their fortune than told their duty; how to be rich than how to be saved. If it were the business of the men of God to direct for the recovery of lost asses, they would be consulted much more than they are, now that it is their business to direct for the recovery of lost souls.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 9:1-14. J. Disselhoff: The first test to which God subjects His servant. It embraces two main points: 1) Whether with certain natural talents and advantages which God has given him he will in humility and quiet obedience do the work enjoined upon him; 2) Whether when his work proves useless he will seek help from the seer of God.—The Most High God appoints a testing for His servant Saul; and so whoever is summoned to the service of God knows that for him also there must be a testing.—“Seek the asses,” said Kish to his son Saul. “And he went!”—went silently, joyously, humbly, obediently, faithfully, to the work which was enjoined upon him, from Ephraim to Shalisha—unwearied, unreluctant, without grumbling, although it was a work in which no greater credit was to be won than that of fidelity in trifles.—Out of such people God can make something.—Go, friend, if you wish to be the Lord’s servant, even though you should have to walk in unknown ways. Saul did not shrink from them. 1 Samuel 9:5. Why was Saul’s labor in vain? He had to find the seer, the man experienced in the ways of God. The vain seeking, the servant who first spoke of the seer, the maidens who showed the way, all must contribute towards bringing Saul to seek help in the revelation of God. If now it should occur to thee also that every thing here miscarries, that you are nothing, and you already feel like saying to your heart,“ Come, let us go home again,” then to thee also there will doubtless some one cry out, “Well, to revelation, that you may know the wonderful ways of God, on which God leads His saints.”—Wait not till God Himself steps into thy way. Even to Saul God did not Himself speak. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONSaul’s Introduction into the Royal Office 1 Samuel 10:1-27I. Saul anointed by samuel. 1 Samuel 10:11 Then [And] Samuel took a vial of oil, and poured it upon his head, and kissed him, and said, Is it not because the Lord [Jehovah] hath anointed thee to be captain [prince] over his inheritance? II. The Signs of the Divine Confirmation given to Saul. 1 Samuel 10:2-162 When thou art departed [goest] from me to-day, then [om. then] thou shalt [wilt] find two men by Rachel’s sepulchre in the border of Benjamin at Zelzah; and they will say unto [to] thee, The asses which thou wentest to seek are found; and lo, thy father hath left the care of the asses, and sorroweth for you, saying, 3What shall I do for my son? Then [And] thou shalt go on forward from thence, and thou shalt come to the plain [oak] of Tabor, and there [ins. three men] shall meet thee three men [om. three men] going up to God to Bethel, one carrying three kids, and another carrying three loaves of bread, and another carrying a bottle of 4wine. And they will salute thee, and give thee two loaves of bread, which thou 5shalt receive of their hands. After that thou shalt [wilt] come to the hill of God, where is the garrison of the Philistines; and it shall come to pass, when thou art come thither to the city, that thou shalt [wilt] meet a company of prophets coming down from the high place, with [ins. and before them, om. with] a psaltery and a tabret and a pipe and a harp before them [om. before them], and they shall prophesy 6[prophesying]; And the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] will come upon thee, and thou shalt [wilt] prophesy with them, and shalt [wilt] be turned into another 7man. And let it be [om. let it be], when these signs are come unto thee, that [om. that] thou do [do thou] as occasion serve thee [what thy hand findeth]; for God 8is with thee. And thou shalt go down before me to Gilgal, and behold, I will come down unto thee, to offer burnt-offerings, and to sacrifice sacrifices of peace-offerings; seven days shalt thou tarry till I come to thee, and show thee what thou shalt do. 9And it was so [came to pass] that, when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart; and all these signs came to pass that day. And 10when they came thither to the hill [to Gibeah], behold a company of prophets met him, and the Spirit of God came upon him, and he prophesied among them. 11And it came to pass, when all that knew him beforetime saw that behold [and behold] he prophesied among the prophets, then the people said one to another, What is this that is come [What has happened] unto [to] the son of Kish? Isaiah 12 Saul also among the prophets? And one of the same place answered and said, But [And] who is their father? Therefore it became a proverb, Is Saul also among 13the prophets? And when he had made an end of prophesying, he came to the 14high place. And Saul’s uncle said unto [to] him and to his servant, Whither went ye? And he said, To seek the asses; and when we saw that they were no 15where, we came [went] to Samuel. And Saul’s uncle said, Tell me, I pray thee, 16what Samuel said unto [to] you. And Saul said unto [to] his uncle, He told us plainly [om. plainly] that the asses were found. But of the matter of the kingdom, whereof Samuel spake, he told him not. III. The Choice by Lot. 1 Samuel 10:17-2117 And Samuel called the people together unto the Lord [to Jehovah] to Mizpeh 18[Mizpah]. And [ins. he] said unto [to] the children of Israel, Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, I brought up Israel out of Egypt, and delivered you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of all [ins. the] kingdoms and 19of them [om. and of them] that oppressed you. And ye have this day rejected your God, who himself saved you out of all your adversities and your tribulations, and ye [om. ye] have said unto him [om. unto him], Nay [Nay], but [ins. a king thou shalt] set a king [om. a king] over us. Now, therefore [And now], present 20yourselves before the Lord [Jehovah] by your tribes and by your thousands. And when [om. when] Samuel had [om. had] caused all the tribes of Israel to come 21near, [ins. and] the tribe of Benjamin was taken. [ins. And] When [om. when] he had [om. had] caused the tribe of Benjamin to come near by their families [wis. and] the family of Matri [the Matrites] was taken. And Saul, the son of Kish, was taken; and when [om. when] they sought him, [ins. and] he could not be found. IV. The Installation into the Royal Office. Proclamation. Greeting. Royal Right. Return To Quiet Life. 1 Samuel 10:22-2722 Therefore [And] they inquired of the Lord [Jehovah] further, if the man should [would] yet come thither. And the Lord answered [Jehovah said], Behold, he 23hath hid himself [is hidden] among the stuff [baggage]. And they ran and fetched him thence; and when [om. when] he stood among the people [ins. and] he was 24higher than any of the people from his shoulders and upward. And Samuel said to all the people, See ye him whom the Lord [Jehovah] hath chosen, that there is none like him among all the people? And all the people shouted, and said, God save [Long live] the king. 25And Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book,25 and laid it up before the Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel sent all the people away, 26every man to his house. And Saul also went home to Gibeah; and there went 27with him a band of men, whose hearts God had touched. But [And] the children of Belial [certain wicked men] said, How shall this man save us? And they despised him, and brought him no presents. But he held his peace [And he was as though he were deaf]. AND . 1 Samuel 10:1. The anointing. It is performed without witnesses in secret (1 Samuel 9:27), and is the factual confirmation to Saul of what Samuel had before told him in God’s name of his call to the kingd om. The vial (τַּ ?κְ, from τָּ ?αָ ?δ, ” to drop, flow,” in Pi. only Ezekiel 47:2) is a narrow-necked vessel, from which the oil flowed in drops. The oil, we must suppose, was not of the ordinary sort, but the holy anointing-oil (Exodus 29:7; Exodus 30:23-33) which, according to the Law, was used in the consecration of the sacred vessels and the priests. To this refers the expression “the vial of oil;” and it is supported by the analogy of the priest’s consecration with the consecrated oil (Leviticus 8:12), which, according to Exodus 30:31, was to be a holy oil throughout all generations, and by the use here and 2 Kings 9:3 of the word (ιָ ?φַ ?χ,) which is proper to the anointing of the high-priest. Besides, on account of the significance of the oil of priestly consecration, Samuel would have used no other in the consecration of the sacred person of the theocratic king. Anointing as a solemn usage in the consecration of a king is referred to as early as Judges 9:8; Judges 9:15, and, besides Saul here, is expressly mentioned as performed on other kings, on David (1 Samuel 16:3; 2 Samuel 2:4; 2 Samuel 5:3), Absalom (2 Samuel 19:11), Solomon (1 Kings 1:39), Joash (2 Kings 11:12), Jehoahaz (2 Kings 23:30), and Jehu (2 Kings 9:3). In case of regular succession the anointing was supposed to continue its effect [that is, the regular successor needed no new anointing—such is the view of the Rabbis—Tr.]; whence is explained the fact that only the above kings are mentioned as having been anointed [they being all founders of dynasties, or irregularly advanced to the throne—Tr.] (Oehl., Herz. R.-E. VIII. 10 sq.). On account of this anointing the theocratic king was called “the Anointed of the Lord.” Whence we see the general significance of the act: The Anointed was consecrated, sanctified to God; by the anointing the king is holy and unassailable (1 Samuel 24:7; 1 Samuel 26:9; 2 Samuel 19:22). It signifies, however, further in especial the equipment with the powers and gifts of the Spirit of God and the blessing of the salvation which is bestowed in them (comp. 1 Samuel 16:13). In accordance with the significance of the act of anointing it is narrated in 1 Samuel 10:9-10 how the Spirit of God came upon Saul. While the anointing thus set forth the divine consecration from above, the kiss, which Samuel then gave Saul, was the sign of the human recognition of his royal dignity, the expression of reverence and homage, as in Psalms 2:12. The kiss, seldom on the mouth, generally on the hand, knee, or garment [among modern Beduins on the forehead—Tr.], has always been in the East the universal sign of subordination and subjection, and is so yet, as also among the Slavic nations. The kissing of idols (their feet) is mentioned as a religious usage (1 Kings 19:18; Hosea 13:2; Job 31:27). The word with which Samuel turns to Saul after the anointing: Is it not that the Lord hath anointed thee? is witness and confirmation to him that Samuel is only the instrument in God’s hand in the consecration, that it is God’s act. (The δֲ ?μεֹ ?ΰ, with the following αִּ ?ι, signifies “ yea, surely.” Clericus: an interrogation, instead of an affirmation”). Prince over his inheritance. πָ ?βִ ?ιγ, “leader, prince.” “His inheritance” is Israel, not only because of the great deliverance out of Egypt, Deuteronomy 4:20 (Keil), but also on the ground of the divine choice of Israel out of the mass of the heathen nations to be His own people (Exodus 21:5). The Sept. rendering in 1 Samuel 10:1-2 is as follows: “hath not the Lord anointed thee ruler over his people, over Israel? And thou shalt rule over the people of the Lord, and thou shalt save them out of the hand of their enemies. And this be to thee the sign that the Lord hath anointed thee ruler over his inheritance.” This last clause “ that......inheritance” is the literal translation of the Masoretic text. The Vulg. has these words in the first sentence: “behold, the Lord hath anointed thee prince over his inheritance;“ then follows the addition: “and thou shalt deliver his people out of the hands of their enemies round about. And this is the sign to thee that the Lord hath anointed thee prince.” These words of the Sept. and Vulg. are, however, not (with Then.) to be used to fill up a supposed gap in the text: We are rather to adopt Keil’s remark that the Alex. text is merely a gloss from 1 Samuel 9:16-17, introduced because the translator did not understand the “ is it not that?”, and especially because he did not see how Samuel could speak to Saul of signs [1 Samuel 10:7] without having before announced them as such. The gloss assumes that Samuel wished merely to give Saul a sign that the Lord had anointed him prince. On the contrary, as Keil points out, Samuel gave Saul not a sign (σημεῖον, ΰεֹ ?ϊ), but three signs, and declares (1 Samuel 10:7) their purpose to be, that, on their occurrence, Saul should know what he had to do, Jehovah being with him. II. 1 Samuel 10:2-16. The divine signs. Three signs are given Saul by Samuel in his capacity of prophet, as a confirmation to him that he is now, according to the divine consecration, also really the king of Israel, and under the immediate guidance of the Lord (1 Samuel 10:2; 1 Samuel 3, 4; 1 Samuel 5, 6). The first sign, 1 Samuel 10:2 : The meeting with two men of his native place, who will inform him that the asses are found, and his father anxious about him. According to these words, the sepulchre of Rachel must have been not far from Ramah, whence Saul started. With this agrees Jeremiah 31:15 : “a voice is heard in Ramah,—Rachel weeping for her children.” The declaration in Matthew 2:18, that the mourning of the women of Bethlehem for their slaughtered children is the fulfilment of this word of Jeremiah, does not affirm or suppose that Rachel’s grave was near Bethlehem, and therefore far from Ramah south of Jerusalem, for it is not a local, but a personal-real similarity, namely, between the mournings in the two cases, that is intended to be set forth. According to our passage, Rachel’s grave must have been north of Jerusalem on the road between Ramah and Gibeah; and thus the view prevalent since the Middle Ages, that Rachel’s tomb was near Bethlehem, and somewhat north of it, is shown to be incorrect. In support of this view are cited the passages Genesis 35:16-20; Genesis 48:7, where Rachel’s sepulchre is said to have been a kibrah of land “ as one goes to Ephrah,” and “ on the road to Ephrah,” and in respect to Ephrah the explanation is added: “which is now called Bethlehem” (comp. 1 Samuel 17:12; Micah 5:2); but these indefinite expressions (kibrah is merely tract, see 2 Kings 5:19 sq.) may, as Winer correctly remarks (Bibl. R.-W. s. v. Rachel, II., 299), be so understood as to extend to Ramah. So Ewald: “ Here, as in Genesis, we may very well understand the northern boundary of Benjamin, beginning somewhat southeast from Ram-allah” (III. 31, Rem.). If, however, in Genesis Rachel’s grave be taken to be (as the narrator intends) not far from Ephrah, then, on account of the indubitable proximity of the grave to Ramah, this Ephrah cannot be the Bethlehem which lay in Judah six Roman miles south of Jerusalem, and the explanatory remark, “ which is now called Bethlehem,” must be regarded as a late, erroneous addition. Ephrah is, then, to be looked on as an otherwise unknown place, in the region in which Bethel, Ramah and Gibeah lay, perhaps the same with the city Ephraim, named in connection with Bethel in 2 Chronicles 13:19 (Qeri ςֶ ?τְ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ο Ephrain, Kethib ςֶ ?τְ ?ψεֹ ?ο Ephron) and Jos. B. J. 4, 9. 9, and mentioned in John 11:54, according to Jerome twenty Roman miles (Onom. s. v. Ephron) north of Jerusalem (comp. Joshua 15:9), named Ephron, according to von Raumer’s conjecture (p. 216 A. 235 e) identical with Ophrah (comp. 1 Samuel 13:17). On this supposition the grave of Rachel was, according to Graf, “very near Rama (1 Samuel 10:2), at the intersection of the road from Bethel to the neighboring Ephrah (2 Samuel 13:23; 2 Chronicles 13:19; see Then, and Bertheau in loco, Genesis 35:16 sq.; Genesis 48:7), and the road from Ramah to Gibeah” (Der Proph. Jer., p. 384, and Stud. u. Krit. 1854, p. 868, on the site of Bethel and Ramah). On the border of Benjamin. This agrees with the supposition that Rachel’s grave was near Bethel (so Kurtz, Gesch. d. A. B., I., 270 [Hist, of the Old Covenant]), which was on the border between Ephraim and Benjamin. At Zelzah. This word must at an early time have been uncertain, to judge from the variations of the versions (Sept.:ἁνδραςἁλλομένουςμεγάλα, whence Ewald renders “in great haste,” and Vulg.: in meridie). If we do not regard it as an unknown place, we may adopt Thenius’ conjecture, that the original text was: “at Zela” (αְּ ,αְּ ?φֵ ?μָ ?ςָ ?δ with δ local); Zela was the place of the sepulchre of Saul’s father (2 Samuel 21:14).—The statement of the two men that the asses were found was not only to be to Saul a confirmation of Samuel’s prophetic declarations, but also to detach his thoughts from lower earthly things, and direct his inner life to the higher calling, to which he had been privately elected and consecrated. Ewald: “ Thus happily disappears the burden of former lower cares, because henceforth something more important is to be thought of and cared for” (III. 31). 1 Samuel 10:3-4. The second sign. Three men on the way to the holy place at Bethel, to sacrifice there, will bestow on him two loaves of bread from their sacrificial gifts. The direction of the road, and the whole geographical situation here correspond very well with the statement in Genesis 35:8 as to the oak (ΰַ ?μּ ?εֹ ?ο, Allon) near which, “beneath Bethel,” Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah, was buried, and with the statement in Judges 4:5, that Deborah dispensed judgment “ between Ramah and Bethel in Mount Ephraim” under the palm-tree of Deborah. It is therefore a natural supposition (Then.) that, by error of hearing, Tabor was written instead of Deborah. But this hypothesis is somewhat bold, and against it is the fact that all the ancient translations have “Tabor.” That this is “ certainly a mere dialectic variation of Deborah” (Ew. III., 31 Rem. 2) is an equally hold opinion. Besides, Judges 4:5 speaks of “the palm-tree of Deborah,” named, according to the narrator, from the Judge Deborah, and known in his time, therefore, to be distinguished from the oak of Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah, Genesis 35:8. The place of the terebinth of Tabor, therefore, otherwise unknown, must be in any case on the road to Bethel, not far from Ramah. The three men are “going up to God to Bethel.” The things that they carry (three kids, three loaves of bread, and a vessel of wine) show that their purpose is to make an offering to God in Bethel. Bethel had been a consecrated place for the worship of God since the days of the Patriarchs, in consequence of the revelations which He had made to Abraham and Jacob; as to the former see Genesis 12:8; Genesis 13:3-4, as to the latter Genesis 28:18; Genesis 19:35; Genesis 6:7; Genesis 6:14-15. In Bethel, therefore, there was an altar; it was one of the places where the people sacrificed to the Lord, and where Samuel at this time held court. The “asking after welfare” signifies friendly salutation (1 Samuel 17:22; 2 Kings 10:13; Exodus 18:7; Judges 18:15). The men will give him, an unknown person, two of their loaves. This divinely-ordained occurrence betokens the homage, which by the presentation of gifts pertains to him as the king of the people. “And that this surprising prelude to all future royal gifts is taken from bread of offering points to the fact, that in future some of the wealth of the land, which has hitherto gone undivided to the Sanctuary, will go to the king.” (Ew., Gesch. III., 32 [Hist, of Israel]). 1 Samuel 10:5-6. The third sign. Going thence to Gibeah he will meet a company of prophets, will, under the influence of prophetic inspiration, also prophesy, and be changed into another man. Gibeah Ha-Elo-him is in the immediate context distinguished from the “city.” What city is here meant is clear from the fact that all the people know him (1 Samuel 10:10 sqq.); it can, therefore, only be Gibeah of Benjamin, Saul’s native city. The “Gibeah of God” is thus, and especially because of the definition “ of God,” to be taken not as a proper name, but as an appellative, “ the hill of God,” that is, the height, Bamah [high-place] near the city, which was used as a place of sacrifice, and after which the city was called; afterwards, when Saul made it his royal residence, it was called Gibeah of Saul (1 Samuel 11:4; 1 Samuel 15:34; 2 Samuel 21:6). According to Josephus (B. J. 5, 2. 1) it was one hour [somewhat more than two Eng. miles; according to Mr. Grove, in Smith’s Dict, of Bib., four miles—Tr.] on the direct road north from Jerusalem, and, as appears from what follows, was probably the seat of a community of prophets, and, on that account, perhaps specially distinguished, along with Bethel, among the sacrificial places. The πְ ?φִ ?αֵ ?ιτΧ [“garrison” in Eng. A. V.] are the military posts or camps established by the Philistines to keep the country under their sway, even though there were no more devastating incursions (see on 1 Samuel 7:14). For a similar procedure see 2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14. The substitution of the Sing. (πְ ?φִ ?ια) for the Plu. is supported by the Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab.; but it is going too far to suppose, on the authority of the Sept., that here, as well as in 1 Samuel 13:3-4, this Sing. denotes a pillar set up by the Philistines as a sign of their authority (Then, and Bφttcher). Ewald’s opinion (Gesch. III., 43) that it refers to an officer who collected the tribute, is still less probable. Instead of a monument, we must regard it, according to 1 Samuel 13:3-4, and as in 2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14, as a military colony stationed there.—A company of prophets (ηֶ ?αֶ ?μ “cord, line,” then like our “band, company”). From this description, and from the fact that they approach with music, it appears that they formed a society, an organized company. That they descended from the Bamah [high-place] is no proof that they dwelt on it, against which is the fact that the Bamah was especially consecrated to the service of Jehovah, and for this reason was called the “ hill of God,” not “because it was the abode of men of God” (Cleric). Since it is clear, from what follows, that this was a private solemn procession, it is probable that their residence was not far off, most likely in the city of Gibeah, whence they may have proceeded to the sacrifice and prayer on the high-place. This company of prophets belongs, no doubt, to the so-called Schools of the Prophets, which, however, would be better named prophetic Unions. They were founded by Samuel, and were under his direction, comp. 1 Samuel 19:20. The origin of these unions lies in the tendency to association given by the Spirit of God and by the new life which Samuel awakened, and their aim was to cherish and develop prophetic inspiration and the new life of faith by common holy exercises. In our passage we must distinguish the following facts: 1) The descent from the high-place in this solemn procession suggests that they had gathered there for common religious exercises, sacrifice, and prayer. 2) The music which went before them shows that, in these societies, religious feeling was nourished and heightened by sacred music, though music was also elsewhere cultivated. The four instruments which accompanied them indicate the rich variety and advanced culture of the music of that day. The psaltery (πֶ ?αֶ ?μ, nebel) is a cithernlike stringed instrument, which, according to Jerome, Isidorus and Cassiodorus, had the form of an inverted Delta, and, according to Psalms 33:2; Psalms 144:9, had ten strings (Jos. Ant. 7, 10 says twelve strings), called by the Greeks νάβλα, nablium, psalterium; it was commonly used, as here, in sacred songs of praise (1 Kings 10:12; 1 Chronicles 15:16), but also on secular festive occasions (2 Chronicles 20:28). The kinnor (λִּ ?πεֹ ?ψ [Eng. A. V. harp]) was another stringed instrument, apparently different from our harp (Luther), since it was played on in walking (comp. 2 Samuel 6:5), rather a sort of guitar, and with the nebel indicates complete string music (Psalms 71:22; Psalms 58:3 [2]; 1 Samuel 15:3). According to Josephus (Ant. 7, 12, 3) the kinnor was struck with the plectrum, the nablium with the finger. But David played the kinnor (1 Samuel 16:23; 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 21:9) with the hand. The tabret (ϊּ ?εχ, toph) is the hand-drum, the tambourine; used by Miriam, Exodus 15:20. The fourth instrument is the flute (ηָ ?μִ ?ιμ), which was made of reed, wood, or horn, and was a favorite instrument in festive and mournful music. 3) The emphasis rests on the words “and they were prophesying;” they were in a condition of ecstatic inspiration, in which, singing or speaking, with accompaniment of music, they gave expression to the overflowing feeling with which their hearts were filled from above by the controlling Spirit. Cleric: “they will sing songs, which assuredly were composed to the honor of God.” The strains of the music were intended not only to awaken the heart to inspired praise of God, or to intensify the religious inspiration, but also to regulate the feeling. According to Pindar, it was “peacefully to bring law into the heart” that Apollo invented the cithern, which was played in the Delphic Apollo-worship (O. Mόller, Dorier I., 346 [Dorians]). There was a similar outflow of religious inspiration to the praise of God in the case of the seventy elders, Numbers 11:25. 1 Samuel 10:6. Saul will not be able to withstand the mighty influence of this sight. Three things will happen to him: 1) the Spirit of the Lord, a divine power external to himself, will “come upon him;” that is, suddenly, immediately take possession of his soul. The words “Spirit of Jehovah” exclude every earthly, internal case of inspiration. It is, however, in this presupposed that the Spirit of the Lord must descend to produce this excitation and elevation, and does not dwell continually in him; 2) he will prophesy. (On the form δִ ?ϊְ ?πַ ?αִּ ?ιϊָ see Ew. § 198, 6.) He will, therefore, have a part in the religious inspiration and the prophetic utterance of the prophets. It is taken for granted that the fire of inspiration will pass immediately from them to him; 3) he will be turned into another man. The change relates to the inner life, which is renewed by the Spirit of God, and consists in the sanctification of heart and subordination of the will to the law of the Lord which the Spirit works. The prophecy [of Samuel], therefore, is: Thou wilt, through the Spirit of God which shall come upon thee, not only prophesy in inspired words, but also experience a change of the inner man, as accords with thy divine call to be king. 1 Samuel 10:7. The general significance of the occurrence of these signs. When these signs come to thee (read ϊְּ ?αֹ ?ΰֶ ?ιπָ ?δ, Psalms 45:16, “when all this happens to thee”), do what thy hand findeth—the same formula in 1 Samuel 25:8 and Judges 9:33, not, what thou likest, what seems most proper, “ what seems good to thee,” (Cler.), but, what presents itself, “that to which this action leads,” (Ew. III., 41), do what circumstances suggest; for God is with thee, “thou needst not consult any one, for God will second thy counsels” (Cler.). These signs are to signify to him that, so surely as they happen to him will he happily, with God’s help, carry out his undertakings.—These words refer to Saul’s immediate task in his royal calling (of which these God-given signs were to assure him), namely, the deliverance of the people from the oppression of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 10:8. Saul next receives from the prophet a command in God’s name, which limits the unrestricted royal authority conferred on him under support of God; he is forbidden, in the exercise of the royal office, to perform independently priestly functions. Gilgal, situated between the Jordan and Jericho, formerly the camp of the people after the crossing of the Jordan, where were undertaken the wars against the Canaanites for the conquest of the land, the central point of Israel consecrated by the tabernacle and the sacrificial worship (Joshua 5.) was now “one of the holiest places in Israel, and the true middle-point of the whole people,—because the control of the Philistines extended so far westward [eastward?] that the centre of gravity of the realm was necessarily pushed back to the bank of the Jordan” (Ew. III., 42). Hither must Saul as king betake himself, when he would enter on the deliverance of Israel from the dominion of the Philistines. “This place seems to have been chosen, because it was remotest from the Philistine border” (Cler.). “There the people assembled in general political questions, and thence, after sacrifice and prayer, marched armed to war. Here, then, especially, in the nature of the case, would the mutual relation of the two independent powers of the realm come into question, be announced, and somehow permanently decided” (Ew. as above). Samuel, therefore, bids Saul wait seven days, when he goes to Gilgal, in order that he, Samuel, may direct the sacrifice, and impart to him the Lord’s commands as to what he shall do. Saul is not to make the offering in his own power—this pertains only to Samuel as priestly mediator between God and the people—nor is he to undertake independently anything in connection with the past struggle for freedom, but he must await the instructions which the prophet is to give him. The king must act only in dependence on the invisible King of his people. See further, on 1 Samuel 10:8 and its relation to 1 Samuel 8:8, the Introduction, pp. 11,12. 1 Samuel 10:9-12. The occurrence of the signs announced to Saul. 1 Samuel 10:9 refers to the fulfilment of the last, most important element of the third prophecy (1 Samuel 10:6): the change into another man. Not only the fact of this renewal, but also its innermost source is indicated in the words: God gave [lit. turned, changed] him another heart, two assertions being involved in this pregnant phrase: God turned him about, and gave him another heart. His departure from Samuel and turning to go back home, and his conversion are expressed, not without design, by the same word turn; for the place, from which he turned, was the means of this conversion; Samuel’s person and word was the instrument by which God began in him the process of inward renewal; the Spirit of God, that wrought and completed it, came in part mediately through Samuel, in part immediately to his heart I from above. According to the Biblical representation the heart denotes the centre of the whole inward life, the uniting-point of all the elements of the inner man. The thorough and complete change to another man can proceed only from the heart, which alone God in His judgments on man looks at (1 Samuel 16:7). The essential element, therefore, in the renewal of the heart is not only the production of a, as it were, new, hitherto latent side of his spiritual being—this is only its symptom—but in a real religious-ethical change and renewal of the innermost foundation of life. In this all special revelations of the divine spirit and will to Saul must culminate; all that has happened from 1 Samuel 9 on tends to this highest and innermost end, to the proper establishment of this religious-ethical relation of the innermost foundation of life to God, as the most essential condition of an administration of the theocratic office which should be well-pleasing to God.—And all those signs came to pass that day. From Ramah Saul could easily come to Gibeah the same day through the stations indicated. It is not mentioned in what order the signs occurred, but it is first summarily stated that they were all fulfilled, and then related how the third happened. If the summary statement did not precede, and the third sign were related immediately, one might suppose with Thenius “a possible omission by the redactor;” but, the context of 1 Samuel 10:2-4 being thus [summarily] dispatched, the narrator hastens to the third sign as the most important, in order to show how and under what circumstances it occurred, after having made the remark, which was sufficient for his purpose, that the first and second had been fulfilled according to Samuel’s words. It is worthy of note that none of the ancient translators has attempted to fill out the supposed gap. Thenius adopts the reading of the Sept. “from thence” (καὶἔρχεταιἐκεῖθεν), from which he infers the previous mention of another place; but even this reading would not prove an omission, but would refer to the place where Saul separated from Samuel, the journey being thus summarily described with omission of two stations. Further, the words “from thence” would be quite super-fluous.—The ωָׁ ?ν of the text [Eng. A. V. “thither”] is not to be translated whither (Bunsen: to Gibeah), but expresses local rest: “they come there to Gibeah.”—The mention of the third sign only (there being nothing in narrative or language, as shown above, to necessitate the assumption of a historical or auctorial gap) is not to give importance to Gibeah, Saul’s home (Keil); rather this sign was the most important for Saul’s inner life, and for that on which depended the right exercise of the theocratic royal office, namely, the new heart and life called forth by the prophetic spirit, and it stands in causal connection with the preceding testimony (which is the principal thing) to the actual renewal of Saul’s heart, narrating how Saul was equipped with the Spirit of the Lord, and filled with the prophetic Spirit, which changed his heart. 1 Samuel 10:10. From the local statements here made, it is tolerably clear that this company of prophets dwelt in Gibeah. In order to understand the effect of their appearance on Saul, we must think of it as it is described in 1 Samuel 10:5. Suddenly, unannounced, overpoweringly the Spirit comes upon him, “falls upon” him. Involuntarily, therefore, he is seized by it, and drawn along into the lofty inspiration of the prophets. By the influence of the Lord’s Spirit, which Saul has hitherto experienced through Samuel, he is made capable of receiving the fullness of the prophetical Spirit, and of this sudden seizure by the prophetic inspiration, which thus manifested itself in music and song. He prophesied, that is, he united in their inspired song, or in the discourse in which their new life poured itself forth—in their midst, he attached himself to them, joined their solemn procession; meeting leads to uniting (the phrase, “in the midst,” answers to the “towards him”). 1 Samuel 10:11. Before time [lit. “from yesterday and the day before,” and so Erdmann has it.—Tr.]. This universal previous acquaintance with Saul and the talk of the people among themselves is proof that he was here at home. The surprise produced by Saul’s participation in the prophetic utterance is described with incomparable fidelity and liveliness. The two questions, which testify to surprise and amazement, presuppose two things: 1) the power and significance of the prophetic community in the public opinion, and 2) the fact that Saul’s life had hitherto been far therefrom, that it had not been in harmony, either externally or internally, with this society; we see him suddenly introduced into a sphere which had hitherto been outwardly and inwardly strange to him. Clericus: “This seems to show that Saul had led a life very different from those who associated with the prophets.” 1 Samuel 10:12. To the questions: “What has happened to the son of Kish? Is Saul also among the prophets?” answer is given by “a man from there” (from Gibeah) in a counter-question, which, by its form (the “who is their father?” referring to the “son of Kish”), ingeniously and decisively repels the false conception of the nature of this prophetic inspiration which lay in these questions. The explanation: “who is their president?” has no support in the connection, and no bearing on the matter. The Sept. has “who is his father?” (adding also [Alex.]: “is it not Kish?”): but this is arbitrary and obviously adopted to get rid of the difficulty in the text. And to suppose that the words: “Who is their father? Is it not Kish?” indicate that recognition as a prophet was denied Saul because of his descent from so insignificant a man as Kish (Then.), or that they merely express the surprise of the people (Ew.), would introduce an intolerable tautology into the lively, pregnant description. As a simple question, these words would mean nothing in the mouth of the man of Gibeah, who necessarily knew the answer, and could learn it from the connection in which the question was asked. The question “who is then their father?” rather refers to the prophets, in whose midst was even now the object of the question of surprise: Is the son of Kish a prophet? As Bunsen rightly remarks, the their is to be emphasized: “And who is their father?” We may suppose (in accordance with the situation) that the words were accompanied by an indicative gesture, and with Oehler (Herz. R. E. XII. 612) explain: “Have these then the prophetic spirit by a privilege of birth?” Bodily paternity is here of no importance; the son of Kish may as well be a prophet as these sons of fathers, who are wholly unknown to us, or of whom we should not, according to human reckoning, suppose that their sons would be filled with the prophetic Spirit. So Bunsen’s admirable explanation: “The speaker declares, against the contemptuous remark about the son of Kish, that the prophets too owed their gift to no peculiarly lofty lineage. Saul also might, therefore, receive this gift, as a gift from God, not as a patrimony.” In this counter-question lies this truth: the impartation of the prophetic Spirit, as of its gifts and powers, pertains to the free, gracious will of God, and is altogether independent of natural-human relations. The expression of surprise at the unexpected change in Saul gives occasion to the proverb: Is Saul also among the prophets? According to its origin here given, this proverb does not merely express surprise at the sudden unexpected transition of a man to another calling in life (Then., Cler.: “another manner of life”), or to a high and honorable position (Mόnster). The personal and moral qualities of Saul, perhaps the religiousmoral character of his family, or at least the mean opinion that was entertained of Saul’s qualities and capacities, intellectually, religiously and morally, formed the ground of surprise at his sudden assumption of the prophetic character. The proverb, therefore, expresses astonishment at the unexpected appearance of a high spiritual endowment, and, still more, of a high religious-moral tone of life and soul, which has hitherto been foreign to, even (as it seems) opposed to, the person in question. 1 Samuel 10:13-16. A family-scene: Saul and his uncle. 1 Samuel 10:13. The cessation of the prophesying was the result either of a sudden removal of the ecstatic inspiration which had come suddenly on him, or of a separation from the prophesying company. Saul came to the Bamah [high-place]. Instead of Bamah (αξδ), Then. (so Ew.) reads after the Sept. “to Gibeah” (εἰςτὸνβουνόν, αְּ ?βִ ?αְ ?ςָ ?δ). But this reading came from the supposed inability to reconcile Saul’s going up to the high-place with the prophetic company’s coming down thence, and Saul’s return to his family in 1 Samuel 10:14, nor did it seem clear, why Saul went up thither. The last objection is removed by the simple suggestion, that Saul went up thither to pray and sacrifice in the holy place after his great experiences of the divine favor and goodness, and so after his return home first to give God the glory before he returned to his family-life. He joined the descending company of prophets in their solemn procession; but when his participation in the utterances of the prophetic inspiration was over, his look rested on the sacred height, whence the men had descended, and the impulse of the Spirit of the Lord forced him up thither, that, after the extraordinary offering he had made with the prophets, he might make the ordinary offering, and engage in worship. This was the aim, suggested by the connection of the whole history, of his ascent to the high-place. 1 Samuel 10:14. The uncle of Saul, here spoken of, was Ner (1 Samuel 14:51), who, like Kish (1 Samuel 9:1), was a son of Abiel, not Abner, as Ewald, with Josephus, supposes. Either Saul’s relations went up with him to the high-place, and the conversation with the uncle occurred there, or (as is natural in a summary statement, like this), we must suppose that Saul came down to his family. According to the narrative the former explanation is preferable. In the question and answer between Saul and his uncle, the history of the search after the asses is briefly recapitulated, 1 Samuel 10:14-16. Saul’s laconic answer to the question of his uncle, who very properly speaks of so important a domestic matter, shows that his heart is fixed on higher things than the asses of his father. To the curious and at the same time inquisitorial question: What said Samuel to you? which shows what importance was attached to knowing the man’s words exactly and fully, Saul answers shortly and to the point: He said that they were found. Thus the uncle, to whom this fact was long since known, was disposed of, and the long conversation he had laid out sharply broken off; thus Saul had done his duty to family-affairs. The further express statement that he said nothing to his uncle of the kingdom, of which Samuel had spoken to him, is to be referred, not to Saul’s unassuming humility (Keil), or modesty (Ewald), or prudence (Then)., or apprehension of his uncle’s incredulity and envy, but to the fact that Samuel, by his manner of imparting the divine revelation, had clearly and expressly given him to understand (1 Samuel 9:25-27) that it was meant in the first instance for him alone, and that it was not the divine will that he should share it with others. The public presentation of Saul as the king of Israel, whom God had chosen, was to take place only at the time appointed by God through Samuel, and at the place which the prophet should determine. Saul may have thought, too, that his uncle’s ears were not entitled to be the first recipients of so holy a message, he having got his rights on the question concerning the asses. III. The choice of Saul by lot as public confirmation of the divine election already made in secret. 1 Samuel 10:17-211 Sa 10:17. The popular assembly, called by Samuel at Mizpah, because this sacred place was connected in the people’s minds with the memory of the great victory, 1 Samuel 7, was intended, as is shown by the expression “to Jehovah” (see 1 Samuel 7:5), solemnly to confirm and ratify the divine choice of Saul to be king of Israel, and to consecrate him to this office. Nδgelsbach (Herz. R.-E., XIII. 401), referring to 1 Samuel 10:8, objects that the next meeting was not in Gilgal, but in Mizpah, and that, according to 1 Samuel 11:14, Saul goes to Gilgal not before but with Samuel, and there could, therefore, be no question of waiting for him. The objection is, however, set aside by the remark that these two meetings in Mizpah and Gilgal have nothing to do with 1 Samuel 10:7-8, but are designed, as is expressly said, to announce Saul as the chosen of the Lord, and again to confirm him as king (1 Samuel 10:24; 1 Samuel 11:14), in order that, as universally recognized king, he might, from Gilgal, that ancient classic ground, take in hand the great work of delivering Israel from the Philistines, which, as his primary task, lay ready to his hand (1 Samuel 10:7 : “whatever thy hand findeth”). 1 Samuel 10:18-19. Samuel’s introductory discourse. The “thus saith the Lord,” answers to the “to the Lord” of 1 Samuel 10:17. The people were called to assemble before the Lord to hear His word through the mouth of Samuel, as the latter had received it directly from the Lord. Samuel’s discourse first sets before the people in curt, vigorous phrase the royal deeds of might which God the Lord had done for them: the conduction from Egypt, the deliverance out of the hand of the Egyptians (immediately after the exodus) and the deliverance out of the hand of all the kingdoms which had oppressed them. Cleric.: “The history of which last deliverances is contained in the Book of Judges.” This third period of the history embraces the whole time from the conquest of Canaan to the present, including the victory at Mizpah (1 Samuel 7:5), of which the stone before their eyes bore witness. The reference to the kingdoms, from which God had delivered Israel is noteworthy, because, after the pattern of these very kingdoms, the Israelites wished to have a king and an outward kingdom. There is in this a factual irony. 1 Samuel 10:19. The second part of the discourse: the charge of ingratitude and unfaithfulness, expressed in the demand of a king. Their fault consisted not in the simple desire for a king, but in the fact that, forgetting God’s royal achievements, they wished to have a visible mighty king like the heathen nations, and, not seeking help from oppressive enemies from the Lord, they desired a human king along with God, or instead of their invisible King as helper out of all need and oppression.—It is to be noted that the “and ye” at the beginning of the second part [1 Samuel 10:19] answers to the “I” at the beginning of the first part [1 Samuel 10:18], marking emphatically the contrast between the Lord’s powerful help and the people’s sinful conduct in this question of a king.—The contempt or rejection of Jehovah (comp. Expos, on 1 Samuel 8:7 sq.) consisted, in respect to God s gracious and mighty deliverances, in the demand: set a king over us. After this sharp rebuke, in which (as before in chap, viii.) the full significance of their desire from the religious-ethical point of view is held up before the people, follows thirdly the factual granting of the desire, according to the divine command, 1 Samuel 8:22, by ordering a choice by the sacred lot. The “and now,” in respect to the “I—ye” contrasted above, marks a division in the address. The manner of choice is enjoined with precision by Samuel. They are to appear “before Jehovah;” this refers not merely to the conception of God as everywhere present (Cleric.: “when invoked, He was present with the assembly”), but also to the holy place in which the Lord’s altar was erected (1 Samuel 7:9). hey were to appear by tribes and thousands, the latter here meaning the same thing as families (ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ). To facilitate legal transactions Moses had divided the people into thousands, hundreds, etc., and appointed captains over all these divisions (Exodus 18:25). This division probably followed as closely as possible the natural one, and so the designation thousands was used as synonymous with families (Numbers 1:16; Numbers 10:4; Joshua 22:14, etc.), because the number of heads of houses in the several families of a tribe might easily reach a thousand (comp. 1 Samuel 10:21). 1 Samuel 10:20 sq. Execution and result of this mode of election. The representatives of the tribes being called, the lot fell on the tribe of Benjamin, (properly the tribe “was taken”). How the lots were cast is not said; commonly it was by throwing tablets (Joshua 18:6; Joshua 18:8; Jonah 1:7; Ezekiel 24:7), but sometimes by drawing from a vessel (Numbers 33:54; Leviticus 16:9). The latter seems to have been the method here employed. There is not the slightest ground for connecting this with the lot of the high-priestly Urim and Thummim (Vaihinger in Herz. R.-E. IV. 85). 1 Samuel 10:21. When the families of the tribe of Benjamin were called, the lot fell on the family of Matri, an otherwise unknown name (Ew. III. 33 conjectures that it is corrupted from Bikri†). In the families the lot was usually so conducted that the houses (αָּ ?ϊִּ ?ιν) were next called (Joshua 7:14), then from the patr�ce or father-house (αֵּ ?ιϊΞΰָ ?α) thus chosen the individual heads of families (βְּ ?αָ ?ψִ ?ιν) came forward, that the family and the individual chosen by the Lord might be indicated (see Keil in loco, Rem. 1). Here the description of the election is abridged, the last steps being passed over (comp. what is said above on the three signs). The result is given at once: And Saul was taken. The insertion of the Sept. “and they present the family of Matri by men” is to be regarded (with Keil, against Then.) as an interpretation of the Alexandrian translators. According to the order above-stated (from Joshua 7:14) it fills out the supposed gap in the text not completely, but only partially and erroneously.—They sought Saul, but found him not. The ground was his diffidence and shyness in respect to appearing publicly before the whole people. Nδgelsbach rightly remarks (Herz., “Saul,” p. 433), that his hiding behind the baggage during the election is not in conflict with the account of his change of mind. “At so decisive a moment, which turns the eyes of all on one with the most diverse feelings, the heart of the most courageous man may well beat.” The situation, along with an element bordering on the comic, has a serious significance and a deep psychological truth. IV. Saul declared king; the partial homage. 1 Samuel 10:22-27. 1 Samuel 10:22. Inquiry of the Lord and divine answer in respect to the failure to find Saul. To inquire of the Lord (1 Samuel 22:10; 1 Samuel 23:9 sq.; 1 Samuel 28:6; 1 Samuel 30:7 sq.; 2 Samuel 2:1; Numbers 27:21; Judges 1:1; Judges 20:27) is to ask for the divine decision in individual matters of private or (as here) public importance for the theocratic congregation, by Urim and Thummim. [For a case of personal inquiry in premosaic times, see Genesis 25:22—Tr.]. Though the latter is not here expressly mentioned, its presence must be assumed according to Exodus 28:30, it being inseparably connected with the high-priestly Ephod, in the Choshen of which (breastplate with twelve precious stones and the name of the twelve tribes) it was placed. The inquiry of Jehovah by this means was, it is true, according to Exodus 28 and Numbers 27, to be made by the high-priest. We cannot, however, suppose that this was done here, for the high-priest’s office was vacant; some other, not Samuel, who presided over the assembly and the election, but a priest, in the high-priestly robes, conducted the solemn inquiry, which was exclusively the privilege of the priests. It must be looked on as a different act from the preceding casting of lots.—The question was: Has any one else come hither? that is, besides those here present, among whom Saul was not to be found. The “one” (lit. “man”) refers to the one who could not be found; the oracle is to give information as to his presence or absence. The Sept. and Vulg. have: “will the man yet come hither?” and Then, alters the text accordingly, against which Keil rightly remarks: “it was unnecessary to inquire of God whether Saul would yet come; he might have been sent for without more ado.”—The answer is: Behold, he is there, hid among the baggage. The Pron. “he” (δεּ ?ΰ) does not require a preceding “the man” (Then.), but relates to the person referred to in, or giving occasion to the question, and to whom the procedure referred. “Stuff” (σκεύη, vasa), baggage, which must have been extensive in such an assembly. As Saul had the assurance that he was the king chosen by God, his behavior here could not signify that he wished to evade the acceptance of the kingdom, but must be referred to overpowering diffidence, in view of the grand preparations of the election and the divine decision which had laid so mighty a grasp on his life, and to “anxious consideration of the awfully important consequences of his appearance” (Ew.).—With this view the remark of Clericus may be considered to accord: “Saul, informed beforehand by Samuel of what would be done, seems to have hidden himself, that he might not appear to have solicited the royal dignity, and to have come to Mizpah to gain the popular vote for himself.”—In the beginning of 1 Samuel 10:23 the three consecutive verbs give a quick and lively coloring to the whole process of fetching Saul from his purposely sought-out hiding-place. His magnificent stature (1 Samuel 9:2), as outward-physical qualification for the kingdom, very imposing to the people, is here again expressly mentioned (εἶδοςἄξιοντυραννίδος, Eurip. in Grotius). In accordance with the people’s receptivity for so imposing and kingly an appearance, Samuel closes the solemn election with the words (1 Samuel 10:24): See ye him whom the Lord has chosen? by which he expressly declares the election by lot to be a confirmation of the previous divine choice, and completes the formal presentation of Saul as the divinely-appointed king, and then adds as proof: For there is none like him in all the people. There are two factors which, according to this account, co-operated to call forth the people’s cry of salutation and homage: May the king live! The testimony of Samuel: “This is the king chosen by the Lord,” granted in spite of the fact that their demand, proceeding from a vain, haughty, and unfaithful mind, was not well-pleasing to him, and the immediate impression made by Saul’s person, which was in keeping with the kingly dignity. 1 Samuel 10:25. The manner of the kingdom. Samuel is said to have done three things in connection with this constitution: 1) he set it before the people; 2) he wrote it in a book; 3) he laid it up before the Lord.—The “law of the kingdom,” which Samuel presented to the people, is, as appears from the context, one which has not yet been written. It is to be distinguished from the “manner of the king” (1 Samuel 8:11 sqq.) in which Samuel set before the people the usurpation of an unrestricted arbitrary rule, such as existed among the heathen nations whose monarchical constitution Israel envied. In content it was no doubt essentially the same with the law of the king in Deuteronomy 17:14-20, especially 1 Samuel 10:19-20, and therefore related to the divinely established rights and duties of the theocratic king, the fulfilment of which the people were authorized to demand from him. God’s purpose is to rule the people through Him as His organ. The “right [or manner] of the kingdom” is therefore, this being its theocratic ground and aim, not a capitulation (Michaelis) between the king (that is, here Samuel) and the people or the first example of a constitutional monarchy (Then.); for the restraints, which are here set on the kingly power, are not imposed by the demands of the people, or by a partition of power between king and people, and not by a contract or agreement between the two as parties, but are given in the divine Law, in the already existing theocratic right of the theocracy, in which the absolute monarchy of the divine will is to rule and reign over king and people, both together.—Samuel wrote this law of the kingdom in a book. We find here the first trace, after the written records of Moses, of writing among the prophets, long before the literary activity to which we owe what we now have, and essentially also the spoken prophecies with the historical notices pertaining to them—the beginning of a literature, which was exclusively in the service of the theocratic spirit, and, when it appeared soon after this in the so-called Schools of the Prophets, made its first task the theocratic writing of history.—He laid it up before the Lord. Where and how? The supposition that it was deposited in the Tabernacle at Shiloh contradicts the context, from which it appears that the deposition was made in the place where the announcement took place. The expression “before the Lord” leaves the manner undetermined, and indicates merely the solemn and formal deposition and preservation of the writing, as sacred original documentary record of the establishment and regulation of the theocratic kingdom, in a safe place before the Lord, whose presence was symbolically represented partly by the holy priestly vestment, partly by the altar to which the people approached, and in connection therewith had here its local representation even without tabernacle and ark, though we know not in what manner.—Notwithstanding this public and solemn investment of Saul with the royal dignity and authority, Samuel continues to be the highest director of the affairs of the people; the now established kingdom retires passively into the background before Samuel’s Prophetic-Judicial Office, which retains its full activity and authority. This is indicated by the fact that it is not Saul, but Samuel that finally dismisses the people, an act which involves the formal closing by him of the assembly. 1 Samuel 10:26-27. Saul’s behavior after his installation as king, and the behavior of the people towards him. And Saul also went home to Gibeah. Clericus hence infers that the Philistines had no military post at Gibeah, since they would not have permitted Israel to have a king in opposition to their authority; but the objection vanishes when we reflect that, the Philistines being few in number and at a distance from the place of election, the meaning of the event might easily have been concealed from them, at least for the short time till the battle of 1 Samuel 11 during which Saul remained quietly at home, especially as such great religious assemblies at Samuel’s instance were not infrequent and could not appear strange to the Philistines, and Saul had returned to his ordinary occupations in the field.—The conduct of the people towards Saul as king is twofold. On one side he receives friendly recognition with willingness to serve him [and there went with him the company of valiant men]. The Sept. and Then, read: “There went sons of strength, whose hearts God had touched, with Saul;” but this is suspicious as being apparently a conformity to the following “sons of wickedness,” interpreting the somewhat strange word “valiant company” (ηַ ?ιִ ?μ) by the ordinary periphrasis “sons of strength” (αְּ ?πֵ ?ιηַ ?ιִ ?μ), as in 1 Kings 1:52. The word (ηιμ) is found alone with similar meaning “host” (in Pharaoh’s retinue) in Exodus 14:28; here it means “valiant company,” but with allusion to the “power” which Saul as king might build up from such valiant men as those who now formed the escort of honor. Whose hearts God had touched; that is, to show themselves so faithful and willing in service and obedience. This faithfulness and willingness to serve, shown in their escorting Saul, sprang from their hearts, the deepest base and centre of their inner life; but it was in this case an effect of the immediate influence of the Spirit of God, who sanctifies and rules the heart even in respect to moral deportment towards His constituted authorities. But not irresistibly. In 1 Samuel 10:27 we find an organized opposition to God’s established kingdom, whose representative Saul was. Whether envy and jealousy produced it (Then.) is not said. The opposition are called “worthless people” (αְּ ?πֵ ?ιαְ ?μִ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?μ). They are people who 1) haughtily and contemptuously nullified beforehand the whole-someness and utility of Saul’s royal government for the people in their depressed condition,—the question “What will the man help us?” expresses hostility to and contempt for Saul’s kingship as a completely aimless and useless institution; 2) they exhibited decided “contempt” for his fitness for the office, and attacked his personal honor; 3) they did not show submission to his rule, “brought him no present” as sign of reverence, obedience, and obligation to provide for his maintenance; for freewill-gifts from the people were a part of the regular revenue of princes.—Clericus: “Therefore others, who thought better of his election, brought him gifts, that he might maintain the royal dignity without disgrace.” Saul’s conduct towards these enemies: he was as a deaf man; that is, he acted as if he heard nothing; “he left those men’s contempt unnoticed” (Cler.). This shows self-control and self-denial, but also great foresight and prudence; for though Saul had had the right, notwithstanding his and Samuel’s purpose that he should remain in private life awhile, to proceed vigorously against this mean insult to his person and office, yet such a course might have prejudiced his position among and towards the people; and all the more, if the open opposers, as Nδgelsbach conjectures (Herz. XIII. 433), belonged “to the princes of the larger and hitherto controlling tribes of Judah and Ephraim, who were dissatisfied with the election of an obscure Benjaminite,” in which case, still more imbittered by Saul’s resolution to punish them, they could have made their influence still more widely felt against him.—As to the construction it is to be remarked with Keil on εַ ?ιֵּ ?μְ ?λεּ (1 Samuel 10:26) and εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι (1 Samuel 10:27) that in both cases “the Imperf. with Waw Consec. forms the apodosis to a preceding adjective-clause as protasis,” and the sequence of clauses in German [and English, Tr.] would be: “When Saul also went home… .there went with him… ., and when worthless people said… .he was as a deaf person.” AND See the remarks in the Exegetical exposition. In addition to these: 1. Anointing with oil as a sacred, theocratic usage is the symbol of introduction into the fellowship and service of the Spirit of God, as is clear from 1 Samuel 16:13 sq.; Isaiah 60:1 sq. It was employed 1) in connection with the tabernacle and “all that was in it,” that is, its furniture (Exodus 29:36; Exodus 30:26-30; Exodus 40:9-13; Leviticus 8:10-12; Numbers 7:1), and in these lifeless objects (which are said to be “sanctified”) denotes their separation from everything unclean and unholy, and their consecration to the holy end for which they were designed, namely, to be instruments of God’s Holy Spirit for acting on His people. So it is said especially of the altar of burnt-offering, Exodus 40:10 : “and it shall be most holy,” because as the place of expiation, it was the holiest object in the court; 2) in connection with persons, who are called to theocratical service and office, anointing is the symbol of the impartation of God’s Spirit, and the equipment with His gifts and powers as indispensable condition of the right theocratic exercise of the office. Hitherto confined to sanctuary and priests, it now appears as the consecration to the theocratic office of king, and denotes here the impartation of the powers of light and life from the Spirit of God, as possessor of which the king is henceforth called by excellence the Anointed of the Lord, and is alone authorized to exercise the theocratic rule in the name of the Lord, the invisible King. The “coming of the Spirit of God” on Saul and David is the consequence of their anointing, or answers to the significance of its symbolism. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD SECTIONConfirmation and General Recognition of the Kingdom under Saul1 Samuel 11-12I. Saul’s Victory over the Ammonites. 1 Samuel 11:1-151 Then [And] Nahash the Ammonite came up, and encamped against Jabesh-Gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said unto [to] Nahash, Make a covenant with 2us, and we will serve thee. And Nahash the Ammonite answered [said to] them, On this condition will I make a covenant with you, that I may thrust out 3all your right eyes, and lay it for a reproach upon all Israel. And the elders of Jabesh said unto [to] him, Give us seven days respite, that we may send messengers unto all the coasts of Israel, and then [om. then] if there be no man to save 4us, we will come out to thee. Then came the messengers [And the messengers came] to Gibeah of Saul, and told the tidings in the ears of the people; and all people lifted up their voices and wept. 5And behold, Saul came after the herd [oxen] out of [from] the field. And Saul said, What aileth the people that they weep? And they told him the tidings of 6the men of Jabesh. And the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard those 7[these] tidings, and his anger was kindled greatly. And he took a yoke of oxen, and hewed them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the coasts of Israel by the hand of messengers, saying, Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done unto [to] his oxen. And the fear of the Lord [Jehovah] fell on the people, and they came out with one consent [as one man]. 8And when [om. when] he numbered them in Bezek, [ins. and] the children of 9Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah thirty thousand. And they said unto [to] the messengers that came, Thus shall ye say unto [to] the men of Jabesh Gilead, To-morrow, by that [the] time the sun be hot, ye shall have help. And the messengers came and showed [announced] it to the men of Jabesh; and 10they were glad. Therefore [And] the men of Jabesh said, To-morrow we will come out unto [to] you, and ye shall do with [to] us all that seemeth good unto 11[to] you. And it was so [came to pass] on the morrow that Saul put the people in three companies; and they came into the midst of the host in the morning-watch, and slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day, and it came to pass that they which remained were scattered, so that two of them were not left together. 12And the people said unto [to] Samuel, Who is he that said, Shall Saul reign over 13us? bringthe men that we may put them to death. And Saul said, There shall not a man be put to death this day; for to-day the Lord [Jehovah] hath wrought 14salvation in Israel. Then said Samuel [and Samuel said] to the people, Come, and 15let us go to Gilgal, and renew the kingdom there. And all the people went to Gilgal, and there they [om. they] made Saul king before the Lord [Jehovah] in Gilgal, and there they [om. there they] sacrificed sacrifices of peace-offerings [ins. there] before the Lord [Jehovah]; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly. AND 1 Samuel 11:1-4. The siege of Jabesh by Nahash, king of the Ammonites.1 Samuel 11:1. The need of a vigorous single leadership in war against the surrounding hostile peoples, especially in the first instance for the war threatened by the Ammonites (1 Samuel 12:12), had occasioned the people’s desire for a strong regal government like that of those nations. God had yielded to their desire, and through Samuel given them a king. But this king, after having been publicly presented and greeted as king, had with-drawn into seclusion. For a part of the people were unwilling to accept the new order of things under Saul’s kingly authority, not believing that he could rescue the people from the threatening danger. It was, therefore, all-important that Saul should, by some deed of deliverance, show himself to be the king, who could lead Israel to victory over their enemies. A waiting the moment when he could display his strength with the Lord’s help as his Anointed, he had kept silence before the contempt of his enemies, and had retired to the quiet of his accustomed rural occupations. And not long after the day of Mizpah came the peril, in view of which the demand had been made for a king to lead the people to battle. Nahash, the Ammonite, advanced with an army, and began the war against Israel with the siege of Jabesh-Gilead. The Sept. inserts at the beginning of this verse from the preceding (1 Samuel 10:27) the words: “and it came to pass after a month,” and is followed by Ew. and Then, though all other ancient translations agree with the mas. text, only the Vulg. adds to the translation of the text the words: et factum est quasi post mensem, an addition originating probably in the Itala, which follows the Sept. The statement of time is evidently an interpretation of the translation. It is the less necessary for the connection by reason of the looseness of the chronology here. According to 1 Samuel 12:12 the threatened war with the Ammonites was the immediate occasion of the demand for a king. Naturally, therefore, Nahash, having before made his preparations, entered the Israelitish territory soon after the king was chosen and confirmed. If it had been intended to give this datum of time the word “one” must necessarily have been inserted.—On Nahash, king of the Ammonites, see on 2 Samuel 10:2. We have here a renewal of the war with the Ammonites, which (according to Judges 10:11) Israel had victoriously carried on under Jephthah. No doubt Nahash made the same charge against Israel—claiming the territory east of the Jordan which, it was alleged, Israel had taken from the Ammonites—which was then made by the king and repelled by Jeph. (Judges 11:13 sq.). Comp. Joshua 13:25. Jephthah’s victory had not permanently broken the power of the Ammonites. Jabesh lay in northern Gilead, and belonged to the half-tribe of Manasseh. According to Joseph. (Ant. 6, 5, 1), it was the capital of Gilead; according to the Onom., “six Roman miles from Pella on the way to Gerasa,” and is conjectured by Robinson (III. 319) and van der Velde (Mem., p. 323) to be the same with the present ruins of Ed-Deir, on the south side of the Wady Jabis, in which word is not improbably contained the name of the old Jabesh. Jabesh was the only city (Judges 21:9) which did not take part in the war of extermination against Benjamin; its virgins were carried off for the Benjamites (Judges 21:6 sq.). For the important connection of Jabesh with Saul’s end see 1 Samuel 31:11-13 and 2 Samuel 4, 5.—The inhabitants of Jabesh are willing to come to an agreement with Nahash, and submit on reasonable conditions. This shows their entire defencelessness against the enemy, and characterizes Israel’s weakness in consequence of the lack of firm and permanent union among its parts. Instead of accepting their humble proposal, Nahash offers the Jabeshites the extremest insult by the threat that, unless they surrendered unconditionally, he would put out the right eyes of all of them. On cruel conduct towards conquered enemies see Rόetschi, Herz. R. E. VIII. 87 [also Arts. War in Dicts. of Smith and Fairbairn, and Saalschόtz, Archδologie der Hebrδer, II. 506.—Tr.]. Nahash will lay this as a reproach “on all Israel,” not because they had not courage to help them (Bunsen), but with the intention of undertaking war against all Israel, and avenging the insult offered by Jephthah. Josephus’ remark, that he threatened to do this “in order that, their left eyes being concealed by their shields, they might be wholly unserviceable,” is correct only on this supposition, that he in fact designed to conquer first the city and then Gilead. 1 Samuel 11:3. Nahash grants the desired seven days, in which they are to send messengers into every part of Israel; in this time he thought to finish his preparations for the conquest of the city, in order, in the existing division of the Israelitish tribes and forces, the more surely to attain his end. The Jabeshites promised to yield themselves, if no one came to their rescue. The assumption of this as possible, and the fact that they sent to every region of Israel shows that in this transition-period from the Judges to the kingdom, in spite of what Samuel had done towards securing unity of action, the old division of powers in tribal isolation and the consequent weakness against enemies still continued. That the messengers (1 Samuel 11:4) go nevertheless not separately to the various tribes, but all together first to Gibeah of Saul, is doubtless according to instructions given them. And the reason could be only that this was the residence of the elected king, and the centre of the whole people. We are not to conclude (with Then.), from the fact of their going not to Saul, but to the people, that they knew nothing of his election as king; they presented their case before the people, and not Saul, because (as appears from what follows) he was not in Gibeah, and did not return from his ordinary occupation till after their statement was made.—The weeping of the people points to the greatness of the danger and the painful consciousness of helplessness. Perhaps Saul was held in least esteem in his native city. 1 Samuel 11:5-7. Saul’s first royal deed. He gathers the people together, so that they rise as one man against the Ammonites, and the hitherto-existing disunion is at an end. 1 Samuel 11:5. When the messengers arrive, Saul is in the field engaged in agricultural labors. He is called from the plough, as Gideon from the threshing-floor (Judges 6:11 sq.), to do great deeds for his people. “After the oxen” refers to his walking behind the oxen, with which he had ploughed, and which are called in 1 Samuel 11:7 “a yoke of oxen.” 1 Samuel 11:6. When he hears the cause of the people’s lamenting and weeping, the Spirit of God lays hold of him mightily. The great moment had come when the fire of mighty wrath, inflamed by God’s Spirit, kindled at the reproach inflicted by the enemy on his people, and he, in fulfillment of his royal calling to be the deliverer of his people, was to step forth according to the will of the Lord. 1 Samuel 11:7. The cutting up of the oxen alone would not have exhausted the meaning which (as appears from the context) this symbolical action was meant to have. There was necesssary also the sending of the pieces into every region of Israel, that is, to every tribe, as in the similar procedure in Judges 19:29. The meaning of Saul’s sharp words by the messengers: Whosoever cometh not forth after Saul and after Samuel, so shall it be done to his oxen, is only fully expressed by the pieces which are sent along with them. Though the “pieces” are not expressly mentioned in the text, as in Judges 19:29 (Then.), yet they must be understood from the connection. As there the pieces of the shamefully murdered woman’s body, so here the pieces of the hewed oxen are the factual summons of the individual parts of the people to a common warfare, which was to avenge the wrong done them. Along with this similarity, however, between the two actions and their aims, there is an essential difference between them. In the former case the pieces represented the crime of the violated rights of hospitality and the expiation which was demanded. Here Saul sets forth the punishment to be expected by every one who should not join the campaign against the enemy; he threatens the exercise of his judicial power, which is a function of his royal office. The subject [i.e. executer] of the threat is neither the people of the recusant person (Josephus), nor the invading enemy, but it is he, the king of Israel, who is thoroughly conscious of his authority to summon the whole people to war against the enemy, under the impulse of the Spirit of God, which has come upon him. Saul here steps forth, in the name of the Lord, who has chosen him to save His people from their foes, with an act of sovereign theocratic royal power. As possessor of this power he names himself first as leader of Israel, and then Samuel second. That, however, he does connect the latter’s name with his, shows Samuel’s high position as prophet and watchman of the kingdom and (with the retention of his judicial authority) as leader of the people along with Saul, and proves also Samuel’s approval of this assumption of royal authority before the people. His symbolical action and the accompanying threat, which is to rouse the people from division to unity, and from lethargy to a common enterprise, is thus stamped with the prophetic and judicial authority of Samuel, under which Saul’s royal authority stands.—Clericus excellently remarks: “This was a symbolical action which, by the exhibition of the pieces of the oxen, struck the mind more than words alone would have done.” The action belongs to the category of symbolical acts, which set forth corporally and vigorously the content of the following words, in order to strengthen their impression. See 1 Kings 11:30; 1 Kings 22:11; 2 Kings 13:18. Comp. the symbolical actions in the prophetic writings.—The powerful impression made by Saul’s appearance and act is indicated in a two-fold way: 1) The fear of Jehovah fell on the people. Clericus: “Either fear sent or in some peculiar way infused into men’s minds by God, or fear lest they should offend God, if they refused to obey the command of the king and the prophet.” The second explanation is to be preferred; for Saul’s appearance is theocratic; he speaks in the name and under the commission of the Lord, whose instrument he, as well as Samuel, is. The people, impressed by his act and his words, recognize the holy and mighty will of their God, and are seized by a wholesome fear before the Lord, which leads them to recognize the obligation to fulfil his command revealed through Saul. “The fear of the Lord” is here, therefore, not a “panic fear” (Thenius, Bφttcher); for Jehovah is not=Elohim, as Keil well remarks; the reference is to the relation of the people to their covenant-God, who anew reveals Himself; 2) And they came out as one man. The effect of Saul’s appearance and message to the whole people was that they rose out of division into a firm unity of parts (tribes) and powers. The Spirit of the Lord, which impelled Saul to this noble and vigorous action, so strangely contrasted with his former quiet life behind the plough, laid hold at the same time on the whole nation, so that it was suddenly lifted up, as it were involuntarily, in the uniting and strengthening power of this Spirit from above, to a new life before God (in His fear) and within itself (in unity and union) against the enemies of the theocracy. 1 Samuel 11:8-11. Saul’s deed of deliverance by victory over the Ammonites. The summoning of the people and the gathering of the hosts goes swiftly on. The latter is presupposed in the phrase “numbered or mustered them.” This took place in Bezek, in the Tribe of Issachar, in the plain of Jezreel, not far from Bethshean, at about as great an elevation as Jabesh, according to the Onom. 17 Roman miles north of Neapolis (Nablus), on the road to Scythopolis. This place must not be confounded with the Bezek in the Tribe of Judah, where the Canaanites and Perizzites under their king Adonibezek were beaten by Judah and Simeon, Judges 1:3-4. In respect to the separate mention of Israel and Judah [1 Samuel 11:8] Clericus remarks: “this smacks of the times that followed the division of the Israelites into two kingdoms.” See the same distinction made in 1 Samuel 17:52; 1 Samuel 18:16; 2 Samuel 2:9 sq.; 1 Samuel 3:10; 1 Samuel 5:1-5; 1 Samuel 19:41 sq.; 1 Samuel 20:24. That the large and powerful tribe of Judah has the relatively small number (30,000) of warriors over against the 300,000 of Israel, is due to the fact that a large part of its territory was in the possession of the Philistines, as to whose further advance more care had to be taken, now that the northeastern frontier of the country was threatened by the Ammonites. The large numbers are explained by the general levy of the people (a sort of militia). 1 Samuel 11:9. The messengers from Jabesh are now dismissed with the answer that help would be brought them the next day by the time the sun was hottest. So confident is Saul with his army in the power of the prophetic spirit, that the Lord will through them bring help. Bold assurance of faith which, in a great undertaking, anticipates its success as an accomplished fact. The messengers from Jabesh had the same confidence of faith. 1 Samuel 11:10. “To-morrow,” that is, one day after the messengers had returned to Jabesh. This message of the Jabeshites to the Ammonites must, according to 1 Samuel 11:3, have led the latter to believe that they wished to treat of terms of surrender. It was a stratagem which made the Ammonites all the more confident. 1 Samuel 11:11. They are overpowered by surprise. The time of the “morning-watch” is from 3 to 6 o’clock in the morning, when the night is darkest. As Saul’s army was not a disciplined one, but hastily gathered from the whole people, he could only hope to gain a complete and decisive victory by attacking the confident Ammonites in their camp from three sides during their soundest sleep. The army, divided into three parts, came “into the midst of the camp” from different directions. The victory was complete “by the heat of the day;” the enemy’s army is utterly scattered. “Two were not left together.” 1 Samuel 11:12-15. Saul’s renewed confirmation and general recognition as king.1 Samuel 11:12. This bold deed of deliverance, performed under the immediate impulse of the Spirit from above at the head of the nation, legitimizes Saul before all Israel as their God-appointed king. It is quite in keeping with the enthusiasm with which he had inspired the people that they wished to punish his contemptuous opposers (1 Samuel 10:27) with death as traitors. The words: “Saul should reign over us” are to be taken either as exclamation or as question.1 Samuel 11:13. In respect to this demand Saul appears in a yet nobler light. His heart is full of humble piety; he gives the glory to God alone, saying, “To-day Jehovah hath wrought salvation in Israel.” The victory over the foe is to him nothing but a saving act of God Himself. He regards himself as simply the instrument of God. This is the ground (λִּ ?ι, “for”) of the rejection of the demand; none should die that day. It is the utterance of royal generosity towards his enemies, whose hearts it must have won. Thereby he gained another victory: 1) over himself—he restrains himself in the exercise of a right, 2) over the anger of those who demanded that justice be executed, 3) over his former opponents, who now clearly see that which, under the influence of haughty contempt, they had doubted, and 4) over the whole people, who must have been carried along by him on the path of noble moral conduct, and lifted above themselves to the height on which he stood. The enthusiastic recognition of Saul by the whole nation as divinely appointed king was factually (in contrast with 1 Samuel 10:27) completed. 1 Samuel 11:14-15. Then follows, under Samuel’s direction, the formal and solemn renewal of the kingdom. Samuel orders an assembly of the people at Gilgal in the Jordan-valley; from the scene of victory the people, led by Saul and Samuel, go to that holy spot. The object of the gathering he declares to be the renewal of the kingdom with reference to the election of king at Mizpah, 1 Samuel 10:17 sq. What the “renewal of the kingdom” means must be learned from the following words: There they made Saul king before Israel.—The word εַ ?ιַּ ?ξְ ?μִ ?λεּ [“made king”] cannot be rendered “they anointed him,” because that is not its meaning, and because the act of anointing could have been performed, not by the people, but only by Samuel in the name of Jehovah. For the rest, if there had been a second anointing, it would, on account of its importance, have been expressly mentioned, as in David’s case, 2 Samuel 2:4; v. 3. The translation of the Sept.: “Samuel anointed Saul” is obviously an interpretation, they stumbling at the strange word of the original (εַ ?ιַּ ?ξְ ?μִ ?λεּ), which seemed to contradict 1 Samuel 10:17 sq., and adopting, as the best expedient, the supposition of a second anointing (with reference to 1 Samuel 10:1), having in mind the double anointing of David. All the other ancient translations follow the Masoretic text. Starting from the unfounded assumption that an anointing is here spoken of, Thenius wrongly argues that here is a sign of different authorship for chap. 11 and 1 Samuel 10:1-16, since a double anointing is hardly supposable. It is in itself quite supposable, since it actually occurred in David’s case, though then for a definite reason. But the text gives no support to this supposition. For the words “they made him king before Jehovah” mean nothing else than the solemn announcement and presentation of Saul before the nation as divinely appointed king in consequence of the divine legitimation given by his brilliant exploit against the Ammonites. [What is above said by Dr. Erdmann may serve also as answer to Wellhausen’s critical remarks on this paragraph. He holds that chap. 11 attaches itself naturally to 1 Samuel 10:16, since Saul in 1 Samuel 11:1-11 is not king, though he knows that he will be, and his whole procedure corresponds psychologically with exactness to the tone of mind naturally induced by the signs 1 Samuel 10:9-12. But this is no less true according to the present arrangement of the text. There is historical motive for the double declaration as king, and there is no external evidence to show that 1 Samuel 10:17-27 and 1 Samuel 11:12-14 are interpolations.—Tr.] The “before the Lord” (Clericus: “calling on God’s name and offering sacrifices to Him”) indicates the essential difference between this act and the proclamartion and homage at Mizpah, marking the religious act of installation sealed with a solemn offering (before the Lord), by which Saul was formally and solemnly consecrated to his office by the invisible God-king with renewed homage and recognition of the whole nation, and another pledge to keep the divine law. It is Saul’s solemn inauguration. The previous facts in the history of his call are the ascending steps to this acme—the solemn beginning of his royal rule.—“What had been done for Saul himself on the day of his anointing, and for the people at the election of king had now in Gilgal been publicly renewed and confirmed for the whole kingdom.” Schlier, Saul, p. 22. The “peace-offerings” which were sacrificed “before the Lord” expressed joy and gratitude before the Lord, the peaceful, joyful relation between Him and His people. Along with this religious side of joy the connected sacrificial meal represented its human side. Thus was celebrated at Gilgal by king and people a festival of great joy. There Samuel performs the functions of priest, and, as prophet and priest, is and remains the organ of the word and blessing of God, under which king and people equally stand, and by which the two are to form the indissoluble theocratic unity and fellowship, which from now on must be the foundation of the whole theocratic life. AND See the Exegetical explanations. In addition the following remarks may be made: 1. The deeper the ignominy and the greater the need of God’s people under the threats of the powerful foe, so much the more glorious was the deliverance, so much the more overwhelming the manifestation of the glory and the faithfulness of the covenant-God. The weeping of the people in view of the powerlessness of the ununited tribes and of the scornful pride of the enemy, expressed at the same time the humble, penitent spirit in which they sought the Lord’s help, as, in the time of the Judges, after defection and alienation from God, they ever turned penitently to the Lord when their need was greatest. 2. Saul’s call, in accordance with the occasion which led to the demand for the kingdom, and in accordance with the historical relations of the people to the surrounding heathen nations, was a military one. And so the prelude to his assumption of the government and his public solemn confirmation as king of Israel is this military deed, whose theocratic significance is indicated by the fact, that its source and origin is said to be the laying hold and filling of Saul by the power of the Spirit of God (1 Samuel 11:6). For the military work of the theocratic king must be sanctified, guided, accomplished by God directly through His Spirit, in order that the outer and inner conditions of the farther development of the theocracy in Israel may be secured. 3. The “coming of the Spirit of God” on Saul (1 Samuel 11:6), and on the organs of the theocracy generally, is not to be volatilized into an intensifying of their spiritual life, an uplifting of themselves to words and deeds in the service of God, but must be held to be a real, supernatural entrance of the Spirit of God into their inner life. This, however, is accomplished here (1 Samuel 11:5-6) as in 1 Samuel 10:10, not without an external, natural occasion and human instrumentality. The Spirit of God advances along the path marked out by the divine wisdom. 4. There is a holy anger, justified before God, like that which seized Saul (1 Samuel 11:6). Its origin is the Spirit from above, whose flame kindles it; its object is the power of sin, the shame and ignominy inflicted on God’s people and name, the enemies of God; its aim is the honor of God and the furtherance of the ends of His kingdom. 5. The power of the Spirit of God, which filled and impelled Saul showed itself, in its comprehensive, penetrating power over the national life, by the twofold effect, which was decisive for the first joint action of king and people, and also full of typical meaning for their whole history as people of God: the fear of the Lord in the relation of the people to their God, and the unity of their different parts (“the people went out as one man”); the innermost, the fear of Jehovah, was the source of their conjunction to a firm unity. To awaken and nourish the fear of God in the people by energetic, divinely-guided government, and to set the people as one man in their theocratic fellowship over against the heathen peoples as the people of the Lord, was the task and calling of the theocratic monarchy. These two aims contain the roots of the love of God and one’s neighbor as the twofold fundamental law of the kingdom of God. Matthew 22:37-40; Deuteronomy 6:5 sq.; Leviticus 19:18. 6. When Saul, at his election as king and the partial homage which he received, maintained silence towards his scornful enemies and practiced self-denial in quietness and patience, he performed (over against the demand to visit deserved punishment on the despisers of the Lord’s Anointed) under the guidance of God’s Spirit an act of love to enemies, letting them go unpunished, and setting aside the demand to visit strict justice on them by pointing to the grace and salvation wherein God had just revealed Himself to the whole nation. A prelude of the disposition of forbearing, merciful love, which finds its fulfilment in the New Testament according to the word of the Lord (Matthew 5:44), and through the Spirit from above (Luke 9:55), and has its ground in personal experience of the merciful love of God (Luke 6:36). AND 1 Samuel 11:1-11. On what depends the help and deliverance of a people in times of great distress? 1) They must lift their voices imploringly to God (1 Samuel 11:4). 2) The men whom God has raised up as their helpers, they must receive with confidence as the Lord’s instruments (1 Samuel 11:5-7). 3) They must be subject in obedience and fidelity to the rulers given them by God. 4) They must place themselves under the discipline and guidance of God’s Spirit, in order, a) in true fear of God to be well-pleasing to the Lord, and b) in true unity of love to be as one man. 1 Samuel 11:1-5. What is meant by the question in a king’s mouth: What aileth the people that they weep? 1) A father’s faithful observation of his people’s weal and woe. 2) A brother’s sympathizing compassion for their distress. 3) A king’s magnanimous readiness to help. [1 Samuel 11:5-11. Henry (altered): The spirit and conduct of Saul (comp. 1 Samuel 10:9): 1) His humility—anointed king, but following the oxen. 2) His concern for his neighbors (1 Samuel 11:5). 3) His zeal for the safety and honor of Israel (1 Samuel 11:6). 4) The authority and power he exerted, upon this important occasion. 5) His faith and confidence (1 Samuel 11:9). 6) His industry and close application to this business (1 Samuel 11:8; 1 Samuel 11:11). 7) His success.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 11:6-11. The holy communion in which king and people should stand, through the Spirit of the Lord: 1) In righteous anger against all that is hostile to God’s kingdom (1 Samuel 11:6); 2) In true fear of God, which unites king and people inwardly before the Lord; 3) In faithful love, wherein a) the people are heartily obedient to the king’s will, which aims at the common welfare, and b) under his guidance they rise up as one man against the common enemy, and to help the suffering fellow-citizens (1 Samuel 11:7); 4) In firm, confident faith in the Lord’s support, which does not suffer his people to be put to shame (1 Samuel 11:8-11). 1 Samuel 11:8-9. The messages, To-morrow ye shall have help: 1) A testimony of helpful, active brotherly love; 2) A promise of prompt, hastening help; 3) A trustworthy assurance of fortunate success; 4) A source of great joy (“ rejoiced greatly ”). 1 Samuel 11:12-15. To-day the Lord hath wrought salvation in Israel: 1) A jubilee-cry, praising the Lord’s honor; 2) A warning cry, reminding of guilty offences against forgiving and compassionate love; 3) An awakening cry, demanding the presentation of thank-offerings before the Lord; 4) A joyous cry, calling to be glad in the Lord. J. Disselhoff: The first kingly deed. The two noblest ornaments of a servant of God are united in it: 1) Burning, holy zeal in the cause of God and the brethren; 2) Corresponding gentleness in one’s own cause. [1 Samuel 11:4-6. Scott: The Lord, in providence, will make way for those whom He has designed and prepared for usefulness; nor shall any repent of humbly waiting in obscurity and honest industry, till He is pleased to call them forth; for pride and impatience alone can conclude, that the only wise God has lighted a candle to leave it under a bushel.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 11:6. Starke: Official wrath is unforbidden. [Compare “Historical and Theological,” No. 4. Anger is sometimes lawful, sometimes a duty. It is difficult, but not impossible, to “be angry and sin not” (Ephesians 4:26). Our Lord was at the same time angry and grieved (Mark 3:5).—Tr.] S. Schmid: It is the Spirit of God alone that works good in men, whether in an ordinary or an extraordinary manner. Disselhoff: Without this zeal no anointed one may be found. For this word will always hold good: “Cursed be he that doeth the work of the Lord slothfully” [so Luther in Jeremiah 48:10. Eng. A. V., “deceitfully,” but margin, “negligently,” which better suits the connection.—Tr.]—But in truth zeal alone is not yet the right ornament of the warriors of Christ. Prove thy zeal, whether it is not perhaps mixed with flesh and blood, or even proceeds altogether from this fountain; and know that zeal for the Lord’s cause should not flow from mere excitability, from a momentary ebullition of natural compassion, or from being overcome by human displeasure and anger. Not the strange fire which the sons of Aaron took, but the fire from the holy altar, the Spirit of God—let us learn it from Saul!—must overmaster, inflame, inspire us. 1 Samuel 11:7. Berl. Bible: There are two sorts of fear. One is a selfish, reward-seeking fear. In this we are caring for ourselves, and it is self-interest that excites, and that is properly human fear. But there is also a fear of the Lord, the fear that one has for His sake alone, when one fears lest the Lord has been grieved through our own sins, or those of others, or lest we or others should not have sufficiently glorified Him in ourselves.—Disselhoff: This can one man accomplish in the people of God, when he is driven by a holy, fiery zeal. The fear of God goes forth from him, and falls upon all to whom he comes. As soon as the fear of the Lord drives an army, a people, to the conflict, no need of being uneasy as to the result.—One cowardly, surly soldier of Christ, afraid of suffering, easily makes a hundred cowards, for cowardice is contagious. 1 Samuel 11:12. Starke: As in God, so in His deputies, mercy and justice should be inseparable; wheresoever these two go asunder, government follows them into distraction, and ends in ruin.—Disselhoff: Such a saying (1 Samuel 11:13) is the fairest ornament of God’s warriors, lion-like zeal against the enemies of God, against sin and all its out-breaks, a lamb-like disposition towards individual sinners, for they are not to be destroyed, but to be saved through the same salvation that has fallen to our lot.—Berlenb. Bible: Saul’s answer instructs the people in two things at once: first, that we must not ascribe victory to man, but to God; secondly, that we must not be too swift in judging those who through ignorance have rejected God’s guidance, and that the salvation which God has, in so glorious a manner, given to Israel, would be mighty enough to bring back again those who have wandered away.—God wills not the death of the sinner, etc. Excessive strictness rather repels sinners, than brings them right again. 1 Samuel 11:14-15. Cramer: The best bond between authorities and subjects is that they intend to be mutually faithful.—Disselhoff: When one does even something great for his Lord, and does not shrink from much toil and trouble for His sake, can his heart abide in very great joy if he forgets gentleness and patience towards his neighbor, becomes provoked against him, bitter and ill-mannerly? Footnotes: [1 Samuel 11:1. On reading of Sept. and Vulg. see Expos.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:1. Or, laid siege to.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:2. The word “covenant” is not in the Heb. but is involved in the verb. The insertion of the word in the Heb. text is therefore unnecessary. Throughout this passage the Sept. has explanatory additions, which need be regarded only as the freedoms of a translator.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:2. Rendered “pick out” by Eng. A. V. in Ps. 30:17.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:3. δֶ ?ψֶ ?σ Hiph. Impv. Apoc. of ψτδ. Ges. Heb. Gr., §75, Rem. 15.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:3. Or, into every region.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:4. Sept. has incorrectly “to Gibeah to Saul;” it is evident that the message was not brought to Saul. Syr. “the hill of Saul,” Arab. “the city of Saul,” but the word is a proper name.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:4. Lit. “spake the words (or things).” In 1 Samuel 11:5 it is: “related the words (or things).”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:7. Comp. Exodus 29:17; Leviticus 1:6; Judges 20:6.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:7. Some render: “sent (word) etc., saying.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:8. The Sept. gives for Israel 600,000, and for Judah 70,000, about double the numbers in the Heb. text—an illustration of the tendency to magnify numbers.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:9. Lit. “in (Qeri, at) the heat of the sun;” see similar pharse in 1 Samuel 11:11.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:12. Sept., Chald., Syr., Arab., insert a negative: “Saul shall not reign over us;” Chald., “is not fit to reign,” Vulg. as Heb. This neg. doe not necessarily imply a different text, yet a μֹ ?ΰ may easily have fallen out of the Heb., the preceding word ending with μ. The sense is the same in both readings.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:12. This word is plu. in Heb., Chald., Vulg., Arab., but sing. in Sept. and Syr.; the former, as the more difficult reading (since the address was to Samuel), is to be preferred.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:15. Sept: anointed—as interpretation.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 11:15. Sept.: Samuel (instead of Saul)—more probably error of transcription than attempt to make Samuel conspicuous.—Tr.] [Reading αְּ ?ξֵ ?ηγֶ ?ωׁ instead of λְּ ?ξַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ιωׁ.—Tr.] [Not if he had a different text before him.—Tr.] [On the relation between this Nahash and the person mentioned in 2 Samuel 17:25 as father of Abigail, and for discussion of 1 Chronicles 2:16, see Arts. Abigail, Zeruiah, Nahash, in Smith’s Bib. Dict. and the Commentaries in loco, and comp. 2 Samuel 17:27.—Tr.] [“On the mountains in full view of Beisan.” Thomson, Land and Book, 2, 174.—Tr.] [This is not the exact expression of the text; rather the putting out of the eyes was the condition of surrender and treaty offered in savage pleasantry by Nahash.—Tr.] αְּ ?ζεϊ, “in this,” that is, on this condition. The suff. δָ in ωַׂ ?ξְ ?ϊִּ ?ιδָ is to be taken as neuter, referring to the putting out of the eyes. [It is not said, that they went first to Gibeah.—Tr.] [The word Elohim or El (God) is apparently sometimes used in the Old Testament in a superlative sense=“very great or high,” as in Psalms 36:7 (6), which is literally “mountains of El,” Psalms 68:16 (15), 1 Samuel 14:15, or with Prep. μ (to) as in Jonah 3:3. But in the former cases the true meaning of the word “God” is always kept in the foreground, though the adjectival conception “great” naturally attaches to it.—Tr.] [The German has incorrectly 7. Bezek is differently located by different writers. See the dictionaries of Winer, Fairbairn, and Smith, s. v.—Tr.] [As Starke has borrowed this (apparently without acknowledgment) word for word from the English Bishop Hall, we have not re-translated, but given the original. And so in numerous subsequent eases.—Tr.] II. Samuel’s solemn concluding Transaction with the Assembly of the People at Gilgal 1 Samuel 12:1-251 And Samuel said unto all Israel, Behold I have hearkened unto your voice in 2all that ye said unto me, and have made a king over you. And now, behold, the king walketh before you, and I am old and gray-headed, and behold, my sons [my sons, behold, they] are with you, and I have walked before you from my 3childhood unto this day. Behold, here I am. Witness against me before the Lord [Jehovah] and before his Anointed: whose ox have I taken? or, whose ass have I taken? or, whom have I defrauded? whom have I oppressed? or, of whose hand have I received any [a] bribe to blind mine eyes therewith? and I will 4restore it you. And they said, Thou hast not defrauded us, nor oppressed us, neither 5hast thou taken aught of any man’s hand. And he said unto them, The Lord is [Jehovah be] witness against you, and his Anointed is [be] witness this day, that ye have not found aught in my hand. And they answered [said], He is witness 6[Witness be they]. And Samuel said unto the people, It is [om. it is] the Lord [Jehovah] that [who] advanced [appointed] Moses and Aaron, and that [who] brought your fathers up out of the land of Egypt! 7Now, therefore, [And now] stand still [stand forth] that I may [and I will] reason with you before the Lord [Jehovah] of all the righteous acts of the Lord 8[Jehovah] which he did to you and to your fathers. When Jacob was come [came] into Egypt, and your fathers cried unto the Lord [Jehovah], then the Lord [Jehovah] sent Moses and Aaron, which [and they] brought forth [om. forth] 9your fathers out of Egypt and made them dwell in this place. And when [om. when] they forgat the Lord [Jehovah] their God, [ins. and] he sold them into the hand of Sisera, captain of the host of Hazor, and into the hand of the Philistines,10and into the hand of the king of Moab, and they fought against them. And they cried unto the Lord [Jehovah] and said, We have sinned, because we have forsaken the Lord [Jehovah], and have served Baalim and Ashtaroth; but [and] now 11deliver us out of the hand of our enemies, and we will serve thee. And the Lord [Jehovah] sent Jerubbaal, and Bedan, and Jephthah, and Samuel,8 and delivered 12you out of the hand of your enemies on every side, and ye dwelled safe. And when ye saw that Nahash the king of the children of Ammon came against you, ye said unto me, Nay, but a king shall reign over us, when the Lord [Jehovah] your God was your king. 13Now, therefore, [And now] behold the king whom ye have chosen, and [om. and] whom ye have desired [demanded]; and behold, the Lord [Jehovah] hath set a 14king over you. If ye will fear the Lord [Jehovah], and serve him, and obey his voice, and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah], then shall [om. then shall, ins. and] both ye and also [om. also] the king that reigneth over you [ins. will] continue following [follow] the Lord [Jehovah] your God, well. 15But if ye will not obey the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], but rebel against the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah], then shall the hand of the Lord [Jehovah] 16be against you, as it was against your fathers. Now, therefore, [And now] stand 17and see this great thing, which the Lord [Jehovah] will do before your eyes. Is it not wheat harvest to-day? I will call unto the Lord [Jehovah], and he shall [will] send thunder and rain; that ye may perceive [know] and see that your wickedness is great which ye have done in the sight [eyes] of the Lord [Jehovah] 18in asking you a king. So [And] Samuel called unto the Lord [Jehovah], and the Lord [Jehovah] sent thunder and rain that day; and all the people greatly feared the Lord [Jehovah] and Samuel. 19And all the people said unto Samuel, Pray for thy servants unto the Lord [Jehovah] thy God that we die not; for we have added unto all our sins this evil, 20to ask us a king. And Samuel said unto the people, Fear not. Ye have done all this wickedness; yet turn not aside from following the Lord [Jehovah], but serve 21the Lord [Jehovah] with all your heart; And turn ye not aside, for then should ye go [om. for then should ye go] after vain things, which cannot [do not] profit nor 22deliver, for they are vain. For the Lord [Jehovah] will not forsake his people for his great name’s sake; because it hath pleased the Lord [Jehovah] to make 23you his people. Moreover [om. moreover] as for me [ins. also], God forbid that I should [om. God forbid that I should, ins. far be it from me to] sin against the Lord [Jehovah] in ceasing to pray for you, but I will teach you the good and 24the [om. the] right way. Only fear the Lord [Jehovah] and serve him in truth with all your heart; for consider [see] how great things [how greatly] he hath 25done [wrought] for you [towards you]. But if ye shall still [om. still] do wickedly, ye shall be consumed [destroyed] both ye and your king. AND 1 Samuel 12:1. And Samuel said to all Israel. That the following words were really spoken by Samuel is put beyond doubt by the direct impression of historical truth which this narrative in chap. 12 makes, and by the homogeneity of the individual historical features of this picture with the historical picture given us in all that precedes. Ewald (Gesch. [History of Israel] I., 229, Rem. 2) calls this a narrative “which in its present form is inserted only for the sake of the exhortations to be put into Samuel’s mouth, and the occasional historical statements of which sound very discrepant,” against which we remark: 1) that the historical statements in this piece, as the exposition will show, do not at all contradict the foregoing historical account, and 2) that if a mere insertion had been intended here, in order to put exhortations into Samuel’s mouth, it would have been simpler to give it in the form of a monologue; that is, a continuous address of Samuel to the people.—We have here, namely, not one continuous address of Samuel, as this section is usually called, but a dialogue, a conversation or transaction with the people in the grandest style. Samuel speaks to all Israel, and they speak to him by the mouth of their elders (cf. 1 Samuel 12:3-6; 1 Samuel 12:19-20), and the longer connected declarations of the prophet (1 Samuel 12:7-17; 1 Samuel 12:20-25) are embraced by these colloquies and attached to them.—Incorrect also is the usual designation of this section as a parting-address, whereby its significance in relation to the preceding account of Saul’s public solemn presentation to the whole people as king of Israel is obscured or concealed. Samuel does not take leave of the people in order to withdraw from the scene of public life and action into the retirement of private life; he rather promises the continuance not only of his intercession for them, but also of his prophetic labors in respect to the whole people; he points expressly to the elevated position which he will assume, as “teacher of the good and right way,” hereafter, as now, towards king and people.—Further, when the whole procedure, as is common, is regarded as a solemn resignation of office by Samuel, we must call attention to the fact mentioned in 1 Samuel 7:15, that he “judged Israel all the days of his life,” and to the vigorous interference which he repeatedly found necessary during Saul’s government. Certainly with the incoming of the kingdom, which the people desired instead of the existing judgeship (1 Samuel 8:5; 1 Samuel 8:20) in order that the king might judge the people and lead them in war, the official position which Samuel had hitherto occupied as judge in Israel, must have had an end; and this end of his proper judicial office, sole and highest Governor of Israel as he had hitherto been, is the starting-point for what he has now still to say to the people. He remains in fact what he was, the highest judge of Israel according to the will of God, under whose oversight and guidance the kingdom also stands; officially the leadership for external and internal political affairs, for which the kingdom was established, is no longer in his hands. Of a resignation of office nothing is said, but (proceeding only from the fact that the government is now given into the hands of the king, and his official government as judge has now consequently come to an end) he passes in review his previous official life as judge of the people, in order, over against the fulfilment of their desire for a king, which was a factual rejection of his official judgeship externally occasioned by the evil conduct of his sons (1 Samuel 8:1-7), solemnly to testify and cause them to testify that he had filled his office blamelessly and righteously. On this follows (1 Samuel 12:7-12) the rebuking reference to the great deeds of the Lord, wherein in the history of His guidance of the people He had magnified Himself in them, and to the guilty relation of ingratitude and unfaithfulness in which they had placed themselves to this their God and king by the longing after an earthly king, which was a rejection of His authority over them. In 1 Samuel 12:13-18, after a solemn confirmation of the fact, that God the Lord in accordance with that desire had given them a king, in powerful words, which are accompanied and strengthened by an astounding miracle, he exhorts king and people together to the right relation, in which in faithful obedience they are to put themselves, to the will and word of the Lord. King and people are to be obedient subjects of the invisible king. Finally follows (1 Samuel 12:19-25) a word of consolation from Samuel to the people now, in consequence of this warning and hortatory address, repentantly confessing their sin in their demand for a king, in which he gently and in friendly fashion exhorts them to obedience and faithfulness towards the Lord (1 Samuel 12:20-21), promises them the Lord’s grace and faithfulness (1 Samuel 12:22), and assures them of his continuing active fellowship with them in intercession and in instruction in the way of truth (1 Samuel 12:23), and finally with repeated exhortation and warning sets before them the blessing and good pleasure of the Lord along with a threatening reference to the punishment to be expected in case of disobedience (1 Samuel 12:24-25).—With this fourfold division this whole dialoguic transaction of Samuel with the people connects itself immediately with what precedes, as the conclusion of the assembly of the people in Gilgal. On this connection see Thenius’ remarks. Berlenberger Bible: “Thus with this ends in solemn wise the general assembly of the people.” [Philippson (in Israel. Bib.): “This chapter is one of the finest in the book, and is a model of old-Hebrew eloquence. Words and tone speak for the high antiquity of this piece.”—Tr.] The words: See, I have hearkened to your voice in all that ye said to me correspond exactly to the words in 1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Samuel 8:21. Samuel at the same time testifies indirectly to the fact that he had therein obeyed the command of God: “Hearken to the voice of the people” (1 Samuel 8:7; 1 Samuel 8:9; 1 Samuel 8:22). His listening to the voice of the people was based on the repeated divine command, and was an act of self-denying obedience to the will of the Lord.—“And I have made a king” points to 1 Samuel 12:15 a of the preceding chapter. 1 Samuel 12:2. Walketh is to be understood not merely of leading in war, but in general of the official guidance and government of the people. The “and I” introduces the contrast between the Hitherto and the Now. I am grown old and gray-headed points to the words of the elders, 1 Samuel 8:5. As the people by the mouth of their elders there take occasion from his age to ask a king for themselves, so Samuel here refers back to it, in order not only to point out that this their demand was fulfilled, since he in fact by reason of his age could no longer hold in his hands the internal and external control of the people, but at the same time, in view of the termination of his office and the beginning of the royal rule, to give account of the righteous character of his long career. The reference to his sons as occupying official positions is not to be regarded (Thenius, Keil, et al.) as a confirmation of his age, but looking to 1 Samuel 8:1 (where it is expressly said that Samuel on account of his age had made his sons judges over Israel, that is, his assistants in the judicial office) rather as a confirmation of the declaration that this change in the government must needs have taken place by reason of his age, which had already necessitated the substitution of his sons. [It is clearly wrong to suggest (Bib. Com. in loco) that “a tinge of mortified feeling at the rejection of himself and his family, mixed with a desire to recommend his sons to the favor and good-will of the nation, is at the bottom of this mention of them.” There is no trace here of mortification or favor-seeking. Samuel stands throughout above the people, and promises his continued friendship and watch-care, while he cordially accepts the change of the government.—Tr.]. What Samuel here affirms of his official career stands in direct contrast with what is said in 1 Samuel 8:3 of the blameworthy official conduct of these sons, since it is inconceivable that he did not know, and now have in mind the covetousness and perversion of judgment and the resulting discontent of the people, which was a cofactor in their desire for a royal government. The mode as well as the fact and content of the following self-justification naturally suggest the statement in 1 Samuel 8:3, and lead to the conclusion that this was the occasion of this (otherwise surprising) justification of his official career, on which in the eyes of the people a shadow had fallen in consequence of the opposite conduct of his sons. In order that, at this important turning-point of his life and of his people’s history, there may be perfect clearness and truth in respect to his judicial career and his unselfish official bearing towards the people, and that the lightest shadow of mistrust and misunderstanding may be dispelled, he in the first place refers to his official life which lay clear and open before the eyes of the people from his youth unto this moment when he had become old and gray; for the words “I have walked before you,” like the preceding “walketh,” indicate his public official intercourse and walk. 1 Samuel 12:3. Answer against me, that is, witness against me. A formal hearing of witnesses as a judicial act is here introduced. The judicial authorities are two, a heavenly, invisible, God the Lord, the All-knowing, before whom he walked, and an earthly-human, clothed, however, with divine authority, the Anointed of the Lord, who in the name and place of God executes the royal office, which includes the judicial. Here for the first time after the establishment of the kingdom the theocratic king is called the Anointed of the Lord. Here for the first time after his installation regard is had to Saul in his royal authority and position. Before him as before the Lord, the people, in reply to Samuel’s questions put in powerful lapidary style and with grand rhetoric, must bear witness to the following: 1) That he had not covetously appropriated the property of others,—“ox and ass” represent property in a social life based on agriculture and trade, and are expressly named in the Law with the things forbidden to covet (Exodus 20:17); Samuel’s sons, on the contrary, “turned after gain,” that is, were covetous, 1 Samuel 8:5;—2) that he had violated no man’s right and freedom by oppression and violence,—ψָ ?φַ ?υ “defraud” is stronger than ςָ ?ωַׁ ?χ “oppress;” both often occur together, as in Deuteronomy 28:33, to express violence;—his sons “perverted judgment,” 1 Samuel 8:3;—3) that he had not been guilty of venality in the administration of justice by receiving bribes,—kopher (λֹּ ?τֶ ?ψ) “bribe” is here not to be regarded (with Keil) as simply a payment for release from capital punishment (Exodus 21:30; Numbers 35:31), but means in general a gift of money designed to buy the favor of the judge and thus escape deserved punishment. The gift was to cover the punishment [the Heb. word means primarily “cover,”—Tr.], and thus as covering be an expiation: “that I might hide my eyes from him (or, with it).” The sons of Samuel took gifts, 1 Samuel 8:3. This was a transgression of the Law, Exodus 23:6; Deuteronomy 27:5.—The answer of the people: that Samuel had done no wrong. 1 Samuel 12:5. Strengthening of this declaration by the participation of the people in Samuel’s invocation of the Lord and his Anointed as witness. Calvin: “In these words they confess their ingratitude and perfidy before Jehovah and the king, in that they had rejected the so praiseworthy government of Samuel.” 1 Samuel 12:6. Further strengthening of the testimony by repetition on Samuel’s part of the invocation of God’s witness. To “Jehovah” we must supply “witness;” there is no need to suppose that it fell out by clerical error.—Maurer: “Nothing has fallen out. Samuel repeats the name of Jehovah in order to make the transition to what follows.” “Appointed” [ςωδ “made,” Eng. A.V. “advanced”] refers to what they were in their God-appointed calling; they were just that for which the Lord had made them, as leaders of the people and their representatives before God.—Calvin: “The word ‘make’ is to be understood of those excellent gifts which God had bestowed on Moses and his brother Aaron, that he might use their ministry in leading the people out of Egypt.” Samuel also was made by the Lord into that which he was to be and was to the people. In taking part, now, in his invocation of God as witness to his impartiality and justice, the people gave confirmation that he had exercised his judicial authority before the Lord according to his divine calling, and that in this view therefore, there was no necessity for their demand for a king. After (1 Samuel 12:1-6) having solemnly testified and before God and the king made them testify to the purity and spotlessness of his long official life among the people, he joins (1 Samuel 12:7-12) to the name of Jehovah, whom he has invoked as witness, the humbling reminder of the unfaithfulness of which they had been guilty in respect to this their God and Lord and His benefits by the demand for an earthly-human king. He here looks at the relation of the people to their God. The reference to Moses and Aaron as the first instruments of the Lord’s mighty deeds for His people, and His first deed, the deliverance from Egypt, forms the transition to the following enumeration of God’s might-revelations for the deliverance of His people from great dangers. 1 Samuel 12:7. Formally and solemnly the first words “and now stand forth that I may reason with you before the Lord” introduce as it were a judicial procedure (Cleric.: “I will conduct my cause, as it were, before a judge”), in which Samuel as the judge before the tribunal of the invisible king represents God’s cause over against the people, and holds up before the latter their guilt in this matter of the king. Ezekiel 17:20. φְ ?γָ ?χָ ?δ [righteous deeds] never means merely “blessing, benefit, kindness,” but always contains the idea of righteousness. It indeed often actually means all that (as in Psalms 22:32; Psalms 24:5; Judges 5:11; Proverbs 10:2; Proverbs 11:4) but always from the stand-point of God’s faithfulness in covenant and promise; the acts of salvation are proof of the divine righteousness, so far as they are God’s reply to man’s right conduct towards Him, or, without this, an outflow of God’s faithfulness by which He grants man the thing promised as something falling to his share. The Plu. “righteous acts,” as in Micah 6:5, are God’s several deeds of power and grace performed for His people on the ground of His covenant-relation instituted in Abraham and through Moses. [Bib. Comm.: Samuel is here vindicating God, comp. Stephen’s speech, Acts 7]. 1 Samuel 12:8. The first and greatest of the mighty deeds of the divine covenant-righteousness is the deliverance out of Egypt and introduction into the land of promise. In 1 Samuel 12:9 the: and they forgat the Lord their God is put as contrast to the “righteous acts” of the Lord; they answered God’s covenant-fidelity with unfaithfulness, defection. And so the oppressions of the people by foreign enemies are represented as punishments by the righteous God for their defection. He sold them into the hand, etc., indicates the just retribution of their forgetting Him. When His people abandon Him, He, by virtue of the same righteousness which blesses them if they are faithful, abandons them to their enemies, who enslave and oppress them. The “selling” refers to the right of the father to sell his children as slaves, here exercised by God as the extremest paternal right, as it were (Judges 2:14; Judges 3:8; Judges 4:2; Judges 4:9; Deuteronomy 32:10; Isaiah 50:1; Isaiah 52:3; Ezekiel 30:12). [It is also the right of the king to sell his subjects, and of God to dispose of His creatures.—Tr.].—In proof of this punitive justice of God Samuel adduces individual facts from the time of the Judges on, but only “prominent events, as they occurred to him … neglecting the order of events and of times, which was here unessential” (Cleric). [Poole’s Synopsis: Notice here Samuel’s prudence in reproof: 1) by his reproof of their ancestors he prepares their minds to receive reproof; 2) he shows that their ingratitude is old and so worse, and they should take care that it grow no stronger; 3) he chooses a very mild word, “forget,” to express their offence.—Tr.].—Hazor was the capital city of the Canaanites, where dwelt king Jabin whom Joshua smote, Joshua 11:1; Joshua 11:10-13; Joshua 12:19. In the time of the Judges Hazor again appears as the residence of a Canaanitish king Jabin (Judges 4:2 sq.), instead of whom, however, the there-mentioned captain Sisera is here named, because he commanded the army which then oppressed Israel. The Sept. insertion of “Jabin king of” after “host of,” is evidently a mere explanation.—Into the hand of the Philistines, see Judges 3:31, where the attacks of this people are first mentioned. [See also Judges 13:1.—Tr.].—Into the hand of the king of Moab, that is, Eglon (Judges 3:12).—These three nations represent, as the most prominent, all the heathen nations into whose hands God gave His people. Samuel mentions them, looking to the beginnings of the sufferings and wars of the Period of the Judges, in respect to which in the Book of Judges also (1 Samuel 3) the “he sold them into the hands of their enemies round about” (1 Samuel 12:14) and “they forgat the Lord” are introduced (as here by Samuel) as correlatives. 1 Samuel 12:10. The repentant conversion of the people. And they cried to the Lord (comp. Judges 2:18; Judges 3:9; Judges 3:15; Judges 4:3), that is, the lamentation over their misery directed to the Lord. The following: we have sinned is their self-accusation on account of their defection from God; the sin is twofold, forsaking the Lord and serving idols. The same accusation is found literally in Judg. 10:40, only that here, as in Judges 2:13; Judges 10:6, Ashtaroth is added to Baalim. Baal is the general designation of the divinity among the Phenicians and Carthaginians; with the Art. it is the male chief deity of the Phenicians; the Plu. refers to the numerous individualizations of this deity. P. Cassel [in Lange’s Biblework] on Judges 2:13 : “The various cities and tribes had their special Baals, which were named not always from the cities, but from various natural qualities worshipped in them. This is like the various attributes from which Zeus received various names and worships in Greece.” On Baal-cultus among the Israelites see Winer, B. R.-W. s. v. I., 118. Ashtaroth is the designation of the Phenician and Carthaginian female chief deity (along with Baal) which was also worshipped by the Philistines (1 Samuel 31:10); the Plu. refers to the number of the stars, which she as queen of heaven represents (Jeremiah 7:18; Jeremiah 44:17 sq.); for the Sing. Ashtoreth=Astarte (Grk.) has the same root as star [Germ. stern], ἀστήρ, stella, in Pers. Astara (on the Upper Asiatic origin of this word see J. G. Mόller s. v. in Herzog’s R.-E.); she was not merely the moon goddess alongside of Baal as sun-god, as her pictures with the moon-crescents on the head testify, but as light-giving night-goddess, also star-goddess, representative of the glittering host of heaven (Jeremiah 7:18), like the later Artemis. Comp. P. Cassel on Judges 2:13; Winer, s. v. On the renewed introduction of her worship by Solomon, in which is presented the fulfilment of Deu 4:19, see 1 Kings 11:5; 1 Kings 11:33.—On the accusation follows the prayer, “Deliver us” in contrast with the forsaking and forgetting, and the vow “we will serve thee” in contrast with “we have served” Baalim, etc. This repentance the Lord graciously answers (1 Samuel 12:11): 1) by sending deliverers. Again only a few are mentioned: Jerubbaal-Gideon; the name signifies “ let Baal strive,” that is, with him, and expresses scorn and contempt at the impotence of Baal, whose altar Gideon had with impunity destroyed, Judges 6:28-32. Gideon is thence called Jerubbesheth. 2 Samuel 11:21.—The name Bedan is found elsewhere only in 1 Chronicles 7:17 as name of a descendant of Manasseh, who is, however, of no historical importance. In the Book of Judges, to whose contents this part of Samuel’s address (especially 1 Samuel 12:10) unmistakably points, there is no judge of this name; but the connection shows that a judge is here meant. The name has been read Ben-Dan = “ the Danite,” as Samson was born in Dan, Judges 13:2 (Kimchi), and at the same time a play of words on his corpulence [Arab, badana] has been also supposed (Bφttch.). But against this last Thenius rightly remarks that a name resting on a word-play would by no means suit this serious discourse; against the first (apart from the form) is the fact that Samson is never so-called, as must have been the case if the people were here to understand the name. Gesenius (Halle Lit. Z. 1841, No. 41) regards the name as abbreviation of Abdon, and so Ewald, who understands the judge of that name (Judges 12:13). But this judge does not occupy the important place in the history which the connection calls for. Similarly we must reject the supposition that Jair of Gilead Judges 10 assumed to be a descendant of Machir (whose great grandson, 1 Chronicles 7:17, is Bedan) is here meant, since the connection of Jair and Machir is not proved; and the supposition that a judge omitted in the Book of Judges from his insignificance is intended, is untenable. The best expedient is to read (with Sept., Syr., Arab) Barak; for the letters of this name (αψχ) might easily pass into the other (αγο) and the error be perpetuated by copyists. But Barak is one of the most prominent judges along with those here mentioned. The historical-chronological order is not strictly observed in 1 Samuel 12:9 also. Barak represents with Deborah that heroic Israelitish band that (Judges 4) broke the power of Sisera and delivered Israel out of the hand of the Canaanites.—The fact that, after Jeph., Sam. names himself as the fourth representative of the divine deliverance is not so surprising as it is thought by the Syr. and Arab, versions and a Greek manuscript (Kennicott in the Addend, to his dissert. gener.) which put Samson instead, and also by Thenius, who, though the Sept. and Vulg. have Samuel, accepts the former reading because Samuel does not speak of his own times till the next verse. Samuel could mention himself without exciting surprise, because he was conscious of his high mission as judge and deliverer, and the profound significance of his office for the history of Israel was universally recognized. By this mention of himself he honors not himself, but the Lord, who had made him (like Moses and Aaron before) what he was, comp. 1 Samuel 12:6-9. Besides, it was under him that the yoke of the forty years’ dominion of the Philistines was broken, which work of deliverance Samson was only able to begin. Samuel includes himself as an instrument of the divine deliverance, because over against him the demand for a king involved the rejection of the Lord (1 Samuel 8:5), and so the sin against the Lord in that demand appears in the clearest light; and this, after having pointed secondly to the repeated wonderful deliverances of Israel out of the hand of enemies by these messengers of God, and thirdly to the quiet and security which they were enabled to attain in the land, he sets before them in 1 Samuel 12:12. These words expressly declare that Ammonitish attacks on the territory of Israel were the first occasion of the demand for a king as leader in war, comp. 1 Samuel 8:20. Clericus well remarks: “ It hence appears not improbable that Nahash had made incursions into the Hebrew territory before the Israelites had demanded a king, and after his election had returned and begun the siege of Jabesh. It often happens in these books that circumstances omitted in their proper place are mentioned where they less properly belong.” And yet the Lord your God is your king.—By such deliverers He had shown Himself anew their king; this He was by the covenant, and this He remained by His covenant-faithfulness. With the same declaration Gideon (Judges 8:23) exhibits the inadmissibility of His elevation as king, and Samuel the sinfulness and the unjustifiableness of their demand for a king. 1 Samuel 12:13-18. The third section of this transaction: in view of the fact that God has actually established a king in accordance with their demand, though it was a sinful and blameful one, Samuel declares a truth, which contains an earnest warning, namely, that, if the people with their king will maintain the right relation to God in fidelity and obedience to His will, the hand of the Lord will be with them both; in the contrary case, it will be against them both. 1 Samuel 12:13. And now. Here the discourse turns from the past and from the judgment of the people’s conduct to the present fact of the established kingdom, which, with the words: Behold the king is taken as starting-point for the following declaration and the attached serious warning and truth. In this declaration is set forth the origin of Saul’s kingly position—1) on its human side by the words: whom ye have chosen, whom ye have demanded—the discourse here goes regressively first to the election instituted by Samuel, and then to the demand made against him and God’s will, and there is just here a progression in the thought;—2) on its divine side by the words: behold, the Lord hath set a king over you.—Your demand sprang from an evil root, yet hath the Lord granted it; this king—though chosen and demanded by you—is yet alone a work of God; his election and establishment rests on the divine will and command. By these words is confirmed the truth that the Lord is and remains king (1 Samuel 12:12). So far is that rejection (factually affirmed by the demand) from overthrowing Jehovah’s kingdom, that the universal authority of the latter is rather now for the first time rightly declared in the installation of the sought-for king, and in his obligation and the people’s to be subject to Jehovah and unconditionally obedient to His will. This point of view of the absolute theocracy comes out here the more clearly not only by the immediately preceding reference to the human side of the origin of the kingdom, but also by Samuel’s declaration in 1 Samuel 12:1 : “I have made a king over you,” to which stands opposed the declaration: “Behold, the Lord hath set a king over you.” From this fact, that the installed king is a gift of the Lord, granted to the people’s demand (comp. 1 Samuel 10:19), follows now, in view of the relation in which therefore people and king should stand to the Lord, the truth and the warning: The well-being of both depends on faithful obedience to the Lord’s will and word. The “if” introduces a protasis which includes all of 1 Samuel 12:14, and has no apodosis. The view that the latter has fallen out by similar endings, and read: “then he will save you out of the hand of your enemies” (Thenius) is not satisfactorily supported, and is not required to explain the aposiopesis, since the absence of the apodosis is easily explained by the length of the protasis, and its content apparent from the context= “well,” or “it will be well with you.” A similar failure of the apodosis to be supplied from the connection is found in Exodus 32:32. The assumption of an apodosis with εִ ?δְ ?ιִ ?ϊֶ ?ν [as in Eng. A. V.] in the sense, “then ye will follow the Lord,” is untenable, partly from the tautology it makes in protasis and apodosis, partly from the expectation, awakened by the parallelism with the following sentence in 1 Samuel 12:15, of finding a promise set over against the threat. The voluntative sense of ΰַ ?ν =modo, “if only” (Keil) [=“O that ye would only”], cannot be taken here, since it would then have the Imperf. (Ew. §329 b). Nor can we (with S. Schmid) connect 1 Samuel 12:14 with the last words of 1 Samuel 12:13 : “The Lord hath set a king over you, if ye only will, etc.; but if not ….,” since the conditioned character of the former clause would then require in it the Imperf. If (with Kimchi, Maurer) we read εִ ?ηְ ?ιִ ?ϊֶ ?ν, “ye shall live,” we cannot (with Maurer) translate: “who reigns over you after Jehovah” (that is, “next to Jehovah”), since this is an, expression foreign to the Old Testament; nor (with Tremellius) supply “sequentes” [that is, “ye will live following Jehovah”]. If an apodosis be insisted on here (changing the text to εηιϊν), we might perhaps read: “then shall ye live… after Jehovah,” which answers to the view expressed in the preceding words, of following God in obedience to His commands. But, retaining the text and supposing the apodosis omitted, Samuel here, in keeping with the importance of the moment and the emotion of his own heart, heaps together in most eloquent fashion the demands which are to be made on religious-moral life in view of the conditions of true well-being for the people and their king in the new order of things: to fear the Lord, serve Him, hearken to His voice, not rebel against His word (comp. Deuteronomy 1:26, “rebel against the mouth [commandment] of the Lord”), and be after him, or, remain in His retinue true to Him. About the last words Keil rightly remarks (against Thenius) that διδΰηψ “to be after” is good Hebrew, and especially is often used in the sense, “to attach one’s self to the king, hold to him,” comp. 2 Samuel 2:10; 1 Kings 12:20; 1 Kings 16:21. This expression corresponds completely to the thought underlying this exhortation, namely, that the Lord, in spite of Israel’s rejection of Him by the demand for an earthly-human king, is and remains the King of His people (1 Samuel 12:12-13). 1 Samuel 12:15. The contrast: But if ye will not—(from the preceding are recapitulated only the two traits of obedience to the word of the Lord and not rebelling against His commandment)—then will the hand of the Lord be against you, as it was against your fathers.—This comparative addition looks to the words from 1 Samuel 12:7 to 1 Samuel 12:12, wherein is pointed out how the fathers had brought on themselves by sin and defection the oppression of the enemy, in which the hand of the Lord was heavy on them, and from which the people now hoped to be delivered by the kings. At bottom the defection of the fathers and the demand for a king who was to deliver from oppressions sent by God for their sins, are one and the same wrong against the Lord. Therefore Samuel wishes by his earnest warning to lead them to repentance. 1 Samuel 12:16 gives the transition to a miraculous confirmation of that realness of the divine holiness and righteousness, with which Samuel, his gaze fixed on the future, has just directed his exhortation to the people in the form of the announcement of a sentence. “Even now” connects the following with the preceding, so that 1) the picture of a judicial scene, which was introduced in 1 Samuel 12:7, is continued in the following narration, and 2) the signification of the next related fact is closely connected with that of the previously spoken words. The “now also” or “even now” refers back to 1 Samuel 12:7, where the judidicial scene is introduced with the same words: “and now stand forth, that I may reason with you.” The reasoning continues thence through all the stages of the discourse, which the people have up to this moment heard, and is completed in the fact announced by Samuel [that is, the thunder-storm.—TR.], in which they are to behold the Lord’s judgment on their sin in the matter of the king. 1 Samuel 12:17. Is it not wheat-harvest to-day? This question signifies that at that season (in May or June) rain was unusual. So testifies Jerome on Am. iv. 7 [and Rob. I., 429–431.—TR.]. After the barley-harvest (2 Samuel 21:9; Rth 1:22; Rth 2:23) followed the wheat-harvest, 1 Samuel 6:13; Genesis 30:14; Judges 15:1–“To give voices,” said of Jehovah, = “ to thunder,” Psalms 46:7; Psalms 68:34; Psalms 18:14; Exodus 9:23. Thunder is called the voice of the Lord, Psalms 29:3 sq. Samuel announces a storm with thunder and rain as a God-given sign, by which the Israelites should perceive that they had grievously sinned against God in asking a king. The “voices” = thunder answer to the “voice” and “mouth” in 1 Samuel 12:15. 1 Samuel 12:18. At Samuel’s request this sign of His anger and His punitive justice, as manifestation of His kingly glory, takes place.—The result is that the people are seized with great fear of the Lord and of Samuel; “of Samuel” is added because he, as before by his word, so by his introduction of this manifestation, wonderful and contrary to the ordinary course of nature, of God’s wrath, had displayed himself as instrument of the judicial power and glory of the God-king. 1 Samuel 12:19-25. Fourth section of Samuel’s dealing with the repentant people. Confession of sin, comfort and exhortation to the humbled people. 1 Samuel 12:19. Their overwhelming fright and terror of soul leads first to the prayer to Samuel to call on the Lord that He might mercifully spare them. That we die not,—the presence of the holy and just God has made itself known to the people. Before Him the sinner cannot stand, His judgment must reach him. The “for” supplies the basis to the thought contained in what precedes, that they had deserved the punishment of the angry God. Their penitent confession is not merely the admission that they had asked a king, but that they had added to all their sins this evil. 1 Samuel 12:20. The word of consolation: Fear not, in contrast with: “and all the people greatly feared” (1 Samuel 12:18). To his consoling word Samuel adds 1) the reference to their sin, which, in order to retain them in wholesome sorrowful repentance, he anew sets before them in its whole extent (“ye have done all this wickedness”), and 2) the exhortation, negative: only turn not aside from following the Lord (the “from after” points back to the “after” in 1 Samuel 12:15); positive: Serve the Lord with all your heart, the undivided, complete devotion of the heart, the innermost life to the Lord is inseparably connected with not turning aside from Him. 1 Samuel 12:21. Warning against apostasy to idol-worship. And turn ye not aside [after vanities which do not profit]. (Text-criticism.—The difficulties in the λִּ ?ι “for” after εְ ?μֹ ?ΰϊָ ?ρεּ ?ψεּ are not set aside by supplying ϊָּ ?ρεּ ?ψεּ or ϊֵּ ?μְ ?λεּ, as many ancient and modern expositors do [so Eng. A. V.—TR.]. According to this view, the ground of the resumed warning would be here given: “ for ye go (if ye do that, namely, turn aside from the Lord) after vanities.” But then something is adduced as ground of the warning which is implicitly its object; besides, apart from the hardness of the insertion, the resumption of the “turn not aside” with εְ “and” is a difficulty. Looking at the following λִּ ?ι, it becomes probable that this one was by mistake inserted a line before. It is rendered in not one of the ancient versions (Then.). It is wanting in Luther’s version also. The omission of the λִּ ?ι gives a good, clear sense and an advance suitable to the lively character of the whole discourse. The “Turn not aside from the Lord” [1 Samuel 12:20] is continued in the “Turn not aside after vanities,” for apostasy to idolatry is the consequence of apostasy from the Lord. The former is introduced with ΰַֹ ?κְ ΰַ ?μ (“only do not”) in the form of urgent request, hearty wish, the latter as a categorically-determined negative with μֹ ?ΰ, (“not.”). Idols are described as ϊֹּ ?δεּ “naughty, vain” (= δֶ ?αֶ ?μ), as in Isaiah 46:9 the idol-makers. They cannot help nor deliver, because they are simply, tohu, nothing, vanity.—[Comp. 1 Corinthians 8:4.—TR.] 1 Samuel 12:22 is factually the reason why they are not to fear (1 Samuel 12:20); but formally this verse is the ground of the preceding exhortation; they are not to forsake the Lord and turn aside from Him and serve idols, because the Lord will not forsake them as His people, which is said in contrast with the vain idols, which cannot help and deliver, because they are “naught,” while the Lord’s “great name” is to be the pledge that He will not forsake them. The words: for his name’s sake are explained by and based on the declaration: for it hath pleased the Lord (λִּ ?ιδεֹ ?ΰִ ?ιμ), not “the Lord hath begun,” but “he has by free determination taken the first step thereto, it pleased him” (comp. Judges 17:11; Joshua 7:7; Exodus 2:21).—To make you his people.—This embraces all God’s deeds, by which He has established Israel in history as His people, the deeds of choice, deliverance out of Egypt, covenanting, introduction into the promised inheritance, preservation from enemies—by these deeds He has glorified His name, which is the expression of all God’s revelations of salvation and power to His people. The ground of this is found simply in the determination of the free, loving will of God—δεֹ ?ΰִ ?ιμ, comp. Deuteronomy 7:6-12, which furnishes a complete parallel to the train of thought here. Of the vain idols it is said in 1 Samuel 12:21 μֹ ?ΰιεֹ ?ςִ ?ιμεּ [lo yoilu, “they do not profit”], of the Lord here δεֹ ?ΰִ ?ιμ [hoil, “he did kindly, it pleased him”], a paronomasia of pregnant meaning. The name of the Lord, therefore, that by which He has made Himself this name in His relations to His people, and that which thence resulted, the dignity of the people as the Lord’s people and their appertainment to Him as His property is the pledge that He will not leave His people. “His people” and “make you His people” are corresponding expressions, they are His people because He has made them His people. Comp. Psalms 100:3; Psalms 95:7; Deuteronomy 7:6; Deuteronomy 7:9; Deuteronomy 7:18. 1 Samuel 12:23. Samuel promises the people his personal mediation and aid, partly through the priestly function of intercession for them, partly through the exercise of his prophetic office in showing them the right way. The “as for me too” refers to the “Jehovah” in the preceding verse, and to the close connection into which the people (1 Samuel 12:19) had brought his name with the name of the Lord. The assurance of his intercession follows on the request in 1 Samuel 12:19 : “Pray for thy servants.” Both passages put Samuel’s prayer-life anew in a clear light (comp. 7, 8). By the solemn asseveration “far be it,” he points to the importance which he himself attributes to his intercession for the people. The word “sin” indicates his obligation before the Lord to intercede; to neglect this would be a sin against the Lord; for, as mediator between God and the people, he must enter the Lord’s presence in whatever concerned them, for weal or for woe. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND King Saul’s Government Up To His Rejection1 Samuel 13-15_____________________ FIRST SECTIONThe Unfolding of his Royal Power in Successful Wars1 Samuel 13-15I. Against the Philistines. 1 Samuel 13:1 to 1 Samuel 14:461 Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, [Saul was——years old when he began to reign, and he reigned——years over Israel]. 2[Ins. And] Saul chose him three thousand men [ins. out] of Israel, whereof [om. whereof, ins. and] two thousand were with Saul in Michmash and in mount [the mountains of] Bethel, and a thousand were with Jonathan in Gibeah of Benjamin; 3and the rest of the people he sent every man to his tent [tents]. And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was in Geba, and the Philistines heard of it. And Saul blew the trumpet throughout all the land, saying, Let the Hebrews 4 hear. And all Israel heard say that Saul had smitten a garrison of the Philistines, and that Israel also was had in abomination with the Philistines. And the 5people were called together after Saul to Gilgal. And the Philistines gathered themselves together to fight with Israel, thirty thousand chariots, and six thousand horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude; and they 6came up, and pitched in Michmash eastward from [over against] Bethaven. When [And] the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait (for the people were distressed), then [and] the people did hide [hid] themselves in caves and in thickets 7[caverns] and in rocks and in highplaces [hollows] and in pits. And some of the Hebrews went over Jordan to the land of Gad and Gilead, as for [and] Saul he [om. he] was yet in Gilgal, and all the people followed him trembling. 8And he tarried seven days according to the set time that Samuel had appointed; 9but Samuel came not to Gilgal; and the people were scattered from him. And Saul said, Bring [ins. me] hither [om. hither] a [the] burnt-offering to me [om. to 10me] and [ins. the] peace-offerings. And he offered the burnt-offering. And it came to pass that, as soon as he had made an end of offering the burnt-offering, behold, 11Samuel came; and Saul went out to meet him that he might salute him. And Samuel said, What hast thou done? And Saul said, Because I saw that the people were scattered from me, and that thou camest not within the days appointed [at the appointed time], and that the Philistines gathered themselves together at Michmash, 12Therefore said I, The Philistines will [Now will the Philistines] come down now [om. now] upon me to Gilgal, and I have not made supplication unto the Lord [Jehovah], [ins. And] I forced myself therefore [om. therefore], and offered a [the] 13burnt-offering. And Samuel said to Saul, Thou hast done foolishly [ins. in that] thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, which he commanded thee; for now would the Lord [Jehovah] have established thy kingdom 14upon [over] Israel for ever. But now thy kingdom shall not continue; the Lord [Jehovah] hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the Lord [Jehovah] hath commanded him to be captain over his people, because thou hast not kept that which the Lord [Jehovah] commanded thee. 15And Samuel arose and gat him up from Gilgal unto Gibeah of Benjamin. And Saul numbered the people that were present with him, about six hundred men. 16And Saul and Jonathan his son and the people that were present with them abode in Gibeah [Geba]12 of Benjamin, but [and] the Philistines encamped in Michmash. 17And the spoilers came out of the camp of the Philistines in three companies: one company turned unto the way that leadeth [om. that leadeth] to Ophrah, unto the 18land of Shual; And another company turned the way to Bethhoron; and another company turned to [om. to] the way of the border that looketh to the valley 19of Zeboim towards the wilderness. Now there was no smith found throughout [in] all the land of Israel; for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords 20or spears. But [And] all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen 21every man his share and his coulter and his axe and his mattock. Yet [And] they had a file for the mattocks, and for the coulters, and for the forks, and for the axes, 22and to sharpen the goads. So [And] it came to pass in the day of battle that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan; but with Saul and with Jonathan his son was there found. 23And the garrison of the Philistines went out to the passage [pass] of Michmash. 1 Samuel 14:1. Now [And] it came to pass upon a day that Jonathan the son of Saul said unto [to] the young man that bore his armor, Come, and let us go over to the Philistines’ garrison, that is on the other side. But [And] he told not his 2father. And Saul tarried [was lying] in the uttermost part of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree in Migron, and the people that were with him were about six hundred 3men, And Ahiah, the son of Ahitub, Ichabod’s brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the Lord’s priest [priest of Jehovah] in Shiloh, wearing an [the] 4ephod. And the people knew not that Jonathan was gone. And between the passages [passes] by which Jonathan sought to go over unto the Philistines’ garrison there was a sharp rock on the one side and a sharp rock on the other side; and the 5name of the one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh. The forefront of the one was situate northward [The one rock was a column on the north] over against Michmash, and the other southward [on the south] over against Gibeah [Geba]. 6And Jonathan said to the young man that bare his armor, Come, and let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; it may be that the Lord [Jehovah] will work for us; for there is no restraint to the Lord [Jehovah] to save by many or by 7few. And his armorbearer said unto him, Do all that is in thine heart; turn 8thee, behold, I am with thee according to thy heart. Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said], Behold, we will pass over unto these [the] men, and we will [om. 9we will] discover ourselves unto them. If they say thus unto us, Tarry [stand still] until we can come to you, then we will stand still [om. still] in our place and will 10not go up unto them. But, if they say thus, Come up unto us, then we will go up, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath delivered them into our hand; and this shall be a [the] 11sign unto us. And both of them [the two] discovered themselves unto the garrison of the Philistines; and the Philistines said, Behold, the Hebrews come forth [there 12are Hebrews coming forth] out of the holes where they had hid themselves. And the men of the garrison answered Jonathan and his armorbearer and said, Come up to us, and we will show [tell] you a thing [something]. And Jonathan said unto his armorbearer, Come up after me, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath delivered them 13into the hand of Israel. And Jonathan climbed up upon [on] his hands and upon [on] his feet, and his armorbearer after him; and they fell before Jonathan, and 14his armorbearer slew after him. And that first slaughter which Jonathan and his armorbearer made was about twenty men, within, as it were, an half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plow [within about a half-furrow of a yoke of land]. 15And there was trembling in the host [camp], in the field, and among all the people; the garrison and the spoilers they also trembled, and the earth quaked, so [and] it [om. it] was [became] a very great trembling [a trembling of God]. 16And the watchmen of Saul in Gibeah of Benjamin looked [saw], and behold, the multitude melted away and they went on beating down one another [om. and . . . 17another, ins. hither and thither]. Then said Saul [And Saul said] unto the people that were with him, Number now, and see who is gone from us. And when they had numbered [And they numbered and] behold, Jonathan and his armorbearer 18were not there. And Saul said unto Ahiah, Bring hither the ark of God [the ephod]; for the ark25 of God was at that time with [for he bore the ephod at that 19time before] the children of Israel. And it came to pass, while Saul talked unto the priest, that the noise that was in the host [camp] of the Philistines went on and [om. and] increased [increasing]; and Saul said unto the priest, Withdraw thy20hand. And Saul and all the people that were with him assembled themselves [shouted] and they [om. they] came [advanced] to the battle; and behold, every 21man’s sword was against his fellow, and there was a very great discomfiture. Moreover [And] the Hebrews that were with the Philistines [ins. as] before that time, which went up with them into the camp from the country round about [om. from . . . about], even [om. even] they also turned28 [turned] to be with the Israelites that 22were with Saul and Jonathan. Likewise [And] all the men of Israel which had hid themselves in mount [the hill-country of] Ephraim when they [om. when they] heard that the Philistines fled, [ins. and] even [om. even] they also followed hare 23after them in the battle. So [And] the Lord [Jehovah] saved Israel that day. And the battle passed over unto Beth-aven. 24And the men of Israel were distressed that day. For [And] Saul had [om. had] adjured the people saying, Cursed be the man that eateth any [om. any] food until evening, that I may be avenged on mine enemies. So [And] none of the people 25tasted any [om. any] food. And all they of [om. they of] the land came to a [the] 26wood, and there was honey upon the ground. And when [om. when] the people were come [came] into [unto] the wood, [ins. and] behold, the honey dropped [was flowing]; but [and] no man put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath. 27But [And] Jonathan heard not when his father charged the people with the oath, wherefore [and] he put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand, and dipped it in an honey-comb, and put his hand to his mouth, and his eyes were enlightened. 28Then answered one of the people [And one of the people answered] and said, Thy father strictly charged the people with an oath, saying, Cursed be the29man that eateth any [om. any] food this day. And the people were faint. Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said], My father hath troubled the land; see, I pray you, how mine eyes have been enlightened, because I tasted a little of the honey. 30How much more if haply [om. haply] the people had eaten freely to-day of the spoil of their enemies which they found! for had there not been now a much greater 31slaughter [for now had not the slaughter been great] among the Philistines? And they smote the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon [Ajjalon]; and the people were very faint. 32And the people flew upon the spoil, and took sheep and oxen and calves, and 33slew them on the ground; and the people did eat them with [on] the blood. Then [And] they told Saul, saying, Behold, the people sin against the Lord [Jehovah] in that they eat with [on] the blood. And he said, Ye have transgressed [acted faithlessly]; 34roll a great stone unto me this day [roll me a great stone hither]. And Saul said, Disperse yourselves among the people, and say unto them, Bring me hither every man his ox, and every man his sheep, and slay them here, and eat; and sin not against the Lord [Jehovah] in eating with [on] the blood. And all the 35people brought every man his ox with him that night, and slew them there. And Saul built an altar unto the Lord [to Jehovah]; the same was the first altar that 36he built unto the Lord [to Jehovah]. And Saul said, Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and spoil them until the morning-light, and let us not leave a man of them. And they said, Do [om Do] whatsoever seemeth good unto thee [ins. do]. Then said the priest [And the priest said], Let us draw near hither unto God. 37And Saul asked counsel of God, Shall I go down after the Philistines? wilt thou deliver them into the hand of Israel? But [And] he answered him not that day. 38And Saul said, Draw ye near hither, all the chief [heads] of the people, and know 39and see wherein this sin hath been this day. For, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, which [who] saveth Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die. 40But [And] there was not a man among all the people that answered him. Then said he [And he said] unto all Israel, Be ye on one side, and I and Jonathan my son will be on the other side. And the people said unto Saul, Do [om. Do] what 41seemeth good unto thee [ins. do]. Therefore [And] Saul said unto the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan [Jonathan and 42Saul] were taken; but [and] the people escaped. And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken. Then [And] Saul said to 43Jonathan, Tell me what thou hast done. And Jonathan told him, and said, I did but taste [I tasted] a little honey with the end of the rod that was in mine hand; 44and [om. and] lo, I must die. And Saul answered [said], God do so and more also,45for [om. for] thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. And the people said unto Saul, Shall Jonathan die, who hath wrought this great salvation in Israel? God forbid [Far be it]; as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, there shall not one hair of his head fall to the ground, for he hath wrought with God this day. So [And] the people rescued 46Jonathan that he died not. Then [And] Saul went up from following the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own place. II. Against the other Enemies round about—especially the Amalekites. 1 Samuel 14:47-5247 So [And] Saul took the kingdom over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, and against the children of Amnion, and against Edom, and against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines; and whithersoever he 48turned himself he vexed them. And he gathered an host [grew in strength], and smote the Amalekites, and delivered Israel out of the hands of them that spoiled them. 49Now [And] the sons of Saul were Jonathan and Ishui [Ishwi] and Melchishua; and the names of his two daughters were these [om. were these], the name of the firstborn 50Merab, and the name of the younger Michal. And the name of Saul’s wife was Ahinoam, the daughter of Ahimaaz, and the name of the captain of his host 51was Abner, the son of Ner, Saul’s uncle. And Kish was [om. was] the father of Saul, and Ner the father of Abner was the son [were sons] of Abiel. 52And there was sore war against the Philistines all the days of Saul; and when Saul saw any strong man, or any valiant man, he took him unto him. AND The connection of 1 Samuel 13:1 sq. with what precedes is not to be explained as a resumption here of the narrative which was dropped in 1 Samuel 10:16. In support of this view Thenius affirms that it is only by supposing an original immediate connection between 1 Samuel 13:2 and 1 Samuel 10:16 that the words of Samuel, 1 Samuel 10:7, “when these signs come to thee, undertake confidently what occasion may suggest,” have a definite reference; but there is such a reference in chap. 11 already in the deed there done by Saul. And, when the same expositor makes Saul, inspired by the patriotic hymns of the prophets, proceed straightway to free his people from the yoke of the Philistines, he takes for granted what is not suggested in the words, and puts too much into them.—Against the view that the real continuation of the narration ending with 1 Samuel 10:16 is not given till now (the section 1 Samuel 10:17 to 1 Samuel 12:25 containing matter foreign to the connection) Keil (Comm. p. 90, Rem. 1 [Eng. Tr., p. 122, Rem. 1]) admirably remarks that, on this supposition, it is inconceivable that Saul, who on his return from Samuel to Gibeah concealed his royal anointing from his kinsfolk (1 Samuel 10:16), should straightway have entered on his public career by choosing 3000 men and beginning the war against the Philistines—or further, that Saul should have had such universal, complete respect as is supposed by the people’s pouring to him as king on his call, unless he had before been publicly proclaimed king in the presence of all Israel, and had won by a public deed the recognition and confidence of the whole people—and, finally, that the narrative in 1 Samuel 13:1-7 requires the intermediate events of 1 Samuel 10:17 to 1 Samuel 12:25 in order to be intelligible.—But this view of the real and historical connection between 1 Samuel 13 :sq. and 1 Samuel 10:17 to 1 Samuel 12:25 does not exclude the possibility that the redactor of the book from 13 on used another authority than that employed in the previous history of Samuel, one, namely, which treated of Saul’s reign and rejection; though, on the other hand, it is more probable that the editor of the book (which is derived from several sources) here uses the same authority for Saul’s life as in chap, 9, speaking more at length of his deeds and official life, after having introduced from the source relating to Samuel what was required to continue the narrative, and set forth the historical events in their objective pragmatical connection. 1 Samuel 13:1. The chronological statements at the beginning of Saul’s official life correspond to the usual notices of the age and time of reign of the kings at the outset of their history (comp. 2 Samuel 2:10-11; 2 Samuel 5:4 and the many similar places in the books of Kings). We should therefore expect a different datum from that of the text: “Saul was one year old when he became king, and he reigned two years.” And the attempts to extract sense from the present text, at least the first part of the verse, must be pronounced, partly on linguistic, partly on factual grounds, utter failures; so that of Luth., Grot., Cler., v. Gerlach [Eng. A. V.]: “Saul had been king one year,” and the Chald.: “Saul was as an innocent child, when he became king.” The text (which is presupposed even in the Sept.) is certainly corrupt, in the first place, in the first half, and a number must be supplied between αֶּ ?ο and ωָׁ ?πָ ?δ. Nδgelsbach supposes (Herz. XIII, 433) that a ο = 50 has fallen out after αֶּ ?ο by reason of the double Nun; to which it is no objection (Thenius) that then Saul, supposing that he reigned 20 years, would have been 70 when he went into his last battle (1 Samuel 31:6), but great difficulty arises from the statement of Saul’s youth (1 Samuel 9:2). Others, as Bunsen, Vaihinger (Herz. VIII. 8) supply a ξ = 40, supposed to have fallen out from the following similar ω, which would suit both the statement in 1 Samuel 13:5, that Jonathan was already a stout warrior, and that in 1 Samuel 9:5. This first statement about Jonathan makes it impossible to accept the supplement μ = 30 (in an anonymous version in the Hexapla).—In the second half of the verse many try to retain the text “and he reigned two years over Israel” by construing it syntactically with 1 Samuel 13:2, and explaining, with Grotius, that Saul collected his armed band after having reigned two years. So also Clericus: “As, twelve months and some more after birth one may be said to be the son of one year and living in his second year, so, the whole of one year of reign and the greater part of the second having elapsed, one may be called a king of one year, who was reigning two years.” But 1 Samuel 13:1 cannot form a syntactic unit with 1 Samuel 13:2, unless the subject Saul were omitted in 1 Samuel 13:2, which would be arbitrary. Here, too, we must suppose a gap left by the omission of a numeral; and it is highly probable that λ = 20 has fallen out, so that the duration of the entire reign was given as in other cases. But the supposition (taking the text without connection with 1 Samuel 13:2) that Saul reigned altogether only two years, hardly deserves mention; it is shown to be absurd by the summary statement in 1 Samuel 14:47 of Saul’s wars.I. The principal war against the Philistines, 13; 1 Samuel 14:1-46. 1. 1 Samuel 13:2-7. The introduction of the war. That this war occurred in the beginning of Saul’s reign is highly probable from the statement at the end of 1 Samuel 13:2, that he sent the rest of the people home. For here a gathering of the whole arms-bearing population is presupposed, from which three thousand men were chosen, and it is natural to infer, since nothing has been said of any general summons of the people except for the Ammonite war (chap. 11), that on this latter followed soon the war against the Philistines narrated in 13,14.—The statement, “And Saul chose him three thousand men out of Israel,” indicates an important fact for Saul’s military rule: The formation of a standing warlike body of chosen men into a permanent disciplined army in distinction from the mass of the people, who had hitherto been summoned to war. This body of 3000 men was so divided between Saul and his son Jonathan (who is here mentioned for the first time) that the former had command of 2000, and the latter of 1000. This is indicated by the “with” (ςִ ?ν), and it is therefore unnecessary to insert with Thenius a “which” (ΰωψ) after “two thousand” (ΰַ ?μְ ?τַּ ?ιִ ?ν) “because Saul himself could have been only in one place.”—Michmash, according to Rob. II. 328 sq. [Am. ed. I., 440–442, and see Grove in Smith’s Bib. Dict., s. v.—Tr.] the present desolate village Muchmash, 3½ hours [nearly 9 Eng. miles, but Grove says 7—Tr.] northeast of Jerusalem on the northern cliff of the narrow pass which runs between it and Geba (which was on the southern range of heights), the present Wady Suweinit. The mountain or mountain-range of Bethel, which along with Michmash was a post of the 2000 men under Saul, can be none other than the range (Joshua 16:1) on which the old Bethel lay (comp. 1S. 1 Samuel 10:3). The ruins of Beitin, on the old site of Bethel, and surrounded by mountains, are 3Ύ hours [9½ or 10 Eng. miles] from Jerusalem. The two posts were thus not far from one another, and had probably about the same altitude.—The other division, of 1000 men, was at Gibeah of Benjamin, the home of Saul’s family, under Jonathan’s command.—The reason for the dismissal of the rest of the people was partly, no doubt, that Saul did not venture to advance against the Philistines with an undisciplined mass, and that no compact body, but only a strong garrison here marked the borders of the Philistine power and authority. 1 Samuel 13:3. Jonathan’s heroic deed. He smote the garrison of the Philistines in Geba. There is no reason for reading Gibeah (though the ancient vss. so have it) instead of Geba; for this reading is obviously an attempt to correct the text which (from Gibeah in 1 Samuel 13:2) was supposed to be incorrect. Whether this garrison was the same as that mentioned in 1 Samuel 10:5, which was perhaps, in consequence of the Israelites’ occupying Michmash, removed to Geba opposite, is uncertain. Jonathan with his thousand men inflicted a total defeat on this garrison of the Philistines. The word “smote,” from its ordinary military use and from the context, can here mean nothing but a “slaughter.” Saul and Jonathan’s first movement may have been concealed from the Philistine garrison by the nature of the ground, or may have been so sudden as to be like a surprise; and, as to the narrative, it was not necessary to go into details on the method and result of this military blow, because it is considered merely as the beginning and occasion of the decisive struggle against the Philistines. It is therefore unnecessary to regard πָ ?φִ ?ια as “pillar,” sign of the authority of the Philistines (Then.), or as the name of a Philistine officer whom Jonathan slew, (Ew.), or as a proper name (Sept.). Aquila has correctly ὑπόστημα, statio.—The word “saying” (μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ) usually, where as here it is connected with blowing a trumpet, introduces what is to be publicly proclaimed after the sounding of the trumpet, comp. 2 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings 1:34; 1 Kings 1:39; 2 Kings 9:13. We might accordingly say that Saul ordered it to be proclaimed by sound of trumpet through the land: “Let the Hebrews hear.” Then would follow (from the connection) the story of Jonathan’s heroic deed. These words would in that case be the usual introduction to what was to be made known, as among us in public proclamations accompanied by musical instruments, there are first words to call attention. The herald would then give the event to be proclaimed simply and clearly.—But it is an equally well-supported view, that what is said is merely that Saul had the important fact proclaimed by trumpet throughout all Israel, without quoting the words of the proclamation, and that the “saying” introduces (as usual) only the words or thoughts of the subject of the sentence. That is: Saul blew the trumpet in all Israel, saying (or thinking), The Hebrews shall hear it, namely, the deed of Jonathan. We need not, therefore, in any case, with Thenius, following the Sept. ἠθετήκασινοἱδοῦλοι, “the slaves have revolted,” put “revolt” (ιִ ?τְ ?ωְׁ ?ςεּ) for “hear” (ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ξְ ?ςεּ) and render: “Let the Hebrews revolt, free themselves.” Nor does the “revolting” suit the presupposed relation of the Hebrews to the Philistines. The words of Josephus, quoted by Thenius: “He proclaims it throughout the whole land, summoning them to freedom,” contain an explanatory, paraphrastic remark on what was of course understood in the public proclamation in consequence of Jonathan’s feat, and cannot therefore furnish a basis for a change of text. But that in fact the content of the proclamation was not a summons to revolt, but the statement of Jonathan’s blow, appears from 1 Samuel 13:4 : with the trumpet-proclamation went throughout Israel the news: Saul (that is, as chief commander, head of the military force, a part of which had inflicted the blow) has smitten the garrison of the Philistines.—At the same time the people became aware of the consequence and significance of this attack on the position of the Philistines: Israel, it is said, had become stinking, that is, suspected or hated with the Philistines (comp. 1 Samuel 27:12; Genesis 34:20; Exodus 5:21), by their purpose to shake off, arms in hand, the foreign yoke. The enkindled hate and anger of the Philistines must needs have led them to a speedy military undertaking against Israel, as is narrated in 1 Samuel 13:5; and Israel was thereby compelled quickly to gather all its strength against the Philistines. This military summons of the whole people is expressed by εַ ?ιִ ?φָּ ?ςֲ ?χιּ [called]: The people were called together (summoned) after Saul to Gilgal. Vulg., Sanctius, Luther translate incorrectly: “cried” [instead of “were called together”]. The summons took place at the same time with the trumpet-announcement. Saul went to Gilgal, the old camping-place, because the people were to assemble there, and indeed could only assemble behind the steep declivities of the hills in the broad plain which stretches to the Jordan. 1 Samuel 13:5. To this movement of Israel answers the rapid gathering of a large army by the Philistines. Most expositors regard the number of chariots (30,000) as too large in proportion to the number of horsemen (6,000), and (comparing similar numbers in 2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Kings 10:16; 2 Chronicles 12:3) suppose an error of text here. According to Thenius the Codex 715 of De Rossi has (originally) simply “a thousand” (ΰֶ ?μֶ ?σ). It is “a natural conjecture that the sign for 30, μ, has been repeated from the preceding word, and we then read ‘a thousand chariots’ ” (Bunsen). The supposition of three thousand chariot-warriors (Syr., Calov., Hez., Schulz, Maur.) is arbitrary, and unsustained by 2 Samuel 10:18.—The large army of the Philistines (one thousand chariots, six thousand horsemen) encamped in Michmash (which Saul had left) in front of Bethaven. The locality is disputed among modern expositors. In the first place, against Jerome who (on Hosea 5:8, Bethaven, quζ quondam vocabatur Bethel) identifies Bethaven with Bethel, the distinctness of these two places is, according to Joshua 7:2, to be maintained; according to this passage, Bethaven lay east from Bethel, and according to Joshua 18:12 there was a “wilderness of Bethaven.” We must first inquire how we are to understand “over against” (χִ ?γְ ?ξָ ?ϊ). If we assume that this expression “in geographical statements always means east” (Then)., it yet by no means follows, as Then. thinks, that Michmash was very near the Jordan, far from Gibeah. Apart from the groundless identification of Gibeah and Geba (the former, Jonathan’s position, was nine miles farther south), there is between Bethaven (east of Bethel) and the Jordan so considerable a distance, that Michmash may well have lain east from Bethaven, without being “very near the Jordan,” and therefore farther from Geba than the narrative permits. It is, therefore, unnecessary (with Keil), in order to meet Thenius’ objection, to render χִ ?γְ ?ξַ ?ϊ “in front of” though to this there is no objection, since the constant geographical expression for “east” is ξִ ?χֶּ ?γֶ ?ν, and the identity of the two neither has been nor can be shown (from Genesis 2:14; Genesis 4:16; 1 Samuel 13:5; Ezekiel 39:11, the only places in which our word occurs); and so Ewald, Bib. Jahrb. X. 54 (comp. Keil on Genesis 2:14). In Isaiah 10:29 Gibeah-Benjamin (along with Ramah) is named with Geba in such a way that the latter appears as a strong camping-place, which had to protect the two other places, and from which their territory was commanded. If, now, Saul (according to 1 Samuel 13:2) was posted northward at Michmash and Jonathan southward at Gibeah-Benjamin, the Philistine position at Geba would be between them; certainly the double Israelitish position was intended to embrace the Philistine garrison on both sides. Jonathan having destroyed this garrison by a coup de main, and the Philistines having marched to Michmash in great force (1 Samuel 13:5), Saul was obliged to abandon this position (which was now after Jonathan’s feat of no importance to him), and betake himself to the old camping-plain at Gilgal, that he might here assemble the people to war, while Jonathan kept his position at Gibeah-Benjamin (1 Samuel 14:16-17), whence he performed a second bold feat against the camp of the Philistines at Michmash. Thenius reads Beth-horon instead of Bethaven, on the ground that the Philistine camp would probably be pitched in the fertile region around Gibeon; but both these places lie too far west to suit this narrative, and the Philistines, in changing their camp at Michmash (1 Samuel 13:23), would certainly march eastward in the valley between Michmash and Geba. The people were afraid of them (1 Samuel 13:6-7), because they were apprehensive that the Philistines would advance from Michmash into the Gilgal-plain, and overpower them, unprepared as they were.—“And the men of Israel saw that they were in a strait (in augustiis), because the people were pressed by the Philistines.” This recognition of danger and fear of a superior force expresses itself in three ways. Partly, they hid themselves in the country this side of the Jordan in caves, thorn-bushes (why thick bushes (from ηεֹ ?ηַ thorn) should not serve for hiding (Then.) is not obvious), in clefts of rocks, in watch-towers or castles (the word is found elsewhere only in Judges 9:46; Judges 9:49, where it is distinguished from migdal, “tower,” and is a high, isolated, roofed building, perhaps designed to guard against military attacks. Clericus: “fortified places; they are high places, fortified on a lofty site, as appears from the Arabic, in which the word means any lofty structure”) and in pits; partly (1 Samuel 13:7), they flee across the Jordan into the land of Gad and Gilead (Clericus: “regions toward the source of the Jordan, mountainous and more difficult of access for the Philistine army”), while Saul still remained at Gilgal; we see from this, as well as from the expressions down and up (1 Samuel 13:12-15), that this Gilgal could not have been the elevated Gilgal or Jiljalieh between Sichem and Jerusalem, which also would be impossible from the military positions here mentioned of the Philistines and of Saul; partly, they go trembling after Saul, that is, the soldiers, who were there as one body under his command (ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψָ ?ιε). It thus appears that the Philistines advanced against the Israelites with rapidity and energy in strong force, to avenge themselves and establish their authority; and that among the Israelites there was great dismay and confusion. 2. 1 Samuel 13:8-14. Saul’s hasty offering in opposition to the divine arrangement, and, in consequence of this, his rejection by Samuel’s prophetic judicial sentence. 1 Samuel 13:8. Saul waited according to 1 Samuel 10:8 seven days for Samuel to come and make the offering for the people who were arming themselves for the war against the Philistines. After “which” supply “appointed” (ιςγ or ΰξψ, Sept., Chald.), 2 Samuel 20:5. Comp. Ew. § 292 b.—But Samuel came not to Gilgal, that is, during the seventh day; the people were scattered from him partly through fear of the Philistines, partly from the failure of the hope held out by Saul that Samuel would come. 1 Samuel 13:9. Saul makes the offering, or causes it to be made, without waiting longer for Samuel. The fear that he would become entangled in battle before the people were thereto consecrated by offering and prayer, and apprehension of the complete dispersion and disheartenment of the people drove him (1 Samuel 13:12) to this disobedience and this overhaste. 1 Samuel 13:10. When the offering was finished, behold, Samuel came, from the context, on the same day on which Saul had waited for him in vain and made the offering. In his impatience in the presence of the prepared enemy Saul had not waited to the end of the appointed day. 1 Samuel 13:11-12. Samuel’s question: What hast thou done? is an earnest reproof to Saul for his self-willed violation of the divine arrangement which had been prophetically made known to him. In defence Saul pleads three things: the dispersion of the people, the danger of a sudden descent of the Philistines into the plain of Jericho, and the possibility of being obliged to go into battle without divine consecration and blessing. The Heb. phrase (ηΧ, etc.) is literally “to stroke the face of Jehovah,” in order to gain His favor and grace by offering or prayer. Comp. Exodus 32:11. “I forced myself,” did violence to my desire, took courage. Saul here intimates that it was only after a strong internal conflict that he determined to act contrary to the divine command. 1 Samuel 13:13. Two constructions may here be taken. The first clause may be conditional (μεּ = μεּ ?ΰ = μֹ ?ΰ), “if thou hadst kept,” and the second (λִּ ?ιςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ = “yea, then!”) the result: “yea, then would the Lord;” or the first may be simply declarative (μֹ ?ΰ = “not”): “thou hast not kept,” and before the second (λִּ ?ιςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, “yea, then would the Lord have established thy kingdom”) we may supply the condition [“if thou hadst kept”] required by the sense. The latter is preferable from the whole situation, to which such liveliness of discourse better answers. Examples of such a construction, with omission of conditional protasis, are Exodus 9:15; 2 Kings 13:19; Job 3:13; Job 13:19. See Ew., § 358 a. The twice (beginning of 1 Samuel 13:13 and end of 1 Samuel 13:14) repeated declaration: “thou hast not kept the commandment of the Lord,” indicates the ground of the similarly twice (first hypothetically—then affirmatively) repeated judgment: “thy kingdom will not be established by the Lord, nor stand.” It is therein assumed that Saul received through Samuel a divine direction, and that he had recognized Samuel’s arrangement as a direction from God given him through the mouth of the legitimate mediator, which Samuel, as Prophet of the Lord, was. The content of the divine direction was this: Saul was to await the arrival of Samuel, who, not arbitrarily, but in accordance with his other (here unmentioned) prophetic work, determined the time at which the battle was to begin under the consecration and direction of the representative of the invisible King of Israel. Comp. 1 Samuel 10:8 : “that I may show thee what thou art to do.” Saul had thus been directed to await the divine directions, and by his action here transgressed the fundamental law of obedience to his King; unquiet and impatient, self-willed and fleshly, he fails to stand the trial which lay in this command, and sets himself outside of the relation of unconditional obedience to the will of God, the humble fulfilment of which was the condition of the establishment and continuance of His kingdom. Samuel recognized with his prophetic look the disposition of heart which was at the bottom of Saul’s conduct, on account of which neither he nor his house could be the permanent bearer of the kingdom. Samuel’s judgment is therefore not hasty, unjust, harsh, as it has been thought, but the expression of the divine righteousness and holiness, as whose organ he stood over against Saul; and his conduct towards Saul corresponds exactly to his position (as we have heretofore seen him) as instrument of Israel’s God-king. Samuel’s judicial sentence signifies the rejection of Saul; negatively, it is the denial of what would have occurred, if Saul had fulfilled the required condition, the permanent establishment of His kingdom, positively it is the announcement that the Lord had chosen another as theocratic king in his stead. Back of this judicial act of Samuel stands as its motive the truth, brought to light by Saul’s conduct, that Saul had forfeited the royal office committed to him; for the theocratic king must be, at the head of God’s people, in full accord with the royal will of God. Cleric.: “Yea, the authority of the prophet, rather, of God Himself, was maintained—which, if Saul could with impunity neglect the most important commands, would afterwards have been despised by the obstinate people impatient of the yoke, and by the king himself.” 1 Samuel 13:15, The 600 men, all that remained to Saul, shows that he could not in any case have avoided what he wished to avoid. The declaration, “thou hast acted foolishly,” is thus confirmed. Saul’s conduct was foolish because it of necessity produced the opposite of that which he was to gain by obedience and trust in God. 3. 1 Samuel 13:15-23. Samuel’s “going up” from the plain of Gilgal to the elevated (Gibeah-Benjamin, Saul’s home, is stated simply as a fact, and the reason not given. That Saul also went thither from Gilgal (Then.) is not necessarily supposed in the word “numbered.” The mustering of his remaining troops is best placed in Gilgal; he there reviewed them in order now to march against the Philistines. The number of warriors was reduced to 600. Saul had therefore, by his hasty, disobedient conduct, not attained his purpose of holding the people together (1 Samuel 13:11). 1 Samuel 13:16. Here the two positions on the opposite heights of Geba and Michmash, a deep gorge between them running eastward into the plain, are clearly and distinctly marked. The camp of Saul and Jonathan is said to be in Geba (the present Jeba, to be distinguished from Gibeah-Benjamin), without mention of Saul’s march to Geba; the words “were encamped” rather introduce us into the midst of the situation. Between the words “from Gilgal” and “Gibeah-Benjamin” [1 Samuel 13:15] the Sept. (not understanding the passage) inserts: “and the rest of the people went up after Saul to meet him after the men of war, they having come from Gilgal.” So with some modification the Vulg.: et reliqui populi ascenderunt post Saul obviam populo qui expugnabant eos venientes de Galgala. But such a filling out is not needed in order to understand the connection. The author’s task is not to give a complete, detailed history of this war, but to set forth from the theocratic point of view, in respect to Saul’s conduct and God’s dealing, what occurred. Having in respect to the former given a detailed account of the scene at Gilgal, without mentioning that Saul had gone from Michmash to Gilgal (which is assumed in 1 Samuel 13:4), it was sufficient, taking it for granted that Saul had moved from Gilgal to Geba, to state the fact that the camp of the Israelites was then in Geba, and thereby to indicate the new scene, in which in the following context the condition of subjugation of the Israelites by the Philistines under the divine permission is set forth. In this simply theocratic sporadic description, which corresponds to the cut-up nature of the land on which this occurrence took place, and to the immediate vicinity of hill and valley, we have from 1 Samuel 13:2 on a series of distinct pictures, without statement of their historical-geographical connection: 1) Michmash—Gibeah-Benjamin and Geba (1 Samuel 13:2-3); 2) Michmash—Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:4-15); 3) Gibeah-Benj. and Geba-Benj.—Michmash. The historical-geographical situation is as follows: At first the Israelitish army in two divisions lay on the one side in Michmash, on the other, side in Gibeah-Benjamin. From this point Jonathan smote the garrison or camp of the Philistines in Geba. In consequence of this the Philistines—who controlled the plain—collected their forces. Saul left Michmash and marched down to Gilgal in order there to gather Israel to the conflict against the Philistines, while the latter occupied Michmash deserted by Saul. While Samuel remained at Gibeah-Benjamin, Jonathan’s former position, Saul and Jonathan took position over against the Philistines in Geba; that is, at the place where Jonathan had broken up the Philistine garrison. 1 Samuel 13:17-23. The oppression of Israel by the Philistines. In 1 Samuel 13:17-18 the devastation of the Israelitish territory by Philistine raids is described. From the camp of the Philistines at Michmash went forth “the spoiler” (δַ ?ξַּ ?ωְׁ ?ηִ ?ιϊ). The Article denotes that part of the army to which was assigned the task of plundering and devastation, and thus inciting to battle. There were three bands (ψָ ?ΰωׁ ?ιν—as in 1 Samuel 11:11).One of the bands took the road to Ophra, to the land of Shual. Ophrah was in the territory of Benjamin (Joshua 18:23), five Roman miles [1 Rom. mile=about 1618 English yards] east of Bethel (Onom.), conjectured by Rob. II. 338 [Am. ed. I. 447] to be the present Taiyibeh. This band therefore moved northward. Shual, “Foxland,” is probably the same with Shaalim, 1 Samuel 9:4. The second party went towards Bethhoron (Joshua 10:11), that is, westward. The third band moved in a south-easterly direction. This Zeboim (φαςιν) is to be distinguished from the Zeboim (φαιιν) of Deuteronomy 29:22; Genesis 14:28; according to Nehemiah 11:34 it was a city inhabited by Benjamites, and therefore in the Benjamite territory. The direction is given by the added words: “towards the wilderness,” for this wilderness is doubtless no other than that of Judah, which extended east from Jerusalem. While, therefore, the Israelites under Saul and Jonathan held a strong point on the heights, the Philistines plundered the plains and valleys where they had the control, 1 Samuel 13:19-20. Here they deprived the Israelites of arms; for “there was no smith found in all the land.” The Philistines had broken up the smithies—for they said: “lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears.” Only the implements necessary for agriculture were allowed them—to sharpen which they must go to the Philistines. So Porsenna allowed the Romans iron implements for agriculture only. Before “the Philistines” the Sept. inserts “the land of,” which is merely an explanation of an unusual expression. The people signifies the land or territory (Ew. § 281d). The meaning of the names of implements in 1 Samuel 13:20 cannot be determined with certainty. The first (ξַ ?ηֲ ?ψֶ ?ωֶ ?ϊ) from its etymology may be any cutting instrument. The fourth (ξַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ωָׁ ?ϊεֹ) Jerome renders sarculum, “hoe.” The second (ΰֵ ?ϊ) is, as in Micah 4:3; Isaiah 2:4, “ploughshare,” or “coulter.” The third (χַ ?ψְ ?γּ ?ν) is “axe” or “hatchet.” 1 Samuel 13:21 shows the consequence (εִ ?δָ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δ) of the Hebrews having no smiths, and having to go to the Philistines to sharpen their tools. And there was dulness—properly notching of edges to the shares, etc.; or, there came edge-dulness to the shares. (τּ ?φιψָ ?δ from a stem which in Arab, means “cleave.” As the Art. here and its absence in τιν are both strange; and the st. abs. stands instead of the st. const., it is probable that the text is corrupt, and (with Keil) to be read δַ ?τְ ?φִ ?ιψδַ ?τִּ ?ιν, Inf. Hiph. and rendered “so there occurred dulness of the edges,” etc.) Bunsen says excellently: “The parenthesis indicates that the result of the burdensome necessity of going to the Philistines was that many tools became useless by dulness, so that even this poorer sort of arms did the Israelites not much service at the breaking out of the war.” And to set the goads.—“To set” corresponds to “to sharpen,” and completes the picture of the Hebrews’ dependence on the Philistines in respect to agricultural implements. The previously mentioned implements (including the trident or fork) needed sharpening; the ox-goad needed new setting. The translation of De Wette: “when, namely, the edges …… were dulled ……” is certainly not tenable (Then.). On the other hand, neither this parenthesis, which describes the consequence of the oppression, nor the difference in the lists of implements, is so remarkable as to require the following of the text of the Sept. (Then. and Bφttcher). 1 Samuel 13:21 reads thus in the Sept: “and the vintage was ready to be gathered, and the tools were three shekels to the tooth, and to the axe and the scythe there was the same rate.” In their conjectural restoration of the original text according to the Greek, Then. and Bφttch. proceed eclectically, and translate: “And there happened sharpening of the edges to the shares and the spades at three shekels a tooth (that is, a single piece), and so for the axe and the sickle, yea, for the setting of the ox-goad” (Bφttch. who differs from Then. as to the names of the implements, renders the second half: “and so for the sickles and the axes, and for the setting of the prong.”) Against this (conjectural) fixing of the text are: first, the unintelligibleness and confusion of the Greek text, on which this emendation is founded; then, the obviously wrong conception of the Heb. by the Sept. in the beginning of 1 Samuel 13:21; further, the untenableness of the rendering “single piece” for ὀδόντα, ωֵׁ ?ο [tooth], which is not supported (Then.) by Theodoret’s remark “Symmachus renders odonta ploughshare, and Aquila plough,” for this means merely that odonta was understood of this or that implement, not that it meant a single piece in reference to price; finally (Keil), “the then value of money,” according to which “three shekels for sharpening an axe or a sickle would be an unheard-of price.”—From this whole section it appears that, while the Philistines held the lowlands, the Hebrews carried on their tillage on the highlands and in the gorge of the Jordan.—In 1 Samuel 13:22 Sept. has “in the days” for “in the day,” and after “battle” inserts “of Michmash,” and so Then. and Ew.; but this is not necessary. Referring to 1 Samuel 13:19 it is said: There was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan. In consequence of the above-mentioned measure of the Philistines, the entire force with Saul and Jonathan, 600 in number (to this force the phrase “all the people” is from the context to be referred) was unprovided with arms. This is not in contradiction with the narrative of the battle and victory of Israel over the Ammonites (chap. 11); for there we have not a regular army, but a sudden rising of the people, and, even though arms were gotten by that victory, it does not thence follow that the comparatively small force that remained with Saul and Jonathan must have been regularly furnished with arms, inasmuch as the Philistine plan of disarming the Israelites was a permanent one, and necessarily resulted in a general lack of arms. These arms were found only with Saul and Jonathan. 1 Samuel 13:23. ξַ ?ςֲ ?αַ ?ψξΧ is the passage or pass of Michmash. From Beeroth (Bireh) extends a deep valley, the present Wady es Suweinit, south-east and then east, opening into the valley towards Jericho. On the heights opposite lay southward Geba (Jeba) northward Michmash (Muchmas). Eastward from these camps of the Israelites and Philistines several side-Wadys opened into the deep Wady, partly from the north-west, partly from the south-west, by which the passage was formed. Comp. Rob. Pal., II. 327 sq. [Am. ed., I. 440 sq.]., and Later Bibl. Researches, 378 sq. [Am. ed., III. 289 sq.]. “The ridges between these (the side-Wadys) terminate in elevated points projecting into the great Wady; and the easternmost of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts of the two garrisons of Israel and the Philistines.” Towards the pass of Michmash (north, therefore, over against the Israelites) the Philistines sent forward a post, a van-guard, as protection against the Israelites, who might else have slipped up unperceived through the side-Wadys or the pass formed by these, and surprised the Philistine camp. The strategical movement here indicated precisely accords with the ground where Robinson has pointed out the pass. It is hence unnecessary (with Ew. and Bunsen) to read ξֵ ?ςֵ ?αֶ ?ψ and translate: “The van-guard of the Philistines was thrown forward beyond the camp of Michmash,” though this in fact was done, since a force was thrown forward from the camp eastward towards the pass. For   AND and AND sections, see 1 Samuel 14:1 ff. Footnotes: [1 Samuel 13:1. The translation of Eng. A. V. is untenable, and that given in brackets is the only possible one. The numerals have fallen out, and can be only approximately restored. The plu. ωׁ ?πιν would indicate that the period of Saul’s reign was less than ten years, but, in the present corrupt state of the text, no such inference can safely be drawn. The omission of this verse in the Sept. may have been from its absence in their MS., or from their inability to make sense of it, or from clerical inadvertence. It is better to leave the numerals blank, and explain in a note that they have fallen out. Some, however, think (Hitzig, Maurer, Thenius, Wellhausen) that the numbers were designedly left out by the author.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:2. Here the Heb., in accordance with universal O. T. usage, has the plural.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:3. The Syr., Arab., Vulg., Chald., here sustain the Mas. text. The reading of the Sept. is discussed by Erdmann. Wellhausen proposes to read: “and Saul blew the trumpet throughout the land, and the Philistines heard, saying, The slaves revolt (τִּ ?ωְׁ ?ςεּ),” the words “saying, etc.” being taken as a gloss. [1 Samuel 13:4. A different Heb. word from that used in 1 Samuel 14:1, though from the same verbal stem. It is used also in 1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 13:3; 2 Samuel 8:6; 2 Samuel 8:14; 1 Chronicles 11:6. Ewald renders “officer,” distinguishing πָ ?φִ ?ια (Sept. Νασίβ) from πְ ?φִ ?ια.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:5. This number is generally regarded as too large. Some suppose baggage included (Patrick), some the chariot-soldiers (Cahen and others, comp. 2 Samuel 10:18), others suppose an error of text and read 3 for 30 (Clarke, Syr., Arab.), or 300 (Bib. Comm.). Still other conjectures are given in Poole’s Synopsis.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:6. The lexicons generally render “thickets,” as Eng. A. V. and Erdmann; Fόrst renders “clefts,” and Ewald reads ηεψιν “caves.” But Chald. has “fortresses,” Syr. and Vulg. “secret places,” and Sept. “enclosures” or “holes.” Of the modern versions Luther and Diodati have “clefts,” Spanish follows Vulg., the French (of Martin), Port., Dutch agree with Eng. A. V. Other German versions give “hedges,” “thorn-bushes,” “clefts.” The renderings of the ancient versions make Ewald’s reading probable, and this sense accords better with the context.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:6. So the ancient versions. The moderns generally render “towers” (so Erdmann), which is supported by the Arab, sarhun. The word occurs only three times in O. T., twice rendered in Eng. A. V. “hold” (Judges 9:46; Judges 9:49) and here “high-place,” which, as is remarked in Bib. Comm., is an unfortunate rendering, liable to be confounded with the places of religious worship.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:7. Literally, “Hebrews went over,” so Syr., Chald., Vulg. The Sept. has οἱδιαβαίνοντες (δָ ?ςεֹ ?αְ ?ψִ ?ιν) and Symmachus οἱἑκτοῦπέραν. The mas. text does not suit the context, that of Sept. is against Heb. usage, and that of Symmachus (ξֵ ?ςֵ ?αֶ ?ψ) is unsupported. Wellhausen proposes εςαψεּ ξςαψεֹ ?ϊδιψγο “and they crossed the fords of the Jordan,” which gives a good sense with a very slight change in the letters. Throughout this narrative the Hebrews (apparently recreant Israelites) seem to be distinguished from the Israelites (who followed Saul).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:8. This word is not in our Heb. text, but ΰξψ is found in several MSS. and printed editions; others have ων which De Rossi suggests has fallen out from resemblance to the two initial letters of the following word ωׁ ?ξεּ ?ΰֵ ?μ. On the critical objections to this section, 1 Samuel 13:8-15 a, see Erdmann’s Introduction.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:13. Several MSS. and printed eds. insert ε and Sept. has ὅτι.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:13. Hitzig proposes unnecessarily to point μֻ ?ΰ instead of μֹ ?ΰ.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:15-16. It is somewhat surprising that Samuel goes to Gibeah (1 Samuel 13:15), while Saul is found in Geba (1 Samuel 13:16) without previous mention of his having gone thither. Instead of Geba the ancient vss. have Gibeah, and are followed by Eng. A. V. and Erdmann. Robinson (quoted in Bib. Comm.) thinks Geba correct. A good sense is gotten by connecting 7 a with 15 b. The readings of the Sept. are discussed by Keil and Erdmann.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:18. It is objected, but without sufficient ground, that the word ωχσ (“stretches towards, looks, overhangs”) cannot be used of “border.” The Sept. has “hill” (βαςδ).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:20. No satisfactory rendering has yet been given of this ver. and the following. The names of the instruments are given differently in different versions, there is doubt about the meanings of the names, the Sept. has a different text in 1 Samuel 13:21, and the initial words of this ver. in the Heb. and the connection of the two verses are yet obscure. The simplest reconstruction of the text would be to consider 1 Samuel 13:21 as an erroneous repetition of 1 Samuel 13:20, and omit all except the last two words (of the Heb.); but this would not account for the difference in form of the two verses, and is rendered difficult by the retention in all the versions of 1 Samuel 13:21 in full. In order to exhibit the differences of the Heb. and the Sept., we set them here down together, giving the latter conjecturally:- εְ ?δָ ?ιְ ?ϊָ ?δδַ ?τְּ ?φִ ?ιψָ ?δτִ ?ινμַ ?ξַּ ?δֲ ?ψֵ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ϊεְ ?μָ ?ΰֵ ?ϊִ ?ινεְ ?μִ ?ωְׁ ?μωׁ χִ ?μְּ ?ωεֹ ?οεּ ?μδַ ?χַּ ?ψְ ?γֻּ ?ξִּ ?ινεּ ?μְ ?δַ ?φִּ ?ιαδַ ?γָּ ?εְ ?αָ ?ο.—H. δַ ?φִּ ?ιαΰֶ ?ηָ ?γαָּ ?ν [εּ ?μַ ?ξַּ ?δֲ ?ψֵ ?ωָׁ ?δ] εְ ?δָ ?ΰֵ ?ϊִ ?ινωָׁ ?μωׁ ωֶׁ ?χֶ ?μμַ ?ωֵּׁ ?οεְ ?μַ ?χַּ ?ψְ ?γּ ?ν (or μַ ?ξַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ωεֹ ?ϊ) εְ ?δָ ?ιָ ?δδַ ?αָּ ?φִ ?ιψπָ ?αεֹ ?ομִ ?χְ ?φεֹ.—G. The translation of the Greek is: “And the vintage was ready, and their tools were three shekels to the tooth, and for the axe and the sickle there was the same rate (or character).” The Sept. thus substantiates in the main the consonants of the Hebrew, but gives no clear sense; the price of sharpening tools, three shekels to the tooth (adopted by Aquila and Thenius) is enormous, and the reference to the harvest, while it is suggestive, is unclear. The Heb., on the other hand, offers a meaningless repetition in 1 Samuel 13:21, and the ungrammatical δτΧ, the compound ωׁ ?ΧμΧ) and the disconnected two last words present great difficulties. A sense may be gotten by putting the three first words of 1 Samuel 13:21 at the beginning of 1 Samuel 13:20, and considering the names in 1 Samuel 13:20 as repeated from 1 Samuel 13:21. But, before stating this reading, let us look at the names of implements. The first, which is the same in both verses (except apparently in the Chald.), is rendered “share” (Sym., Vulg.) “scythe” (Syr.), “cutting-tool” (Ch.), “ox-goad” (Theod.), and is probably best given as “share” or “coulter,” though the authority for “scythe” is good. The second name is probably “spade” or “hoe” (so Chald. (?), Sym., Vulg., Kimchi, Winer, Ewald, comp. Isaiah 2:4); Saalschόtz (Arch. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ For Lange's chapter 14 passage quote and footnotes, see 1 Samuel 13:1 ff. 4. 1 Samuel 14:1-15. Jonathan’s bold attack on the Philistines.1 Samuel 14:1. “On a day” (δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν), on the definite day on which the following occurred. The words: And Jonathan said to his armor-bearer: Let us go over to the Philistines’ garrison, are repeated in 1 Samuel 14:6 for the continuation of the narrative which they introduce. What lies between [1 Samuel 14:2-5] is a statement of the existing special circumstances and local relations. This detailed narration shows that it is taken from the account of an eye-witness. The “garrison” of the Philistines is the advanced post mentioned in 1 Samuel 13:23. On the other side.The interjacent statements introduce us into the details of the whole situation: 1) Jonathan says nothing to his father of his purpose, because he would have forbidden it as too dangerous; the undertaking is set on foot secretly, in the hope of surprising the enemy in sleep or unprepared. 2) Saul (1 Samuel 14:2) is encamped at the extremity of Gibeah. This is mentioned to show that Jonathan could unknown to him make such a blow. Gibeah (1 Samuel 14:16) is the city Gibeah in Benjamin, whither also Samuel had gone from Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:15) back of Geba towards the south, yet with its extremity (1 Samuel 14:16) not so far from the pass of the southward-trending Wady, that the movements in the ranks of the Philistines opposite could not be thence observed. Under the pomegranate-tree which is in Migron. By “rimmon” we must here understand not the name of a place, but, on account of the Art., the well-known pomegranate. According to Judges 20:45 a rock near Gibeah bore the name “Rock of the pomegranate” [Rimmon]; and was well adapted for a fortified position. It is a natural supposition that the same place is meant here, named after the well-known pomegranate. Luther here renders Migron incorrectly suburb. Linguistically it can only signify a place, which, however, from the local relations cannot be the Migron of Isa 10:28, north of Michmash, whose name seems to be found in the ruins of Magrun, eight minutes from Beitin. Rob. II. 340 [see Am. ed. I., 463, Stanley’s Sin. and Pal. 202]. Rather this place lay south of the pass of Michmash on the northern extremity of Gibeah-Benjamin (Saul), and was marked by the well-known pomegranate. From the context it appears that Gibeah-Benjamin extended far along on the heights which stretched out (south of Geba) north-east towards the pass of Michmash, and ended in a rock on which the pomegranate stood, and on whose declivity lay the place Migron. The word means perhaps “precipice” (Then.) which is linguistically better than “threshing-floor” (Rosenm. Alterth. II., 2, 171). That two contiguous places should bear this name is, on account of the nature of the ground, as little surprising (Winer) as the frequent occurrence of the names Ramah and Gibeah (Geba).—3) Saul’s following consisted of about six hundred men and Ahiah the high-priest. We must render: And Ahiah—bare the ephod. The words “priest of Jehovah in Shiloh” belong not to Ahiah (Sept., Luth.), but to Eli. Wearing the ephod was a sign of the high-priestly office. Probably Ahiah was with Saul at Gilgal, and ministered in the offering there made by him. The name Ahiah [“Jehovah is brother” or “brother of Jehovah”] is identical with Ahimelech [“brother of the king”] under which this great-grandson of Eli, the sole survivor, (1 Samuel 2:33) of the house of Eli, appears (1 Samuel 21:2; 1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Samuel 22:11; 1 Samuel 22:20; 1 Samuel 30:7, e. a.). As to whether of the two names was the original, Ewald remarks that they may have been used without much distinction (since melech “king” might refer to God) as in Elimelech (in Ruth) and Elijah (Gesch. II. 585, Rem. 3).—The people with Saul also knew nothing of Jonathan’s purpose. This statement connects itself naturally with the remark on Saul’s following.—4) Exact description of the ground which Jonathan had to traverse in his bold secret enterprise, 1 Samuel 14:4-5. According to Robinson’s remarks the plural “passes” is to be explained of the several passages which were made possible by the side-valleys. It is not probable that the plural refers to a long passage over the mountain (Then.). Further the word “between” is intelligible only on the supposition of several passes. Between these passes lay opposite one another two rocky crags or projections, formed by the side-wadys opening right and left into the deep, precipitous Wady es-Suweinit. Robinson went from Jeba (Geba) through that Wady across to Michmash. In this passage (from south to north) he had on the left two hills with steep rocky sides. “Behind each,” says he, “runs up a smaller Wady, so as almost to isolate them. One is on the side towards Jeba and the other towards Mukhmas” (II. 329 [Am. ed. I. 441]). To this observation of Robinson answers exactly the description in 1 Samuel 14:5, according to which the one rock-ledge, Bozez, was a column on the north, the other Seneh, on the south, opposite Geba. 1 Samuel 14:6. Continuation of the narrative, with resumption of Jonathan’s words to his armor-bearer [1 Samuel 14:1], but with the difference that the Philistines are here not called by their own name, but “uncircumcised.” This expression marks the difference between them and Israel as covenant-people, which forms the basis for the following utterance of Jonathan. Ewald’s characterization of Jonathan’s feeling as “a mixture of youthful impatience and lofty courage” (III. 48) does not fully explain the inner side of this deed. Its natural basis is youthful heroic spirit and impetuous desire of achievement; but it receives high ethical value and significance from its religious root in Jonathan’s God-fearing and God-trusting heart, whose feeling is expressed in the word: Perhaps Jehovah will work for us, for there is no restraint to Jehovah to save by many or by few.—Over against the “uncircumcised” Jonathan is clearly conscious: 1) that his people is the chosen one, belonging to the Lord, with whom the Lord has made a covenant, and 2) that the Lord cannot deny His almighty help to this people as their covenant-God. This word of Jonathan expresses the genuine theocratic disposition of the liveliest consciousness of God and the firmest trust in God, whence alone could come a true deliverance of the people from their oppressive burden. The “perhaps” indicates not a doubt, but the humility which was coupled with Jonathan’s heroic spirit; he is far from tempting God. The humble and modest hope which is expressed in the word: “perhaps the Lord will work for us” is straightway grounded on the truth: there is no restraint to the Lord, that is, he is at liberty to save by many or by few; that is, the Lord’s help is not dependent on the extent or the degree of the means by which it is realized; his helping power is not conditioned, but absolute. The same thought in Psalms 147:10-11; 2 Chronicles 14:11; 1Ma 3:18-19. 1 Samuel 14:7. The answer of the armor-bearer contains: 1) encouragement to carry out his design, and 2) assurance that he will act with him and stand by him according to his will. Render: “do all whereto thy heart inclines.”1 Samuel 14:8. Jonathan explains that, in carrying out his purpose, he proposes that they first show themselves to the Philistines.—In verses 9, 10, we are told how he would therein find a divine sign whether the Lord would grant unto them success in their design. He supposes two cases. If the Philistines at his hail should say: “keep still ! till we come to you,” they will not go up to them; for that would be a sign of courage and preparedness. But if they should say: “come up to us,” they will go up; for that would be a sign of carelessness and slackness. This he would regard as a divine sign that God had given the Philistines into his hands. The divine sign, which Jonathan proposed to find, was a fact which guaranteed the success of the enterprise on its natural-human side also. 1 Samuel 14:11. When Jonathan and his esquire showed themselves, the latter of the two cases occurred. The outposts of the Philistines cry scornfully: Hebrews are coming forth out of their holes, and call out to them: Come up to us, and we will tell you something. An expression taken directly from the life of the people, containing an apparently bold challenge, yet (as we may see) not meant in earnest, and concealing cowardice or careless security and neglect. Cleric.: “They hoped to have sport with them, not supposing that they could there climb the rock.” Jonathan is now sure that God has given them into his hands.1 Samuel 14:13. Lively description of the execution by Jonathan and his armor-bearer of their bold undertaking and the brilliant result. On his hands and feet Jonathan climbed up the rock, and the armor-bearer after him. The text-reading: “and they fell before Jonathan and his armor-bearer,” etc., gives a very good sense, as Then. expressly admits. We need not, then, after the Sept. read: “and they turned before Jonathan and he smote them,” where Sept. incorrectly read εַ ?ιִּ ?τְ ?πεּ for εַ ?ιּ ?τְּ ?μεּ. How (as Ewald asserts) the connection favors the reading of the Sept. is not to be seen.—The armor-bearer slew completely after him.—The Sept. has ἐπεδίδου whence, however, we are not to read ξερִ ?ισ. [“more fully”] instead of the text “slaying;” the latter is to be retained from the connection, the narrative, from the rapidity of the affair, pressing on to describe how Jonathan, pushing on, strikes down with overwhelming might every one whom he meets, without stopping to kill completely, while the armor-bearer, following him, kills those that were struck down, that they might not rise again. The Heb. word (ξְ ?ξεֹ ?ϊֵ ?ϊ) means “killing completely,” as in 1 Samuel 17:51; 2 Samuel 1:9 sq.—A like bold deed in scaling a castle in the Numidian war is told in Sall. Bell. Jugurth., c. 89, 90.—[This force of “complete killing” can hardly be assigned to this Heb. form (Polel, here causative of Qal, of ξεּ ?ϊ). It means simply “kill,” and so in the passages cited by the author, and the statement here seems to be that not only Jonathan, but also his armor-bearer (like the feudal esquire) took part in the combat. The phrase “fell before him” fairly means “fell dead;” the words do not warrant the history gotten out of them by Dr. Erdmann. But the Heb. text, though somewhat hard, may be maintained without this. See “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:14. The result of this first slaughter which Jonathan and his armor-bearer made: about thirty men were thus killed. In the last words of the verse the overthrow is set forth in terms taken from ploughing: in about a half-furrow of a yoke of land.—This indicates the position of the fallen, after Jonathan, pressing impetuously on, had struck them down one after another, and his armor-bearer after him had killed those that were not dead. This occurred in the space of about half a furrow in a piece of land which one could plough with a yoke of oxen in a day. In the length of about a half-yoke lay the twenty slain Philistines stretched out in a row. Cleric.: “Such apparently was the extent of the point of rock which the Philistines had occupied.” Of the translation of the Sept.: “about twenty men with darts and slings and stones of the field,” Clericus rightly says: “They translated conjecturally what they did not understand.” To Ewald’s rendering “as if a yoke of land were in ploughing” (so Bunsen, who regards this as an extract from a poet) there are, in the first place, two objections: 1) that the word (ξπςδ) means “furrow,” and not “ploughing,” and 2) that “yoke of land” means not the animals, but the land itself. Further objection to this rendering, especially in reference to the completed fact here related [Ewald represents it as an advancing act, while the first half of the verse speaks of it as finished.—Tr.], see in Thenius.—[The Sept. text may easily be gotten from the Heb., omitting the κ. ε. πετρ. as repetition (see Then. and Wellhausen), and gives a better sense. Bib. Com.: “There is nothing remarkable in twenty men being killed in half an acre of land; and moreover the Heb. sentence is extremely obscure, without any apparent reason for its being so. … A measure of time would not be out of place, if the words could mean ‘in about half the time that a yoke of oxen draw a furrow in the field.’ ” Others, less well, understand here a space enclosed by a furrow. Philippson remarks that the ancients were accustomed to measure land by the ploughing of oxen; but the difficulty here is not in the way of stating the land-measure, but in understanding why it is stated. Kitto (Daily Bib. Ill.) gives a good narrative of the exploit of Jonathan. The text must be regarded as unsettled.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:15. The consequence of this bold deed: panic fear among the Philistines. The success of Jonathan’s deed and this consequence are to be explained by supposing that the outposts of the Philistines did not think it possible that the two men could get up, and, when they did, feared that a body of Israelites were behind them, since they could not see down the steep declivity. The camp of the field [Heb.: in the camp (or host) in the field—Tr.] is the whole camp of the Philistines; the terror, which had seized all the people of the outposts, now took possession of the principal camp also. The spoilers also, the body of plunderers, trembled. There are many examples in military history of the contagious power of such fright, extending from a few widely out. And the earth quaked is not to be understood of an earthquake, but of the trembling of the ground under the fearful uproar of the Philistines.—And became a terror of God. The phrase “and became” refers to the before-described disaster of the Philistines, all this grew into a “terror of God,” that is, the Philistines recognized herein a mighty help of the God of Israel, by which they had been thrown into this terror. [The natural rendering is “the earth quaked and became a terror of God,” that is, the trembling earth became the sign of the wrathful intervention of God (comp. Vulg.); a miraculous earthquake seems to be here described. Others regard the divine name as a superlative addition, and render “a great (a panic) terror” (Gesen., al.) like “cedars of God” Psalms 80:11, but this is not probable in this prose narrative.—Tr.] 5. 1 Samuel 14:16-23. General flight and overthrow of the Philistines in consequence of Jonathan’s exploit.1 Samuel 14:16. Gibeah of Benjamin is not the present Jeba (Then.), which rather answers to Geba. Though the former was farther from the Philistine camp, we need not be surprised that Saul’s watchmen could see thither, since from their elevated position they could with sharp eyes see what was going on at that distance (nearly five Eng. miles), or, if not, could go nearer.—And behold, the multitude or the tumult—though δַ ?ξεֹ ?ο may here mean “multitude” (Gesen. s. v.), it is better to render “tumult,” since the narrator has in his eye the crowd thrown into confusion by Jonathan’s attack. This consideration sets aside one of Thenius’ reasons for here also following the free translation of the Sept.;—dispersed hither and thither. It is better to supply “hither” (δֲ ?μιν before εַ ?δֲ ?μιν), which might easily have fallen out from hom�ophony; or (with the Rabb. and Ges.) read the Inf. Abs. and render “were more and more broken up.” [For another view see “Text. and Grammat.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:17. Saul could explain the affair only as an Israelitish attack. The numbering ordered by him showed that Jonathan and his armor-bearer were missing. 1 Samuel 14:18. Bring hither the ark of God. A change of text (Keil) after the Sept. so as to read: “Bring the ephod, for he wore the ephod at that time before Israel,” on the ground that the ark had been placed in Kirjath-jearim, and was not used in asking questions of God, is suspicious, because the ark, which was thought to be connected with God’s presence, was often taken along to war. Comp. 1 Samuel 4:4-5; 2 Samuel 11:11; 2 Samuel 15:24-25. Why could they not, in accordance with this established custom, have taken it from its usual place in decisive battles, and afterwards carried it back? But it is not said that Saul wished to inquire of God at the ark. He wished first to advance with it against the enemy. But, when he saw that the tumult increased in their camp, and that they were already as good as beaten, he desisted. [If Saul had not wished to inquire of God by the ark, he would not have said “bring hither,” (but “carry forward”), nor “withdraw thy hand.” It seems better, therefore, to read ephod, whether we adopt the whole reading of the Sept. or not.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:19. And the tumult. … and it increased more and more is a broken construction, the subject being first put absolutely, and the predicate-sentence put as relative-sentence. Withdraw thy hand; that is, from bringing the ark = desist. Instead (1 Samuel 14:20) of “were assembled, called together” (Niph.), read with Sept. (Alex.), Vulg., Syr., Arab., “shouted” (Qal), for there was no need of an assembly, as they were already there (Then.), and besides, what is the meaning of “and Saul was called together and all the people,” since Saul was the assembler? Translate: And Saul and all the people shouted (raised the war-cry) and advanced to the battle. From this war-cry of the advancing host under Saul that which follows is easily explained. In consequence of the terror thereby produced, the confusion in the Philistine army was very great. That every man’s sword was against his fellow in such confusion (comp. Judges 7:22; 2 Chronicles 20:22-23) is explained by what is related in 1 Samuel 14:21-22. There were Hebrews in the host of the Philistines. By this name, the usual one among foreign nations, the Philistines called the Israelites in their midst. The Art. (the Hebrews) refers to the exacter definition in the relative sentence. And the Hebrews were with the Philistines, as formerly, who had gone up with them to the camp. [It is better to insert who (ΰωψ) after “Hebrews,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.]. Bunsen supposes that these were prisoners, who had hitherto been compelled to fight against their countrymen. Or, they may have been levies from the part of the land which the Philistines held. To render “divided out roundabout among the Philistines” gives no good sense; the idea of “roundabout” is inappropriate to the whole situation. It is therefore better to read, with Sept., Vulg., Chald., Syr., Thenius, Buns., “turned.” The otherwise insuperable difficulty in the Infin. thus vanishes, and we render: “these also turned to be with Israel;” that is, went over to Israel. This, of course, they could not do without turning their arms against their oppressors. In addition to these (1 Samuel 14:22) came all the Israelites who had been in hiding on the mountains of Ephraim; when they heard of the flight of the Philistines, they too joined in the pursuit. 1 Samuel 14:23 1) affirms that this fortunate achievement was due to the help of the Lord, and 2) states the direction which the battle took. The battle passed over to Bethaven. Between this statement that the fight moved northeast from Michmash to Bethaven, and that in 1 Samuel 14:31, that the Philistines were smitten that day from Michmash to Ajalon [west], an insoluble contradiction† has been discovered, and it has been proposed to read Bethhoron (which lay west of Michmash) instead of Bethaven. But such a contradiction cannot be admitted, because the movements in such a battle are so fluctuating. Here in 1 Samuel 14:23 we have an account of the battle which continued, and passed, not far from Michmash indeed, over to Bethaven in a northeasterly direction; in 1 Samuel 14:31 is an account of the completed battle, and the final result is given, which is naturally this, that the Philistines, drawn by the Israelites from their native land towards Bethaven, fled, the greater part of them at least, westward, and were beaten as far as Ajalon. Bunsen: “In general the flight of the Philistines was naturally westward (1 Samuel 14:31), yet no exception can on that account be taken to our passage.” 6. 1 Samuel 14:24-31. Saul’s rash order. Between 1 Samuel 14:23 and 1 Samuel 14:24 the Sept. has: “And the whole people was with Saul about ten thousand men, and the battle spread in the whole city in the mountains of Ephraim. And Saul committed a great error” (that day and adjured). This is an explanatory addition to the original text with whose curtness it does not harmonize. It is not in itself improbable that the original six hundred men should grow to this large body in the course of the battle, and that the fight should extend over the mountains of Ephraim is to be expected from the dispersed condition of the Philistines, and is even indicated in the end of 1 Samuel 14:23. The phrase “in the whole city” has arisen from a misreading of the following word “wood” (αιςψ).—The Masoretic text is short, sharp, and to the point, corresponding to Saul’s position and conduct as here described.—And the men of Israel were distressed that day. In 1 Samuel 13:6 the same word (πβωׁ) is used to express the oppressed condition of the Israelites. Here it is Saul that presses and drives the people in the pursuit of the Philistines. The word means “harassed, wearied out,” and Thenius’ objection that one does not see by whom or by what the Israelites were pressed, explains itself.—The wearied condition of the people made Saul fear that the pursuit of the Philistines would thereby be interrupted, and the honor of the day for him diminished. And Saul adjured the people.—He made them swear an oath—bound them by an oath. Cursed be the man that eateth food until evening and I be avenged on my enemies.—Saul’s passionate zeal, spurred on by selfishness, self-will and personal desire for revenge causes him to lose sight of the command of nature, to act cruelly towards his brave warriors, and over and beyond to injure his cause. “Blind zeal only hurts.” Berlenb. Bible: “In this prohibition there was a secret pride and misuse of power, for he desired to force, as it were, a complete victory, and then appropriate the glory of it to himself.” The people kept the oath even under the strongest temptation to break it. 1 Samuel 14:25. And the whole land came into the wood.—The “land” is put for the people, as appears from 1 Samuel 14:26. Comp. Jeremiah 22:29. The honey which they found in the forest on the ground flowing (δֵ ?μֶ ?κְ γְּ ?αַ ?ωׁ) was not that honey-like substance which is found on the leaves of certain bushes and taken off them, but real honey from bees who built on trunks of trees or in clefts of rocks, which, as Schultz (Leistungen, V. 133) has seen in the wilderness of Judea, often flows in streams on the ground from the over-full and pressed honey-structure (comp. Deuteronomy 32:13; Judges 14:8; Ps. 81:17). 1 Samuel 14:26. On account of the oath no one partook of the refreshing food which thus presented itself. 1 Samuel 14:27. Jonathan, however, had not heard the oath of his father. He dips his staff into the honey and eats, in accordance with the haste of the pursuit—that is, into the honey-comb (Sept.: κηρίον; Vulg.: favum, the comb, not the liquid honey), which presented itself; into the comb, not the liquid honey, because only in this way could he get enough with the tip of his staff. Instead of “saw” (Kethib) read “were enlightened” (Qeri); see a similar transposition in Heb. in 2 Samuel 24:20, comp. 2 Samuel 5:16. The word describes the bodily and mental refreshment, the reviving of soul, which shows itself straightway in the eyes. 1 Samuel 14:28. The last words: “And the people are faint” are spoken by the man who tells Jonathan of the oath of his father, and at the same time stand in contrast with the refreshment which Jonathan had indulged himself in. 1 Samuel 14:29 sq. Jonathan’s disapproval of his father’s conduct by pointing to the injury he has thus done the land and people: “My father has troubled (ςλψ, perturbare), brought disaster on the land” (Genesis 34:30; Joshua 6:18; Judg. 4:35). The disaster is this: that the people, wearied with the battle, had lost all strength by the lack of nourishing food (ΰָ ?αֹ ?μΰָ ?λַ ?μ). The defeat of the Philistines was thus less complete than it would otherwise have been (1 Samuel 14:29). Maurer renders as independent sentence: “for now the slaughter of the Philistines is not very great.” 1 Samuel 14:31. See on 1 Samuel 14:23. Ajalon, the present village Yβlo, in the southeast end of a valley extending westward from Bethhoron. Rob. Later Bib. Res. 188 [Am. ed. III. 145—and II. 253, 254; 14 miles out of Jerusalem, Smith’s B. D.—Tr.] The mention of the great weariness and exhaustion of the people concludes the account of Saul’s rash conduct, and leads to the statement of its consequences. 7. 1 Samuel 14:32-46. The consequences of Saul’s overhaste, and the end of the battle. 1 Samuel 14:32. And the people flew upon the prey—that is, as soon as it was evening, comp. 1 Samuel 14:24. The same expression in 1 Samuel 15:19. The people slew the animals to the earth, down to the ground, and then ate “upon (or, over) the blood,” blood being on the bodies because they were on the ground, and so “with the blood.” On the preposition (ςַ ?μ) see Exodus 12:8 [Eng. A. V.: “with”], where also it introduces the basis or accompaniments of the food. The people transgressed the command in Leviticus 19:26 : “Ye shall not eat on blood” [Eng. A. V.: “with”], that is, no flesh under which or on which there is blood. This is an extension of the prohibition of eating blood in Leviticus 3:17; Leviticus 17:10-11, which is based on the fact that the blood is conceived of as the seat and bearer of the life. 1 Samuel 14:33. The people’s eating is characterized as a sinning against the Lord. Saul calls this conduct faithlessness, because the law of the covenant was transgressed. For now the Sept. has (unnecessarily) hither. [The δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν, “to-day,” “this day,” is here not well rendered by “now,” which would be ςָ ?ϊַּ ?δ; the Sept. reading is better.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:34. Saul directs his informants to disperse themselves among the people, and announce that every one should bring his beast to him, and slay here on the great stone, that there might be no sinful eating. Saul’s command, which speaks for his careful observance of the Law, was carried out by the people. As every where before, so here the people display unconditional obedience to Saul. Only by slaughtering on the stone was it possible to separate the blood from the flesh. When the slaughtering occurred, the night had already set in. The Sept. reading: “what was in his hand” instead of “his ox in his hand” [Eng. A. V.: “with him”] is unnecessary. 1 Samuel 14:35. Saul built the altar to the Lord as thanksgiving for this victory over the Philistines. The same he began to build—that is, he built this as the first, comp. Gesen. § 142, A. 1. [Bib. Comm.: “began to build, but did not finish,” as 1 Chronicles 27:24. So Abarbanel; but, according to the Midrash, Saul began among the kings the building of altars (Philippson). Wordsworth: It seems to be implied that this was the first time he had made acknowledgment to God for his successes.—Tr.] Probably he here used the great stone which he had caused to be brought. He thus established a place for the worship of God in commemoration of this victory. 1 Samuel 14:36. He is, however, not satisfied with the defeat of the Philistines, but proposes to spoil them that night till the morning. According to Jonathan’s statement, indeed, the defeat was not total. Saul rushes on in his wild desire of revenge, perhaps incited by the consciousness of having committed a gross folly, and thereby hindered the victory—and this he will now make good. The people are again ready immediately to carry out his desire. The priest, however, desires first to have the decision of the Lord. “Hither,” that is, to the altar which had been built. [Patrick: because it was dangerous to undertake any thing without God’s advice. Bib. Comm.: because the priest doubted whether Saul’s ardor was a righteous one, and bravely stood in its way.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:37. The inquiry of the Lord was conducted by the high-priest Ahiah through the Urim and Thummim. The Lord shall say whether the Philistines are to be pursued, and whether He has delivered them into Israel’s hands. There are therefore two questions: whether further pursuit? whether happy result? The failure of a divine answer is for Saul a sign that there is a fault somewhere, on account of which the Lord is silent and does not promise His help. 1 Samuel 14:38. Chief (τִּ ?πָּ ?δ “corner,” “point”), the principal men, the heads of the people (Judges 20:2), probably the elders (Numbers 11:30). The whole people are called by their representatives, to find out “wherein (or whereby) this sin hath been this day.” There is no need to read (with Then. after Vulg.: per quem—and Sept.: ἐντίνι) “on whom (αַּ ?ξִּ ?ι) this sin rests,” instead of “wherein” (αַּ ?ξָּ ?δ). Rather the thing than the person was here first to be regarded, since the question was of an offence unatoned for,—which, however, indeed, could not be fixed without at the same time discovering the person. 1 Samuel 14:39. After the first λִּ ?ι [here=“because,” “for”], which gives the ground, follows a second and a third, the former introducing the declaration, the latter resuming it after the parenthesis. The silence of the people is (as appears from 1 Samuel 14:45) sign of their conviction that Jonathan had done nothing wrong. [Perhaps, also, sign of their regard for Jonathan. It does not seem that Saul was here guilty of profanity (Bib. Comm.), since he may have used the divine name reverently (the expression was very common among the Israelites), but he is guilty (Bib. Comm.) of further rashness.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:40. Saul proceeds to decide what was the offence which prevented the divine answer. The means which Saul here employs reminds us of how Samuel (1 Samuel 10:20-21) by the lot as means of divine decision presented Saul to the people as the king chosen by the Lord. While in the great double question in 1 Samuel 14:37 Saul had applied to the Lord by Urim and Thummim, and by His silence received also an answer, and that a decisive one, he now, in order to discover the cause of this divine decision, employs the lot, as is clear from the words “taken” [1 Samuel 14:41] and “cast” [1 Samuel 14:42] (comp. 1 Samuel 10:20 sq.), which are never used in connection with Urim and Thummim. The people, who had not answered him when he swore a second rash oath in which he recognized the possibility of Jonathan’s guilt and death, now expressly approved his arrangements, but silently decided for Jonathan’s innocence and exemption from punishment. Saul (1 Samuel 14:41) before the casting turns to God with the cry “give (or establish) right.” ϊָ ?ξִ ?ιν, “unpunishable,” then “exemption from punishment,” “innocence,” “right,” “truth.” So Judges 9:16; Judges 9:19; Joshua 24:14. The result of the trial is that Jonathan is taken, 1 Samuel 14:42.—The Vulgate agrees with the Heb. in 1 Samuel 14:41 only in the beginning and end: “and Saul said to the Lord God of Israel—and Jonathan and Saul were taken, but the people went out.” The intermediate words agree in part with the Sept., which in 1 Samuel 14:41-42, has a long paraphrase. In this Then. and Ew. see a part of the original text, reading ϊֻּ ?ξִּ ?ιν [Thummim] for ϊָּ ?ξִ ?ιν, and finding here the complete formula which was employed in the use of Urim and Thummim. Against which Keil justly remarks, that there is no sign here of the use of Urim and Thummim, since the words in 1 Samuel 14:41 are provably never used of it, but always of the lot, and it is clear from passages like 1 Samuel 10:22 and 2 Samuel 5:23 that Urim and Thummim did not consist merely in answering Yes and No, but God by it gave answers, which could by no means be gotten by the lot. The Sept. reading is, therefore, nothing but a subjective and erroneous opinion of the translators. 1 Samuel 14:43 sq. Jonathan thinks death unavoidable: Lo, I must die.—Saul confirms this with an oath: “God do so and more also,” comp. 1 Samuel 3:17. Both hold the erroneous opinion that a sinful promise or oath must be kept. That the lot fell on Jonathan meant only, as a divine disposition, that the person was discovered on whom, according to Saul’s opinion, rested the fault, by reason of which God’s answer to his question was silence. Against both rises the people’s voice as the voice of God. The question [1 Samuel 14:45] “Shall Jonathan die?” and the answer: “Far be it,” express the sorrowful astonishment and the energetic protest of the people who were inspired by Jonathan’s heroic deed and its brilliant result. But the decisive fact for the people was the firm conviction that God was with him and carried out through him this deed of deliverance. Over against Saul’s oath the people set their own: “As the Lord liveth, there shall not a hair of his head fall to the ground.” To the second “wrought” (1 Samuel 14:45) supply the object of the first: “this great salvation.” “And the people rescued him,” not, as Ewald says, by putting another to die in his stead, but solely by their energetic protest, in the face of which Saul is obliged to let his oath go unfulfilled. For a similar intervention of the people see Liv. 8:35.—[Patrick: They did not rescue him by force and violence, but by their petition to Saul and the reason they gave for it. Josephus saith that “by their prayers and vows to God they delivered him.” They were too forward indeed to swear directly against Saul’s oath; but of the two, his being the most rash, God was pleased to annul it, and absolve him from it.—Wordworth: Observe the humiliation to which Saul is reduced by his disobedience.—Kitto: The enlightened consciences and generous enthusiasm of the people.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:46. The closing statement. Saul desisted from further pursuit of the Philistines, with whose overthrow as far as it could be effected under the harmful consequences of his blind zeal, he had to be contented. The Philistines went back to their own land. In spite of this serious defeat their strength was not broken (comp. 1 Samuel 14:52). The fact that Saul desisted from pursuit shows that he understood the Lord’s silence as a denial, and was obliged to recognize as the cause of it not Jonathan’s conduct, but his own arbitrary and rash procedure. II. Summary account of Saul’s wars and family-relations. 1 Samuel 14:47-521 Sa 14:47-48. And Saul had taken the kingdom, then he fought, or: “When Saul had taken the kingdom, he fought.” The words do not stand in pragmatical connection with the preceding narrative of the battle against the Philistines, as if the intention was to state that thus (by this victory) Saul gained royal authority (Then., Keil). His accession to the throne is mentioned merely as starting-point for the historical-statistical statement of the various wars which he carried on from the beginning of his government. The already-related war against the Ammonites is here again mentioned, and of the war against the Philistines it is said, in accordance with the design of this interposed section, at the end (1 Samuel 14:52), that it extended throughout his whole reign. His whole government was a warlike one. Wars are here mentioned, of which nothing is elsewhere said. What is said of his wars before and after this is determined by the theocratic point of view, and is designed to show how Saul, in fulfilling his royal calling (essentially a warlike one), came into principial conflict with the theocratic task and significance of the kingdom, and therefore incurred of necessity the judgment of God. The wars, which he had to carry on with his enemies roundabout, are the following: against the Moabites and Ammonites in the East, against the Edomites in the South, against the kings of Zobah in the Northeast (Zobah, a district of Syria, lay probably north-east of Damascus, between the Euphrates and the Orontes, see 2 Samuel 8:3 [“perhaps included the eastern flank of the mountain-chain which shuts in C�le-Syria on that side, the high land about Aleppo, and the more northern portion of the Syrian desert” (Geo. Rawlinson in Smith B. D.).—Tr.]), and against the Philistines in the West. Thus the “roundabout” is pictured to us. The word ιַ ?ψְ ?ωִׁ ?ιςַ [Eng. A. V. “vexed”] indicates the point of view from which these wars are to be regarded as victories: he declared guilty (Keil: by deeds), the Hiph. [causative] of the verb being often used of judges (Exodus 22:8; Deuteronomy 25:1; Job 32:3), he inflicted punishment, or executed judgment against these nations, because they warred against God’s people and thus opposed the Lord’s designs with respect to Israel. They were national wars, which Saul carried on for the honor of the Lord and of His people.—Saul’s development of power against the Amalekites is made specially prominent; he “gathered strength” [εַֹ ?ιַּ ?ςַ ?ωׂ ηַ ?ιִ ?μ, Eng. A. V. incorrectly: “gathered a host”]. This war against the robbing, plundering hereditary enemy, the Amalekites, is in the next chapter described “from the theocratical point of view” (Then.). 1 Samuel 14:49-51. Saul’s household and family. Three sons are mentioned: Jonathan, Ishwi and Malchishua. Instead of Ishwi in 1 Samuel 31:2; 1 Chronicles 8:33; 1 Chronicles 9:39, is Abinadab. In the last two passages a fourth is named, Eshbaal, who is certainly the same with Ishbosheth, 2 Samuel 2:8. The daughters: Merab and Michal.—Saul’s wife: Ahinoam, a daughter of Ahimaaz.—[Bib. Comm.: “It is not improbable that Ahimaaz may have been of the priestly family (Ahimaaz was son of Zadok, 2 Samuel 15:36), and perhaps it may have been owing to such a connection that Ahijah was brought into prominence by Saul. If there is any truth in the above supposition, it would be an indication that Saul was not married till after his election to the throne.” But to this last there are serious objections, especially the age of Jonathan, and the whole is a mere conjecture.—Tr.]—Saul’s captain of the host, general-in-chief, Abiner, abbreviated (1 Samuel 14:51) Abner, his cousin; in the next verse this relationship is stated more fully: Kish, Saul’s father, and Neri, Abner’s father, were sons of Abiel.1 Samuel 14:52 connects itself as to subject-matter with 1 Samuel 14:46, in order, after the general view of Saul’s wars, to show that he had to carry on a hard struggle with one of these peoples, the Philistines, all his life, and so give the ground for the necessity that Saul was under, of forming and maintaining a central body of markedly valiant men about him. This finishes the historical-statistical sketch of Saul as a warrior-prince, to which belongs also from this point of view the mention of his three sons, who fell in battle with him (1 Samuel 31:2), and of Abner, his general. The national-historical significance of Saul as a king whose mission was essentially that of a warrior is thereby definitely characterized. At the same time the description of Saul as theocratic king is here ended. In what follows is shown how the Lord transferred the theocratic mission from him to another man. Ewald: According to the prophetical perception of the Work, Saul ceases with chap. 14. to be the true king, and therefore the history of his reign is here concluded with the necessary general remarks about him.”—We cannot (with Then.) hold that the remark (1 Samuel 14:52) “when Saul saw any strong or valiant man, he took him,” is intended to introduce the narrative of David’s coming to Saul after the victory over Goliath (1 Samuel 18:2), on the ground that here it drags too much after what precedes. It would, if we accepted Thenius’ view, stand too abruptly and too far from this narrative of David. It rather concludes the foregoing account, and connects itself with the account of the first formation of a standing army by a levy from the people (1 Samuel 13:2). AND 1. The history of Saul up to this time shows with what splendid gifts he was endowed for the fulfilment of his theocratic royal calling, to free from their enemies, especially the Philistines (1 Samuel 9:16), the covenant-people, who had been united and raised into a new religious-moral life by Samuel. The following narrative of his victorious wars against the enemies of God’s people proves that he fulfilled his war-mission. “A knightly king stood at the head of the people, who formed about him a school of heroes and drew to him a vigorous army, and a knightly spirit pervaded the whole people. But Saul led the way in warlike spirit no less than in all virtues of self-denial and self-discipline,—he was a warrior-hero, who maintained on the throne the moderation of his former life.” (Schlier., 25 [Kφnig Saul, 9]). 2. Yet there shows itself in the development of Saul’s inner life (13, 14) a principle, which is directly in conflict with the theocratic principle of the Israelitish kingdom: that of human self-will, which does not subject itself in humility and unconditional believing obedience to the divine will, and fails to establish the absolute supremacy of the latter among the people of God. At the beginning of the fulfilment of his warrior-calling against the Philistines Saul was put to the proof, whether in his royal office he would master his own will and yield unconditional obedience to the word and will of God as true king of His people. This test Saul did not stand, when he was required to follow the divine directions as given him by Samuel’s mouth, which should have been for him God’s mouth. As bearer of the theocratic-royal office bestowed on him, he set himself in conflict with the theocratic-prophetic watch-office, which Samuel held that he might be the organ of the royal will and command of the covenant-God of Israel. He thus denied the principle of the unconditional sovereignty of God, which was to be set forth and unfolded in his kingdom. It was therefore certain that God’s holiness and justice could not permit his kingdom to be permanent (1 Samuel 13:13-14). 3. The first test of faith, which Saul had to submit to, was a theocratic necessity; for Saul must first prove to the Lord by deeds that he wished to be unconditionally subject to the Lord’s will, to yield obedience (putting down all self-will) to His word which was to be revealed to him by prophets, and to trust alone to His help. Such tests as Saul had to stand, are, in the life of princes and peoples, as of individuals, in the church as in every member of God’s people, of divine significance; failure to stand them leads away from the Lord, brings to naught the Lord’s purposes, results in misfortune and destruction. The individual elements of Saul’s probation, the typical significance of which elements for all times and circumstances of the kingdom of God is obvious, are found partly in his outward position, partly in his inner life. The external position of Saul, as to time and place, was one of extreme distress. In consequence of Jonathan’s successful coup de main, the Philistines were advancing with a powerful army. The people of Israel, whom he had summoned after Jonathan’s heroic exploit (1 Samuel 13:3) to battle against the Philistines, became disheartened and despondent, and dispersed themselves; even the permanent band, which he had gathered around him, lost courage and began to disband. The seventh day had come, and Samuel, who had bidden him wait till he came to Gilgal to sacrifice for the people and announce God’s will, had not yet made his appearance. This distressing and dangerous position (as he himself 1 Samuel 13:11-12 intimates) gave occasion in his heart to the temptation to act contrary to God’s will and command. In the first place fear of the threatening dangers seized on his heart; to fear joined itself impatience, which prevented him from waiting out the time appointed by Samuel; alongside of the impatience was doubt of the trustworthiness of the divine promise given him through Samuel; this produced unquiet in his mind, which drove him to take self-willed measures to help himself, and dissipated more and more his trust in God; then came sophistical calculation by his carnally obscured understanding; his heart-frame towards God of immovable trust and unconditional obedience was given up. It was the root of unbelief from which all this sprang.—The consequences of this unstood trial of faith show themselves straightway in two directions: 1) for Saul’s inner life: over against Samuel, or, what is the same thing, over against the holy and just God (who had addressed Himself to his conscience through Samuel’s question “what hast thou done?”) he does not follow the exhortation of his conscience, sorrowfully and penitently to confess his guilt, but, on the one hand, he seeks to excuse and justify himself by pointing to the certainly threatening dangers, as if he had done nothing but his duty, carrying his defence to the extent of an untrue reproach of Samuel (“thou camest not at the set time”), and, on the other hand, he declares his conduct to be thoroughly pious and God-fearing, affirming that he desired simply before the battle began to seek in sacrifice the Lord’s face, while in fact this sacrifice against Samuel’s express command had its deepest root in the unbelief of his heart, wherein he turned from God to his own flesh and blood, and showed himself openly disobedient to the will of God. The self-justification of the impenitent heart leads to unclearness and untruthfulness, since lies and truth are mixed together; self-justification before the Lord is inseparable from self-deceit and hypocrisy. Here begins the unsteadiness and passionate character of Saul’s inner life, as we see it afterwards (chap. 14) time and again, in all the external success of his arms, in all the prosperity of his warlike enterprises. 2) In respect to his theocratic royal calling followed the divine judgment: “Thy kingdom shall not stand, for thou hast not kept the command of the Lord.” The house of Saul, which otherwise would have held the theocratic kingdom permanently, is here declared to have lost it, because Saul had not fulfilled the fundamental condition of unconditional obedience of faith. The judicial sentence is more fully expressed after the second trial (chap. 15). There the divine judgment proceeds further to reject his person in consequence of continued disobedience; here we have first the rejection of his house, so far as, beginning from him, it might have become the permanent possessor of the theocratic royalty. The divine judgment, which is completed by this word of Samuel, was a righteous one, for “in this way Saul strove, so far as in him lay, to change the Israelitish theocracy (in which God would be King of Israel and by His servants, the prophets, rule in affairs of state and war) into such a kingdom as the heathen had, whose kings did everything according to their own pleasure. Saul strove after unrestrained freedom and authority, but thus became a slave to desire, driven by an evil spirit, and ripe for speedy destruction” (Roos, Einl. in d. bibl. Gesch. [Introd. to Bib. Hist.], 2, 271). 4. Jonathan’s second bold deed of arms (1 Samuel 14:1-15) is, in contrast with Saul’s failure to stand the trial of faith, an example of victorious heroic faith, which consists in unconditional but humble reliance on the almighty help of the Lord (“perhaps the Lord will, etc.,” 1 Samuel 14:6), does not, in this confident reliance, fearfully weigh and reckon the much or little of human means of accomplishment (“there is no restraint to the Lord, etc.,” 1 Samuel 14:6), but yet wisely and prudently observes the signs given by the Lord, governs its conduct by them, and then in God’s power performs great things (“there came a fright of God,” 1 Samuel 14:15). AND 1 Samuel 14:1-15. The test to which faith is put: 1) When the need rises higher and higher, and threatens destruction. 2) When the divine help comes not at the expected hour. 3) When human support wholly fails. 4) When one’s own heart doubts and is afraid. 1 Samuel 14:8-15. Doubt of the heart tempted by unbelief as to the Lord’s power and help: 1) Its root in the yet unconquered self (self-love, self-will, self-conceit). 2) Its manifestation in disobedience to the will of the Lord. 3) Its fruit the loss of the blessings of divine grace. The question of conscience: What hast thou done? 1) What it signifies in the sight of the Lord (1 Samuel 14:8-10). 2) With what excuses an evil conscience answers it (1 Samuel 14:11-12). 3) What judicial answer the word of God gives to it (1 Samuel 14:13-14). The steps in the fall from faith into unbelief: 1) Unrest through doubt and fear. 2) Sin in impatience and disobedience. 3) Excuses that have no ground. 4) Accusation by God’s Spirit. 5) Sentence by God’s word.—[It is questionable whether we should regard Saul as having had true faith in God.—Tr.] J. Disselhoff: First steps towards the fall of an already approved servant of God: 1) From what hidden corner of the heart has come forth the stumbling-block which made him stumble. 2) What has hindered him, after stumbling, from again walking upright on his feet.—[Henry: It is not sinning that ruins men, but sinning and not repenting; falling and not getting up again.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:14. Henry: Was not this hard, to pass so severe a sentence upon him and his house for a single error, and that seemed so small, and in excuse for which he had so much to say? No. (1) The Lord here shows that there is no sin little, because no little God to sin against. (2) He shows that disobedience to an express command, though in a small matter, is a great provocation; as in the case of our first parents. (3) He warns us to take heed of our spirits; for that which to men may seem but a small offence, yet to Him that knows from what principle, and with what disposition of mind it is done, may appear a heinous crime.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 13:6-7. “Man’s extremity is God’s opportunity.” 1 Samuel 13:10. A few minutes more, and how great a calamity might have been averted, how great a blessing gained! (Saul could wait no longer, and yet Samuel came when he had just finished the burnt-offering, and had not yet offered the peace-offering, 1 Samuel 13:9.) 1 Samuel 13:12. “And I forced myself.” Reluctant and self-deceived disobedience. 1 Samuel 13:13. The folly of disobeying God. 1 Samuel 13:14. “Jehovah hath sought him a man after his own heart:” 1) A man devout, not merely by fits and starts, but profoundly and habitually. 2) A man not self-willed, who would rule according to the command of God through the prophets. 3) A man who when he had done wrong would penitently submit to God’s chastening, invincibly trust in God’s goodness, and faithfully strive to live more according to God’s will. (In these and similar points, Saul and David might be contrasted.) Maurice: This was the man after God’s own heart, the man who thoroughly believed in God, as a living and righteous Being; who in all changes of fortune clung to that conviction; who could act upon it, live upon it; who could give himself up to God to use him as He pleased; who could be little or great, popular or contemptible, just as God saw fit that he should be. … How many of us feel that those who have committed grave outward transgressions may nevertheless have had hearts which answered more to God’s heart, which entered far more into the grief and the joy of His Spirit, than ours ever did! (See the whole Sermon in “Prophets and Kings.”)—Tr.] 1 Samuel 14:1 sqq. S. Schmid: When God has resolved to accomplish something great and wonderful through a man, He knows how in a wonderful manner so to move his spirit that, without tempting God and with a believing heart, he attempts that which is above his nature and his power. 1 Samuel 14:6. Berlenb. Bible: “There is no restraint to the Lord,” etc. These words have such force that nothing can be added to them without abating their force. In so saying Jonathan goes through all apparent great perils with a spirit becoming a soul at once righteous and composed. It is true, O God, that it is no harder for Thee to deliver us by few than by many. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ SECOND SECTIONThe rejection of Saul for his disobedience in the Amalekite war 1 Samuel 15:1-351 Samuel also [And Samuel] said unto Saul, The Lord [Jehovah] sent me to anoint thee to be [om. to be] king over his people, over Israel; now therefore [and 2now] hearken thou unto the voice of the words of the Lord [Jehovah]. Thus saith the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, I remember [have considered] that which [what] Amalek did to Israel, how he laid wait for [withstood] him in the way, when Hebrews 3 came up from Egypt. Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. 4And Saul gathered [summoned] the people together [om. together], and numbered them in Telaim, two hundred thousand footmen, and ten thousand men of 5Judah. And Saul came to a [the] city of Amalek, and laid wait in the valley. 6And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get you down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them; for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel, when they came up out of Egypt. So [And] the Kenites departed from 7among the Amalekites. And Saul smote the Amalekites from Havilah until [as] 8thou comest to Shur, that is over against Egypt. And he took Agag the king of the Amalekites alive, and utterly destroyed all the people [all the people he utterly 9destroyed] with the edge of the sword. But [And] Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep and of the oxen and of the fatlings [secondrate], and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them; but everything that was vile13 and refuse, that they destroyed utterly. 10Then came the word of the Lord [And the word of Jehovah came] unto Samuel, 11It repenteth me that I have set up [made] Saul to be [om. to be] king; for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandments. And 12it grieved Samuel; and he cried unto the Lord [Jehovah] all night. And when [om. when] Samuel rose early to meet Saul in the morning, [ins. and] it was told Samuel, saying, Saul came to Carmel, and behold, he set him up a place [monument] 13and is gone about, and passed on [over], and gone down to Gilgal. And Samuel came to Saul, and Saul said unto him, Blessed be thou of the Lord [Jehovah]; 14I have performed the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel said, What meaneth then [And what is] this bleating of the [om. the] sheep 15in mine ears, and the lowing of the [om. the19] oxen which I hear? And Saul said, They have brought them from the Amalekites; for the people spared the best of the sheep and of the oxen to sacrifice unto the Lord [Jehovah] thy God; 16and the rest we20 have utterly destroyed. Then [And] Samuel said unto Saul, Stay, and I will tell thee what the Lord [Jehovah] hath said to me this night. And he said unto him, Say on. 17And Samuel said, When [Though] thou wast little in thine own sight, wast thou not made the head of the tribes of Israel, and the Lord [Jehovah] anointed thee 18king over Israel? And the Lord [Jehovah] sent thee on a journey [way], and said, Go and utterly destroy the sinners the Amalekites, and fight against them until 19they be consumed. Wherefore, then, didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], but didst fly upon the spoil, and didst evil in the sight of the Lord [Jehovah]? 20And Saul said unto Samuel, Yea [om. yea] I have obeyed the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], and have gone the way which the Lord [Jehovah] sent me, and have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and [ins. the Amalekites I] have 21utterly destroyed the Amalekites [om. the Amalekites]. But [And] the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed [things devoted to destruction (or, banned)] to sacrifice unto the 22Lord [Jehovah] thy God in Gilgal. And Samuel said, Hath the Lord [Jehovah] as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord [Jehovah]? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat 23of rams. For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry [For the sin of witchcraft is rebellion, and idolatry (or idols) and teraphim is stubbornness]. Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord [Jehovah], he hath also [om. also] rejected thee from being king. 24And Saul said unto Samuel, I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] and thy words; because I feared the people and 25obeyed their voice. Now therefore, I pray thee, pardon [And now, pardon, I pray thee] my sin, and turn again [return] with me, that I may [and I will] worship the 26Lord [Jehovah]. And Samuel said unto Saul, I will not return with thee; for thou hast rejected the word of the Lord [Jehovah], and the Lord [Jehovah] hath 27rejected thee from being king over Israel. And as [om. as] Samuel turned about 28to go away, [ins. and] he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Samuel said unto him, The Lord [Jehovah] hath rent the kingdom of Israel from thee this day, and hath given it to a neighbor of thine that is better than thou. 29And also, the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man that 30he should repent. Then [And] he said, I have sinned; yet honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and turn again [return] 31with me, that I may [and I will] worship the, Lord [Jehovah] thy God. So [And] Samuel turned again [returned] after Saul; and Saul worshipped the Lord [Jehovah]. 32Then said Samuel [And Samuel said], Bring ye hither [om. ye hither] to me Agag the king of the Amalekites. And Agag came unto him delicately [cheerfully]. 33And Agag said, Surely the bitterness of death is past. And Samuel said, As thy sword hath made women childless, so shall thy mother be childless among women. And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord [Jehovah] in Gilgal. 34Then [And] Samuel went to Ramah; and Saul went up to his house to Gibeah 35of Saul. And Samuel came no more to see Saul [saw Saul no more] until the day of his death; nevertheless [for] Samuel mourned for Saul; and the Lord [Jehovah] repented that he had made Saul king over Israel. AND 1 Samuel 15:1-3. The divine commission to Saul to execute judgment on Amalek. 1 Samuel 15:1 is not to be connected chronologically with 1 Samuel 12. (Then.), but continues the narrative of chs. 13. and 14. The solemn reminder of Saul’s royal anointing and of Samuel’s divine mission to that end refers not to 1 Samuel 11:15, but to 1 Samuel 9:15 to 1 Samuel 10:1. It points to the fact that the following commission is a divine command, communicated by the appointed organ, the prophet of God, and that the bearer of the royal office has here to perform a theocratic mission with unconditional obedience. The “me” stands first [such is the order in the Heb.—Tr.] in order to give prominence to the official authority, as bearer of which Samuel must needs have felt himself obliged by Saul’s past conduct to assert himself over against him. 1 Samuel 15:2. The Amalekites were a wild, warlike desert-people, dwelling south and south-west of Judea in Arabia Petrζa, descended from the same ancestor as the Edomites, and took their name from Esau’s grandson Amalek (Genesis 36:12; Genesis 36:16; 1 Chronicles 1:36). Comp. Joseph., Antiq. II. 1, 2, where this people is described as an Edomitic tribe, and their territory said to be part of Idumea. The mention of the “country of the Amalekites” in Genesis 14:7 is not in conflict with their derivation from Esau’s grandson, for this (Hengst, Pent. II. 303 sq.) is merely a proleptical statement (comp. Winer, W. B. I. 51, Anm. 1). In the prophecy of Balaam (Numbers 24:20) it is expressly mentioned as the first of the heathen nations that opposed Israel as the Lord’s people, and whose destruction by Israel (comp. 1 Samuel 15:8) is foretold. The first hostile movement of this people is narrated in Exodus 17:8 sq. Soon after Israel’s exodus from Egypt the Amalekites fell on their wearied rearguard in the desert of Rephidim, but were defeated by Joshua through Moses’ prayer, and were doomed to extermination by the divine command (1 Samuel 15:14; 1 Samuel 15:16). God’s command to Saul goes back to these first hostilities of the Amalekites (which were often afterwards repeated in their alliances with the Canaanites (Numbers 14:40 sq.), with the Moabites (Judges 3:13), and with the Midianites (Judges 7:12)), the Amalekites (according to 1 Samuel 15:33) having newly made an inroad, with robbery and murder, on the Israelitish territory.—I have noted what Amalek did to Israel, that is, the whole series of Amalekite hostilities, the beginning of which is expressed in the following words: “how he withstood him” (to Heb. ωָׂ ?ν supply ξַ ?ηֲ ?πֶ ?δ as in 1 Kings 20:12), because in Exodus 17:14; Exodus 17:16, Amalek is declared the doomed hereditary and deadly enemy of Israel. Comp. Deuteronomy 25:17-19. 1 Samuel 15:3. The complete extermination of the Amalekites, persons and property, as a righteous judgment of the holy God (as is intimated in the “noted” (considered) of 1 Samuel 15:2) is enjoined on Saul. The phrase “put everything under the ban” [this is the exact meaning of the Heb.; Eng. A. V.: “utterly destroy,”—Tr.] is explained by the following parallel phrases to mean “slaying,” the “inferior being put last in each member” (Then.), and the “both … and” expressing complete destruction without exception. [The Ban. The ban, of which we have here a notable instance, was an old custom, existing probably before Moses, but formulated, regulated and extended by him. In its simplest form it was the devotion to God of any object, living or dead. (The object thus devoted was called ηֵ ?ψֶ ?ν, Cherem, from ηψν, “to separate,” “set apart from common use,” and from the noun comes, according to Ewald, the Heb. Hiph. “to make a thing cherem,” “put under the ban.”) When an Israelite or the whole congregation wished to devote to God anything, man, beast or field, whether for the honor of God, or to get rid of an injurious or accursed thing, it was brought and offered to the priest, and could not then be redeemed (Leviticus 27:28)—if living, it must be put to death. A deep consciousness of man’s sin and God’s holiness underlay this law. The wicked thing, contrary to the spiritual theocratic life of God’s people, must be removed, must be committed to him who was the ruler and judge of the people. And so the custom had a breadth of use as well as of meaning in Israel which it never had in other ancient nations (Ew.). A city might be devoted (Deuteronomy 13:12-17), or a whole nation by vow of the people (Numbers 21:2), or by command of God (Exodus 17:14). In such case all human beings and cattle were to be slain, all the spoil (houses, furniture, etc.) to be burned, the land was to lie for some time fallow, and other things to be given to the sanctuary. From this strict rule there were occasional deviations (Numbers 31; Joshua 9:3-15), but on special grounds. To spare the devoted thing was a grave offence, calling down the vengeance of God. In later times the ban was, doubtless under prophetic direction, softened, and in the New Testament times the infliction of death had quite ceased.—On this whole subject see Ew., Alterth. I. 101 sq. (1866), Herzog R. E., s. v. Bann, Comm. of Kalisch and Bib. Comm. on Leviticus 27.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:4-9. How Saul performs this divine command. 1 Samuel 15:4. Saul summons the people (Heb. “make them hear,” the Pi. only elsewhere in 1 Samuel 23:8). The whole of the population fit for war (see the numbers in 1 Samuel 15:4) appears again in arms, because the powerful Amalekites could be overthrown and destroyed only by the full force of Israel.—Telaim is the same with Telem, a southern city of Judah (Joshua 15:24), lying, therefore, near the Amalekite territory, which agrees with Saul’s choice of the place for his mustering of the army. The reading of the Sept.: “in Gilgal,” is an unfortunate gloss, suggested by chs. 11 and 12. [On the numbers see “Text. and Gram.” The separate mention of Judah points possibly to a post-Solomonic date for the chapter. See Erdmann’s Introduction, p. 40.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:5. The name of the “city” of the Amalekites, against which Saul advanced, is not known. Saul lay in ambush in the valley. To this Thenius objects that nothing more is said of an ambush, and that Saul went openly to work; but the first remark is of no importance, since it is not intended to give a full account of the battle; and as to the second, Saul was able to treat with the Kenites in the manner described the better because he had concealed his army in a gorge. According to the reading conjectured by Thenius: “and he set the battle in array” (εַ ?ιַּ ?ςֲ ?ψֹ ?κְ ξִ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ, after the Arabic [and Targ.—Tr.]: “he set the people in array there”), Saul, “already prepared for battle,” must have addressed himself openly to the Kenites. But neither this declaration to the Kenites, who were living in the midst of the Amalekites, nor the withdrawal of the former from their midst could have occurred as related, if the Israelitish army had stood over against the Amalekites ready for battle. The latter would certainly not have looked quietly on while Saul withdrew the Kenites from them to himself.—The Kenites, a small tribe of the northwestern Arabian nomadic peoples (in Canaan as early as Genesis 15:19), had shown friendship and kindness to the Israelites after their departure from Egypt (Numbers 10:29). Moses’ brother-in-law, Hobab (Judges 1:16), belonged to them, and under his guidance it was that this kindness was shown. According to Judges 1:16 these friendly Kenites dwelt south of the city Arad in the wilderness of Judah, that is, near the Amalekites, and near their original seat. Thence they had descended up to Saul’s time farther into the Amalekite territory. Some of them settled in the north, as Heber, husband of Jael (Judges 4:11; Judges 4:17). Another branch of the Kenites, hostile to the Israelites and in alliance with the Edomites, who dwelt in the caves of Arabia Petrζa, and are without ground regarded by Hengstenberg (Bileam, p. 190 sq.) as a totally distinct people, are set forth in Numbers 24:21 as the object of God’s inevitable judgment. The Kenites here mentioned (they appear also in the history of David as friends of Israel, 1 Samuel 27:10; 1 Samuel 30:29) are withdrawn from the punishment which was inflicted on the Amalekites. 1 Samuel 15:7. The defeat of the Amalekites reached from Havilah to Shur. Havilah, according to Genesis 25:18, the boundary of the Ishmaelites, probably, therefore in the south-east on the border of Arabia Petrζa and Arabia Felix (according to Strabo 16, 767, the region of the Chaulot�ans, which he puts between the Nabatζi and the Agrζi). Shur is the present Wilderness of Jifar, the portion of the Arabian desert bordering on Egypt, into which the Israelites entered after the exodus (Exodus 15:22). Saul thus smote the Amalekites throughout their territory from southeast towards the west and northwest.—[Havilah and Shur. Great difficulty attaches to the name Havilah on account of the different mentions of it in the Old Testament. It belongs to a Cushite (Genesis 10:7) and to a Shemitic Joktanite (Genesis 10:29), perhaps thus denoting a region in southern Arabia occupied by these two peoples. The statement in Genesis 2:11 throws no light on the locality. It is difficult certainly to assign to this tribe (the Amalekites) a limit so far south, and we should then have to suppose a place different from those mentioned in the passages cited, and have almost no data for an opinion.—Shur is certainly in the border of Egypt; but it is not easy to fix its exact position from the Bible-statements about it (Genesis 16:7; Genesis 20:1; Genesis 25:18; 1 Samuel 15:7; 1 Samuel 27:8; Exodus 15:22-23). It seems to be here not a wilderness, but a town or fortress. As the word means “wall,” and Ebers has brought out the fact that a wall extended in ancient times across the north-eastern boundary of Egypt (whence the name Mizraim, “the enclosed or fortified”), it is suggested by Wellhausen that the place took its name from the wall near which it was.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:8. Agag (“the fiery,” according to the Arab.) seems to have been the official name of their kings, Numbers 24:7 (as Pharaoh among the Egyptians, and Abimelech among the Philistines).—That Saul did not slay Agag, but took him alive, is to be referred, from what we know of Saul, either to a fit of weak lenity and forbearance, or to a vain desire to hold the king of this people prisoner (5. Gerlach). The whole people, that is, speaking generally. Some survived of course; the Amalekites appear afterwards, 1 Samuel 27:8; 1 Samuel 30:1; 2 Samuel 8:12. Their complete annihilation is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:43. 1 Samuel 15:9. Besides the best of the people, king Agag, the best of the property, that is, among this people herds of course, was spared; for selfish reasons Saul and the people were unwilling to destroy the best of the booty. Besides the best of the small and large cattle, there is specially mentioned the best of the ξִ ?ωְׁ ?πִ ?ιν, that is, the animals which held the second rank (so the Sing. denotes the second after the king, 2 Chronicles 28:7, the second of brothers, 1 Chronicles 5:12; 1 Samuel 8:2; 1 Samuel 17:13, and the Plu. goblets of the second rank in value, Ezra 1:10). According to this it must be supposed that the herds were divided into groups according to their value. Perhaps, however, the word also means (Kimchi and Tanchum) “animals of the second birth,” which were thought better than the others.—[So Rφdiger in Ges. Thes., while Gesenius says incorrectly that they were inferior. Bochart (Hieroz. 2, 43, pp. 429–431) renders “bidentes,” that is, animals which had shed, or were about to shed, their two long teeth, at which time they were in their prime. Other meanings have been assigned to the word, none satisfactory.—Tr.]—Fat lambs also, fattened on the meadows, are specially mentioned. The Sept. reading “vineyards” (and so Ew.) is to be rejected, because, as Then, rightly says, we have here to do with things that could be carried along. Thenius and Ewald [and Eng. A. V.] read (with Chald., Syriac, Arabic) “failings” (ξַ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?πִּ ?ιν), instead of “second-class” (as in the Heb.); but this is suspicious on account of the ease of the change—“And they spared everything good.” From this comprehensive expression, and especially from the following statement of what they destroyed, it is evident that the idea of the word “best” is a loosely-defined one. Namely, it expressly says, they destroyed all property [that was worthless.—Tr.]1 Samuel 15:10-23. By command of God Saul is called to account by Samuel for his disobedience, and his excuse being set aside, is by God condemned and rejected. 1 Samuel 15:10. Samuel receives a revelation from God concerning Saul’s God-opposing conduct. The psychological basis of this revelation is Samuel’s exact acquaintance with the condition of Saul’s heart, which was already poisoned and rent by self-seeking and self-will. The way and the form in which the word of the Lord came to Samuel is not pointed out. But it is probable from what follows (Ew.) that it was by a dream. The content of the divine word Isaiah 1) the declaration: It repenteth me that I have made Saul king.—The repentance of God is the anthropopathic expression for the change of the divine procedure into the opposite of what the holy and righteous will of God had determined under the condition of holy and righteous conduct by men, when on man’s side there has been a change to the opposite of this condition without repentance. Theodoret: “God’s repentance is His change in administration.” The repentance of God always presupposes a change for the worse in man’s conduct towards God, whose holiness and justice must consequently assume another relation to man; hence it cannot exist without accompanying sorrow in the divine love over the sin of man, which necessitates a change in God’s action on man’s life; but it is too narrow a definition to regard it (as Keil does, on Genesis 6:6 and here) merely as an anthropopathic expression for the sorrow of the divine love over the sin of man. Saul indeed remains the legitimate king of Israel according to the divine appointment. But, since he has not remained the humble servant of God, as which he was called to be king, God the Lord, with the deep sorrow of His holy love, must now regard and treat him as an apostate who is in conflict with the truth of the theocratic kingdom. This declaration of God’s repentance itself involves the judicial decision of God, which, however, is here not yet expressly announced; rather this divine word contains 2) only the ground of God’s repentance: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my commandment [literally, word]. The first clause denotes internal defection from sincere fellowship of life with the Lord under the figure of a way, in which the walk after God, that is, in His retinue in fellowship with him, is performed in humble subjection to his will and command; Saul has not observed Samuel’s exhortation “turn not aside from after the Lord” (1 Samuel 12:20), and has gone his own way away from God. The last clause: “and has not kept my word,” is the external form of the defection: disobedience in the non fulfilment of the divine command. “He has not performed my word,” that is, has fallen away, has not reached permanence, fulfilment.—A two-fold effect is produced by this revelation of God on Samuel’s heart.—To Samuel was kindled, namely, anger (supply ΰַ ?σ, “anger,” as in Genesis 18:30; Genesis 31:36; 2 Samuel 19:43, and many other places). That it was holy anger is clear from what follows; for Samuel could pray in his anger. The object, of his anger was first, obviously, Saul’s defection and disobedience, and then the therein-involved violation of the Lord’s honor and thwarting of His purposes. To render: “was sorry” (J. Schmid: doluit Samueli) is inadmissible, because the expression always denotes anger.—[On the difficulty here see “Text, and Grammat.”—Tr.]—But to anger at Saul’s disobedience and frustration of his holy mission Samuel adds prayer for Saul, mighty, fervent: he cried to the Lord, and persistent, unremitting: the whole night.—The object of the prayer was doubtless not release from the fulfilment of the divine command (Ew.), but the exemption of Saul from the sentence of rejection and the forgiveness of his disobedience. But the hearing of such a prayer is conditioned on the sincere repentance of him for whom it is made. This condition did not appear in Saul, but rather its opposite. Therefore the picture of the priestly mediator, in which character Samuel represents Saul before the Lord, changes into that of the judging prophet, who represents the Lord over against Saul.—[Abarbanel says, that Samuel was angry and displeased because he loved Saul for his beauty and heroism and as his own creature whom he had made king, and that he prayed all night because God had not revealed to him Saul’s sin, and he wished to know why sentence was pronounced against him.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:12. Having thus learned immediately from God by this revelation his divine mission to Saul, Samuel after this grievous night goes early to meet Saul. On the way he learns that Saul had come to Carmel (Joshua 15:55), now Kurmul with extensive ruins dating from ancient times and the Middle Ages, southeast of Hebron [ten miles] on the mountains of Judah (comp. 1 Samuel 25:2; 1 Samuel 27:3); that he had there set up a monument in commemoration of this great victory over Amalek. (ιָ ?γ, “the hand,” here denotes a monument of victory, as in 2 Samuel 18:18, because this, like the hand, directs attention to what it denotes.) The “him” [=to him] is in the whole connection significant, as it brings out the selfish principle which actuated Saul. He does not give the honor to God the Lord by unconditional obedience, but he sets up a monument in his own honor.—(ψַ ?ιִ ?ρּ ?α [“is turned, gone about”] cannot mean “went in solemn procession” (Buns.), nor are we to read: “and turned the chariot,” as Then, does after the Sept. whose translators did not understand the εַ ?ιַּ ?ςֲ ?αֹ ?ψ, “passed on.”) He passed over, namely from Carmel and the neighboring mountain across the mountains of Judah, and then descended into the Jordan-valley to Gilgal (1 Samuel 13:4). Saul went to Gilgal to celebrate his victory with offerings. Thenius and Ewald insert after “Gilgal” (from Sept. and Vulg.) the words: “And Samuel came to Saul, and behold, he was offering a burnt-offering to the Lord, the firstlings of the spoil, which he brought from Amalek,” supposing (but without sufficient ground) that they fell out of the Heb. because the following sentence begins with the same words. It is nowhere hinted that, according to the view of the narrator, Samuel and Saul had intended to meet on Mount Carmel (Then.). The Sept. introduced Saul’s offering after the analogy of 1 Samuel 13:8 sq. in order to conform this second great sin of Saul to the first. 1 Samuel 15:13. Samuel took the long journey to Gilgal to meet Saul. In the place where he had solemnly pledged Saul and the people to unconditional obedience (chap. 12), he now executes judgment for disobedience to the divine will. The psychological and ethical momenta of this procedure are clearly exhibited in the following deeply moving narrative. After all that had occurred between Samuel and Saul (13—1 Samuel 15:1), Samuel’s mere appearance must have been an accusation and a warning of conscience for Saul. Conscious of his sin, which, however, he will not confess,—disregarding it, and deceiving himself with all the arts of a heart entangled in hypocrisy and lies, and alienated from the Lord,—he anticipates Samuel’s accusation with his defence: 1) he not only meets, but anticipates, Samuel with forced friendliness with the greeting: Blessed be thou of the Lord; and 2) straightway adds the assurance: I have performed the commandment [word] of the Lord.—In this he in one respect tells the truth; for he had broken the power of the Amalekites. But in another respect he tells a lie; for from selfish motives he had failed to carry out the command of complete annihilation, as given in the “word of the Lord.” 1 Samuel 15:14. Saul is convicted of falsehood by the voices of the animals which he has spared contrary to God’s command. Samuel’s mode of citing them against him by the question: “What mean these voices?” has an air of holy humor and cutting irony. 1 Samuel 15:15. Saul continues to advance in falsehood and hypocrisy, receding more and more from the truthfulness of a confession of sin (which was his duty) by presenting a two-fold defence: 1) “The people spared,” he declares; he does not blame himself. And yet in 1 Samuel 15:9 it is said: “Saul and the people spared.” He seeks to excuse himself as blameless by transferring the blame to the people. And, suppose the people had spared the good oxen, yet he, the general, had permitted it; the people dared not do it against his will. [Comp. the people’s obedience to Saul in 1 Samuel 14:24; 1 Samuel 14:34; 1 Samuel 14:40.—Tr.] 2) He seeks to extenuate and to justify his transgression of the divine command by pleading the holy purpose of “sacrificing to God.” …… Whether now this was thought of or not, in any case it is hypocrisy, by which Saul seeks to excuse himself and the people. [Bib. Comm.: “Every word uttered by Saul seems to indicate the break-down of his moral character. One feels that after this scene, Saul must have forfeited his self-respect.” Bishop Sanderson (quoted by Wordsworth in loco), in his Lectures on Conscience, II. § 13, exposes the futility of the pretence that good intention is a right rule of conscience and a good guide of conduct.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:16. Samuel interrupts him with the exclamation: “Stay!” (ηֶ ?ψֶ ?σ Imper. apoc. Hiph. of ψָ ?τָ ?ΰ, “desist, cease.”) To the false and hypocritical speech of Saul he solemnly and sharply opposes what the Lord said to him in the night. (Instead of plu. εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξְ ?ψεּ read sing.)1 Samuel 15:17-19 follows the powerful, crushing address of Samuel, hurled on Saul’s conscience with the might of Samuel’s conviction that he now spoke as prophet solely in the name and stead of the Lord to the deep-fallen king. First comes the reminder of his elevation from lowliness to the high dignity of royalty by the favor of the Lord. The question “wast thou not?” sharpens for Saul’s conscience the sting concealed in this recollection. The sentence is variously construed. Kimchi renders: “though thou seemedst to thyself too little and weak to curb the people, yet wast thou the head, and shouldst as such have done thy duty”—wholly against the connection, and under the incorrect supposition that Samuel received Saul’s excuse. Kφster refers the expression hypothetically to the future: “if thou wouldst henceforward be humble, thou shouldst.” But against this is the reference to the past fact: “the Lord anointed thee.” Others (S. Schmid, De Wette, Keil) render: “when thou wast little, thou wast made.” But ΰִ ?ν must retain its meaning, “if.” Here, as in many places (Judges 13:16; Amos 5:22; Jeremiah 5:2; Jeremiah 15:1; Jeremiah 22:24; Job 9:15; Joshua 1:18), it=“although.” Ges. § 306, 2, 9 [Conant’s Transl., § 155, 2 g.—Tr.]; Ewald, § 355, 1, 6 [1 b]. Though thou wast little in thine own sight.—The reference here to Saul’s own words, 1 Samuel 9:21, is beyond doubt. It is the humiliating reminder to the haughty Saul of the low position whence he had been elevated to the headship of Israel, and of the modesty and humility which he then possessed. “In thine eyes.” Samuel here indirectly points to the haughtiness of his heart as the deepest ground of his defection from the Lord. The Lord anointed thee.—That was God’s gracious act by which he had been raised to this height, and had incurred the most sacred obligation to be obedient to the Lord and to keep the people obedient to Him. On this foundation Samuel bases his exhortation in respect to Saul’s guilt in this particular case. 1 Samuel 15:18. The Lord sent thee on the [properly a] way and said: Go, etc.—It was a distinctly marked way which Saul was to go according to the Lord’s command, “after him;” it was a divine mission which he was obediently completely to fulfil. The sinners the Amalekites.—These words give the reason why this people was to be destroyed and not spared, because they strove to annihilate God’s people and kingdom. All this ought to have pledged thee to obedience. The question: Why didst thou not obey the voice of the Lord?—with the accusation which it contains—connects itself all the more emphatically with the reference to the duty of obedience which the Lord Himself had laid on him. The following words characterize Saul’s conduct as based on avarice [“didst fly upon the spoil”]. The “fly,” as in 1 Samuel 14:32, expresses eagerness, passionate craving.1 Samuel 15:20-21. Saul hardens himself still farther: 1) in deceitful self-justification, positively denying the fault attributed to him (following exactly the order of Samuel’s specifications), and affirming with emphasis (ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ) that he had gone the appointed way and fulfilled the mission assigned him, witness of which was the captive Agag and the annihilated Amalekites; 2) in vain and hypocritical excuse, which is a mere repetition of the above pretext of the people’s act and their purpose to sacrifice to the Lord the spared oxen as “firstlings of the spoil.” This might have seemed a pious act, as in the similar case in Numbers 31:48 sq.; but, as all the goods of the Amalekites had been devoted—that is, consecrated—to the Lord, and the living things must be killed, no burnt-offering (according to Leviticus 27:29) could be made with them (see Keil). Saul evades the fact that the command of God is: Every thing is to be put under the ban (1 Samuel 15:3). The words: “to the Lord thy God” are a sort of captatio benevolenti�, an attempt to curry favor [others see here, perhaps not so well, an implied censure of Samuel, as if Saul would say: “you rebuke me for serving the God whom you profess to serve.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:22-23. Samuel’s answer tears away all the cloaks with which Saul had striven to cover his sin, and lays bare the deepest ground of evil in his heart. Hath the Lord as great delight in burnt-offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the Lord?—To give color to his open disobedience to the Lord, Saul adduced his purpose to make an offering. In opposition to this is the meaning of Samuel’s words: offering, brought with such a disobedient heart, cannot be well-pleasing to God, as is the obedience of the will, which subjects itself unconditionally to the will of the Lord, and brings itself as offering. External offerings are an abomination to the Lord when there is lacking the heart full of obedient love, the humble consecration of the whole man. The same thought was repeatedly expressed by Samuel (1 Samuel 12:14; 1 Samuel 12:20; 1 Samuel 12:24) in his exhortations to the people and their king, with the threat of destruction for both, if they should fail in this time-offering and service in faithful, hearty obedience to the will and commands of God. This fundamental ethical truth is affirmed, with unmistakable reference to these words of Samuel, in the classical passages Psalms 50:8-14; Psalms 51:18-19; Isaiah 1:11; comp. 16–19; Micah 6:6-8; Hosea 6:6; Jeremiah 6:20.—In the following words: To obey is better than sacrifice, the thought takes a new turn: apart from what alone is well-pleasing to God, only an obedient disposition of mind is in itself something good, the offering, without such a disposition, is not a good thing, has no moral value. The “fat of rams,” that is, the pieces of fat offered on the altar [see Leviticus 1 and many other places.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 15:23. The thought is carried on as follows: As the outward work of offering without answering devotion of heart and life to God with obedient mind has no moral value, and is not an object of the divine good-pleasure, so disobedience and the thence-resulting rebellion and defiant self-dependence is similar in essence to, stands on the same moral plane with the outward wickedness of witchcraft, that is, “divination in the service of anti godly demon-powers” (Keil), and of idolatry. ΰָ ?εֶ ?ο [Eng. A. V. “iniquity”] is “nothingness,” then “false god” and “idol,” Isaiah 66:3, “idol-worship,” Hosea 10:3. Teraphim [Eng. A. V. “idolatry”] are household-gods as oracle-deities and dispensers of good fortune, Genesis 31:19. Comp. Keil, Archδol., § 90 [and Smith’s Bib. Dict., Arts. “Teraphim” and “Magic,” Commentaries of Kalisch, Delitzsch, Lange and Bib. Comm. on Genesis 31:19. Samuel’s decided condemnation of teraphim-worship (which he clearly did not regard as a permissible form of Jehovah-worship) is to be noted.—Tr.].—For the sake of emphasis the predicates in both clauses stand before the subjects. As in divination and idolatry the living God is denied and rejected, so is rebellion and stubbornness a defection from the Lord and a rejection of the Lord This is the ground (λִּ ?ι) of the declaration in 1 Samuel 15:22. Now follows the sentence thus grounded, with sharp brevity concluding this part of the scene: Because thou hast rejected the word of the Lord, he hath rejected thee from being king.—Rejected by the Lord, Saul is now himself abandoned “to his self-love and his passions” (Berl. Bib.). 1 Samuel 15:24-31. Saul’s vain striving with Samuel in false penitence, and Samuel’s sentence of rejection. 1 Samuel 15:24. Saul confesses: I have sinned.—To judge from his previous obstinate refusal to acknowledge his wrong, Samuel’s earnest and powerful address must have worked on his inner life like a circle of fire ever closing in upon his conscience, so that he saw himself forced to abandon his attempts at palliation and frankly make this confession of sin. The whole preceding narrative shows that it was extorted from him partly by the unsparing revelation of his lies and hypocrisy and the undeniable exhibition of his heart-rooted disobedience, partly by the judicial decision respecting the unavertible consequences of his defection and disobedience. A confession of sin induced by resulting evil and punishment is often no expression of true penitence. And it is not this with Saul; for though he now confesses that he has transgressed the commandment of the Lord, he yet shows that he is not thinking solely of the Lord, since he adds: “and thy word.” His conduct before and after this throws light on this apparently unimportant statement of his; powerfully impressed by Samuel’s word, he puts it alongside of the word of the Lord; he is concerned to regain Samuel’s good-will and approbation. This regard for Samuel’s human authority, which ought to vanish out of sight before God’s authority, springs from the same root in his heart (lack of humble fear and simple obedience towards God) as the fear of men and desire to please men which he himself now gives as the reason for his disobedience: For I feared the people and obeyed their voice.—Berl. Bib.: “Here stands revealed the hypocrite, who loved the honor of men more than the favor of God. The people must still tear the blame.” Instead of fearing God, he feared the people, he the king, who in this, therefore, was guilty of unpardonable weakness; he obeyed the voice of the people instead of God’s voice out of fear of man, if indeed the people did make the demand. And yet in all his confession of sinful regard for men his purpose is evidently to soften his guilt by bringing in the people.—[Exodus 23:2 : Thou shalt not follow the multitude into evil.—Tr.]—He prays Samuel: And now, pardon my sin. He does not turn straightway to God with this prayer; the “and now” indicates his belief that he might expect the fulfilment of his prayer in return for his confession of sin. Samuel turns from him, perceiving that the confession and prayer do not come from a truly penitent heart. To this Saul’s request refers: Return with me that I may worship the Lord.—Confession, renewed excuse, cry for forgiveness, request to Samuel to remain, desire to approach God, all follow one after another in painful haste. Saul is smitten by his conscience; but his heart is not broken. He nevertheless gives not God the honor. 1 Samuel 15:26. Samuel, seeing through him, shortly and decidedly rejects his request, and instead repeats his previous judicial sentence, because Saul’s desire for forgiveness sprang not from a penitence directed to God, but from a self-loving penitence, whose aim was his own advantage; for he did not trouble himself about his having dishonored God, but was afraid that he might lose the kingdom. 1 Samuel 15:27. Samuel’s turning away from Saul was a vigorous confirmation of his rejection, and a sign that he would henceforth have no association with him. The impression which the narrative makes on us of a, vehement, unquiet and disordered mind is heightened to the utmost by this moving scene in which Saul seizes the skirt of Samuel’s mantle in order to arrest his departure, uses physical force, that is, to attain his end: and it was rent.—[It is plain that it is Saul that tears Samuel’s garment undesignedly. Some Jewish writers held that Samuel symbolically tore Saul’s garment or his own (Gill).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:28. Samuel uses this as a symbol to show Saul that the Lord had that day rent the kingdom from him. The second part of Samuel’s address declares that the theocratic kingdom was to be given to another, “thy neighbor,”—an indefinite expression, since Samuel did not yet know whom the Lord had chosen—who is better than thou, that is, who would walk obediently in the ways of the Lord. Before it was said: “the Lord hath rejected thee from the kingdom;” now it is said: the Lord hath rent the kingdom from thee. Samuel, who for the third time announces the rejection of Saul (whose spiritual steadfastness constantly diminishes), expressly emphasizes the fact that the Lord has rejected him not merely personally, but as the theocratic king. In 1 Samuel 13., on the other hand, it was declared that the kingdom should not remain permanently in his family. Though now Saul retained the kingdom some years after this rejection, God’s relation to him was, in consequence of his apostasy, completely altered; he no longer looked on him as the organ of His will, and withdrew from him the power and gifts of His Spirit. His external royalty remained as a divine appointment; but its inner core was rejected; Saul, as bearer of the royal office, was rejected, because he had rejected the Lord. 1 Samuel 15:29. Samuel declares this divine sentence to be unavertible and unavoidable: And also the Refuge of Israel will not lie nor repent; for he is not a man that he should repent, that is, the judicial decision, by which the Lord has inflicted on thee the penalty of rejection, remains unchanged and unchangeable by reason of His immutable will. “And also” introduces this sentence as something new=“in addition to this.” πֵ ?φַ ?η = “steadfastness, permanence,” then subjectively “trust, confidence” (Lamentations 3:18), then the object of trust, of God: the Refuge [Eng. A. V. Strength]. The same declaration of the unchangeableness of the divine decisions, only in reference to His promise of blessing, is found in Numbers 23:19. Comp. Jeremiah 4:28; Ezekiel 24:14. The apparent contradiction between this declaration (“The Lord does not repent”) and that in 1 Samuel 15:11; 1 Samuel 15:35 (“The Lord repented”) is by some expositors harmonized by remarking (Clericus) that here (1 Samuel 15:29) the words are said θεοπρεπῶς [as becomes God], and are there to be understood ἀνθρωποπαθῶς [after the manner of men]; but this does not offer a complete solution of the question, since the expression “it repented the Lord,” rightly understood after being divested of its human dress, is the appropriate expression of a real manifestation of the unchangeable divine being and will, only this latter must occupy a different relation to the man who has himself changed. In contrast with man, who repents because his will changes, God is here declared by Samuel to be (in respect to Saul) the unchangeable God, who cannot contradict Himself, as would be the case if He retracted His decision concerning the impenitent Saul; while in 1 Samuel 15:41 and 1 Samuel 15:35 the same unchangeable God is described in human phrase according to the changed relation which His unvarying holy and righteous will must occupy to men when they recede from the religious-moral relation to Him, under which He has hitherto in holiness and righteousness revealed Himself. 1 Samuel 15:30. Not even by this overwhelming declaration of the irrevocable character of God’s sentence, founded, as it was, in the unchangeableness of His holy and righteous will, is the excited Saul silenced. Two things, he says, wherein is displayed the real selfishness and self-love of his heart. First he repeats his confession of sin. But it is only in one word: “I have sinned.” And that this was a hypocritical one is shown by what follows:—Yet, honour me now, I pray thee, before the elders of my people and before Israel, and return with me that I may [better, “and I will,”—Tr.], worship the Lord thy God. How many words, spoken with passionate haste, against that one cold introductory word “I have sinned!” If the Lord’s sentence of rejection is irrevocable, Saul will at least before men save the halo of royal honor. His inner man is revealed. He did not honor the Lord by obedience, and when his disobedience was held up before him, he persistently denied the Lord His honor in his impenitent mind. Now comes to light the deepest-lying ground of this conduct. He is concerned about his own honor. In his self-seeking he has clean cast loose from the Lord and withdrawn into himself. [If Saul had been really penitent, he would have prayed to be humbled rather than to be honored (Gregory, quoted by Wordsworth).—Tr.]. And Samuel returned after Saul. He then acceded to Saul’s request, not, of course, to yield to his selfish opposition to God’s honor, but to preserve unimpaired in the eyes of the people the position of Saul’s kingdom, which though theocratically rejected, yet still in fact by God’s will remained, and especially not to be wanting in the sacrifice of the people. 1 Samuel 15:32 sq. What Saul had disobediently neglected, Samuel executes in the name of the Lord, namely, the extermination of Amalek by slaying king Agag.—Agag appeared before Samuel cheerfully; the word occurs in Ps. 29:17 in the sense of “joy.” His words: Surely, the bitterness of death is past agree with his joyful mood. S. Schmid sees in them the feigned courageousness which cowards can put on. Others understand a real heroic contempt of death in the presence of death. Probably, however, Agag, not having been slain by Saul, was all the surer of life when he was led from the king to Samuel [since Samuel was an old man and a priest.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 15:33. Samuel’s words, however, must have immediately shown him his error. They presuppose that Agag had acted with great cruelty in his marauding and military expeditions: “As thy sword has made women childless, so shall thy mother be the most childless [or, be childless] among women;” that is, “because in her son she loses at the same time the king of her people” (Bunsen).—There can be nothing surprising in Samuel’s “hewing Agag in pieces” for one who from the theocratic point of view regards Agag’s death as a necessity founded in the divine decree, and sees in Samuel the divine instrument for the fulfilment of the divine will, coming in place of him who in spite of his call thereto has refused obedience and service. Grot.: “When kings abandoned their duty, God often executed His law by prophets” 1 Kings 18:40. [Samuel’s act was not one of revenge, not an individual execution of justice, but a simple carrying out for the people of the ban-sentence pronounced against Amalek by Jehovah.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 15:34 sq. The notice that Samuel returned to Ramah and Saul to Gibeah is a significant introduction to the important statement that henceforth Samuel broke off all communication with Saul: He saw him no more to the day of his death. Maurer: “He went to see Saul no more.” This does not contradict 1 Samuel 19:24, according to which Saul once more met him. All intercourse with Saul on Samuel’s side ceased from now on, since God had rejected him, and Samuel could have met him only as messenger and prophet of God. From this also we see that Saul’s kingship, though still one de facto, yet from this time lost its theocratic relation. God’s ambassador was recalled from him; the intercourse of the God of Israel with Saul through His Spirit came to an end, because Saul, sinking step by step away from God, had by continued disobedience and increasing impenitence given up communion with God.—In keeping with the above mention of Samuel’s fervent, continued prayer for Saul is the statement: “For Samuel mourned for Saul;” this was the human sorrow for this highly-gifted, highly-favored, and hopelessly-sunken man; then follows the deeply pathetic statement: “The Lord repented, etc.;” this was the divine sorrow over the loss of this chosen instrument. AND 1. When the Scriptures speak of God’s repentance, anger, zeal, and the like, ascribing to Him human affections and dispositions, and consequently changes, we cannot regard these anthropopathisms as merely figurative statements; these representations, after leaving out the ungodly human element, as Nitzsch (Syst., § 79 A. 2) remarks, have “realness and validity; it is not a human, but a divine movement that is spoken of, and we must therefore deny that it is sinful and passionate, but not that it is efficient and true.” The anthropopathic representations set forth a real relation of the living God to man who bears His image, only described from a human standpoint. They are the means of maintaining vigorously and effectively the thought of the living God and His real relation to man, and of saving it from being dissipated in abstractions. Kling admirably says on the two passages in point in this chapter (Art. “Reue” in Herzog): “The latter (1 Samuel 15:29 “he does not repent”) refers to the firm, irrevocable resolution to give the kingdom to a better man; the repentance (1 Samuel 15:11) looks to the fact that Saul, an humble man when he was called and fitted to discharge his duty in faith and obedience, was now changed, exalted himself in his office, would be his own master, and, setting aside God’s express command, followed his own pleasure. Thus he showed himself no longer fit to be king in Israel, God’s people, and the divine will, which made him king, changed to the opposite,—a repentance which betrays no mutability in God, but rather reveals His constancy alongside of the mutability of man, His unvarying will that the humbly obedient shall be king in Israel.” 2. Persistent impenitence towards the holy and righteous God, as it is exemplified in Saul, has its deepest ground in the unwillingness to subordinate one’s own self, especially one’s own will to the holy will and the gracious will of God. It leads to hypocrisy, which seeks to cover its own wrong with works of external piety, or lays the blame on outward circumstances and other men. Before the irrefragable self-revelation of the holy and righteous God the impenitent man, despite his concealing lies and hypocrisy, must ever reveal new hidden sins, ever involve himself from step to step in new sins, till the deepest depth of his sinful heart is displayed in self-seeking, self-love, and self-will; and if the sinner will not even then humble himself and take refuge in the grace of God, there comes the judgment of inner hardening, by which the man becomes insusceptible to the influences of God’s Spirit and word, and incapable of turning to God, since the will confirms itself in permanent opposition to God; the end is the divine judgment of rejection. See the separate steps of this process in the Exposition of the Section. 3. The word: “Obedience is better than sacrifice” is the refutation of a twofold error: 1) that man can gain God’s approval by outward works, apart from a spirit of true obedience in which heart and will are given up and subjected to Him; 2) that man can by such works absolve himself from the performance of moral duties, and escape the guilt and punishment of his disobedience to God.—This declaration further indicates the true relation between the ceremonial law and the moral law. The holy usages of the former, especially sacrifices, do not occupy towards the demands of the latter the relation of the Outward to the Inward. “Every ceremonial law is moral; the outward act is never enjoined but for the sake of the inward thing, what it pictures—represents. Never is there body without spirit. But the fleshly sense would have none of the spirit, and laid hold solely of the body, which thus isolated became a corpse.” Hengst. Einl. zu Psalms 50. That word contains the principle of and lays the foundation for the position which the prophetic Order (after Samuel’s example) takes towards the sacrificial worship and the fulfilment of the ceremonial law in general. Not the offering absolutely is rejected, but the outward work without the root of love to God (Deuteronomy 6:5) and of the obedience whence alone it can spring as fruit well-pleasing to God. On the relation between the teaching of the Mosaic law and this prophetical doctrine (which dates from this word of Samuel) of the necessity of the sacrifice of a pious heart and an humbly obedient will in contrast with external service according to the prescriptions of the ritual law, Oehler (Herz. XII. 228) says: “The prophets, by bringing out the difference between the ritual and moral laws, and by declaring the merely outward service to be in itself worthless—and valid only as the expression of a godly will, merely logically developed Mosaism, which indeed commonly puts the moral and the ritual, the inward and the outward immediately side by side, but therein indicates not unclearly the sense and aim of its teaching, partly by basing all laws on the divine elective grace and the divine holiness, partly in the fact that even the ritual ordinances of the Law every where display a spiritual meaning, and thus awaken a dim conception of moral duties. On the other hand, Prophecy by inserting in its pictures of the Messianic times essential features of the old ceremonial, shows that it holds fast the divine significance and warranty of the ritual law.” AND 1 Samuel 15:1. Berlenb. Bible: Although Saul was rejected by God on account of his disobedience, yet God left him still king, so that he was bound to carry out the will of God.—[Henry: Samuel plainly intimates that he was now about to put Saul upon a trial, in one particular instance, whether he would be obedient to the command of God or no. And the making of this so expressly the trial of his obedience, did very much aggravate his disobedience.—Gill: And whereas he had been deficient in one instance before, for which he had been reproved [chap. 13., he suggests that now he should take care to observe and do, particularly and punctually, what should be enjoined him.—Tr.] It is impossible to be truly a king and to rule in the church, if one does not yet know the voice of the Lord, and cannot distinguish it from the voice of reason and nature. 1 Samuel 15:2-3. Starke: God’s judgments, though they come slowly, yet come certainly and at the right time (Exodus 32:34).—[Hall: He that thinks, because punishment is deferred, that God hath forgiven or forgot his offence, is unacquainted with justice, and knows not that time makes no difference in eternity.—Tr.]—Schlier: When God the Lord commands such a war of annihilation, then this is no war of human vengeance; still less is it an ambitious war of conquest—but it is a judgment of divine wrath. 1 Samuel 15:6. Cramer: We must beware of communion with the ungodly, that we may not be swept away with them (Rom. 18:4).—Osiander: God requites to the pious even their forefathers’ good works and benefits, which they have done to their neighbor. Who then will say that it is vain to serve God (Malachi 3:14).—Schlier: Thus does every good thing reward itself; nothing remains forgotten; often in later centuries the seed sown in an old past yet every where comes up gloriously, and children and children’s children derive advantage from the good done by the fathers. 1 Samuel 15:8-9. Starke: Not what seems to us good are we to do, but what God will have from us (Jeremiah 7:23). Avarice leads to great sins, especially to untimely compassion (1 Timothy 6:10).—S. Schmid: No one is more foolish than he who wishes to be wiser than God, and ventures to explain God’s word and commandments according to what seems good to him. 1 Samuel 15:10-11. “It repenteth me.”—Berlenb. Bible: Such feelings must in the case of God be understood in a divine manner, and not as in the case of changeable men in a human manner; they must be understood more in the effect than in the affection, of God’s unchangeable righteousness, which moves Him to withdraw His special grace and to with hold His hand, the cause of every change that takes place among His creatures.—[Gill: Though God repented He made Saul king, He never repents of His making His saints kings and priests for Himself. His outward gifts He sometimes takes away, as an earthly crown and kingdom; but His gifts and callings which are of special grace are without repentance, Romans 11:29.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:12. Osiander: The lost sheep we must diligently seek, if perhaps they may be brought to the right way. 1 Samuel 15:13. [Henry: Thus sinners think by justifying themselves to escape being judged of the Lord; whereas the only way to do that is by judging ourselves.—Tr.]—Starke [from Hall]: No man brags so much of holiness as he that wants it (Luke 18:11-12).—[Wordsworth: Here is a proof that a man may be blinded by his own self-will, and that he may imagine that his own way is right, while it is leading him to the gate of death (Proverbs 14:12; Proverbs 16:25). It is not enough for a man to be approved by his own conscience; but it is necessary to regulate the conscience by God’s Will and Word (Acts 26:9; 1 Timothy 1:13).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:14-15. S. Schmid: God knows how to bring men’s sins to light, however great the care with which they may be cloaked.—Starke: Nothing remains concealed, and sooner than the sins of the ungodly should fail to be reported, the irrational creatures themselves must reveal them. [Hall: Could Saul think that Samuel knew of the asses that were lost, and did not know of the oxen and sheep that were spared? …… Much less when we have to do with God Himself should dissimulation presume either of safety or secrecy. Can the God that made the heart, not know it?—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:15. [From Hall]: It is a shameful hypocrisy to make our commodity the measure and rule of our execution of God’s command, and under pretence of godliness to intend gain.—Osiander: Hypocrites will not come right out with the confession of their sin, but desire always to excuse and palliate it.—Berl. Bible: Beware of covering thy ungodly heart with the cloak of religion, and consider that the day is coming on which God will make manifest what is hidden in darkness and the counsel of men’s hearts (1 Corinthians 4:5). 1 Samuel 15:16. S. Schmid: We must not look to what hypocrites say of themselves, but to what God’s word says of them.—Berl. Bible: Hold on! speak not many vain words to cloak and to palliate! The stitches do not hold. Happy he in whose spirit there is no guile (Psalms 32:2). [Scott: The unhumbled heart, however, will never be at a loss to excuse or palliate the most evident criminality; and it will always be necessary for preachers to drive sinners from their subterfuges, to show them the malignity and aggravation of their offences, to silence their objections and excuses, and urge conviction upon their hearts, though the convincing Spirit of God alone can render the means effectual (John 16:8; John 16:11).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 15:20. Cramer: That is the way with hypocrites, that they make themselves fair, and yet are not washed from their filthiness (Proverbs 30:12). They boast of their works, and their hand kisses their mouth (Job 31:27; Luke 18:11).—Berl. Bible: Saul makes his cause worse and worse, while he wishes to be guiltless, yea, even to be in the right towards God, as if he had executed every thing quite well, even after Samuel had already censured him and sought to arouse his conscience. It is accordingly not only a single sin, but many there come together. He contradicts the prophet, he denies that he has been disobedient; he makes light of his fault, even if any fault were granted, and throws it to and fro from himself to the people; he uses the service of God for a pretext and cloak of excuse, like a vile hypocrite who has little respect for God’s omniscience. See what tricks corrupt nature can devise? How crafty it is in its concealment! How many kinds of subterfuges it employs to defend itself! 1 Samuel 15:21. Osiander: It is a horrible crime when any one wishes to cloak his avarice, disobedience and other crimes with religious devotion (John 12:4-6).—Berl. Bible: How many engaged in God’s worship deceive themselves herein, who think it is enough to offer something temporal to the Lord, when meanwhile they are constantly maintaining their own disposition and their own will!—[Scott: When the Lord expressly says, “Thou shalt,” and His rational creature dares to persist in saying, “I will not,” whether the contest be about an apple or a kingdom—it is “stubbornness” and “rebellion”—a contempt of the commandment of God, and a daring insult to His majesty and authority.—Tr.]—J. Lange: Even in the Levitical worship God always and chiefly looked to the inner (Ezekiel 6:6; Psalms 51:18-19). My fellow Christian! make thy Christianity then consist not in the outward but in the inward, and worship God in spirit and truth (John 4:24).—Berl. Bible: May we then take good care that even when we mean to render the Lord service or obedience, we yet beware of our choice and fancy, and follow only the traces of the divine will, and thereby escape from ourselves or break and tame our own will. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ THIRD The Decline Of Saul’s Kingdom, And The Elevation Of David. From Saul’s Rejection To His Death 1 Samuel 16-31 _____________________ FIRST SECTIONEarly History of David, the Anointed of the Lord1 Samuel 16I. Choice and Anointing of David as King through Samuel. Chap: 1 Samuel 16:1-131 And the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Samuel, How long wilt thou mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill thine horn with oil, and go, I will send thee to Jesse the Bethlehemite, for I have provided me a king 2among his sons. And Samuel said, How can I go? If Saul hear it, he will kill me. And the Lord [Jehovah] said, Take an heifer with thee, and say, I am come 3to sacrifice to the Lord [Jehovah]. And call Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show thee what thou shalt do; and thou shalt anoint unto me him whom I name 4unto thee. And Samuel did that which the Lord [Jehovah] spake, and came to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town [city] trembled at his coming [went 5tremblingly to meet him], and said, Comest thou peaceably [in peace]? And he said, Peaceably [In peace]; I am come to sacrifice unto the Lord [Jehovah]; sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice. And he sanctified Jesse and 6his sons, and called them to the sacrifice. And it came to pass, when they were come, that he looked on Eliab and said, Surely the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed Isaiah 7 before him. But [And] the Lord [Jehovah] said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance [appearance], or [nor] on the height of his stature, because [for] I have refused him; for the Lord [Jehovah] seeth not as man seeth, for man looketh 8on the outward appearance, but the Lord [Jehovah] looketh on the heart. Then [And] Jesse called Abinadab, and made him pass before Samuel. And he said, 9Neither hath the Lord [Jehovah] chosen this [him]. Then [And] Jesse made Shammah to pass by. And he said, Neither hath the Lord [Jehovah] chosen this 10[him]. Again, [And] Jesse made seven of his sons to pass before Samuel. And 11Samuel said unto Jesse, The Lord [Jehovah] hath not chosen these. And Samuel said unto Jesse, Are here all thy children [the young men]? And he said, There remaineth yet the youngest, and behold, he keepeth the sheep. And Samuel said 12unto Jesse, Send and fetch him, for we will not sit down till he come hither. And he sent and brought him in. Now [And] he was ruddy, and [om. and] withal of a beautiful countenance [with beautiful eyes withal], and goodly to look to 13[at]. And the Lord [Jehovah] said, Arise, anoint him, for this is Hebrews 11 Then [And] Samuel took the horn of oil, and anointed him in the midst of his brethren. And the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] came upon David from that day forward. So [And] Samuel rose up and went to Ramah. AND 1 Samuel 16:1, exhibiting Samuel in deep grief for Saul, connects itself immediately with 1 Samuel 15:35. We find him here in the same sorrow in which we left him. Samuel mourned for Saul in view of the great gifts of grace which he had received, but had nullified and lost by his disobedience and impenitence, in view of the Lord’s honor, which he had violated, and in view of the people, for whom he had by his conduct turned God’s blessing into a curse. Samuel’s grief was an expression of the same love which drove him to intercession for Saul and at the same time filled him with holy anger (1 Samuel 15:11). It was sorrow for Saul’s rejection, but there was not (Brenz, Tremellius) connected with it prayer for the restoration of Saul to his former relation to God and for the renewal of his kingdom, of which nothing is said.—The question: How long? contains a divine reproof, indicating (so the words: “seeing I have rejected him from being king over Israel”) that Samuel by his deep, long-continued grief over Saul’s condition (a lamentable one under all circumstances and evermore) was out of sympathy with God and God’s decrees and ways, which are clearly announced in these words and in 1 Samuel 15:35. Calvin: “The excellent prophet here displays something of human weakness. Samuel here looked on a vessel made by the invisible hand of God Himself utterly broken and minished, and his emotion thereat shows his pious and holy affection,—yet he is not without sin; not at all that the feeling is evil, but because it is excessive.” From his own sad thoughts and feelings Samuel is directed through the Spirit of the Lord to the thoughts and the will of the Lord in respect to the Theocracy, as organ of which Saul is rejected. [Comp. the similar dealing with Elijah, 1 Kings 19—Tr.]. The Lord commands him to enter into His ways, which are to lead to the choice and consecration of another as instrument of the royal authority of God over His people. The divine command is: Go and anoint one of the sons of Jesse the Bethlehemite, whom I have chosen to be king over Israel.—This command presupposes an exact acquaintance on Samuel’s part with Jesse and his house, and the presence in his family of the conditions necessary for the theocratic kingdom. That the family was a wealthy one is certain from 1 Samuel 16:11. That true godliness and piety reigned in it appears from Samuel’s acquaintance and intercourse with it, and the sacrifice which he held in the house. 1 Samuel 16:2. Heretofore Samuel had grieved for Saul—now he fears him: How can I go? if Saul hear it he will slay me.—This protest against the plain direction of the voice of God rests naturally on the fact that Saul was still, notwithstanding the divine sentence of rejection, rightful king of Israel, and would regard the designation of another to the office (if it could not be kept concealed from him) as an act of treachery and revolt, even though Samuel should plead the divine command in his justification. “He will kill me,”—to explain these words, therefore, we need not suppose that the evil spirit had already driven Saul to madness. Even if that were the case, Saul might in his seasons of quiet also resolve to slay the betrayer of the kingdom.—This fear of Samuel is overborne by inspired direction as to what he is to do to conceal the act; he is to go to hold a sacrificial feast, and so announce himself. This divine command supposes that Samuel did not confine his circuits to certain holy places (1 Samuel 7:16) where the people appeared in large numbers, but visited other places to hold public divine service, and that Jesse consequently could not be surprised at his appearing in Bethlehem for such a purpose. Berl. Bib.: “People must have been accustomed to Samuel’s coming to this place and the other to sacrifice, which was very proper for a prophet, especially at the time when Shiloh was desecrated.” This throws a new light on Samuel’s combination of priestly work with prophetical.—No shade of untruthfulness rests on this command. As Saul’s anointing (1 Samuel 10:16) was concealed, so David’s anointing also is, according to the divine will, yet to remain a secret. Samuel was to keep this secret. Its concealment behind the sacrifice was not a lie. Calvin: “It is to be observed that he practiced no simulation, but said what was true, namely, that he had come to sacrifice; but he put fraud on no one, he deceived no one, he used no bad arts, but conformed to the divine command, because it was not meet to publish God’s design, when as yet God wished it to be concealed;—here lurked no falsehood, and the end was good, unconnected with fraud or treachery, but God wished David’s anointing to be carefully kept as a secret deposit, so to speak, and a pledge.” 1 Samuel 16:3. The performance of the divine commission in the sacrificial feast. Three directions are to be distinguished: 1) Samuel is to invite Jesse to the sacrificial meal; it is a slain-offering (ζֶ ?αַ ?η) that is spoken of, with which was connected a feast; he is to be associated with Jesse in the feast in the narrower circle of the family. “Call in the sacrifice” is construct. pr�gn. for “call to take part in the sacrifice;” 2) Samuel is to await direction from above. “I will tell thee what thou shalt do.” This exhibits the specifically divine factor (of which Samuel is to be organ) in the choice of the new king of Israel; 3) He is to anoint as king him whom God shall name. 1 Samuel 16:4. And Samuel did, etc. The troubled condition of soul which could not accept God’s thoughts and ways disappeared before the strict obedience of the will, which bowed before the Lord’s will. The elders of Bethlehem came tremblingly to meet him with the question: Comest thou in peace? (The Sing. εַ ?ιֹּ ?ΰξֶ ?ψ “said,” because one spoke in the name of all. Comp. Judges 8:6; Numbers 32:25). This question does not mean “Has a misfortune occurred, as the cause of thy coming?” nor does it express fear of punishment for some special misdoing (in the pillaging) in the Amalekite war, but it is the involuntary utterance of the fear which Samuel’s sudden, unexpected appearance produced; for though he no longer formally held the office of judge, he yet appeared here and there (as formerly in his judicial circuits) to make unexpected visitation and exercise his watch-office as prophet. On such occasions it was his principal care to administer earnest rebuke, and to remove the evil that he found. To this refers the fright of the elders at meeting him, and the question whether he came in peace or for good?1 Samuel 16:5. He answers the question in the affirmative and so quiets the Bethlehemites, declares the purpose of his coming to be to institute a sacrifice for the people of Bethlehem, and directs them to sanctify themselves and take part with him in the sacrifice. The “sanctifying” means the consecration of the person to the service of God by washing the body and putting on clean garments as symbol of the cleansing of the soul for communion with the holy God. Comp. Genesis 35:2; Exodus 19:10; Exodus 19:22. (The same pregnant construction here as in 1 Samuel 16:3). While directing the elders to take part in the offering, Samuel gives a special invitation to Jesse and his sons (by the same direction, to sanctify themselves) to partake of the sacrificial meal with him. [It is to be observed that the Heb. text here makes no difference between the invitation to Jesse’s family and the general invitation to the elders. The Sept. and the Chald. make the former refer to the sacrifice and the latter to the sacrificial meal. It seems that there was a special meeting with Jesse and his sons, but it is not so stated in the text. After 1 Samuel 16:5, indeed, nothing more is said of the sacrifice, the narrative taking this for granted, and going on to the main occurrence.—Tr.].—After the ark was removed from the Tabernacle and Shiloh had thus ceased to be the place of worship and sacrifice for Israel, there were several places where altars for sacrifices were erected. The offering of the sacrifice is here to be put after 1 Samuel 16:5, and not (Then.) after the words “in the midst of his brethren” 1 Samuel 16:13, for the “coming” in 1 Samuel 16:6 refers to the feast, as appears from the words in 1 Samuel 16:11, “we will not sit down,” and from the general connection. Samuel thought (lit., said) that Jesse’s eldest son, Eliab, was surely the Lord’s anointed. 1 Samuel 16:7. The difference is sharply stated between the divine thoughts and human judgment according to human standards. The voice of God inwardly teaches Samuel two things: 1) in respect of Eliab’s person, he is not to infer from his imposing exterior that he was the chosen of the Lord. With this humbling correction, which connects itself with 1 Samuel 16:1-2, he is taught 2) a general truth respecting the difference between divine and human modes of thought and judgment: Not what man sees—to which we must supply the words “sees the Lord.” This ellipsis is not so hard as to require us to suppose (Then.) that these words have fallen out of the text. The thought naturally fills itself out from what precedes. The ground of the truth, that human judgment and divine judgment are not the same but different, is now declared.—For man looks on the eyes, but the Lord looks on the heart, that is, man judges according to the outward appearance,—the expression “the eyes” is not (with Sept.) to be exchanged for “countenance,” but to be retained as signifying the outward appearance, which concentrates itself in the eyes, in contrast with the heart or the centre of the inner life, whence springs man’s will and his whole spiritual frame. Not according to the agreeable appearance which commends itself to the eyes, but according to the moral worth hidden in the depths of the heart, according to the disposition of soul that pleases Him does the Lord judge, who proveth the heart and the reins.1 Samuel 16:8. The same decision is announced with reference to the second son, Abinadab. And so 1 Samuel 16:9 as to the third, Shammah. Thus Jesse made seven of his sons pass before Samuel. But Samuel’s decision, according to the voice of God within him, is always negative. The “he said” in 1 Samuel 16:8-9 refers to Samuel, and = “he thought.” We are, therefore, not thence to suppose that Samuel had communicated to Jesse the object of his mission. It is not till 1 Samuel 16:10 that the words “to Jesse” are added, expressly indicating an address of Samuel to him: the Lord hath not chosen these. It does not, however, follow, even from these words, that Samuel made Jesse a sharer in the divine secret. According to the following narrative none of the family (David’s father and brothers), know anything of David’s high destiny. That address to Jesse is merely a negative declaration that the divine selection, with which Samuel was concerned, and which in the absence of express intimation of its nature, might refer to the prophetic office, rested on none of these seven sons. Samuel’s word was by reason of its indefiniteness a riddle, whose solution Jesse was to attain only from the following development of the history of his youngest son. 1 Samuel 16:11. To Samuel’s question whether these are all the young men, Jesse answers that the youngest yet remains. The prophet of the Lord is not satisfied with the presentation of the seven sons; he bids the father send for the youngest, before they sit down to the sacrificial meal. πָ ?ρֹ ?α = “we will not surround,” namely, the table, we will not sit around it to eat till he come. So De Wette, Ewald, Maurer. The explanation: “we will not turn about, namely, to proceed to something else, but will remain here waiting” (Then., Bφtt.) does not suit the situation as given by the context. 1 Samuel 16:12. David’s appearance, ruddy, of the color of the hair, red hair being regarded in the East (as contrasting with the usual black color) as especially beautiful. ςִ ?ν (as 1 Samuel 17:42; Ecclesiastes 2:16) used adverbially = “at the same time,” “withal;” beautiful of eyes and good, pleasing in appearance. In this youngest son were united the beauty of the oldest, and that which is well-pleasing to the Lord, what “the Lord looks on,” a heart and mind after the will and good pleasure of the Lord (1 Samuel 16:7). And so the divine decision is announced to Samuel: Arise, anoint him, for this is he. He is thus freed from all doubts and suspicions. Sure of his course, Samuel (1 Samuel 16:13) performs the ceremony of anointing David (the object and meaning of the act being still an enigma to Jesse and his other sons) in the midst of his brethren or from among [Germ. unter] his brethren; the Heb. preposition (αְּ ?χֶ ?ψֶ ?α) may mean either. Thenius adopts the latter on the ground that the brothers had gone away, but this is not required by the narrative. Samuel’s words in the second half of 1 Samuel 16:11 rather imply that they were all there. [Abarbanel and Philippson also adopt this view of the word, “among” his brethren, that is, “he alone of his brethren,” because this better explains their after ignorance.—Tr.]. In any case the special significance, which God designed this anointing to have, was hidden from them. Anointing was always a symbol of the divine impartation of the Spirit from above on the Anointed. The impartation began immediately for David: The Spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day forward.—This could not have happened, if the religious-ethical conditions had not been present in David’s heart. This impartation of the Spirit was (along with the general gift of the divine Spirit) the special endowment with gifts and powers for the special theocratic royal calling, to which David was chosen and consecrated by this anointing according to divine decree and will. The word “from that day forward” denotes the continuity of the impartation of the Spirit to David’s inner life, and indicates its unbroken development under the guidance of the divine Spirit to full fitness and capacity for the royal calling. Keil properly calls attention to the fact that nothing is here said of any explanatory word of Samuel touching this point, as in Saul’s anointing, 1 Samuel 10:1. Whether David was now informed by Samuel of the meaning of the act is uncertain. Most probably he was not informed, since it was performed in the presence of the brothers, and its object was (according to the will of God) to remain concealed from them and the people. [It seems likely that a royal destiny for David would be the last thing in the minds of his brothers, for his higher intellectual and spiritual gifts were apparently at this time unknown to them. Gradually the course of events led them and the people (so Abigail 1 Samuel 25:30) and probably Saul (1 Samuel 28:17) to look on David as Saul’s successor, and David would receive intimations concerning his destiny from Samuel. There is, therefore, no serious difficulty in understanding the silence of the brothers in the succeeding history.—Tr]. Samuel went to Ramah. That David was in constant communication with him (and perhaps with the prophetic school there) is quite certain from the following history. Comp. 19, 20 sq. In this intercourse with the prophet of the Lord he learned the meaning of Samuel s enigmatical act, and, under the progressive occupation and enlightenment of his inner life by the Spirit from above, received the knowledge of the duties of his royal calling and the preparation to fulfill them. For the present his election and anointing to be king of Israel remained a divine secret. AND 1. The affairs of the kingdom of God go their way without break or halt according to God’s high thoughts and decrees, though human sin and its attendant judgment (as in Saul’s case), or human weakness (as in Samuel’s immediate grief for Saul) may seem to hinder the plans of the divine wisdom. “In the history of Israel the concealing curtain of human purpose and action is lifted, and the thus unveiled, all-moving and all-guiding hand of Him of whom it is written, ‘He worketh all things according to the counsel of his own will’ (Ephesians 1:11), appears therein” (F. W. Krummacher, David, p. 1). But it is also precisely by human sin and foolishness that the history of God’s kingdom under the guidance of the divine wisdom and providence receives new occasions and impulses to wider and higher development according to the aims which God sets before Himself. 2. Samuel’s grief for Saul, transgressing the bounds set by God and thus displeasing to Him, is easily explicable psychologically not merely from natural human feeling, but also from Samuel’s theocratic calling and prophetic official interest. Considered from this point of view also it is not in conflict with Samuel’s immovable prophetic opposition to Saul and his sentence of rejection, but is at the same time the most striking refutation of the false conception of Samuel’s relation to Saul in this prophetic-judicial bearing towards him, which makes the latter a pitiable sacrifice to priestly jealousy and one-sidedness (see the literature in Winer, to which is to be added M. Dunker, Geschichte des Alterthums I.). 3. The concealing of the truth, when there is no design to deceive, when its utterance is required by no duty, and when the interests of the moral order of the world and of the kingdom of God are in no wise injured, is far from being untruthfulness, much less falsehood; it is rather duty and obedience to the divine will. 4. The beginnings of David’s theocratic life, as they present themselves in his election and calling to be king of Israel, have their roots (when we look back in the light of the divine history of revelation) in the consecrated ground of a family in Judah distinguished in history for piety and godliness, which belonged with its traditions to the shepherd-city of Bethlehem. The family whence Jesse sprang was from the beginning one of the most prominent in the tribe of Judah. One of its ancestors, Nahshon, stood at the head of the whole tribe in the march through the wilderness (Rth 4:20; Numbers 1:7; Numbers 2:3). “How remarkably the noblest and loveliest theocratic piety was nourished in this family, even in the degenerate times of the Judges, appears in the history of Ruth and Boaz; the latter a type of theocratic integrity, the former a truly consecrated flower of heathendom turning longingly to the light of divine revelation in Israel” (Kurtz in Herz. III., 299). Jesse, the son of Obed, was the grandson of this Boaz. His intimacy with Samuel speaks for his piety and that of his family. David was the noblest scion of this family, far excelling his brothers (1 Samuel 16:7; 1 Samuel 16:10) in heart-piety and theocratic feeling. His posture of heart, which stood the divine test and was well-pleasing to God, was the fruit of the piety of his father’s house, whence sprang the humble, consecrated disposition in which, after his anointing, he ripened more and more in soul under the guidance of God’s Spirit to his high calling of theocratic royalty, coming by manifold experiences to a constantly clearer knowledge of this calling, and so guided by the Lord that not only the riddle of his dumb consecration was ever approaching solution, but also “from the course of events (connected with Samuel’s former words to Saul) others, as Jonathan, and even Abigail, concluded that David was destined to be king, 1 Samuel 23:17; 1 Samuel 20:30” (v. Gerl.).—But also, when we look forward in the light of divine revelation, the early part of David’s consecrated life contains many typical elements as factual prophecies or prefigurations of the future. His shepherd-life, continued after he was anointed, in which on the one hand self-consecrated he immerses himself in the contemplation of God’s revelation in nature and in His word, and on the other hand must be ready at any moment to meet the greatest dangers and exhibit boldness and prowess (1 Samuel 17:34-37), presents on these two sides types of his religious life as king, the Spirit of God developing on the basis of this double natural ground two sides of his character, which not merely co-exist, but are interwoven with each other: 1) intensively the innermost concentration and immersion of his thoughtful, meditative heart into the depths of God’s revelation of His power, grace, and wisdom in nature, word, history, and into the depths of the sinful human heart, whence sprang in his psalms partly the inspired praise of God with furtherance and deepening in every direction of the knowledge of God, partly advance in the knowledge of the natural grace-lacking condition of the human heart; 2) extensively his admirable energy and heroic courage in the life of conflict, which he had evermore to lead. In the hiddenness of his royal calling from the people, the gradual ripening of his inner life for his office and the lowliness of the sphere whence he was raised to the throne, he is a type of Christ who, sprung from him according to the flesh, and by the prophets called “Son of David” and “Sprout of Jesse” (Isaiah 11:1; Isaiah 11:10), passes his holy youth in privacy, gradually develops therein for his Messianic calling, and then at the end of this divine-human development steps forth from the lowliness of a natural-human life as the king of Israel, who completes in his person and work God’s revelations for the establishment of His kingdom on earth, and therein enters on the war of subjugation against the ungodly world. From David’s quiet anointing in the modest family-circle at Bethlelem to be King David, up to the birth, in the obscurity of a stall at Bethlehem, of the “Son of David,” the “King of the Jews,” there is an unbroken series of divine revelations, the beginning and end of which are bound together by the descent of the Saviour of the world from the Tribe of Judah “according to the flesh.” And as heathendom entered the principal line of the tribe of Judah (whence came Jesse’s house and David) in three distinguished women, thus sharing in the derivation of the Messiah from Jesse’s family,—and so the impulse implanted (by the fundamental blessing, Genesis 12:3) in the seed of Abraham towards union with heathendom, which takes mostly a thoroughly perverted direction in all Israel’s early history, showed itself in this family (consciously or unconsciously) in a normal and truly theocratic way—so we see, at the end of this development of the kingdom of God in Israel which goes from Bethlehem to Bethlehem, heathendom approaching in Bethlehem the new-born king of the Jews (having a natural right in Him because of its natural God-ordained share in His incarnation) in order to pay Him its homage. [This last statement expresses a parallelism, not a typical relation. That certain heathen women accepted the God of Israel, and that certain heathen astronomers believed in the divinely-sent king of the Jews are both facts illustrative of the promise to Abraham, but we cannot call them type and antitype, since they express not an essential principle, but a concomitant phenomenon of the fact of redemption. So the numerous cases in which God raised His servants from low to high position (as in David’s life) are illustrations of a mode of divine action, and thus parallel to our Lord’s history, but the relation of the events in the Old and New Covenants is not that of type and antitype, since they express an incidental and not an essential spiritual principle. David, as prophet and king, is a type of the true prophet and king, and his experiences as a spiritual-minded man answer to the experiences of the man Jesus; but we cannot apply the term typical (without an unworthy lowering of its meaning) to all the outward resemblances between their lives.—Tr.] 5. The word: “Man looks on the eyes, God looks on the heart,” like that other: “Obedience is better than sacrifice” (1 Samuel 15:22) refers to the right condition of heart in a truly pious, humble disposition towards God the Lord. As we see clearly the difference between God’s word and man’s, between God’s thoughts and man’s, when Samuel says to himself “this or that one is the chosen one,” and the Spirit from above says to his heart “no,” and points him to one of whom he had not thought,—so we see according to their different standards the difference between divine and human judgment. The natural man judges according to the outward and visible; God, who proves and knows the heart and the reins (Psalms 139:1-2; Psalms 44:22 [21]), judges according to the character of the heart and the direction of the will, according to the disposition of soul. AND 1 Samuel 16:1. Berlenb. Bible: We may indeed have compassion upon every one who is wretched because of his sin; but when God’s rejection is seen in continual hardening, that man must be given over to God’s righteous judgment.—God demands in the souls He sets apart for Himself and for the guidance of others, such a dying to all things, that He does not allow them to regard any other interest than His, whatever reason may be alleged.—Schlier: The Lord reproves Samuel, who had indeed meant well, but had not thought rightly; even a Samuel had to subject himself to God’s will, and with his whole mind and life send himself forward in God’s ways. 1 Samuel 16:2 sqq. Starke: Faint-heartedness and feebleness is found even in the best saints, Matthew 8:26.—[Henry: From this it appears 1. That Saul was grown very wicked. 2. That Samuel’s faith was not very strong.—Tr.]—S. Schmid: In doubtful, trying and perilous circumstances it is best to ask God for counsel.—Cramer: A wise man is silent until he sees his time; but a fool cannot wait for the time, Eccl. 20:7; Ecclesiastes 3:7; Genesis 37.; Judges 16:16.—J. Lange: There is a great difference between an untruth, when one says what is false, and silence, when one prudently keeps to himself what it is not necessary for others to know, 1 Samuel 10:15-16.—[We are not bound to tell everything unless we profess to be so doing, or the person asking has such peculiar relations to us as to warrant his expecting it. From failing to distinguish between deception and concealment, some persons condemn concealment and many justify deception. See an excellent discussion, with particular reference to this passage, in Thornwell’s “Discourses on Truth.”—Tr.]—Berl. Bible: Samuel speaks the truth, though he does not speak all the truth, but partly conceals and partly reveals, according to his present design. 1 Samuel 16:5. J. Lange: So too the worthy appropriation of the atonement of Christ unto salvation must, according to the evangelical covenant of grace, be made with real inner purification, Isaiah 1:16. 1 Samuel 16:6. S. Schmid: Human wisdom, however great, may yet be easily deceived accordingly even the wisest men must take care not to be too hasty in deciding. 1 Samuel 16:7. Cramer: God looks not at the outward work, but at the heart, and judges according to what His eyes see, Isaiah 11:3; Acts 10:34.—Berl. Bible: Men decide only according to the appearance, and so are commonly deceived; but the Lord looks to the depths of the heart, its most delicate movements, and our character, which is all clear to Him, and better known than we are to ourselves, Psalms 7:10; Psalms 139.; Hebrews 4:12-13.—True, deep-grounded humility of heart is the only “appearance” in man that pleases God (Isaiah 57:15); to this He looks as the ground of all virtues, for in it His fear has place. But where there is hidden pride, the fear of God is easily neglected.—[W. M. Taylor: We must not undervalue attention to the symmetrical discipline of the physical frame. Yet muscularity is not Christianity, and bodily beauty is not holiness. The character, therefore, ought to be the principal object of attention.—Tr.]—Osiander: Christians too must not be judged by the outward walk, since commonly, through the infirmities of their flesh, they have a bad appearance, while hypocrites, on the contrary, make a good show in their life, 2 Timothy 3:5; Matthew 7:15; Romans 2:20.—[This is true as regards a mere plausible exterior; but Christians should be judged by their actions, Matthew 7:20.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 16:9 sqq. S. Schmid: God knows how to try, often and long, the patience of believers to their good, that He may confirm them in their faith and patience. 1 Samuel 16:11. God is wont to exalt the lowly, that they may always remember their lowliness, and not be proud, but glory only in God who has exalted them, 1 Corinthians 1:27 sqq., 1 Corinthians 1:31. [Scott: Nor does He favor our children according to our fond partialities; but often most honors and blesses those who have been the least regarded.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 16:13. Cramer: Christians are temples and dwellings of the Holy Ghost, 1 Corinthians 6:19.—S. Schmid: When we have done our duty as commanded by God, we have to leave the rest to God’s government, Matthew 10:23. 1 Samuel 16:1-13. F. W. Krummacher: Call and anointing of the shepherd-youth: 1) By what this was occasioned, 2) How it was performed.—[1 Samuel 16:7. Henry: “The Lord looketh on the heart.” 1. He knows the heart. 2. He judges of men by the heart.—Tr.]—J. Disselhoff (The History of King David, 14 sermons): The secret of the choice: 1) The Lord does not choose those who by peculiar gifts of nature are distinguished above others, but 2) He chooses those who faithfully profit by the greater or less measure of God’s grace which is granted them, 3) Who show this faithfulness by pure zeal and obedience in the labor entrusted to them, and 4) Those who even after some success in their labor do not boastfully press themselves forward, but remain in silent humility and quiet seclusion till the Lord brings them forth. [1 Samuel 16:1. Remedies for improper mourning: 1) Submission to the will of God (“I have rejected him”); 2) Diligence in present work for God (“fill thy horn and go”); 3) Hope that God will bring a better future (“I have provided me a king”). 1 Samuel 16:4. Why do men so shrink from religious teachers? 1 Samuel 16:6-12. Difficulty of selecting men for important positions: 1) Causes: a) Intrinsic difficulty of properly estimating character. b) Management of partial friends. 2) Lessons: a) To avoid haste in deciding. b) To make diligent inquiries. c) To seek special Divine guidance. 1 Samuel 16:12. The youth of David. Handsome, energetic, brave, talented and accomplished, of good family, devout—faithfully pursuing an humble calling which developed manliness, and trusting God for the unknown future—O the glorious possibilities of youth! (Comp. Kitto, “Saul and David,” p. 197 sqq., Maurice, “Prophets and Kings,” p. 38 sq.)—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 16:1. Literally “seen.” For similar use of ψΰδ see Genesis 22:8; Deuteronomy 33:21.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:3. Chald. has “sacrificial meal,” perhaps simply as a connected fact, perhaps to avoid apparent infringement on priestly functions. Vulg. has victimam, other VSS. as Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:4. Sept.: “all that the Lord spake to him.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:4. It is better to give a uniform rendering to ςִ ?ιψ, the distinction between “town” and “city” not being found in Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:4. Literally: “is thy coming peace? and he said, peace.” Sept. inserts at the end of the verse the words “O Seer.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:5. Sept.: “and rejoice with me to-day,” probably a free reference to the festive character of the sacrificial meal; so Chald has “meal” instead of “sacrifice.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:7. ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δεּ, Sept. ὄψιν, Erdmann “gestalt,” properly the whole personal appearance. Vulg. vultum, whence perhaps Eng. A. V. Luther, “gestalt.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:7. These words wanting (but understood) in the Heb., are found in the Sept. “God seeth,” and are for clearness better retained. Chald. and Syr. omit as Heb.; Vulg. supplies the words: ego judico.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:10. Sept. (Vat. but not Alex.) omits “unto Jesse.” perhaps (Wellhausen) because Jesse was supposed not to know Samuel’s purpose. In 1 Samuel 16:6 Samuel’s “said” is equivalent to “thought.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:12. This word ΰַ ?γְ ?ξπִֹ ?ι is found only here, 1 Samuel 17:42 and Genesis 25:25, and in the two last passages seems to refer to the color of the skin. The ancient VSS. do not decide. Chald. and Syr. use same word here as in Genesis 25:25; Vulg. rufus, Sept. πυῥῤάκης. Some moderns render “red-haired.” Levy renders the Chald. “red-eyed.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:12. Sept.: “goodly in appearance to the Lord,” and “for he is good,” to preserve the moral aspect of the act in reference to 1 Samuel 16:7.—Tr.] [On the obvious political reason for this secresy see Bib. Comm. and Wordsworth in loco.—Tr.] [See Psalms 7:9; 1 Chronicles 28:9; Luke 16:15.—Tr.] [In 1 Chronicles 2:13-15 only seven sons of Jesse are mentioned; one may have died in youth. The Syr. and Arab. write Elihu (1 Chronicles 27:18) as seventh and David as eighth.—Tr.] [That is to say, the instruction and example of his father’s house was God’s means of developing this disposition in him. Piety is never inherited, but is always the direct creation of the Holy Spirit of God (John 3:6).—Tr.] [The care of the flocks, perhaps an honorable occupation in earlier times (Jacob, Moses), was in later times usually given to inferiors, as servants and younger children.—Tr.] [Tamar (Genesis 38), Rahab (Matthew 1:5). Ruth (Rth 4:13), to which some add Bathsheba (or, Bathshua), but this is uncertain.—Tr.] II. The Darkening of Saul’s Mind by the Evil Spirit, and David’s First Appearance at the Court of Saul as Harpist1 Samuel 16:14-2314 But [And] the Spirit of the Lord [Jehovah] departed from Saul, and an evil 15spirit from the Lord [Jehovah] troubled him. And Saul’s servants said unto him, 16Behold now, an evil spirit from God troubleth thee. Let our lord now command—thy servants which [om. which] are before thee, to [and let them, or they will] seek out a man who is a cunning player on a [the] harp; and it shall come to pass, when the evil spirit from God is upon thee, that he shall play with his hand, and 17thou shalt be well. And Saul said unto his servants, Provide me now a man that 18can play well, and bring him to me. Then answered one of the servants [And one of the young men answered] and said, Behold I have seen a son of Jesse the Bethlehemite, that is cunning in playing4 and a mighty valiant man and a man of war and prudent in matters and a comely person, and the Lord [Jehovah] is with 19him. Wherefore [And] Saul sent messengers unto Jesse, and said, Send [ins. to] 20me David thy son, which is with the sheep. And Jesse took an ass laden with bread, and a bottle [skin] of wine, and a kid, and sent them by David his son 21unto Saul. And David came to Saul, and stood before him, and he loved him 22greatly, and he became his armor-bearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let 23David, I pray thee, stand before me, for he hath found favor in my sight. And it came to pass, when the evil spirit from God was upon Saul, that David took an [the] harp, and played with his hand, so [and] Saul was refreshed, and was well, and the evil spirit departed from him. AND 1 Samuel 16:15. Observe the sharp contrast between the statement in 1 Samuel 16:13 : “the Spirit of the Lord came upon David,” and that which here immediately follows: The Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul.—The Spirit is meant which Saul received in consequence of his anointing, and by which he became another man, that is, a man full of great royal thoughts, courage of faith and inspiration. The cause of the departure of the divine Spirit from him, as given in the narrative, was his rejection by the Lord, and his persistent, impenitent pride and disobedience of heart towards the Lord.—Berl. Bib.: “No doubt Saul took his rejection to heart, and, instead of yielding humbly to God’s righteous judgment and bowing beneath God’s mighty hand, gave himself up to displeasure and discontent at God’s holy ways, and was therefore given over to the power of an evil spirit, which vexed him and sometimes even drove him to madness.”—And an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him; literally, fell upon him and frightened him (αִ ?ςֵ ?ϊ), Psalms 18:5. The narrator means to describe Saul’s condition as one of anxiety and terror, which was produced in him by an evil spirit. This spirit (called in 1 Samuel 16:23 also the evil spirit), is, according to the narrative, not the condition itself of gloomy melancholy and torturing anguish, but an objective power, which produced it. It is a wicked spiritual power, which came upon him as the opposite of the good, holy spirit which he had once possessed, and goaded him to rage and madness (1 Samuel 18:10-11), finding its occasion in the conflict within his soul and in the passionateness of his nature, which, after the Spirit of the Lord left him, was unbridled. It came on Saul from the Lord; that is, the Lord gave him over to the power and might of this spirit as punishment for his disobedience and defiant self-will; for this reason this spirit is called in 1 Samuel 16:15-16 “an evil spirit of God,” and in 1 Samuel 16:23 simply “a spirit of God;” that is, one that came from God. [It seems clear that the evil spirit here cannot be resolved into simple melancholy without doing violence to the narrative (so the demons of the N. T.). Reasons for melancholy and madness may be found in Saul’s life and character (see the pathological and psychological aspects of his case treated by Kitto, Maurice, Krummacher, Ewald, and others), but over and above these the narrative speaks, as Erdmann says, of an objective spiritual wicked power, which had strange control over him. This possession by the spirit was in accordance with psychological conditions, yet distinct from them, and was controlled by the almighty God of Israel. We have here the proof of the belief in evil spirits by the Israelites many centuries before the exile, a belief very general, no doubt, though not as fully developed here as in “Job.”—Tr.]—The servants of Saul speak of this cause of his mental condition in order (1 Samuel 16:16) to counsel him to let them find a skilful harpist, that he may be healed by the strains of music of his suffering of soul. Saul having commanded this (1 Samuel 16:17), one of the young men of the court (1 Samuel 16:18) mentioned the son of Jesse, whom he himself knew. In order to induce Saul to call him to court, he describes him at length, as not merely a harpist, but also what would especially recommend him to Saul, a valiant man, a man of war, an eloquent man [or prudent—Tr.], a comely person, with whom the Lord is. All these characteristics appear clearly in David’s history; their combination in this description shows that the young man was well acquainted with him. His beauty of person has already been mentioned in 1 Samuel 16:12. He had showed his bravery and warlike spirit, if not in battle, yet in conflict with ravenous beasts for his herd (1 Samuel 17:34 sq.) His piety and communion with the Lord, the culminating point of the description, has already been referred to in 1 Samuel 16:12-13. His eloquence is a new feature and characterizes the future psalmist. 1 Samuel 16:19. The message to Jesse to send his son to court. 1 Samuel 16:20. Jesse is soon ready. He sends his son with presents appropriate to a herdsman and countryman. From this it appears that it was still customary to bring presents as a sign of obedience and subjection, see on 1 Samuel 10:4. The Heb. text, in spite of its difficulty, is to be retained; render: an ass laden with bread. δֲ ?ξεֹ ?γ, not, as Sept., ηֹ ?ξֶ ?γ, “since bread was not reckoned by measures” (Keil). Clericus: “an ass laden with bread, with a skin of wine and with a kid, so that David might have nothing to carry.” Maur.: “an ass laden with bread,” &c. Compare the ἄρτωντρεῖςὄνους (= τριῶνὄνωνφορτίον) [three asses of bread = a load of three asses] of the tragic poet Sosibius. 1 Samuel 16:21. So David came to Saul and stood before him; that is, served him. Becoming fond of him, Saul retained him and placed him among his armor-bearers, entrusted him, therefore, with a military service, informing Jesse (1 Samuel 16:22) that his son would remain with him. 1 Samuel 16:23. David’s playing had the effect of relieving, freeing Saul from his suffering, so that he became well again; when he heard the music, the evil spirit departed from him. The power of musical sounds over Saul was such that his gloomy mood vanished. Many illustrations from heathen writers of the wholesome effect of music on the mind are given by Cleric., Grot., and Bochart, in the Hieroz., p. I., 1, II., c. 44 (I., p. 511 sqq. ed. Rosenmόller). [Bochart also inquires whether David’s songs to Saul were sacred or secular (see Browning’s poem “Saul”), and how music had power over the evil spirit. See Kitto, “Saul and David,” p. 202 sq.—On the nature of the instrument which David used, the harp, kinnor, see on 1 Samuel 10:5, and the Bib.-Dictionaries and books on Archζology. Whether the kinnor was played with the hand or with a plectrum (either would suit the statement in 1 Samuel 16:23) is uncertain.—Tr.] AND 1. To be rejected by the Lord for continued disobedience and hardness of heart against the chastening and guidance of His Spirit, is identical with the departure from the heart of the Spirit of God, which can dwell and be efficient only where heart and will are turned to the light from above. But when the Spirit of God departs from the man, he is not simply left to himself, but, as Saul’s example shows, his heart becomes the abode of the evil spirit. Theodoret: “Where the divine spirit departs, the wicked spirit comes in his place. This should teach us to pray with David: Take not thy Holy Spirit from me.” Man is governed either by the Spirit from above or by the spirit from beneath; there is no third course. For he is as little isolated in the invisible as in the visible world; he must be part of the organism of the one or the other of the invisible worlds; he belongs either to the kingdom of light or to the kingdom of darkness; he is guided either by the Spirit of the Lord or by the evil spirit, according as he decides for a permanent attitude of heart and direction of will to this side or that. But Saul’s example teaches still more, namely, the divine causality in the position of the rejected man under the power of the evil spirit: He gives the apostate, reprobate man into the power of the evil spirit, permits the latter to control him; when man by continued conscious opposition to Him renders His Spirit inefficacious He righteously punishes him by giving him over to the evil spirit, who must serve God, and can do nothing except the Lord, who is almighty over all spirits, give him a field within the moral order of the world, in which, for the execution of His punitive justice, even the power of the evil one must be subservient to Him. Therefore the wicked spirit is here called a spirit “from the Lord.”—The consequence of the possession of the inner life by the evil spirit is not merely its sunderance and derangement (there being of necessity conflict partly between the divine nature of the soul and its indwelling ungodly inclinations and passions, and partly among these last themselves), but at the same time the filling of the heart with wicked thoughts, dark melancholy, and the spirit of hatred, the perversion and dedication of the natural noble gifts of the spirit and heart (so richly possessed by Saul) to the service of the kingdom of evil. But in all this there is presupposed as back-ground not a merely physical suffering, but a corresponding ethical determination of the inner life against God. “There is much suffering and melancholy which has its origin in purely bodily sickness; as soon as the sickness ceases, the melancholy also ceases. But there is also to-day much heaviness of mind, which has its ground in the kingdom of darkness” (Schlier.).2. The counter-picture to Saul, who is controlled by the evil spirit, is David, under the guidance and discipline of the Spirit of God from his anointment on. His divinely-bestowed natural gift of poetry and music is not merely sanctified and consecrated by the Spirit of the Lord, but also powerfully developed and intensified, and by the Lord’s ordination taken into the service of His merciful love; for this love is seen in that He makes David’s art alleviate Saul’s sufferings, and in the depth of Saul’s soul makes the chords of the godlike man resound in the demon-possessed nature and drown its tones. The power to set forth the Beautiful as the Harmonious in music is a natural gift of God’s grace, which, employed in the service of sin and of the kingdom of darkness, robs music of its divine nobility and misuses it for the furtherance of the kingdom of evil in the human heart and in the world; but, on the other hand, (as in David’s case), developed according to its God-implanted laws, and under the guiding discipline of God’s Spirit, checks and expels the power of evil, rouses again the nobler feelings of human nature (created by and for God), and restores at least for a time the disturbed harmony of the life of the soul. David’s harp playing before Saul is the prelude to the harpings and songs which flowed from the heart of the future royal singer. 3. With the beginning of his service at the court of Saul, David, under the wonderful guidance of God’s hand, whence he had through Samuel received the royal anointing, enters on the path of inner and outer development till he ascends the throne. It was the way of external cultivation and preparation for the representative side of the kingdom by the experiences and knowledges which he gained at the royal court concerning all that pertained to the fulfilment of the royal calling, but also, what is far more important, a way of deep suffering, which must needs have served to try and tempt, but also to purify, prove and confirm him, and establish his inner life in communion with his God; from this school of suffering, whose experiences afterwards resound throughout his Psalms, he comes forth as a man who has been educated from shepherd-boy to king. [Helps in the study of David’s life: Chandler’s Life of David (abounds in illustrations from classic antiquity, and is polemical against Bayle); Ewald’s History of Israel; Stanley’s Jewish Church (brilliant in description); Schlier’s Saul and Krummacher’s David (devotional); Stδhelin’s David (strictly scientific); F. D. Maurice, Prophets and Kings of O. T. (fresh and clear); Kitto’s Saul and David (in Daily Bib. Illust.); W. M. Taylor’s David, 1875 (excellent); Graetz, Geschichte der Juden; Apocrypha relating to David in Fabricius, Codex Pseud. Vet. Test., Tom. I.; Legends concerning him in Koran, Suras ii., xxxviii.; Weil’s Biblical Legends of the Mussulmans; Baring-Gould’s Legends of O. T. Characters. See also Josephus, Antiquities VI. 8–VII. 15; Wilberforce’s Heroes of Hebrew History; and Articles in the Dictionaries of Herzog, Smith, Fairbairn, and Ersch and Grube. Voltaire and Bayle deal with David’s life in an unworthy spirit.—Tr.] AND 1 Samuel 16:14. Calvin: As God grants His gifts richly to those who serve Him in the obedience of faith, so He withdraws them again from those who are slothful in employing them, that we may not believe God is under obligation to us. God does indeed distribute His gifts richly and abundantly, but He also demands from us the right use of them, that they may subserve His aims. Whoever, then, does not give back to God what He has received from Him, will certainly soon lose it.—Cramer: He who will not let himself be ruled by the Spirit of God, drives it out; and where that is driven out, there is no third state possible, but the evil spirit goes in again, Luke 11:23 sq. 1 Samuel 16:15-16. Schmid: We should have compassion even upon those who by their sins have drawn on themselves God’s chastisement, and should give them counsel as to how their case may be bettered.—[ 1 Samuel 16:18. David was a brave soldier and a famous musician. There is a very unwise notion abroad in America that to perform well on musical instruments is something effeminate. But the Hebrews thought not so, nor did the Greeks, nor do the Germans.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 16:19. Osiander: God gradually, more and more, draws His people forward and exalts them; yea, He leads them by degrees from one ground to another even unto eternal life. 1 Samuel 16:23. Cramer: Only God’s word and believing prayer can drive out Satan with his assaults, Ephesians 6:17-18.—Schlier: There is a wonderful power in song and the harp over the human heart; how much sorrow and anguish retreat before it—how much of the power of darkness is broken; where song and the harp dwell in the fear of God, there the power of evil spirits gives way, there the good spirits come, hell is silent, heaven comes down.—F. W. Krummacher: We ask, “Did the harmonies banish the demon?” No! But the higher mood into which the king was brought by them sufficed at least to give the affliction less room for working on his mind, while against a full, clearly conscious life of faith on Saul’s part, the power of the evil spirit would have been utterly wrecked.—Schlier: Thoroughly better would it have been for him if he had been converted—if he had earnestly repented. But of repentance Saul would know nothing; he let himself be cheered, but he would not turn about. If our sins give to the kingdom of darkness power over us, then we must repent. He who chooses to persevere in sin and cannot acknowledge his guilt, should not wonder forsooth if he finds no peace. Evil conscience, evil guest. No peace, nor any rest! But the word stands fast forever that the Lord makes the upright to prosper.—Wuert. Summary: The mourning of this world and the heaviness proceeding from an evil conscience can be relieved by no harping nor any diversion, if forgiveness of sins is not earnestly sought and gained, and the heart is not truly bettered. 1 Samuel 16:13-23. J. Disselhoff: The anointing of the chosen one: 1) Whom the Lord chooses for His servant, He causes before His work to be anointed with power from on high; 2) The anointing does not at once give the throne, but it first leads into lowliness; 3) The anointing does not annihilate natural gifts and powers, but sanctifies them and fits them for the service of the Lord. 1 Samuel 16:14-23. F. W. Krummacher: The harper: 1) How David came to Saul; 2) What he experienced at the king’s court. 1 Samuel 16:14. Man is under the dominion either of the holy or of the evil spirit: 1) Statement of this truth. 2) Indication of the opposite consequences in the two cases. 3) Application of the solemn warnings therein contained. [1 Samuel 16:21. “And he loved him greatly.” 1) Saul, with all his faults, a loving man. Comp. 1 Samuel 24:16. 2) David an eminently lovable youth. Some of the qualities which made him such are indicated in 1 Samuel 16:18 : handsome, accomplished, brave and soldierly, prudent, pious. (Highly creditable to a youth to gain the love of old men.) 3) The Lord loved David, and caused his fellowmen to love him. 1 Samuel 16:13; 1 Samuel 16:18. Comp. Genesis 39. 1 Samuel 16:17-22. Example of the young harper David: 1) Improvement of youthful leisure a preparation for the work of life. 2) Something in itself unimportant often the providential occasion of great results. But note: a) It can only be the occasion; the causes must together be as great as the effect. b) There must be disciplined character, or occasions will be in vain. 3) A youth leaving home for scenes of temptation is safe if “the Lord is with him.” (Comp. W. M. Taylor, David, Sermon III.) Robert Browning’s finest poem is on “Saul,” depicting his madness, and the effect of David’s harp and song.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 16:15. The Heb. text here uniformly designates the source of righteous influence as “the Spirit of Jehovah,” and the source of evil influence as “evil spirit,” “evil spirit of God,” or “evil spirit from Jehovah,” the significance of the last preposition being obvious; except in 1 Samuel 16:23, where it is “spirit of God,” and Sept., Chald., Syr., Arab, and Eng. A. V. there insert “evil;” in 1 Samuel 19:9 it is “evil spirit of Jehovah,” and there Sept. writes “God,” instead of Jehovah, Chald. and Eng. A. V. insert “from” before “Jehovah,” and Arab omits the divine name. Elsewhere throughout the Old Testament the Divine Spirit is called either “Spirit of God” or “Spirit of Jehovah.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:16. This clause is difficult in the Heb., and varies in the ancient VSS. Chald. follows the Heb.; Sept. takes ςֲ ?αָ ?γֶ ?ικָ as subject, omits ΰֲ ?γπֵֹ ?πε and renders: “let thy servants now say before thee and seek,” where “say” for “speak” is not tolerable (we should expect γαψ instead of ΰξψ); Vulg.: “let our lord command, and thy servants who are before thee will seek,” where μְ ?τָ ?πֶ ?ικָ is made to qualify “servants” (so in Eng. A. V.), contrary to usage, which demands that it stand after a verbal conception; Syr. omits the speech of the servants in 1 Samuel 16:15, and goes on in 1 Samuel 16:16 : “thy servants are before thee, let them seek.” As the Heb. now stands, the words ςαΧμτΧ must form a separate clause; but the construction is thus harsh. If we could omit μִ ?τΧ (which, however, is sustained by all the VSS.), an easy reading would be given: “let our lord now command, and thy servants will seek.”—The use of the second pers. suffix when the verb is in the third pers., though not the usual construction, occurs elsewhere, as 2 Samuel 14:11.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:16. The partcp. as complement of the verb “to know.” See Ew., Gr. § 285, e, and Ges. § 142, 4.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:17-18. Infin. as complement, Ges. § 142.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:18. Or, “in speech,” as in margin of Eng. A. V.; but “affairs” seems to suit the connection better Chald. “counsel,” Vulg., Syr. and Erdmann “word.” In Isaiah 3:3 μηωׁ is “enchantment,” though the phrase is rendered by Jewish commentators “clever in discourse” (Philippson). Comp. 1 Samuel 18:14.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:20. Sept. “omer” or “homer” (γομόρ), on which Wellh. rightly says that bread was not reckoned by measure; he proposes to read a numeral here instead of ηֲ ?ξεֹ ?ψ, since bread was usually counted by loaves. But we may follow the ancient VSS., which render “ass-load of bread.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:20. Fully: “a kid of the goats.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 16:23. See note 1 on 1 Samuel 16:15.—Tr.] [On the relation of the spiritual influence on Saul to the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit as taught in the N. T., see Hodge’s Theol., II., 660 sq. (especially 666).—Tr.] [On the possibility of demoniac possession at the present day, and on the general subject of the power of evil spirits in the ancient and modern world, see Mr. R. S. Poole’s Art. “Magic” in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.] SECOND SECTIONSaul’s New War with the Philistines and David’s Exploit with its Diverse Consequences for Him and for his Relation to Saul1 Samuel 17:1 to 1 Samuel 19:7I. The two Camps and Goliath’s arrogant Challenge1 Samuel 17:1-111 Now [And] the Philistines gathered together their armies to battle, and were gathered together at Shochoh [Socoh], which belongeth to Judah, and pitched 2between Shochoh [Socoh] and Azekah, in Ephes-dammim. And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and pitched by [in] the valley of Elah 3[of the Terebinth], and set the battle in array against the Philistines. And the Philistines stood on a [the] mountain on the one side, and Israel stood on a [the] mountain on the other side, and there was a valley [the ravine 4was] between them. And there went out a champion out of [from] the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and 5a span. And he had an helmet of brass [copper] upon his head, and he was armed with [clothed in] a coat of mail [corselet of scales]; and the weight of the coat 6[corselet] was five thousand shekels of brass [copper]. And he had greaves of brass [copper] upon his legs, and a target [javelin] of brass [copper] between his 7shoulders. And the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his spear’s head weighed six hundred shekels of iron; and one bearing a shield [the shield-bearer] 8went before him. And he stood and cried unto the armies [ranks] of Israel, and said unto them, Why are ye come out to set your battle in array? am I not a [the] Philistine, and ye servants to Saul? choose you a man for you, and 9let him come down to me. If he be able to fight with me, and to [om. to] kill me, then will we be your servants; but [and] if I prevail against him and kill him, 10then shall ye be our servants and serve us. And the Philistine said, I defy the armies [ranks] of Israel this day; give me a man that we may fight together. 11When [And] Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, [ins. and] they were dismayed and greatly afraid. II. David and Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:12-5412 Now [And] David was the son of that [this] Ephrathite of Bethlehem-Judah, whose name was Jesse; and he had eight sons; and the man went among men for an old man in the days of Saul [the man in the days of Saul was old, advanced in 13years]. And the three eldest sons of Jesse went and followed [had followed] Saul to the battle; and the names of his three sons that went to the battle were 14Eliab, the first-born, and next unto him Abinadab, and the third Shammah. And 15David was the youngest; and the three eldest followed Saul. But [And] David 16went and returned from Saul to feed his father’s sheep at Bethlehem. And the 17Philistine drew near morning and evening, and presented himself forty days. And Jesse said unto David his son, Take now for thy brethren an ephah of this parched corn, and these ten loaves, and run [carry them quickly] to the camp to thy brethren; 18And carry these ten cheeses [pieces of cheese] unto the captain of their thousand, and look how thy brethren fare, and take their pledge [and bring a 19token from them]. Now [And] Saul and they and all the men of Israel were 20in the valley of Elah [of the Terebinth], fighting with the Philistines. And David rose up early in the morning, and left the sheep with a keeper, and took, and went, as Jesse had commanded him, and he [om. he] came to the trench [wagon-rampart] as [and] the host was going forth to the fight and [ins. they] shouted for the battle. 21For [And] Israel and the Philistines had [om. had] put the battle in array 22army against army [line against line]. And David left his carriage [baggage] in the hand of the keeper of the carriage [baggage], and ran into the army [ranks], 23and came and saluted [asked after the welfare of] his brethren. And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name [Goliath the Philistine by name, of Gath], out of the armies [from the ranks] of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words; and David 24heard them. And all the men of Israel, when they saw the man, fled from him, 25and were sore afraid. And the men of Israel said, Have ye seen this man that is come up? surely [for] to defy Israel is he come up; and it shall be that the man who killeth him, the king will enrich him with great riches, and will give him 26his daughter, and make his father’s house free in Israel. And David spake to the men that stood by him, saying, What shall be done to the man that killeth this Philistine, and taketh away the reproach from Israel? for who is this uncircumcised 27Philistine, that he should defy the armies [ranks] of the living God? And the people answered him after this manner, saying, So shall it be done to the man 28that killeth him. And Eliab, his eldest brother, heard when he spake unto the men, and Eliab’s anger was kindled against David, and he said, Why camest thou down hither? and with whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? I know thy pride and the naughtiness of thine heart; for thou art come down that 29thou mightest see the battle (for to see the battle art thou come down). And David said, What have I now done? Is there not a cause [Was it not a word 30merely]? And he turned from him toward another, and spake after the same 31manner; and the people answered him again after the former manner. And when [om. when] the words were heard which David spake, [ins. and] they rehearsed them before Saul; and he sent for him. 32And David said to Saul, Let no man’s heart fail because of him; thy servant 33will go and fight with this Philistine. And Saul said to David, Thou art not able to go against this Philistine to fight with him, for thou art but a youth, and he a 34man of war from his youth. And David said unto Saul, Thy servant kept his father’s sheep, and there came a [the] lion and a [the] bear, and took a lamb 35out of the flock; And I went after him and smote him and delivered it out of his mouth; and when he arose against me, I caught him by his beard, and smote him 36and slew him. Thy servant slew both the lion and the bear; and this uncircumcised Philistine shall be as one of them, seeing he hath defied the armies [ranks] 37of the living God. David said moreover [And David said], The Lord [Jehovah] that delivered me out of the paw [hand] of the lion and out of the paw [hand] of the bear, he will deliver me out of the hand of the Philistine. And Saul said unto 38David, Go, and the Lord [Jehovah] be with thee. And Saul armed David with his armor [clothed David with his military dress], and he [om. he] put an helmet of brass [copper] upon his head, also he [and] armed [clothed] him with a coat of 39mail [corselet of scales]. And David girded his sword upon his armor [dress] and he [om. he] assayed to go, for he had not proved it. And David said unto Saul, 40I cannot go with [in] these, for I have not proved them. And David put them off him. And he took his staff in his hand, and chose him five smooth stones out of the brook, and put them in [into] a [the] shepherd’s bag which he had, even [namely] in [into] a [the] scrip;28 and his sling was in his hand, and he drew near to the Philistine. 41And the Philistine came on and drew near [the Philistine drew nearer and 42nearer] unto David, and the man that bare the shield went before him. And when [om. when] the Philistine looked about [om. about] and saw David, [ins. and] he disdained him, for he was but [om. but] a youth and ruddy and of a fair countenance. 43And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to 44me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto [to] the fowls of 45the air and to the beasts of the field. Then said David [And David said] to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a [om. a] sword and with a [om. a] spear and with a [om. a] shield [javelin], but I come to thee in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] of hosts, the God of the armies [ranks] of Israel, whom thou hast defied. 46This day will the Lord [Jehovah] deliver thee into my hand, and I will smite thee and take thine head from thee, and I will give the carcasses of the host [army] of the Philistines this day unto [to] the fowls of the air and to the wild beasts of the earth, that [and] all the earth may [shall] know that there is a God in Israel 47[Israel hath a God]. And all this assembly shall know that the Lord [Jehovah] saveth not with sword and spear; for the battle is the Lord’s [Jehovah’s], and he 48will give you into our hands. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose and came [went] and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted and ran toward the 49army [line] to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in [into] his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, and 50the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell upon his face to the earth. So [And] David prevailed over the Philistine with a [om. a] sling and with a [om. a] stone, and smote the Philistine and slew him, but [and] there was no sword in the hand 51of David. Therefore [And] David ran and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him and cut off his head therewith. And when [om. when] the Philistines saw their champion was dead, 52[ins. and] they fled. And the men of Israel and of Judah arose and shouted, and pursued the Philistines until thou come to the valley [ravine] and to the gate of Ekron. And the wounded of the Philistines fell down by the way to Shaaraim, 53even [and] to [as far as] Gath and to [as far as] Ekron. And the children of Israel returned from chasing after the Philistines, and they spoiled their tents 54[camps]. And David took the head of the Philistine, and brought it to Jerusalem, but [and] he put his armour [trappings] in [into] his tent. AND 1 Samuel 17:1-11. The camps of the Philistines and the Israelites confronting one another. Goliath’s appearance on the scene and his arrogant challenge. The power of the Philistines was not broken; they rose with renewed strength against Israel, and made another attempt to reduce them to subjection. The Philistine army assembled at Socoh, now Shuweikeh. This is, however, not the Socoh (also called Shuweikeh) three German [fourteen English] miles southwest of Hebron on the spurs of the mountains of Judah (Joshua 15:48), but the Socoh west of these mountains in the plain of Judah, about four German [nineteen English] miles southwest of Jerusalem, and about three German [fourteen Eng.] miles southwest of Bethlehem (Joshua 15:35) in Wady Sumt (Acacia-valley), which Robinson, II., 604 [Am. ed., II., 20, 21] regards as the same with Terebinth-valley (1 Samuel 17:2), while, according to Thenius, “the latter is probably to be looked for in a branch of that Wady, in Wady Sϋr, which runs up towards Beit-Nusib.” Azekah, whither (Joshua 10:10) Joshua pursued the five kings who were besieging Gibeon, from Gibeon, that is, to the southwest. Its position is in general determined by that of Ephes-dammim, the present ruins of Damum, about one Germ. [four and three-fourths Eng.] mile northeast of Shuweikeh. The rendezvous of the army was Socoh, the camp was at Ephesdammim. On the nature of the ground, according to Robinson, see Ritter, XVI. 114 sq.1 Samuel 17:2. The Israelitish army assembled and encamped in the Terebinth-valley. As the Israelites must have moved from the north-east, the Terebinth-valley must be placed north-east of the Philistine position, and regarded as a plain in Wady Sur or Massur. 1 Samuel 17:3. The position of the opposing armies towards the mountain, on the declivity of the mountain (this is not in conflict with the Israelitish position in the Terebinth-vale, if we suppose lowlands descending from the heights), the two separated by the still deeper bed of a brook, is vividly described. 1 Samuel 17:4. Goliath comes forward—description of his person. He is called “the man of the midst,” middleman [champion] because he advances between the two armies (1 Samuel 17:8-9) to decide the matter by single combat. (Maurer: “αֵּ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν, interval between two things, here between two armies (τὰμεταίχμια, Eur. Ph�n. 5:1285, on which the Schol. says: “the space between armies where single combats took place), whence ΰַ ?ιωׁ ηַ ?αֵּ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν, one who decides a contest by single combat between two army-lines.” Sept. Al., ’Αμεσσαῖος (1 Samuel 17:23), error for ὁμεσαῖος). See examples of similar single combats among the Oriental nations in Stδhelin’s “Leben Davids,” Bas. 1866, p. 4. Neither of the armies dares to attack. Saul and Israel feared the Philistines, instead of bravely attacking the hereditary enemy of the Theocracy in reliance on the help of the Lord. The explanation is found in Saul’s false attitude towards the Lord. “The king reckons only with human factors, believing that he has forfeited all claim to help from above. What wonder that his position seems to him in general doubtful, and he thinks it prudent—unbelief makes us cowards—to act merely on the defensive.” (F. W. Krummacher.) The plu. “out of the camps of the Philistines” does not justify us in accepting the arbitrary rendering of the Sept., “out of the ranks;” it refers to the various camp-divisions out of which Goliath came (comp. Ew. § 178 d).—Gath, one of the five Philistine capital-cities, has now disappeared without trace. When Joshua destroyed the giant race of the Enakim (Joshua 11:21 sq.) in this region, there remained some of them only in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod (1 Samuel 17:22). Goliath’s height is given exactly: six cubits and a span. The change in the Sept. of the six to four is due to the desire to give plausibility to what seemed incredible. According to Thenius (die althebr. Lδngen und Hohlmasse in den Theol. Stud. und Krit., 1846, p. 117 sq.) Goliath’s height was 9 feet 1 inch (Parisian). See in Then, and Keil (Comms. on this verse) examples of like tallness in ancient and modem times. The skeletons of Pusio and Secundilla, mentioned by Pliny (N. H. 7, 16) were a Paris inch longer [10 ft. 3 in. Roman measure.] [Keil mentions a giant who came to Berlin in the year 1857, who was as tall as Goliath; and “Chang, the Chinese giant, lately in England, was 7 feet 8 inches high” (Bib. Com). On the giants of the Bible see the dictionaries of Winer (Riesen), Herzog (id.), Smith, and Fairbairn.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 17:5-7. Goliath’s arms are in keeping with his bodily size: 1) copper-helmet; 2) scale-corselet; (χַ ?ωְׂ ?χֶ ?ωֶׂ ?ϊ, according to Numbers 11:9 sq.; Deuteronomy 14:9 sq.; Ezekiel 29:4 = “scale”), a harness or corselet made of overlapping metallic plates (φολιδωτόν, Aq. “clad with scales”), not of chain-rings. Such scale-corselets were common in ancient oriental wars. See Layard, “Nineveh and its Remains,” II. 4, and Bochart, Phal. III. 13. [Also Kitto, “Saul and David,” p. 211 sq., and Philippson in loco.] The weight of the corselet, or coat-of-mail, was 5000 shekels; the shekel was not a full German loth [half-ounce]; Then.: “about 139 Dresden pounds.” The corselet probably descended far down the body, as we see in the pictures of Assyrian warriors in Layard’s “Nineveh.” 3) copper-greaves on the legs. (Read plu. “greaves,” as in all ancient VSS.) These greaves did not cover the thighs (Bunsen), which in oriental fashion were protected by the corselet. 4) a copper-lance between his shoulders. The Heb. “lance” (λּ ?ιγεֹ ?ο), is to be retained in spite of the reading “shield” (ξָ ?βֵ ?ο) in Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab. The text is confirmed by 1 Samuel 17:45, “where the shield would be out of place, with two offensive arms” (Then.). As the ancients carried even their swords on their shoulders (Il. 2, 45; Bochart, Hieroz. 1,2, 8), there is nothing strange in his carrying the javelin “between the shoulders.” 5) a spear, whose shaft (read ςֵ ?υ for ηֵ ?υ, comp. 2 Samuel 21:19; 1 Chronicles 20:5) was like a weaver’s beam, and whose head weighed 600 shekels of iron, “somewhat over 16½ Dresden pounds, quite in keeping with the other statements” (Then.). 1 Samuel 17:8-11. Goliath’s contemptuous and fear-inspiring challenge. 1 Samuel 17:8. He stood and cried to the ranks of Israel: Why are ye in battle array? behold, I represent the whole Philistine people, and ye are servants of Saul. Send one of you to fight with me, and “let him come down to me;” Goliath was standing, namely, in the valley, beneath the Israelites who were encamped on the hill-side. 1 Samuel 17:9. The proposed agreement to decide the question of subjection by the single combat, which, in Goliath’s opinion, would undoubtedly result in favor of the Philistines. Clericus here cites the combat between the Horatii and the Curiatii, and the agreement (Liv. I. 23) between the Romans and Albans “that the nation, whose citizens conquered in the combat, should rule the other in peace.” 1 Samuel 17:10. Goliath’s scorn and contempt of Israel lay not merely in the reproach that they were Saul’s slaves and in the tone of his words, but also in the challenge itself, because it was not answered.1 Samuel 17:11. Fear and trembling take possession of Israel with Saul at the head. F. W. Krummacher: “Israel is afraid, because its king is. They dare not in childlike spirit appropriate the promises of Jehovah. The wings that should bear them up in trustful upsoaring to the Lord of Hosts are crippled.” 1 Samuel 17:12-31. David in the camp—his preparation for the combat with Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:12. The full account of the person and family of David tells what we already know from chap. 16., and yet reads as if nothing had been said of his origin. This suggests that the Redactor of the Book here appends and works in a narrative concerning David, which began with the family history, and then related the combat with Goliath and its occasion. This view is supported by the “that” or “this” (δַ ?ζֶּ ?δ), which is evidently added in order to connect the words with 16:1. Vulg. properly: “the above-mentioned Ephrathite.” The last words of 1 Samuel 17:12 relating to Jesse, the “Ephrathite” (that is, of Ephrath, the old name of Bethlehem, Genesis 48:7, see Rth 1:1-2), are difficult. The rendering, with retention of the text, “was come among the weak” (D. Kimchi, S. Schmid, Keil) [Eng. A. V. “went among men”] is opposed to the ordinary meaning of the Heb. (ΰֲ ?πַ ?ωִ ?ιν) = “people, men.” Bunsen’s explanation: “belonged to the men of standing” is, by his own judgment, possible only by an arbitrary insertion, and is otherwise meaningless. [Comp. the Targum: belonged to the αηιψ, the vigorous young men.—Tr.] Hitzig (see in Thenius) renders: “he was an old man among men,” which arbitrarily omits αָּ ?ΰ, “went.” It seems best, with Grotius, Thenius, after Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab., to substitute “in years” (αַּ ?ωָּ ?πִ ?ιν) instead of the text, and render “he was advanced in years.” This phrase indeed is not found elsewhere, but we have the similar phrase “advanced in days” (Genesis 24:1; Joshua 13:1) = aged. This statement of Jesse’s age gives the reason why he does not himself go into the field, but only his three oldest sons. In the pluperfect “went … had gone (Ew. § 346 c, A. 3—“the verb standing in sequence is then explained as plup. by means of its own perf.”) we have a trace of the effort of the Redactor to work the new narrative, to which the simple “went” belonged, into the whole history. The pluperfect was necessary here, because the account of David’s family carries us into a time anterior to the already related appearance of Goliath. While we have here eight sons of Jesse (and so 1 Samuel 16:10 sq.), only seven are named in 1 Chronicles 2:13-15, David being there the seventh. Clericus rightly supposes that there the name of one of David’s brothers is by error omitted. The name of the third, here and 1 Samuel 16:6-9 written Shammah, is Shimeah in 1 Chronicles 2:13 [Eng. A. V.: Shimmi perhaps after Vulg.—Tr.] and 20:7, Shimei in 2 Samuel 21:21 [so Kethib, but Qeri is Shimeah; Erdmann writes ωִׁ ?ξְ ?ςָ ?ι, putting the vowels of the Qeri under the Kethib, comp. 1 Kings 1:8.—Tr.] and Shimeah in 2 Samuel 13:3; 2 Samuel 13:32. 1 Samuel 17:14. The words: and the three eldest followed Saul are a repetition of the statement in 1 Samuel 17:13, and show the pains the Redactor took to introduce his new material clearly and connectedly. 1 Samuel 17:15. Here the narrator takes up the “and David” of 1 Samuel 17:12, after having explained that the three oldest brothers had followed Saul to the war. David was “going and returning” from Saul to feed his father’s sheep in Bethlehem; that is, he did not remain constantly at the court of Saul, but went back and forth, to court, and then home to attend to his pastoral duties. This he could do, since Saul was not always in the gloomy state which required David’s harp. Inasmuch as it appears from what follows that this going and returning from Saul was not from the theatre of war (for then he would already have given account of his brothers, and also his appearance there surprises them), it must have fallen in the time before Saul went to the war. According to this David was not constantly at the court of Saul, and from time to time exchanged the harp for the shepherd’s staff. Although, according to 16:21, he is Saul’s armor-bearer, he is yet not with him in the field; he is even (1 Samuel 17:33) a boy ignorant of war, and (1 Samuel 17:28) an unauthorized spectator of the battle. This has been regarded as in conflict with 1 Samuel 16., and therefore the section 1 Samuel 17:12-31 has been declared to be a later interpolation (Mich., Eichh., Dath., Berth., after the Vat. Sept., which omits it), or by another author than that of 1 Samuel 16, and in conflict with the latter (De Wette, Then., Ew., Bleek, Winer, Stδhelin). But it is unnecessary to suppose a contradiction here. If Joab, the General, had ten armor-bearers (2 Samuel 18:15; comp. 2 Samuel 23:37), King Saul would certainly have more than one, as to which note that in 16:21 it is not said that David became the armor-bearer of Saul [properly: “he became an armor-bearer to him.”—Tr.]. As totally unpracticed in war (so 1 Samuel 16. supposes him to be), David, notwithstanding his enrolment among the court-esquires (armor-bearers), could not be needed by Saul in war, and he needed not to he taken along for his music, because in the midst of military affairs Saul’s mind was concentrated on one point, held by one thought. Finally, the words of 16:21, 22, do not exclude the supposition that David went to and fro to his father; they rather open a way for it, since his service with Saul had respect to a definite end, which no longer existed when Saul’s condition of mind was for a long time better. And so this statement in 1 Samuel 17:15 may be very well harmonized with that of 16:21–23; they do not exclude each other. The sentence [1 Samuel 17:15] is to be taken, in connection with the second half of 1 Samuel 17:14, in a pluperfect sense, and as an addition of the Redactor’s, the aim of which is to furnish the connection between 16:21, 22, and the following narrative of David’s visit from Jesse to the army, which is from another source than 1 Samuel 16.—[Paraphrase of 1 Samuel 17:12-17 : “Let us leave the army for the present in order to introduce another personage. David was the son of a Bethlehemite named Jesse (already mentioned in 1 Samuel 16.), who, an old man, did not himself go to the war, but had sent his three oldest sons. The youngest, David, had been at Saul’s Court, but had been going to and fro to his father’s house. It was while the Philistine champion above-mentioned was daily offering his challenge (for he repeated it forty days) that Jesse determined to send David to his brethren.”—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 17:16 connects itself in content with 1 Samuel 17:8, and prepares the way for the progress of the narrative, in order to show how David’s conduct on the field of battle over against the bearing of the Philistine was motived by the insolence of the latter. Thenius: “If 1 Samuel 17:12-31 were interpolated, this explanatory insertion could not be accounted for at all.” 1 Samuel 17:17. “Parched peas” (χָ ?μִ ?ιΰ, χָ ?μִ ?ι, Leviticus 23:14; 2 Samuel 17:28) [or “parched grain.”—Tr.].—According to Thenius the Ephah = 3 Dresden pecks. “And carry them quickly to thy brethren,” that is, the parched grain and the bread.—[Bib. Comm.: “All the circumstances necessary for the understanding of the narrative having been explained, it now proceeds more smoothly.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:18. “Cheeses,” that is, pieces of cheese or curds (literally, milk, so the ancient VSS.). The word cannot mean “milk-portion,” that is, one milking of a cow (Mich., Schulz), since, as Then, properly remarks, David could not have carried ten such portions with the rest of his load. This gift David is to carry to the captain over a thousand, the chiliarch, under whose command his brothers were. A sketch from military folk-life, such as we often even now see. “And inquire of their welfare” (μְ ?ωָׁ ?μεν), comp. 2 Samuel 11:7; Genesis 37:14; 2 Kings 10:3.—And take their token, that is, take a token from them, “that we may see and know that they are well, and that thou hast been with them” (Berl. Bib.). The old expositors have here made unnecessary difficulty. The pledge was a token, which, though David had seen them, would be of special value to the father’s heart as an immediate sign from their own hands of their being alive and well (in place of a letter). 1 Samuel 17:19 is not an explanatory remark of the Narrator or Redactor, but a part of Jesse’s speech to David, who is thus instructed where to find his brothers; we must therefore render in present time: “And Saul … are in the terebinth-vale.”—[This construction is favored by the phrase: “and they,” which seems more appropriate in Jesse’s mouth. Yet the rendering of Eng. A. V. is allowable.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:20 relates the arrival of David on the field of battle, and thus introduces us into military life, ξַ ?ςְ ?βָּ ?μ means properly “wagon-track;” it is doubtful how it is to be rendered here and in 26:5, 7. The Complut. Sept. translates by στρογγύλωσις, “rounding,” in accordance with the meaning of ςָ ?βַ ?μ, “to be round,” and the usual form of ancient camps (Winer, R.-W. I. 681). This points not to a wagon-rampart, but to the round circumvallation. Vulg. wrongly: “ad locum Magala.—[The Syr. has “camp,” the Chald. “fortification,” the Arab. “army” or “camp.” Erdmann renders “camp-wall,” Philippson “wagon-rampart,” Bib.-Com. “wagons,” i.e. “wagon-rampart,” Calvin, “the place of wagons.” This last seems to be the literal meaning of the word (so margin of Eng. A. V.), and best suits the circumstances of 1 Samuel 26:5; 1 Samuel 26:7; the wagons were made into a fortification or rampart. The renderings of Syr. and Arab, are general, of the nature of paraphrases.—Tr.] “The host” is not connected with the preceding verb (“and came to the host”), but begins an independent sentence, in which the original construction “and the host which” is interrupted by the phrase “and they shouted,” the subject of which is supplied from “host.”—And they shouted in the battle, that is, raised the war-cry. We need not change the Heb. prep. “in” to “to;” it is a pregnant construction: they shouted as men do in battle [or better “they shouted (and advanced) into the battle.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:21 gives the position of the opposing armies. 1 Samuel 17:22. “His baggage,” the present that he had to deliver [and anything else that he might have with him.—Tr.]—“He came and asked after his brothers, in order to learn of their well-being.” Clericus: “for he knew that the tribe of Judah was in the front, Numbers 2:3; Numbers 10:14.”1 Samuel 17:23. Goliath’s advance, already described in 1 Samuel 17:4, and here repeated, first directs David’s attention to him, and incites him to the resolution to fight the champion. ςεֹ ?μֶ ?δ [Eng. A. V. “came up”] is not “came on” (De Wette), but “ascended,” that is, he came over the valley so near to the Israelites, that he advanced some distance up the height on which they were encamped, in order to throw more contempt into his challenge.—(The Kethib, ξξςψεϊ, can be rendered neither caterva hominum (Gesen.), nor loca plana (ξַ ?ςֲ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ), nor speluncζ (ξְ ?ςָ ?ψεֹ ?ϊ); these meanings give no good sense. It is better to take the Qeri with Sept. and Vulg. [Chald.] “ranks,” or, still better with Then. [Syr.] the Sing. “the line.”)—Surprising is the description of Goliath: “Goliiath the Philistine his name,” instead of “Goliath his name, the Philistine of Gath,” as the Vulg. [so Eng. A. V.] translates. We need not, however, transpose the Heb. text (Then.), since in the popular language “Goliath the Philistine” may have become a proper name. We see here too that the author is drawing from a narrative whose description of Goliath (which the author retains, though he had already, 1 Samuel 17:4, described him) contained this popular designation of the grant. 1 Samuel 17:24. Even the sight of Goliath fills the Israelites with fear and trembling. 1 Samuel 17:2-5.—The λִּ ?ι [Eng. A. V. “surely”] after “have ye seen?” gives the ground of the exhortation therein contained to get ready with anger at Goliath’s insolent bearing towards Israel; it corresponds to Germ. ja, Eng. surely. Comp. Micah 6:3; Job 31:18; Ges. § 155, 1, e (d).—And the man who shall kill him, him will the king enrich, etc. This indicates that Saul had already issued a proclamation, urging the combat with the giant. As generals and princes were accustomed to encourage to such deeds of arms by offering large prizes (Joshua 15:16; Judges 1:12; 2 Samuel 18:11; 1 Chronicles 11:6), so, according to the talk which passed among the people, Saul had promised the highest possible reward to the conqueror of Goliath: great riches, his daughter to wife, and freedom from taxation. This last is the meaning of ηָ ?τְ ?ωִׁ ?ι, not, as Ewald holds, elevation to the rank of free lord, or baron, as the middle rank between king and subjects.—[The word is synonymous with our “free;” see its use in Exodus 21:2; Deuteronomy 15:12; Job 3:19; Job 39:5; Psalms 88:5 (6), of slaves set free, of a dead man free from the cares of life, of the wild ass at liberty. Here probably of freedom from taxes.—Tr.].—As in 1 Samuel 17:27 the people give the same answer to David’s question (1 Samuel 17:26), which supposes this offering of rewards to be a usual thing, we must conclude that Saul actually made these promises (though nothing is afterwards said of their fulfilment), especially as the same thing is repeated in 1 Samuel 17:27. From Saul’s tendency to rash and exaggerated action, and from his changeableness, we can easily understand both the promise and his unwillingness to perform it. 1 Samuel 17:26. The ground and justification of David’s question concerning the reward of slaying the Philistine is furnished by the high significance of the deed as expressed in the words: “and take away the reproach from Israel;” this significance lends the deed such value that Saul, in David’s opinion, must assign it a high prize.—For who is this Philistine, etc.—These words do not, in the first instance express David’s desire to fight the Philistine (Keil), but they contain the ground of the preceding thought, that the insult offered Israel by the Philistine must be wiped out. This ground lies in the contrast (already indicated in the preceding words “the Philistine … Israel”) between the stand-point of the Philistine as an uncircumcised who has no community with the living God, and stands outside of God’s covenant with Israel, and the stand-point of this covenant-people, which is expressed in the words: “ranks of the living God.” How should this insult of the unclean Philistine cleave to the people of Israel, who are consecrated to the living God, whose battle-line, therefore, is also devoted to him? The living God is emphasized over against the dead idols of the Philistines. Since the Philistine has reviled the people of God, the covenant-people of the Lord, he has directed his scorn and derision against the living God Himself; and he who does the deed that takes away this reproach from Israel, will have God on his side, and do the deed with God’s help. In these words David is seized with holy anger, whose fire flames up from his theocratic sense of honor, to which violence is done by the Philistine’s challenge. His words already indicate his calling, which he has received from the Lord, to rouse the people of Israel, by awakening a new and vigorous theocratic spirit, out of the lethargy into which they had fallen in respect to their hereditary foe under the steadily sinking Saul (a lethargy illustrated in the repeated and unanswered challenge of Goliath), to the height of a true theocratic life.—[Bib. Com.: “The expression ‘the living God’ occurs first Deuteronomy 5:26, then Joshua 3:10; 2 Kings 19:4; twice in the Ps. (42:2; 84:2), four times in the Prophets, and frequently in the New Testament. It is generally in contrast to false gods (1 Thessalonians 1:9, etc.).”—Besides Isaiah 37:4; Isaiah 37:17; Jeremiah 10:10; Jeremiah 23:36; Hosea 1:10 (2:1); comp. similar expressions in Psalms 18:46; Jeremiah 44:26, and the asseveration of Jehovah “as I live” and the significance of the divine name “I am that I am.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:28. Over against David appears his oldest brother Eliab as the representative of a totally different disposition. His words show not merely complete lack of brotherly love for David, but bitterness and hatred towards him. In contrast with David’s holy anger, his unholy anger is kindled at David’s talk with the soldiers. Perhaps envy and ambition lay at the bottom of this. His two questions: 1) Why hast thou come down?—the down refers to the relatively elevated position of Bethlehem—and 2) With whom hast thou left those few sheep in the wilderness? 1) express the thought: “Thou hast nothing to do here, belongest not here,” indicating a haughty, quick-judging nature, and 2) reproach David with neglect of duty as keeper of his father’s flocks. While all David’s thought and feeling is on the great national disgrace and its removal, and his mind is concerned with plans for saving the honor of Israel and Israel’s God, Eliab in his low and blind zeal thinks only of the flock of sheep and the possible loss to them from lack of oversight; the type of a narrow soul, incapable of great thoughts and deeds. But from the reproach of inconsiderate neglect of duty, he passes to a two-fold serious accusation: I know thy arrogance and the naughtiness of thy heart, for to see the battle art thou come down.—His zeal blinded by envy and jealousy, he ascribes David’s visit to the worst motives: 1) pride, in that he wishes to rise above his shepherd-life and play a part in the war, and 2) badness of heart, according to the connection wickedness, brutality, in that he wishes to enjoy himself and please his eyes in the battle. In Eliab’s words we see the disposition which he falsely and with hate-blinded zeal ascribes to his brother.—As he forms in word and bearing the sharpest contrast to David, so David’s conduct towards him (1 Samuel 17:29) is in sharpest contrast to him. His answer is quiet, passionless, but a decided and explicit disavowal of the wrong angrily charged on him.—What have I now done? that is, nothing that I have done gives ground for the reproaches and accusations which you have addressed to me. Opposed to the “done” (ςָ ?ωִׂ ?ιϊִ ?ι) is the following “word” (γָּ ?αָ ?ψ).—Was it not a word merely?—This is not: Was it not a command? namely, of my father, to come hither, must I not obey (Luther, Gesen.)? for this would be unintelligible to Eliab from its brevity. David would have expressed himself more definitely, if he had meant his father’s command. The reply refers to the word (1 Samuel 17:26) which David had spoken, as appears from what follows; and so the ancient VSS. The sense is: Is not this word permitted me? Can I not seek information by such a word? 1 Samuel 17:30. David turned from Eliab to another with the same question, and received the same answer. The meaning of γָּ ?αָ ?ψ (“word”) here and 1 Samuel 17:31 in reference to 1 Samuel 17:26 confirms the view of its meaning in 1 Samuel 17:29. 1 Samuel 17:31. “In the presence of Saul,” not “to Saul,” “markedly expressive of respectful announcement” (Then.). David’s zeal exhibited to the people for the honor of the Lord and of Israel was the cause of his again appearing before Saul, and the preparation for the deed of heroism by which he was to save the honor of Israel and its God against the scorn of the Philistine. 1 Samuel 17:32-40. David’s conversation with Saul on his resolution, and his preparation for the combat with Goliath.1 Samuel 17:32. Let no man’s heart fail because of him.—To read (Then, after the Sept.) “my lord” (ΰγπι), instead of “man” (ΰγν) destroys the general character of the affirmation, which is here so appropriate; for, according to 1 Samuel 17:24, the fear of the Philistine was universal in Israel.—“Heart,” here=“courage;” comp. Germ. beherztheit [literally “heartedness;” so Eng. “courage,” from French c�ur, “heart.”—Tr.].—The Pron. “him” is better referred to the Philistine; Then. refers it to Saul [let not my lord’s heart fail him”], and Vulg. renders in eo, “in him.” David first expresses the general thought, “no man’s courage must fail on his account,” and then individualizes it in the words “I will exhibit such a manly courage.”—In this exhortation to courageousness David expresses his own stout courage over against the universally feared Philistine, and the want of courage in Israel. As proof of his courage he announces his determination to undertake immediately the combat with this Philistine. 1 Samuel 17:33. Against this Saul represents that David as a youth cannot venture on a battle with this man, who had been a warrior from his youth. [In 16:18 David is designated by the same term, “man of war,” which here describes Goliath; but this term would naturally have different meanings as used by the young man in 1 Samuel 16. and by Saul here, and moreover the contrast here rather rather refers to the ages of the two antagonists. David might seem to Saul’s retainer a brilliant young “warrior,” and yet as a stripling seem to Saul unable to cope with this experienced “warrior.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:34 sq. To this remark of Saul David, in order to show his courage and strength, replies by narrating a victorious combat with a lion and a bear, which he had while keeping his father’s flocks. The Art. [omitted in 1 Samuel 17:34 in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] before “lion” and “bear” is better understood as representing David’s immediate view of the animals in his description [the lion which I now in imagination see before me], than as pointing them out as the well-known animals. (ΰֵ ?η before δַ ?γּ ?εֹ ?α is sign of the Acc., Ew. § 277 d. Bφttcher: “As ΰֵ ?η before the Nominative is always either limiting or emphasizing (Jeremiah 45:4; Jeremiah 38:16 Keth.; Ezekiel 44:3 al.), the form ‘and what the bear was’ very naturally expresses the sense ‘and even the bear;’ for the black, ugly bear seemed to the Hebrew still more dreadful than the noble lion, and stands after the latter in a climax (Hosea 13:7 sq.; Amos 5:19; Proverbs 28:15; Sir 47:3).” Comp. 2 Samuel 17:8, where special strength and courage are ascribed to the bear.—ζֶ ?η is clerical error for ωֶׂ ?δ.) As we cannot suppose that the two animals united in a robbery, David must be regarded as here combining two combats, one with a lion, the other with a bear. The constant use of the singular suffix (1 Samuel 17:35), which with two subjects is surprising, is not to be explained (Keil) by supposing that David here combines the two exploits, “killed the one beast and the other;” for not only does the “beard” not suit the bear, but the impression made on us by the narrator is that he is thinking of one animal, not of two. It is better to understand 1 Samuel 17:35 of the lion, since he is first named in 1 Samuel 17:34, and the following statement suits him only. Against this cannot be urged the impropriety of speaking of a lion’s beard, for the ancients frequently mention it, Hom. Il., 15,275; 17,109; Mart. 10:9. Thus in the words “there came the lion and the bear,” there is a vivid description of David’s killing the lion, evidently with his shepherd’s staff. See 2 Samuel 23:20, where it is related of Benaiah, a captain of David’s, that he killed a lion in a pit. On the fact that lions are killed with sticks by the Arabs see Thevenot, Voyage de Levante, II., 13. Comp. Rosenm., Bibl. Thierreich, p. 132. 1 Samuel 17:36. Here David first says expressly that he slew both beasts. He expresses his confident conviction that he will likewise slay the Philistine. “The Philistines, this uncircumcised, shall be as one of them.” But at the same time he grounds (“seeing that”) this conviction and certainty of victory on Goliath’s wickedness, his defiance of the ranks of the living God, wherein we again see David’s strong and clear consciousness of the theocratic significance of this battle between the Philistines and the Israelites, whose covenant-God is contemned in His people and their army, and who therefore cannot abandon His people’s cause, which is His own. 1 Samuel 17:37. David again declares the ground of his confidence that he will conquer Goliath, namely, his trust in the mighty help of the Lord, which he founds on his experience of that help in the combat with the lion and the bear. The experience of the Lord’s help is the foundation of hope for new help.—Saul accordingly permits him to go to the fight, and assures him that the Lord will be with him. 1 Samuel 17:38 sq. “His garments” (ξַ ?γָּ ?ιε) can from this connection mean only garments which pertained to warlike equipment (18:4), over which the sword was girded. 1 Samuel 17:39. That David puts on Saul’s armor shows that he was of about the same stature with him. [Not necessarily, since the armor may have been capable of change of size by tightening.—Tr.] David cannot go, he says, in these garments, not because they are too large, but because he is not accustomed to them. He sees that they would only hinder him in the fight, and lays them off. 1 Samuel 17:40. He exchanges the armor for his shepherd’s implements, staff and sling. The latter was as necessary to the shepherds as the former, in order to keep off the wild beasts. David must therefore have been well-practiced in its use.—See an example of skill with the sling among the Benjaminites, Judges 20:16. So he advanced against the Philistine. 1 Samuel 17:41-54. David’s victory over Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:41. The mutual approach of David and Goliath is here again described in a very lively manner: Goliath drew nearer and nearer to David, in consequence of David’s approach to him (1 Samuel 17:42). V. 42. As he comes nearer Goliath looks more closely at David and despises him, seeing in him not a warrior, but a pretty youth. This account tallies exactly with 16:12. 1 Samuel 17:43 sq. The Sept. reads: “Am I as a dog, that thou comest against me with staff and stones? and David said, Nay, but worse than a dog.” The Plu. “staves” seemed to them strange, and was therefore changed into the Sing., and this occasioned the additional words. It stands, as Keil observes, “in scornful exaggeration of what seemed to the Philistine the wholly unsuitable armor of David.” The words: “worse than a dog,” do not suit David’s character; they would be excessive abuse. The Philistine’s word: “am I a dog?” sets forth his feeling of insult at David’s coming against him with a staff, which was ordinarily employed not against men, but against beasts. And the Philistine cursed David by his god. Here is shown the innermost contrast which comes into play in the battle between Israelites and Philistines: the contrast between the living God and His people on the one hand, and the idolatrous, antitheocratic world on the other. Similar are the scornful defiances which warriors of antiquity mutually gave at the beginning of a combat.—On 1 Samuel 17:44 comp. Ezekiel 29:5. 1 Samuel 17:45 sq. David’s answer to Goliath’s reproaches contains in an advancing line of thought the most important elements of his character: 1) he expresses most sharply that contrast between their two stand-points in their religious-moral aspect: Thou comest to me relying on thine own strength and thy powerful armor, but I come to thee in the name of Jehovah Sabaoth, the God of the ranks of Israel, whom thou hast defied. The name of the Lord is for David the totality of all the revelations by which the living God has made Himself known and named among His people. Of these elements, which form the conception of the name of God, he here, suitably to the situation, adduces those which characterize Him in respect to His warlike and ruling power as Captain and Conqueror of His people (Psalms 24:10). The words, “whom thou hast defied,” form the factual ground of David’s second declaration, 1 Samuel 17:46 : The Lord will, because I come against thee in His name, give thee into mine hand, &c. David expresses his certainty of victory, but at the same time affirms that it will be God’s deed. Triumphal heroic courage before victory, and humble bowing before God as the bestower of victory are here united in David. The rendering of the Sept.: thy corpse and the corpses (of the army, &c.) is no doubt occasioned by the strangeness of the Sing. [Eng. A. V. has Plu. “carcasses.” See Text. and Gramm.—Tr.]. “Corpse” (τֶּ ?βֶ ?ψ) is to be taken collectively.—3) By the help which God the Lord will grant His people in this victory, all the world will know that Israel has a God, not: “that God is for Israel.” The sense is: The other nations will learn that God does not suffer Himself to be mocked in His people, but as their covenant-God helpfully and mightily espouses their cause. 1 Samuel 17:47. 4) Together with the knowledge, which reaches beyond Israel to the heathen nations, that Israel has a protecting and saving God, for Israel themselves (here called “all this assembly”) the blessing of this not doubtful victory will be, that they shall know that the Lord needs not external mighty means, as sword and spear, for His help; for His is the battle, by His almighty will the issue of the battle is determined in His people’s favor, arms of war do not secure His help, but His power alone secures success, even when not those arms but seemingly feeble means are employed. He gives the enemy into the hand of His people. 1 Samuel 17:48 sq. Goliath’s approach to David at the beginning of the combat is minutely and vividly described; as well as David’s preparation for the battle, and its speedy termination. David’s unbroken courage is made more evident by the remark that he went “toward the line” to meet the Philistine. The stone flung from the sling reached Goliath’s forehead. The addition in the Sept. “through the helm,” is a superfluous interpretation. If his forehead and face were covered by the front of the helm, the stone might indeed penetrate through the latter. But it may also be supposed that Goliath, confident of victory, advanced against the despised shepherd-lad with uncovered forehead. Comp. W. Vischer, Antike Schleudergeschosse [Ancient Slings], Basel, 1866, p. 5, where he speaks of slingers who could hit the part of the enemy’s face at which they aimed. 1 Samuel 17:50 sq. expressly declares the superiority of David over Goliath with sling and stone, in accordance with David’s words, 1 Samuel 17:47, that victory is not determined by strength of warlike arms. To this refers also the added statement, “David had no sword in his hand,” which is at the same time the reason for the following statement, namely, the slaying of the giant with his own sword, with which David cut off his head. After the fall of Goliath the terrified Philistines take to flight, without trying a battle. The Israelites raised the battle-cry, and pursued them. 1 Samuel 17:52. The text reads: “up to a ravine.” This gives no good sense, since the ravine between the two armies cannot be meant, nor can we suppose such an indefinite locality, the word not having the Article. As Gath and Ekron are afterwards named as the limit of the pursuit, it is natural to suppose that here βַּ ?ιΰ [“ravine”] stands by error for βַּ ?ϊ [Gath]. αְּ ?γֶ ?ψֶ ?κְ ωַׁ ?ςֲ ?ψִ ?ιν is usually understood of a city, Shaarim: “on the road as far as Shaarim.” Thenius’ objection, that no such city is mentioned elsewhere, is not tenable, for see Joshua 15:36. Thenius renders after the Sept. “in the way of the gates,” understanding by this the whole space between the outer and inner gate, since city gates were in the form of a building, enclosing a space, and so had two doors (2 Samuel 18:24); against which is partly the absence of the Art., partly the double ςַ ?γ, “up to,” as the sign of direction and progress. According to the usual view the Philistines fled along the road from Shaarim partly towards Gath, partly towards Ekron, and many of them were slain. “This direction of the flight resulted from the nature of the country. The Wady Sumt, where the combat took place, passes northward from Socoh, turns after two or three miles westward by the village Sakarieh (ωַׁ ?ςֲ ?ψַ ?ιִ ?ν, Sept. Joshua 15:36, Σακαρίμ), emptying into the Wady Simchim; about a mile from this is the village of Ajjur, which is held to be ancient Gath (Rob. II. 606–8 (Am. Ed., II., 66, 67); Ritter, XVI., 91), and so the Philistines fled through the valley that Robinson also traversed in his excursion from Jerusalem to Gath. Another portion of the Philistines remained in Wady Sumt and fled northward, where the Wady Sumt takes the name Wady Surar, in which lies the present city Akir.” Stδhelin, Das Leben David’s, p. 7 sq. 1 Samuel 17:53. From this hot pursuit of the Philistines up to their cities the Israelites turned back to spoil the enemy’s camp. 1 Samuel 17:54. David carried Goliath’s head to Jerusalem. This is no anachronism, since only the fortress of Jebus on mount Zion was then in the hands of the Jebusites, the city Jerusalem being already in possession of the Israelites (Joshua 15:63; Judges 1:21). But why should not this city be selected as the place of deposit of this trophy, since it was the nearest to the field of battle? Goliath’s arms, on the contrary, he put into his dwelling. ΰֹ ?δֶ ?μ [usually = “tent,” as in Eng. A. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ 2. David’s Friendship with Jonathan. He is made General of the Army 1 Samuel 18:1-51 And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his 2own soul. And Saul took him that day, and would let him no more go home 3[would not let him return] to his father’s house. Then [And] Jonathan and David 4made a covenant, because Hebrews 1 loved him as his own soul. And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that was upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments [war-dress], even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle. 5And David went out whithersoever Saul sent him, and behaved himself wisely. And Saul set him over the men of war, and he was accepted in the sight of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants. 3. David is hated by King Saul. 1 Samuel 18:6-166 And it came to pass as they came, when David was [om. was] returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet King Saul, with tabrets, with joy and with instruments 7of music [triangles]. And the women answered one another as they played,8and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Saul was very wroth, and the [this] saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed [given] unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed [given] but thousands; and what can he have more but the kingdom? [there remains for9 him only the kingdom.]6 And Saul eyed David from that day and forward. 10And it came to pass on the morrow that the evil spirit from God came upon Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of the house; and David played [was playing] with his hand as at other times, and there was a javelin in Saul’s hand [and 11Saul’s javelin was in his hand]. And Saul cast the javelin, for he [and] said, I will smite David even to [I will pin David to] the wall with it [om. with it]. And 12David avoided out of his presence [turned away from him] twice. And Saul was afraid of David, because the Lord [Jehovah] was with him, and was departed from 13Saul. Therefore [And] Saul removed him from him, and made him his [om. his] 14captain over a thousand; and he went out and came in before the people. And David behaved himself wisely in all his ways; and the Lord [Jehovah] was with 15him. Wherefore when [And] Saul saw that he behaved himself very wisely, [ins. 16and] he was afraid of him. But all Israel and Judah loved David, because he went out and came in before them. 4. Saul’s Artful Attempt against David’s Life in the Offer of Marriage with his Daughter. 1 Samuel 18:17-3017 And Saul said to David, Behold my elder daughter Merab, her will I give thee to wife; only be thou valiant for me, and fight the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] battles. For [And] Saul said, Let not my hand be upon him, but let the hand of the Philistines 18be upon him. And David said unto Saul, Who am I? and what is my life, or [om. or] my father’s family in Israel, that I should be son-in-law to the 19king? But it came to pass at the time when Merab, Saul’s daughter, should have been given to David, that she was given unto Adriel, the Meholathite, to wife. 20And Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved David; and they told Saul, and the thing 21pleased him. And Saul said, I will give him her, that she may [and she shall] be a snare to him, and that [om. that] the hand of the Philistines may [shall] be against him. Wherefore [And] Saul said to David [ins. the second time], Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law in the one of the twain [om. in the one of the twain]. 22And Saul commanded his servants, saying, Commune [Speak] with David secretly, and say, Behold the king hath delight in thee, and all his servants love thee; now, therefore, be the king’s son-in-law. And Saul’s servants spake these words in the 23ears of David. And David said, Seemeth it to you a light thing to be a [the] 24 king’s son-in-law, seeing that I am a poor man and lightly esteemed? And the servants of Saul told him, saying, On this manner spake David. 25And Saul said, Thus shall ye say to David, The king desireth not any dowry but an hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to be avenged of the king’s enemies. 26But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. And when [om., when] his servants told David these words, [ins. and] it pleased David well 27to be the king’s son-in-law; and the days were not expired. Wherefore [And] David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men, and David brought their foreskins, and they [better om. they] gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king’s son-in-law. And Saul 28gave him Michal his daughter to wife. And Saul saw and knew that the Lord [Jehovah] was with David, and that [om. that] Michal, Saul’s daughter, loved 29him. And Saul was yet the more afraid of David, and Saul became [was] David’s 30enemy continually. Then [And] the princes of the Philistines went forth. And it came to pass, after [as often as] they went forth, that David behaved himself more wisely than all the servants of Saul, so that his name was set by. AND 1 Samuel 17:55-58. David at the royal court, his lineage better known, and himself permanently taken up.—On the relation of this section to 1 Samuel 16:14-23 (the two coming from different sources), and to the general narrative, see the full discussion in the Introduction, p. 16 sqq. Considering the undeniable difference between the account here (where Saul is ignorant of David’s person and family), and that in 1 Samuel 16:14-23, (where Saul, after negotiation with Jesse, takes David to his court, and keeps him till the outbreak of the war), and considering the vain attempts which have been made to harmonize this difference, we accept Nδgelsbach’s conclusion (Herz. xiii. 402): “All attempts at reconciliation failing, we can only, till a satisfactory explanation is found, suppose that these two accounts come from really different and discrepant sources.” [Without laying stress on the fact that Saul here inquires after David’s father, and not after David himself (which, though urged by Houbigant, Chandler, Wordsworth, and others, does not seem to amount to anything), we may still insist that the two accounts, though different, are not necessarily discrepant in the sense that both cannot be true. It is only necessary to admit that David’s absence at home had been long (and there is no exact chronological datum), that Saul had rarely seen him except in moments of madness, that Abner had been absent from court when David was there, and that the personal appearance of the latter had changed (suppositions which, taken singly or together, are not improbable), and Saul’s ignorance becomes natural, These old narratives, giving brief and partial views of occurrences, may well sometimes seem to contradict each other, and it is wise (as Nδgelsbach hints) in view of the historical authority of the Heb. text, at least to suspend our judgment.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:55. We need not take the verbs here as Pluperf. (Then., Keil, &c.), since this narrative is to be regarded simply as an addition to the preceding. In their context 1 Samuel 17:55-56 belong after 1 Samuel 17:40 and form a supplement to the vivid description of David’s advance against Goliath. The words “against the Philistine” refer to the close of 1 Samuel 17:40. Saul’s question is to be understood not merely of David’s father and family, but also of his person. According to this Saul does not know him. The question and Abner’s answer must necessarily be taken in connection with the surprise and astonishment felt at David’s bold procedure. Saul’s question could not be answered till David’s return; it is therefore mentioned here, and connected with David’s appearance before Saul under Abner’s guidance. 1 Samuel 17:57-58. The concluding words of 1 Samuel 17:57 : “and the head,” &c., show that this statement is to be put between 1 Samuel 17:53 and 1 Samuel 17:54. According to this Abner’s leading David to Saul was occasioned by the latter’s question. David’s words in 1 Samuel 17:58 are not to be regarded as forming his whole answer; from 1 Samuel 17:1 we infer that he had a somewhat long conversation with Saul. 2. 1 Samuel 18:1-5. David’s friendship with Jonathan and permanent residence at Saul’s court as commander of the army. 1 Samuel 18:1. The consequence of this conversation was the formation of a friendship between David and Jonathan, as is indicated by the words: “when he had ceased speaking with Saul.” The word “knit” (πִ ?χְ ?ωְׁ ?ψָ ?δ as in Genesis 44:30) denotes, under the figure of a chain, the firm union and inseparable unity of souls in friendship, expressing the thought that their inner lives of feeling work deeply into each other, and so each has perpetually fast hold of the other. Clericus: “In almost all languages friendship is considered as a union of souls bound together by the band of love.” Grotius: “An admirable description of friendship. So Aristotle (Nicom. IX. 8) has noted that friends are called one soul. The same thing is set forth by the Lat. concordia and the Greek ὁμονοἰα. Papinius says that souls are bound together.”—And Jonathan loved him as his own soul. To the conception of firmness is here added the idea of innerness of friendship, the complete identification of essence of two souls. (The Kethib has the rarer contracted suffix εֹ, the Qeri the commoner Ξֵ ?δεּ. Ew. § 249 b).—David’s heroic courage, firm trust in God, and splendid feat of arms had won him Jonathan’s heart.1 Samuel 18:2. Not till after the narrative of this friendship follows the statement that Saul took David permanently to court: he took him, that is, into his service, and allowed him not to return to his father’s house, as he had done in 1 Samuel 17:15; the words presuppose that David had desired to return thither. That Saul virtually ordered David’s permanent stay with him immediately after their conversation (Keil) is not necessarily to be assumed. Rather from the sequence of the sentences it seems as if the narrator intended to connect the rise of the friendship of David and Jonathan with the friendly relation which Saul first assumed in his conversation with David, and then to set forth David’s permanent stay at court as a consequence of this friendship. 1 Samuel 18:3. Jonathan’s love for David (he loved him as his own soul) is the ground of this solemn and formal sealing of their friendship. The covenant indicates the mutualness of the love which they pledged one another. Grot.: “they mutually-promised perpetual friendship,” comp. 1 Samuel 20:3. 1 Samuel 18:4 is closely attached to 1 Samuel 18:3 in so far as here by the gift of the upper garment, the robe (ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ) and the separate parts of the war-equipment to David, the conclusion of the covenant of friendship on Jonathan’s part is solemnly confirmed. Clericus supposes that the object of this gift was to enable the poorly-clad David to appear at court in seemly dress. But the mention of the several weapons, which together make a complete war-outfit, rather suggests that Jonathan wished to honor David as the military hero; and this manner of sealing their friendship was a proof that the two, as heroes, equally crowned by God with victory, could love one another, and that Jonathan was far from feeling envy and jealousy of David for his heroic deed. Jonathan’s here taking the initiative is in keeping with his position at court as king’s son in respect to the young shepherd. His clothing David with his own war-dress is sign that his hearty friendship sets aside the barrier which his rank and position would raise between them in the first instance on the common ground of the theocratic chivalry, as whose representatives they had come to love one another. [Philippson: The gift of one’s own garment, especially by a prince to a subject, is in the East still the highest mark of honor. So in “Esther” (1 Samuel 6) Mordecai is clothed in the king’s apparel.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 18:5 belongs to what goes before as the declaration of the honorable position which David (along with this relation to Jonathan) took at Saul’s court, as generally beloved in his office and calling. First, his position was a military one; for that the “went out” (which is to be taken separately, and not connected with the following) refers to war, and not to “general business” [Clericus] is plain not only from the following account which mentions not only military undertakings for Saul, but also from the statement of the position of General which he received in consequence of his success in what was entrusted to him, and from the account of the military equipment which Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:4) presented to him. In all, whereto Saul sent him, he was successful.—His warlike undertakings were fortunate and successful. The Verb (δַ ?ωְׂ ?λִּ ?ιμ) means “to act prudently, wisely” and then to be successful,” as in Joshua 1:7 [Eng. A. V. “prosper”]. It always refers to conduct, “to act wisely, and then to be prosperous in one’s undertakings.” Saul set him over the men of war, that is, made him a military officer. He was appointed commander of a body of soldiers.—David soon attained to high consideration and acceptance in the eyes of all the people, and also in the sight of Saul’s servants.—By this term we are to understand the officials at Saul’s court. David’s winning loveliness of character is here brought out more strongly by the statement that he did not excite the envy and jealousy of his fellow-officials at court. Clericus: “he pleased even the courtiers, who are commonly envious, especially of those who have newly found favor with the king.” This idea is involved in the “and also” [= and even]. [Philippson: “As he was afterwards promoted to be chiliarch, he must here have been made centurion.” But see on 1 Samuel 18:13.—Tr.] 3. 1 Samuel 18:6-16. Here is related how Saul’s deadly hatred against David springs from envy and jealousy. As the section 1 Samuel 17:54-58 lays the foundation for David’s permanent stay at the royal court—and as the section 1 Samuel 18:1-5, being the summary description of David’s personal relations to Saul’s family as Jonathan’s friend, and to the court-officials and the people as military commander, explains what is afterwards said of David’s relation to Jonathan and of his military career—so in this section, 1 Samuel 18:6-16, we have the cause of the deadly hate which Saul henceforth bore in his heart against David, there being preserved (a fact to be noted) in 1 Samuel 18:5 a significant silence as to Saul’s feeling towards him, only the friendly disposition of Jonathan and of the officials and people being mentioned. That no strict chronological advance is attempted in the narrative in 1 Samuel 17:55 sq. is clear from the above remarks. As in 1 Samuel 17. 1 Samuel 17:55 belongs as to its contents to 1 Samuel 17:40, and 1 Samuel 17:57 belongs next to 1 Samuel 17:54, so 1 Samuel 17:6 here is not connected in context and time immediately with 1 Samuel 17:5, but goes back to 1 Samuel 17:52-53. In 1 Samuel 17:1-4 is told what happened to David immediately after his victory over Goliath; he became Jonathan’s friend, and was permanently fixed at court. That was the immediate result of his exploit (which decided the issue of the war with the Philistines.) In 1 Samuel 18:5 we have a further consequence: Saul employs David in warlike enterprises against the Philistines, and gives him command of a body of troops. But, according to 1 Samuel 17:52-53, the war with the Philistines was not ended by the victory over Goliath; on the contrary, they were again several times defeated, and their camp was plundered by the victorious Israelites on their return from pursuit. That Saul in thus finishing the war employed David as a bold leader is clearly stated in 1 Samuel 18:5, wherewith is also summarily told how David in his new position won the favor of the people and also of Saul’s servants, while it is not said that Saul in appointing him to office bestowed his favor on him. The narration of 1 Samuel 18:6 now, going back to 1 Samuel 17:53, connects itself with the return of the people and of David from the concluded war, in order to point out how on this occasion Saul’s ill-will and hatred towards David arose, on which is founded the whole of the following narrative of the relation between David and Saul. The “as they came” refers to the return of the whole army from the happily ended war (comp. 1 Samuel 17:53); at the same time is mentioned David’s return with express reference to his victory over Goliath, which had determined the successful issue of the war, in order to bring into its proper historical connection the honor which then accrued to him. This return of David, therefore (along with the whole army), is not synchronous with his return to Saul in 1 Samuel 17:57 immediately after the killing of the Philistine, but occurred after the victory over the whole Philistine army was completed. Here began Saul’s envy and hatred against David. There is, therefore, no contradiction between the statement that Saul kept David by him and gave him a military command (1 Samuel 18:2; 1 Samuel 18:5), and the following statement (1 Samuel 18:6 sq.) that in consequence of the honor shown David he conceived a lasting hatred against him (1 Samuel 18:9).—We have the description of the festive reception given by the women from all the cities of Israel to the returning victorious army, Saul at its head. In the words: with song and dance the Art. [in Heb.] points to the usual employment of song and dance in such receptions. They met Saul with tabrets, with joyful outcry, and with triangles. Here ωִּׂ ?ξְ ?ηָ ?δ [“joy”], standing between the two instruments of music, must denote, in distinction from the song of joy, the joyful cry which accompanied the beating of the tabrets. For dances accompanied by tabrets see Exodus 14:20. 1 Samuel 18:7. The women performed an antiphonal song; “they answered one another in turn” (Cleric.). The Partcp. (ξְ ?ωַׂ ?ηֲ ?χεֹ ?ϊ [Eng. A. V. “played”]) means perhaps alternate dancing, corresponding to the alternate song (Winer: Contredance s. v. Tanz), along with the choral dancing (ξְ ?ηֹ ?μεֹ ?ϊ). The Piel of ωָׂ ?ηַ ?χ, “laugh,” properly = “sport, play,” e.g., of children on the street, Zechariah 8:5.—The song: “Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands” (comp. 1 Samuel 21:12 and 1 Samuel 29:5)—a part of a folk-song, which shows the great consideration in the sight of the people which David had obtained by his victory over Goliath. 1 Samuel 18:8. Saul was very wroth that greater honor was paid to David than to him. And there is yet only the kingdom for him, that is, for him to obtain. In this outburst of wrath he expresses in a curt ejaculation the well-founded anticipation that the so highly honored David would receive the royal dignity in his place. Clericus: “especially since Samuel had more than once predicted that it would pass into another family.” 1 Samuel 18:9. From this point dated the evil, curious eye with which Saul henceforth looked on David. Clericus: “in these words we see envy and jealousy.” Luther: “And Saul looked sourly on David.” It is an express statement of the continuous bitterness of Saul against David from now on. 1 Samuel 18:10-11. Saul’s anger against David rises to madness and to murderous purpose. The evil spirit from God came upon Saul. Comp. 1 Samuel 16:14 : “εַ ?ιִּ ?ϊְ ?πַ ?αֵּ ?ΰ [Eng. A. V. “prophesied;” Erdmann, “raved”], the influence of the evil spirit, analogous to the ecstatic condition of inspiration in which the good spirit from God put the prophets: he raved, raged. The old condition of internal disorder again came over Saul, now heightened by envy and jealousy against David. As in 1 Samuel 16:23, David seeks by playing on the harp to mitigate Saul’s rage. But as he was its object, the madness takes the form of an attempt on his life. The harp in David’s hand and the spear in Saul’s hand—taking the place of the sceptre, 1 Samuel 22:6—are here put in sharpest contrast to one another.—[Saul’s condition of mind is neither that of simple madness nor that of true prophecy. He is under the control of a power higher than himself; but it is an evil power. For the precise expression of this supernaturally-determined condition of mind and soul, in which the whole spiritual energy of the man moves freely, yet in a sphere into which it is supernaturally brought, becoming for the time one with the spirit, the Heb. has no other word than naba (παΰ), and the Eng. no other word than prophecy. R. P. Smith (“Prophecy a Preparation for Christ,” II. 54 sq.) points out a difference between the Niphal (generally but not always used of true divine prophecy) and the Hithpael (generally but not always of false prophecy), and we may here render: “he acted the prophet” (so here Junius); but it is desirable to exhibit in the translation, if possible, the supernatural element. Whether the Eng. “prophesied” will bear the meaning “spoke like a prophet” or “raved supernaturally” is doubtful; but it is so used of false prophets in Eng. A. V. in 1 Kings 22:10 (Hithp.) and 12 (Niph.).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 18:11. (εַ ?ιָּ ?θֶ ?μ, Hiph. of θּ ?εּ ?μ, properly “to stretch out longitudinally,” comp. Psalms 37:24). As it is not said, that Saul actually threw the spear against the wall (as in 1 Samuel 19:10), the sense rather is: “he purposed to throw;” and we are to suppose a threatening movement of the arm.—David turned, withdrew before this threatening movement. Twice he did so; this supposes that Saul twice lifted his spear. This also proves that Saul only moved, did not throw the spear, as in 1 Samuel 19:10. Bunsen well observes: “If Saul actually threw the spear, we could not understand David’s twice retiring. Saul held the spear in his hand, and David stood so near him that he could save himself only by withdrawing.” This is therefore not the same thing as what is told in 1 Samuel 19:9-10, where Saul actually throws the spear, which pierces the wall. The Sept. has after its manner arbitrarily omitted this section 1 Samuel 18:9-11, because it wrongly assumed the identity of the two accounts. 1 Samuel 18:12 relates how Saul’s heart was divided between fierce envy and fear of David; the latter became an object of fear to him. The reason given for this is that the Lord was with David, and was departed from Saul. Through the honor accorded David for his God-given victory Saul became aware of what had already taken place, namely, that he was forsaken and rejected by the Lord. 1 Samuel 18:13. Enmity against David (born of envy and jealousy) and fear of him (as one specially blessed by God) led Saul to remove him from his presence.—He made him captain over a thousand. This means a different military position from that mentioned in 1 Samuel 18:5, “whether it denotes a higher position than the first, or the latter means an undefined promotion, as to which we can now hardly determine with certainty” (Keil).—He went out and in before the people is to be understood of David’s military undertakings. 1 Samuel 18:14. Here as before (1 Samuel 18:5) David is in everything prosperous. Whereby Saul’s fear (which had led him to remove David from his side) is only increased, he was afraid of him (1 Samuel 18:15); for he saw afresh that God was with David (1 Samuel 18:14), but was departed from him. 1 Samuel 18:16. The love of the whole people for him now grew still greater, his consideration rose still higher. This must needs have increased Saul’s fear, and along with it his envy and jealousy. So Saul’s condition of soul is portrayed in progressive development with psychological truthfulness. Of this nothing is said in 1 Samuel 18:5, not a word of Saul’s feeling towards David’s success. Here, therefore, in 1 Samuel 18:15-16, we have not the same situation (as if from a different source) as in 1 Samuel 18:5. The difference between them and the advance in the exhibition of Saul’s inner life and his attitude towards David is obvious.4. 1 Samuel 18:17-30. Saul’s attempt on David’s life in connection with his marriage with his daughter. In fulfilling his promise to give his daughter to the conqueror of Goliath (1 Samuel 17:25), Saul takes occasion to prepare the way for David’s death in battle with the Philistines by requiring him to inflict a heavy defeat on them, thus artfully hoping to get rid of him. Such a murderous purpose Saul doubtless had when, after the failure of his murderous attempt in the house, he gave David command over a thousand. A clear light is thus thrown on his new appointment here to a definitely determined military position. 1 Samuel 18:17. “My oldest daughter” (Heb. large, as in 1 Samuel 16:11 small = youngest). Saul’s words: only be valiant, etc., are not to be taken as a condition, for the condition of receiving Saul’s daughter to wife was the conquest of Goliath; but they contain an obligation which Saul lays on him, and which David is to accept in return for the honor of becoming Saul’s son-in-law. Such exhortation and expectation on Saul’s part would not seem strange to David, since in his continued wars against the Philistines Saul needed valiant heroes as leaders of his soldiers. It was also in itself perfectly proper for Saul to say to David: “Fight the battle or wars of the Lord;” for in thus designating Israel’s wars against the Philistines, he expresses the same idea which David expressed in the words (1 Samuel 17:36; 1 Samuel 17:47): “He has defied the ranks of the living God,” and “The battle is the Lord’s.” These wars were “the wars of Jehovah,” because Israel, whom the Philistines oppressed, was God’s chosen covenant-people, in which the kingdom of God was to take shape within the territory contested by the Philistines, in attacking whom, therefore, the Philistines were trying to make void God’s purpose of salvation. So must God needs oppose these enemies of His people and of the holy affairs of His kingdom. And this is the meaning of the title of that old collection of songs, Numbers 21:14 : “Book of the Wars of the Lord.” And as it was the war of God Himself, the combatants therein were necessarily sure of the Lord’s assistance.—But behind this proper language of Canaan was hid Saul’s cunning and wickedness towards David.—Saul thought: My hand shall not be on him, but the hand of the Philistines shall be on him.—This “he thought” shows the same disposition in Saul as the same expression [Eng. A. V. “said”] in 1 Samuel 18:11. There he had stretched out hand and spear; but the deed had not come to performance. Here Saul resolves that David shall not die by his hand; but guile shall lead him to the desired end. So deep-sunken is he morally and intellectually that he seeks to avoid only the outward completion of the evil deed with his own hand, separates between the criminal hand and the wicked heart, and besides covers his wickedness with the hypocritical tongue, which speaks zealously for the things of the Lord. Berl. Bib.: “The finer the words the greater the deceit. Further, he would rather see the Philistines triumph than David survive.” 1 Samuel 18:18. David’s artless simplicity and honest humility are here sharply contrasted with Saul’s artfulness and trickiness. As heretofore the struggle between Saul’s better and worse impulses and the progress of the latter has been set forth with admirable delicacy and clearness, so now, on the other hand, David’s disposition and character is most excellently exhibited by the simple narration of his conduct.—By the question: Who am I? David intimates the distance between his insignificant person as shepherd-lad and the high honor offered him. The question: ξִ ?ιηַ ?ιַּ ?ι [Eng. A. V.: “what is my life?”] does not refer to David’s life; for if it mean his personal life, it involves a tautology with the preceding, and reference to his official life does not suit the connection, where the point is only of his person and family, apart from the fact that grammatically the personal interrogative pron. [so in the Eng.: “who is my life?”—Tr.] does not suit the noun “life.” Nor can it mean in general position in life; ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν never means this. Keil, in defence of this view, says, that “ξִ ?ι refers to the persons of the class of society to which David belonged,” in which he admits that it is not the neuter real [Germ, sachliche—Tr.] conception “condition of life,” but the fundamental meaning of the word “The living” that is here employed; “for ξִ ?ι never refers to things, but always to persons” (Bφttcher). The word means here (as ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ in Psalms 68:11; 2 Samuel 23:11; 2 Samuel 23:13) a troop, people, or, from the connection: “my folks, my family.” See Ew. § 179 b. To this is added: My father’s family.—In his own eyes David seems too insignificant in person, in family and the House of his father to be son-in-law to the king.1 Samuel 18:19. “In the time of giving,” that is, when she ought to have been given. Ew. § 237 a: “When the time is clear from the connection, a future event may be expressed by the Inf. with αְּ.” Comp. Deuteronomy 23:14; 2 Kings 2:2.—Saul did not keep his word; for some reason he gave Merab to Adriel, the Meholathite to wife, “which cannot surprise us, considering Saul’s capricious disposition in his advanced age” (Stδhelin, Leben Davids, p. 11). A place, Abelmeholah, is mentioned in Judges 7:22, in Manasseh, west of the Jordan.—The section 1 Samuel 18:17-19 is arbitrarily omitted in the Sept. because the translators did not understand why Saul failed to keep his promise, and why his action was so contradictory or undecided.—One really does not see why the oscillating, self-contradictory Saul, governed by the momentary whims of his discordant soul, should not have been guilty of such breach of faith. Thenius’ confident assertion “that these verses contain nothing but a popular story made out of the fact related in 1 Samuel 18:20 in imitation of Jacob’s marriage with Leah and Rachel,” is wholly without ground. To such an imitation there is lacking agreement in the chief features of the two narratives. 1 Samuel 18:20-30. Michal becomes the wife of David, who issues victoriously out of the great dangers in battle with the Philistines, into which Saul had sent him to a certain death, as he hoped. That it is expressly said of Michal: She loved David, does not warrant the conclusion that Merab did not love him, and was therefore not given to him. The reason for this is not mentioned, simply because Saul’s procedure was arbitrary. Perhaps there was at this moment no war with the Philistines in which he might have looked for David’s destruction. It pleased Saul that Michal loved David. Between the transpiring of Michal’s love and Merab’s marriage we must suppose a space of time, during which Michal’s love was developed. 1 Samuel 18:21. Michal was to be a snare to David, that is, Saul would impose such conditions on him in the marriage as would secure his death: on her account or occasion the hand of the Philistines should be on him (comp. 1 Samuel 18:25):—αִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ιִ ?ν [Eng. A. V. in the one of the twain,” see “Text and Gram.”] is literally: in two [feminine]. Accordingly it is proposed to render (as Bunsen): David is to make a double marriage with Merab and Michal, as Jacob did; in this case (so Tremell.) 1 Samuel 18:19 is to be taken as Pluperfect: “she had been given.” Similarly, S. Schmid, only he takes 1 Samuel 18:19 in this way, that Saul excused himself to David, and offered to restore Merab to him, she having been already married to another; but if he did not wish this, he should at least marry Michal. Or it is rendered: “Twice shalt thou sue for my alliance”—having failed in Merab’s case, thou shalt succeed in Michal’s (Cler.); or it is translated in duabus rebus gener meus eris hodie [in two things thou shalt be my son-in-law to-day] (Vulg.), or, “by the second thou shalt contract an alliance with me to-day” (S. Schmid in the 2d ed. of the Bib. Heb. of Ev. v. d. Hooght, Lips., 1740). But all these renderings are materially [that is, as to content; German, sachlich.—Tr.] and linguistically untenable. The difficulty lies in their taking the numeral as a cardinal number. But there are passages where it = the second time, as undoubtedly in Job 33:14, and Nehemiah 13:20. If now we connect the word with the following (according to the accents), it reads: “a second time wilt thou become my son-in-law,” that is, according to the explanation first given by Bunsen: “The first time by the betrothal to Merab (afterwards broken off), the second time by the actual marriage with Michal.” Bunsen remarks that this explanation is forced and grammatically hard, as to which (1) grammatically the “second time,” is justified by the above-cited passages, and (2) as to content or meaning this view is far less difficult and suspicious than that preferred by Bunsen, though it must be confessed to be open to the objection that the first marriage did not actually take place.—Keil’s explanation: “in a second way thou shalt be my son-in-law,” is unclear, and the rendering “second way” seems not grammatically sustained.—We escape all the difficulties of a connection with what follows if, with De Wette and Thenius, neglecting the accents (which cannot be finally decisive), we connect with the preceding and translate: “And Saul said to David the second time” (understanding the first time to be in 1 Samuel 18:17).—Thenius thinks that the words “And Saul said to-day” [Eng. A. V. “Saul said twain”] are an interpolation by the same hand as 1 Samuel 18:17-19, (1) because Saul would not have made the proposition first himself and then through the courtiers (1 Samuel 18:22); (2) because he certainly acted only through others, the better to conceal his shameful purpose, and (3) because, if Saul had spoken first directly to David, we should expect also a direct answer from David (as in 1 Samuel 18:18). But these three reasons seem insufficient to establish his view; for (1) it does not appear why Saul should not first make this proposition himself, when we recollect that David returned no answer, and he thought it necessary to employ the agency of the courtiers; (2) in making the proposition himself he could the better conceal his purpose, as he had not performed his first promise to David, and might now seem to make it good by offering his second daughter; (3) David’s experience of deceit was sufficient to make him silent at first in respect to Saul’s offer. O. v. Gerlach here well says: “Saul proposed this matter to David; but the latter did not answer, as he knew Saul’s vacillation, and distrusted him; it therefore needed the persuasion of others to induce him to come into Saul’s views.” 1 Samuel 18:22 sq. In the fluent discourse of the courtiers we see (1) something of the flattering, conciliatory tone usual in such circles, and (2) Saul’s lively interest in the success of his plan to destroy David through Michal’s love. Saul’s servants were to speak with David “in secret,” that is, “as if they did it behind the king’s back” (Keil).—David’s answer (1 Samuel 18:23) is two-fold: (1) he affirms the great importance of such a step as marrying the king’s daughter—referring to the distance between him and the honor for which he was to strive, and probably also herein alluding to Saul’s former breach of faith in respect to Merab, which proceeded from contempt for his person; (2) he declares himself too poor to furnish a dowry suitable for a king’s daughter. As to the dowry, or “morning-gift,” see Genesis 34:12. 1 Samuel 18:25. In consequence of the courtiers’ report of David’s reasons for declining the marriage, Saul advances another step. To attain his end he dispenses with the usual dowry, and demands only a hundred foreskins of Philistines (Jos. Ant., vi. 10–27, 600 heads)! It is herein supposed that the Philistines were again attacking Saul. This appears also from the fact that David was in this way to show that he had killed a hundred Philistines, to avenge the king of his enemies. Thus Saul thought to put David out of the way by the hand of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 18:26. David accepts Saul’s proposition the more gladly as the demand was in keeping with his military calling, and he was to win Michal by a heroic achievement. And the days were not expired, that is, the time to the marriage, or the time set by Saul for the performance of the warlike deed, though Saul is not expressly said to have set any limit. Ewald explains that the time for the marriage with Merab was not yet expired [so Bib. Com.—Tr.]; but it is more natural to refer to the marriage with Michal. 1 Samuel 18:27. David marched to battle with his men, that is, with the thousand which had been assigned him (1 Samuel 18:13), not with a few valiant followers (as Ewald, Bunsen, and others hold, because with a large body there would have been no danger); we are to suppose that David attacked a large Philistine force, as is intimated in the words “he slew among the Philistines two hundred men,” which he could not have done with a small party. David doubly fulfills Saul’s demand by bringing two hundred foreskins. And they counted out the full number. The arbitrary method of the Sept. is seen in their reading “one hundred” from 1 Samuel 18:25 instead of “two hundred.” [Many modern critics, neglecting the spirit of the narrative, prefer the Sept. reading to the Heb., referring also to 2 S. 1 Samuel 3:14. Ignoring the enthusiasm and prowess of David, they insist on an arithmetical correctness in his slaughter, as if a youthful warrior on such an occasion would not rejoice in going beyond the mark. In 2 S. 1 Samuel 3:14 David properly mentions the price demanded by Saul; all beyond was not price, but free gift.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 18:28 sq. Here, similarly, the Sept. for “Michal, Saul’s daughter,” puts “all Israel.” Bunsen: “A completely unfounded change of the Heb. text,” taken from 1 Samuel 18:16. The issue of the hostile schemes set on foot against David is the opposite of what Saul intended. The narrative asserts not only that God was with David, but also that Saul knew it. Michal’s love to David, and Saul’s hate, which had grown into permanent enmity, are here sharply contrasted. “Saul was yet the more afraid” points back to 1 Samuel 18:12-15. Saul’s perception of the fact that David was under God’s special protection only increased the feeling that he himself was forsaken and rejected by God, who shielded David against his wicked designs.1 Samuel 18:30 stands in pragmatic connection with the following narrative of Saul’s conduct towards David, whose brilliant exploits against the Philistines and rising reputation still more inflamed the jealousy and hatred of Saul. AND 1. The history of sin in Saul’s inner life shows a steady and rapid progress in evil after it had gained footing and mastery in his heart. When a man once gives place to passion in his soul, he comes more and more into its power, and is at last completely ruled by it, and driven even more violently on from sin to sin. “He that doeth sin is the slave of sin.”—Jealousy, which, in a heart that has lost God’s love and honor as its centre, is born of selfishness (wanting all love, honor, joy for itself alone), has always for its companion envy of the successes, the honor and the good fortune of others. From envy come gradually hatred and enmity, and then, by hidden or by open ways, murder—“he who hateth his brother is a murderer.” Parallel to the example of Saul are those of Cain and Joseph’s brothers. 2. With the deeds which God the Lord performs in the history of his kingdom through chosen instruments, whom He has thereto prepared and enabled by the wise leadings of His grace, are often connected immediate consequences, which (like the consequences of David’s victory for him,) are of far-reaching importance for their further course in life, and provide them with broader and higher equipment of the inner and outer life for greater tasks which are assigned them for the kingdom of God. And the more willingly they thus enter the school of suffering and conflict, as David did, the more do they grow in humility, obedience, and childlike submission to God’s will, but the more also do they learn the truth of the word: God gives grace to the humble, He makes the upright to prosper. He who, like David, walks humbly and obediently in God’s ways, unmoved by the good fortune granted him, or by the trials and conflicts which often come upon him out of such good fortune through the sins of others, sees himself everywhere led by the Lord’s hand, and accompanied by His blessing. 3. True friendship in two souls must be rooted in a like attitude of the heart to a loving God, must exhibit itself in a mutual unselfish devotion of heart in love which is based on a common love to the Lord, and must approve itself in the school of suffering. 4. In the character-pictures which it presents to us (as is clear in the history of Saul and David), Holy Scripture never exhibits a pause in religious-moral life, but always holds up the mighty “Either * Or,” which man has to decide,—either forward on the way in which man walks at the hand of God with giving up of his own will and humble obedience to the will of God, or backwards with uncheckable step, when man puts God’s guidance from him, and, following his own will, suffers not God’s will to be accomplished in, on, and through himself. [Maurice: (Prophets and Kings of the Old Test.): I have not tried to ascertain the point at which the moral guilt of Saul ends and his madness begins; the Bible does not hint at a settlement of that question. It is enough for us to know, and to tremble as we know, that the loss of all capacity for discerning between right and wrong may be the rightful and natural result of indulging any one hateful passion. On the other hand, it is comforting to believe that there are conditions of mind to which we must not and dare not impute moral delinquency; a still greater and deeper comfort to know that in these conditions, as well as those where there is most of wilful wrong, God may still be carrying on His great and wonderful work of “bringing souls out of darkness and the shadow of death, of breaking their bonds asunder.” There are glimpses of light in the later life of Saul which must be referred to the divine source. Chandler (Life of David, p. 60): David, in the destruction of the Philistines, acted contrary to no rules of religion and morality; for the men he destroyed were the enemies of his country, in a state of actual war with his prince and people, and therefore lawful prize wherever he could lay hold of them.—Tr.] AND 1 Samuel 17:1 sq. J. Lange: To love good people, and that in such a way that one loves and esteems them for the good he sees in them, is a sign that one is good himself.—Schlier: True friendship is a gift of God, and God grants it to those who fear Him.—Berl. Bible: The connection which God establishes between truly converted men is almost indescribable. There is an incomprehensible something that out of two such souls makes a single one in God. No blood relationship or natural friendship comes up to this, because such a union proceeds from utter conformity. When men have experienced such a oneness of soul, they make with each other an everlasting covenant.—[1 Samuel 18:3. Taylor: A league of friendship, which for sincerity, constancy, and romantic pathos, is unrivalled in the annals of history, whether sacred or profane.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:4. Schmid: True and genuine love delights to show itself also by outward signs.—Cremer: They are true friends who help not only in prosperity but also in necessity.—F. W. Krummacher: These two loved each other truly in God, to whose service they had devoted themselves in holy hours of consecration, and their views, judgments, opinions and strivings were completely harmonious.—When such conditions concur, there grows up the sweet flower which the apostle, in distinction from universal love, calls “peculiar.” There blooms the friendship, which, rooting itself in similarity of sanctified natural disposition, and working an improvement of this on both sides, takes one of the highest places among earthly blessings. There knits itself the communion of heart, in consequence of which one man becomes to another, as it were, a living channel, through which there incessantly streams upon him a fulness of refreshing consolation and encouragement, enriching his inner life. 1 Samuel 17:5. Schlier: The Lord makes everything right and good! That God who so wonderfully led David, and even in the least and most trifling things trained him up for his calling, will also lead us by the hand step after step, and if we let ourselves be led, will certainly lead everything to a good result. Let us always hold to the old saying: As God will, hold I still! 1 Samuel 17:7. F. W. Krummacher: Let us always celebrate our heroes, perpetuate their memory in monuments, twine laurel crowns for all who have done good service for the common weal, or through their creative gifts have enlarged the domain of elevating and wholesome ideas. Only let us not forget, through whatever of great, noble and blessed is achieved by the sons of man, to be reminded first of the Father of spirits, from whom every good and perfect gift comes down to us, and let us in humility and modesty give to Him, before all others, the honor which is His due. 1 Samuel 17:8. Starke: Where prosperity comes, envy soon follows (Genesis 37:8, Daniel 6:1-5). [Henry: Now begin David’s troubles, and they not only tread on the heels of his triumphs, but take rise from them; such is the vanity of that in this world which seems greatest.—Scott: Lavish commendations of those whom we love and admire, in such a world as this, often prove a real injury.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:9. sq. F. W. Krummacher: Were it granted us in our own local circles everywhere to look behind the curtain, who knows how often we too should behold like scenes! Scenes of a wild outpouring of an injured feeling of honor, or of unrestrained vexation at losses, or of flaming and heart-consuming envy, so that we too could not avoid designating these paroxysms by the expression “demoniacal.”—Berl. Bible: Selfishness occasions a deadly jealousy, for it makes one grudge the favors which God grants to others.—Schlier: If everything had gone on so, if all the people had continually shouted to meet the bold hero, how easily might pride have taken possession of him, how easily might he have fallen from his humility, and become full of vanity and assumption. Therefore God the Lord took him into His own school, and such a school of trouble is indeed bitter, but it is good and wholesome, and he who learns in it first rightly becomes a man after God’s own heart.—F. W. Krummacher: Scarcely one trying condition of life can be thought of, in which David had not found himself at some time or other during his pilgrimage. Even for his own sake, that he might not be exalted above measure through the abundant favors vouchsafed unto him, he needed continual reminders of his dependence on Him who, on high and in the sanctuary, dwells with those who are of contrite and humble spirit. Besides, David was to become even for thousands of years a loved and comforting companion to the weary and oppressed of every sort, and for that reason, also, no cup of trouble must pass him by untasted.—[Scott: For every great and good work a man must expect to be envied by his neighbor; no distinction or preeminence can be so unexceptionably obtained, but it will expose the possessor to slander and malice, and perhaps to the most fatal consequences. But such trials are very useful to those who love God; they serve as a counterpoise to the honor put upon them, and check the growth of pride and attachment to the world; they exercise them to faith, patience, meekness, and communion with God; they give them a fair opportunity of exemplifying the amiable nature and tendency of true godliness, by acting with wisdom and propriety in the most difficult circumstances; they make way for increasing experience of the Lord’s faithfulness, in restraining their enemies, raising them up friends, and affording them His gracious protection; and they both prepare them for those stations in which they are to be employed, and open their way to them: for in due time modest merit will shine forth with double lustre.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:10. Cramer: When one opens the door of his heart to the devil by envy, pride, scorn, sour looks and rudeness, he is not far off, but soon enters in with his hellish forces (Genesis 37:8; Genesis 37:18 sq.). Wurt. Summ.: How unhappy is a man who has turned away from God, and yet will not acknowledge and confess his guilt, but still assumes that he is in the right! This makes him discontented with God, and grudging and hostile to others who are favored by God. 1 Samuel 17:11. Starke [from Bp. Hall]: It is well for the innocent that wicked men cannot keep their own counsel. [Henry: Compare David, with his harp in his hand, aiming to serve Saul, and Saul, with his javelin in his hand, aiming to slay David; and observe the sweetness and usefulness of God’s persecuted people, and the brutishness and barbarity of their persecutors.—Tr]. 1 Samuel 17:12. Osiander: God turns away the blows of enemies, be that they are in vain and do no damage.—Starke: Those who have in God a gracious father and a protector are feared by others (Mark 6:20). 1 Samuel 17:13. S. Schmid: The evil which ungodly men threaten and do to the pious God knows how to change into something good (Genesis 1:20). 1 Samuel 17:15. Schmid: One can avenge himself on envious men in no better and nobler way, than when with God’s help, he behaves himself wisely, and seeks in prayer the increase of the divine blessing. 1 Samuel 17:16. Starke: When ungodly men think to lessen the honor and consideration of the pious, it is often so much the more increased.—Chrysostom (3 Homilies on David and Saul): But that holy man even after all this, continued caring for the other’s interests, and incurring perils to promote his safety, and taking place in the ranks in all battles, and preserving by his own perils the one who wished to slay him, and neither in words nor in deeds did he provoke that savage wild beast, but in all things yielded and was obedient.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 17:17. Friendlier face, worse rogue; therefore try the spirits (Psalms 28:3; Psalms 55:22 [21]). [Saul a hypocritical pretender, both to paternal affection (comp. 1 Samuel 18:20-21), and to pious devotion, “the Lord’s battles.”—Tr.]—Osiander: Hypocrites persuade themselves that they have done no evil if only they do not put their own hand to it, although they manage to do it through others.—Starke: A true Christian must also be a good soldier, and fight the Lord’s battles (2 Timothy 2:5; 2 Timothy 4:7). 1 Samuel 17:18. A pious man is even in prosperity humble of heart.—Berl. Bible: This humility of David may teach us much. He knew well that he was to be king, and that God had caused him to be anointed thereto; yet he never spoke of such a favor, but rather gives it to be understood how utterly nothing he is, and how unworthy he thought himself. 1 Samuel 17:20. Schlier: When God does not give us something which we have desired, we should be certain that our wish would not have been good for us, and should be not less certain that God has something better in store for us. 1 Samuel 17:22. Starke: One should not let himself be used for the purpose of causing others to fall. 1 Samuel 17:23. Berl. Bible: A truly humble man never seeks his own honor, even though opportunities should occur in which he might well do so.—Simplicity and uprightness put all the devices of evil subtlety to shame. And those who always go straight forward often catch those who wanted to catch them. 1 Samuel 17:29. Osiander: The greater injustice and violence any one does to innocent people, the more must he be afraid of them. [Henry: Observe how God brought good to David out of Saul’s projects against him. 1. Saul gave him his daughter to be a snare to him, but that marriage made his succeeding Saul less invidious. 2. Saul thought by putting him upon dangerous service to have him taken off, but that very service increased his popularity and facilitated his coming to the crown. Thus God makes the wrath of man to praise Him, and serves His designs of kindness to His own people by it.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 17:1-2. F. W. Krummacher. The fruit which David personally gained from his triumph over Goliath was threefold: a joyful acquisition, a perilous honor, and a threatening displeasure. [1 Samuel 17:12. Taylor. Three lessons from this chapter: (1) The evil of centering our thoughts and plans entirely on ourselves. This was the root of Saul’s misery. (2) The servant of God may expect to encounter adversity in an early stage of his career. (3) The wisest course in time of danger is to do faithfully his daily duty, and leave our case with God.—Tr.] Chap. 18. Disselhoff: Pleasure and Burden, or, Temptation and Victory: (1) In the pleasure lies the temptation, (2) in the burden lies the power to overcome. [1 Samuel 18:1-4. Jonathan, the man of generous soul. (1) Generous in admiring, (a) Not jealous, though his own military fame is eclipsed. (b) Fully appreciating the merit of a new and obscure man. (c) Admiring not only a brilliant exploit, but modest, graceful and devout words (David’s “speaking,” comp. 1 Samuel 17:37; 1 Samuel 17:45-47, and remember that he was a poet of rare genius). (2) Generous in proposing friendship, where he might so naturally have indulged jealousy (as his father did). Love at first sight, seeking permanent union. (Hall: “A wise soul hath piercing eyes, and hath quickly discovered the likeness of itself in another. That true correspondence that was both in their faith and valor, hath knit their hearts.”) (3) Generous in giving, what was not only valuable and suitable to his friend’s present wants, but honorable as being associated with himself.—Generosity, shown in mutual appreciation and mutual benefits, is the basis of sweet and lasting friendship—and in general, it is one of the noblest traits of human character. 1 Samuel 18:1-9. How David gained a friend and an enemy. (Hall: “David’s victory had a double issue, Jonathan’s love and Saul’s envy, which God so mixed that the one was a remedy of the other.”) 1 Samuel 18:5-30. David’s prudence. (1) Amid the perils of sudden prosperity. The shepherd-youth honored with the friendship of the prince, the plaudits of the multitude, military command, the prospect of entering the royal family—but he behaved wisely and prospered all the more. (Henry: “Those that climb fast have need of good heads and good hearts.” Hall: “Honor shows the man. He is out of the danger of folly, whom a speedy advancement leaveth wise.” Comp. Joseph and Daniel.) (2) Amid the plots of jealous rivals—Saul, the courtiers—but he avoids the javelin of rage, and foils the cunning of hypocrisy. (3) Amid provocations to wrath, by promises broken (1 Samuel 18:19), and fresh demands (25). The brilliant young warrior and poet as prudent as a sage statesman—for the Lord was with him (1 Samuel 18:12; 1 Samuel 18:14; 1 Samuel 18:28). 1 Samuel 18:17. The shrinking hand and the scheming heart. 1 Samuel 18:28-29. Growing prosperity, growing hate.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 18:3. The Sing. pron. is due to the fact that “Jonathan” is the real subject in the foregoing clause.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:5. The verb ωָׂ ?λַ ?μ means in Hiph. properly “to act prudently;” but there is sometimes connected with this the notion of success, as probably throughout this chapter. ε is to be supplied before the verb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:6. Margin of Eng. A. V. “Philistines,” and so the Arab.; the other VSS. have the Sing., which is to be preferred here, though the return at the end of the campaign is meant, because the slaying of Goliath was its most prominent event.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:6. The Heb. is difficult. The Sept. has merely: “And the dancers came out to meet David,” etc., omitting the first clause perhaps to avoid the statement that David excited Saul’s jealousy on the day of his combat with Goliath, and yet was afterwards preferred by him to places of honor. This difficulty is removed if we suppose this verse to refer to the end of the campaign (Philippson).—Chald. has “to praise with dances,” Syr. renders the second word “drums.” Wellhausen proposes to substitute (after the Sept.) δַ ?ξְּ ?ηεֹ ?μְ ?μεֹ ?ϊ for δַ ?πָּ ?ωִׁ ?ιν. According to Ew., § 339 a we may translate: “for song and dance;” but this is difficult here on account of the Art. and the nature of the words, and it seems better to change the Art. δ into μ and render as in Vulg. and Eng. A. V., or with Thenius to insert α, and render “song with dancing.”—The Kethib “to sing” (so Chald. and Syr.) is preferable in the latter case, the Qeri “for song” in the former.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:8. These two clauses are omitted in the Sept., which has thus a noticeable simplicity and directness in its narrative, but loses much of the warmth and life of the Heb. To reject these clauses as “exaggerated” and “psychologically inaccurate” (Wellhausen) is obviously carrying subjective criticism too far. The historical authority is every way in favor of the Heb. text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:9. Keth. Partcp. of stem ςεο, Qeri of st. ςιο. Sept. omits 1 Samuel 18:9-12, as to which see remark on 1 Samuel 18:8. This passage may be omitted without injuring the sense; but it adds to the vividness of the narrative, agrees with 1 Samuel 16:14-23, and rests on the same authority as the other portions of the chapter.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:10. Erdmann and Philippson: “raved,” and so Wordsworth and the Targum; the Syr., Arab. and Vulg. and most Eng. commentators (Patrick, Gill, Clarke, Bib. Com.) render “prophesy.” See the Exposition.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:11. The Greek (Alex. MS.) and Chald. have “lifted,” as if from πָ ?θַ ?μ, and this seems better (εַ ?ιִּ ?θּ ?μ), since it does not appear that he actually cast the weapon (see 1 Samuel 19:10).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:17. The passage 1 Samuel 18:17-19 is omitted in Sept. (Vat.), namely, the story of Merab, perhaps as apparently useless in advancing the narrative. The name Merab means “increase.” Comp. in Eng. the well-known “Increase Mather.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:18. Literally “who is my life?” which is explained by the following clause; but this clause is not therefore necessarily a marginal (unauthorized) addition. The Alex. Sept. has: “what is the life of my father’s family?” which is clear, but unsupported.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:19. Some MSS. and VSS. have Azriel.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:21. The Heb. text (αִּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊַּ ?ιִ ?ν) seems to be supported by all the VSS. (the clause is omitted in Vat. Sept.). The translation here given (which is that of Thenius. Erdmann, Wordsworth, Bib. Com.) is the most satisfactory as to sense; but its correctness is open to doubt. Philippson renders: “with the second,” the older Eng. Comms. follow the Targ.: “in one of the two.” Theodotion has the ingenious rendering: ἐπὶταῖςδυσίν, and another Gr. VS.: ἐφ’ αιρέσει. The Arab. cuts the knot by translating: “I wish thee to be my son-in-law,” herein forsaking the Syr., which has “in both of them.” Some Jews held that David married both the daughters.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:25. Some MSS. have λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν, which is not necessary, since λִּ ?ι alone may mean “but;” or it may be taken as=“for.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:26. This clause is omitted in Vat. Sept. See on 1 Samuel 18:8.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:27. This number is sustained by all the VSS. except Vat. Sept., which has “one hundred,” probably to avoid an apparent contradiction. Here the presumption is not in favor of the smaller number (Wellhausen), but in favor of the harder reading. Wellh. refers to 2 Samuel 3:14, where the Heb. has 100, and the Syr. 200, which perhaps shows a disposition to exaggerate, but cannot be regarded as decisive against our text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:27. The Sing. is found in Sept., Aq and Theod., as well as in Vulg., Syr., Arab.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:28. Sept.: “all Israel,” which is better suited to the context.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 18:30. This verse is omitted in Sept. (Vat.).—Tr.] [The German (obviously by oversight) has: “and he loved Jonathan as his soul,” and explains it as the expression of the formation of friendship on David’s part.—Tr.] [Jonathan’s conduct no less exhibits his own lofty and generous nature (Bib. Com.).—Tr.] [Erdmann translates (not so well): “And David went out; everywhere, whither Saul sent him, he was prudent (successful).” This is to avoid supplying “and” before “was prudent;” it seems better (with Chald., Syr.) to supply “and.” See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] [And see Judges 16:25 for its use on festive occasions.—Tr.] ςֹ ?εֵ ?ο, “eyeing,” Denom. from ςַ ?ιִ ?ο, “eye.” [For a different pointing of the verb=“he lifted,” see “Text. and Gram.” Erdmann’s rendering is allowable, but rare.—Tr.] [The separate mention of Israel and Judah in 1 Samuel 18:16 points to the independence and separateness of Judah even at that time (Bib. Com.), and perhaps also to a post-Solomonic date for the authorship of the book.—Tr.] [On the text of this verse see “Text. and Gram.” Philippson explains: “My life offered in battle would be a poor gift,” which, however, the text will hardly bear.—Tr.] [That is, by two deeds—killing Goliath and slaying the Philistines (1 Samuel 18:25.)—Tr.] [That is, David’s silence as to Saul’s proposition explains why the latter had recourse to his courtiers.—Tr.] It is unnecessary to read, with Sept., Vulg., Chald., and others, λִּ ?ιֹ ?ΰִ ?ν, instead of λִּ ?ι. Maurer: “Here, as often elsewhere, after a negative, λִ ?ι signifies “but,” or rather “for” in this sense: the king desires no dowry, but (for) he desires a hundred Philistine foreskins.” μֵ ?ψֹ ?ΰ contracted from ιֵ ?ψֹ ?ΰ and prefix μְ ?—Ew. § 328 c. Olshausen, Gr., pp. 297, 530, regards it as a clerical error for μִ ?ιψִ ?ΰ. THIRD SECTIONOpen Deadly Persecution of David by Saul, and David’s Flight from Saul1 Samuel 19-27I. Jonathan proves his friendship for David in Saul’s open attempts on David’s life. David’s first flight from Saul’s murderous attempts, and his escape by Michal’s help1 Samuel 19:1-241 And Saul spake to Jonathan his son, and to all his servants that they should 2kill [about killing] David. But Jonathan, Saul’s son, delighted much in David. And Jonathan told David, saying, Saul, my father, seeketh to kill thee; now, therefore, I pray thee [and now] take heed to thyself [ins. I pray thee] until the morning [to-morrow morning, om. until the], and abide in a secret place, and hide 3thyself. And I will go out and stand beside my father in the field where thou art, and I will commune [speak] with [to] my father of thee; and what I see [I 4will see what he says] that [and] I [om. I] will tell thee. And Jonathan spake good of David unto Saul his father, and said unto him, Let not the king sin against his servant, against David; because [for] he hath not sinned against thee, and 5because [om. because] his works have been to thee-ward very good. For [And] he did put his life in his hand, and slew the Philistine, and the Lord [Jehovah] wrought a great salvation for all Israel; thou sawest it and didst rejoice; wherefore, then, wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without a cause? 6And Saul hearkened unto the voice of Jonathan, and Saul sware, As the Lord 7[Jehovah] liveth, he shall not be slain. And Jonathan called David, and Jonathan showed him all these things. And Jonathan brought David to Saul, and he was in his presence as in times past. 8And there was war again, and David went out and fought with the Philistines, 9and slew them with a great slaughter, and they fled from him. And the [an] evil spirit from the Lord [Jehovah] was upon Saul; as he sat [and he was sitting] in his house, with [and] his javelin [ins. was] in his hand, and David played [was 10playing] with his hand. And Saul sought to smite David even [om. even] to the wall with the javelin, but he slipped away [got away] out of Saul’s presence, and he smote the javelin into the wall. And David fled, and escaped that night. 11Saul also [And Saul] sent messengers unto David’s house to watch him, and to slay him in the morning; and Michal, David’s wife, told him, saying, If thou save 12not thy life to-night, to-morrow thou shalt be slain. So [And] Michal let David 13down through a [the] window, and he went and fled and escaped. And Michal took an image [the teraphim], and laid it in the bed, and put a pillow [the quilt] of goats’ hair for his bolster [at its head], and covered it with a cloth [the coverlet]. 14And when Saul sent messengers to take David, she said, He is sick. 15And Saul sent the messengers again [om. again] to see David, saying, Bring him 16up to me in the bed, that I may slay him. And when the messengers were come in [And the messengers came in and] behold, there was an image in the bed, with a pillow of goats’ hair for his bolster [behold the teraphim in the bed and the quilt 17of goats’ hair at its head]. And Saul said unto Michal, Why hast thou deceived me so, and sent away mine enemy, that he is escaped? And Michal answered [said to] Saul, He said unto me, Let me go, why should I kill thee? 18And David fled and escaped and came to Samuel to Ramah, and told him all that Saul had done to him. And he and Samuel went and dwelt in Naioth. 19, 20And it was told Saul, saying, Behold David is at Naioth in Ramah. And Saul sent messengers to take David; and when they saw the company of the prophets prophesying, and Samuel standing as appointed [as leader] over them, the Spirit of God was [came] upon the messengers of Saul, and they also prophesied. 21And when [om. when] it was told Saul, [ins. and] he sent other messengers, and they [ins. also] prophesied likewise [om. likewise]. And Saul sent messengers 22again the third time, and they prophesied also [also prophesied]. Then [And] went he also [he also went] to Ramah, and came to a [the] great well [cistern] that is in Sechu. And he asked and said, Where are Samuel and David? And 23one said, Behold, they be [are] at Naioth in Ramah. And he went thither to Naioth in Ramah; and the Spirit of God was [came] upon him also, and he went 24on and prophesied until he came to Naioth in Ramah. And he [ins. too] stripped off his clothes also [om. also] and [ins. he too] prophesied before Samuel in like manner [om. in like manner], and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? AND 1 Samuel 19:1-7. Warding off through Jonathan’s mediation of the first open outbreak of Saul’s deadly enmity to David. 1 Samuel 19:1. Saul advances so far in his deadly hate towards David that he speaks openly to his courtiers of his purpose to kill him. The “killing” [Eng. A. V. is wrong, see Text. and Gram.—Tr.] refers not to Jonathan and Saul’s servants, but to Saul himself. 1 Samuel 19:2. Jonathan shows his friendship for David 1) in informing him of Saul’s designs on his life, and counselling him to conceal himself, and 2) in interceding for him with Saul, and trying to turn away his anger (1 Samuel 19:3), in which he succeeds.—In thus attempting to restore friendly relations between his father and David, Jonathan’s aim was to keep David at court for the welfare of his father and the people, because he saw in David a specially chosen instrument of the Lord for the welfare of Israel, as he expressly declares in 1 Samuel 19:4. (γִּ ?αֵּ ?ψ with αְּ as in Psalms 87:3; Deuteronomy 6:7 : “to speak concerning one.” Ew., § 217, 2.)—David is to hide in the field, as we infer from Jonathan’s saying that he will speak with his father in the field where David is. The place designated by Jonathan was perhaps one to which Saul used often to go, or where he was accustomed to hold confidential and private conversations. To “what” [see Text. and Gram.—Tr.] we must supply “he says” or “I hear” (Vulg.: et quodcunque videro tibi nuntiabo [so Eng. A. V.]). Against De Wette’s translation: “what it is,” Thenius properly urges that Jonathan already knew what Saul then had in mind. Against Thenius’ view that David was to hide near Saul in order to hear what he said is the fact that Jonathan himself says to David: “I will tell thee.” Rather we must suppose with Keil that Jonathan made this arrangement in order that he might tell David the result of the conversation immediately, without having to go far from his father, and thus awaken suspicion of an understanding with David. 1 Samuel 19:4-5. Jonathan’s statement to Saul is three-fold: 1) he spoke good of David, that is, he spoke favorably of him, pointing out his excellent qualities and his services to Saul and the nation; 2) on the ground of this he implored Saul not to sin against his servant. This designation of David as his servant accords with the foregoing reference to the good which David, as Saul’s faithful servant, had done; 3) to this he adds two reasons, a negative: “he hath not sinned against thee,” that is, he has done nothing to call forth thy vengeance; and a positive: “his works are very useful to thee,” that is, far from doing thee harm, he hath done thee only great service by his deeds.—The relation of 1 Samuel 19:5 to the latter part of 1 Samuel 19:4 is this, that Jonathan, continuing his mediation, here reminds his father of the deed which is specially to be taken into consideration, the slaying of the Philistine, and how he had therein ventured his life: “he put his life in his hand” (1 Samuel 28:21; Judges 12:2), risked his life (perhaps alluding to David’s hand, which swung the sling against the giant, on the firmness and certainty of which his life depended).—Jonathan then proceeds to point out how serviceable to Saul this deed of David was: and the Lord wrought a great salvation for all Israel; thou sawest it and didst rejoice. This reminder of Saul’s joy at David’s exploit (seen with his own eyes) and its grand results, this vivid presentation of the situation at that time is the psychological stepping-stone to the ethical change which is brought about in Saul’s attitude towards David by Jonathan’s pressing and yet modest supplication: Why wilt thou sin against innocent blood, to slay David without cause?—Saul was changeable and uncertain in his unstable inner life, because there was yet in him a noble germ whence good fruit might yet come. 1 Samuel 19:6. Saul swore, a characteristic indication of his to go to one extreme or another. David’s life was now saved. [Some think that Saul swore insincerely, to put Jonathan off his guard; but this is not so probable as that he was here sincere, but fell again under the power of jealousy (1 Samuel 19:10).—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 19:7. Jonathan, having performed this friendly service for David, informs him of the result according to promise (1 Samuel 19:3), and David resumes his place at court. David was in Saul’s presence “as yesterday and the day before,” that is, as in times past. 1 Samuel 19:8-17. David’s first flight in consequence of another murderous attempt on Saul’s part, the result of envy and jealousy. 1 Samuel 19:8. The background of this narrative is formed by the military life which was connected with the continued wars with the Philistines. The “went out” is not to be changed into some other word (with Then. after Sept. κατίσχυσε), but to be retained (as in 1 Samuel 18:5; 1 Samuel 18:16) as expressing David’s marching forth to battle. 1 Samuel 19:9. The ethical ground of Saul’s new outburst of rage after David’s success is his envy and jealousy of David’s honor and glory, as is intimated by the preceding mention of the latter’s victory over the Philistines.—“We have two similar accounts of Saul’s outbreaks (1 Samuel 18:10 sq. and 1 Samuel 19:9 sq.) simply because such outbreaks were really frequent (comp. especially 1 Samuel 18:18) and like one another” (Nδgelsbach in Herz. XIII. 403). An evil Spirit of Jehovah came upon Saul.—While this evil spirit is in 1 Samuel 16:15 and 1 Samuel 18:10 referred to Elohim, the Deity in general, Jehovah is here affirmed to be its sender, because Saul’s condition, which was there only ascribed in general to a higher divine causality in respect to his person, is here regarded as a judgment of the covenant-God of Israel on the reprobate king, who hardens his heart against God.—Along with his military calling, David here again takes his old place as harpist. He did not abandon the post assigned him by the Lord, so long as the Lord did not through events command him to leave it, as was afterwards the case, cf. 1 Samuel 20.—The Sept. took offence at the “evil spirit of Jehovah” and left out “Jehovah.” But the Genitive means nothing more than what is said in 1 Samuel 16:14, that the God of Israel sent an evil spirit on Saul, or gave him over to the power of the evil spirit. 1 Samuel 19:10. David escapes Saul’s spear, which penetrates the wall. He flees the same night. (The Art. of the Pron. is lacking from similarity of sound, Ew. § 392 a, and § 70 c). The Sept. reads: “and it came to pass that night that Saul sent” (inserting εִ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι and connecting with the following), looking to 1 Samuel 19:12, where the flight by night is first mentioned. Against this it is not necessary to insist that the narrator here in Hebrew fashion gives the result first by anticipation, and then details the immediate incidents; for Saul’s attempt may have occurred in the evening, or, if it happened in the day-time, David may first have hidden in Saul’s house, and then at night have fled to his own house. That David fled to his own dwelling and remained there till night, appears from 1 Samuel 19:11, according to which Saul sends messengers to his house to watch him and to kill him in the morning (that is, when he went out again). With this agrees exactly the fact that Michal, who acquainted him with the danger threatening him in his house, presses him to flee that night, because in the morning he would be slain. In the night of the same day on which the attempt on his life occurred, David fled from Saul’s house to his own, and the same night by Michal’s means he fled from his own house. [Kitto: “We may guess that only the fear of alarming the town, and of rousing the populace to rescue their favorite hero, prevented him from directing them to break into the house and slay David there.” Others suggest the fear of alarming or injuring Michal. She could easily get notice of Saul’s design from Jonathan or others.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 19:12. Through the window, because the door was watched (1 Samuel 19:11) by Saul’s men. For similar escapes through windows see Joshua 2:15; Acts 9:25; 2 Corinthians 11:33.—With this flight of David began his weary fleeing before Saul, and the great sufferings and dangers which he encountered in this unsettled life. 1 Samuel 19:13. By a trick with the Teraphim Michal deceives Saul’s catchpolls.—The teraphim were the images of domestic or private gods (Penates) which the Israelites retained as the remnant of the idolatry brought from the Aramζan or Chaldean home (Genesis 31:19; Genesis 31:34) in spite of their removal after the entry of Jacob’s family into Canaan (Genesis 35:2 sq.) and of the absolute prohibition of idolatry in the Law, which reappear especially in the period of the Judges (Judges 17:5; Judges 18:14 sq.) and particularly meet us in the houses of Saul and David in spite of Samuel’s prophetic zeal against such idolatry (1 Samuel 15:23; comp. Hosea 3:4; Zechariah 10:2). The Plu. here represents a single image, which it seems (1 Samuel 19:16) must have had the human form at least as to head and face, though the size may have varied, since (Genesis 31:30 sq.) it was so small that Rachel could conceal it under the camel-saddle, while Michal here uses it to make Saul’s men believe that David was in the bed. The teraphim which Laban calls his “Elohim” were probably originally tutelar deities, dispensers of domestic and family good fortune. On the derivation and meaning of the name see Rφdiger in Ges. Thes. III. 1520, Hδvernick on Ezek. p. 347 sq., and Delitzsch Gen. II. p. 220 [and Art. “Teraphim” in Smith’s Bib. Dict.—Tr.]. On the meaning see particularly the Arts. in Winer and Herzog. Whether it was a wooden image is uncertain, as also, whether Michal had such domestic gods on account of her barrenness (Michaelis, Thenius, Keil). λְּ ?αִ ?ιψ (which the Sept. read λָּ ?αֵ ?γ “liver,” whence Joseph says that Michal put a palpitating goat-liver into the bed to represent a breathing sick man) is from λָּ ?αַ ?ψ [“to braid”] and means woven-work or net [rendered quilt or mattress, Eng. A. V. pillow.—Tr.]. The plural of “goat” (ςֵ ?ζ) here = goats’ hair. The Def. Art. points to something which belonged to the furnishing of a couch or bed. She put it at his head, which may mean either that she put a woven cover under his head, or a hairy cover on or around his head. In any case Michal’s purpose was to make the head of the teraphim look as much as possible like a human head. The αַּ ?αָּ ?‍ ?ֽ ?βֶ ?γ [“with the coverlet”] must, on account of the article, be understood of some piece of household stuff, therefore of the bed-cover. The word (αֶּ ?βֶ ?γ) means the upper garment of the Oriental, which is a wide cloth thrown around the person, and served also for bed-clothing. 1 Samuel 19:14. When Saul’s messengers come the first time, Michal says to them that David is sick. [On this untruth see “Histor. and Theolog.” to this chap. at end.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 19:15. Saul, determined to carry out his purpose orders David to be brought up to him on the bed, that is, to his house, which, therefore, was higher than David’s. “Saul must therefore have resided in Gibeah on the height” (Then.). 1 Samuel 19:16. The messengers come and discover the deceit. The express mention of the “goat-hair cover at his head” shows that this had materially contributed to the success of the deception. It appears from 1 Samuel 19:13 that to the words [of the Heb.]: “behold teraphim in the bed,” we must supply “laid” or “placed.” 1 Samuel 19:17. Saul demands an explanation of Michal. Why hast thou sent away my enemy?—In these words appears all Saul’s bitterness and blindness. It is a sort of “persecuting mania” that shows itself in David’s persecutor.—Michal’s defence does not agree with the statement in 1 Samuel 19:11-12, that she herself urged David to flight. From fear of her father she tells a “lie of necessity,” saying: “He said to me, send me away, why should I kill thee?” She pretends that she wished to prevent his flight, but he threatened to kill her if she stood in his way. [To this deliverance is referred Psalms 59 by its title and Psalms 7 by some critics.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 19:18-24. David’s flight to Ramah to Samuel. 1 Samuel 19:18. David told Samuel all that Saul had done to him.—That David takes refuge in Samuel’s quiet seat of the prophets is explained by the intimate connection which David already had with Samuel and the prophetic school presided over by him, and especially by the official-theocratic connection which David’s anointing had brought about between the two men. Samuel now becomes God’s instrument for saving and preserving David as the Lord’s Anointed from the attempts of Saul. David dwelt “at Naioth” with Samuel, who went thither with him. Naioth is to be distinguished from Ramah, Samuel’s dwelling-place, and to be regarded as a place where Samuel stayed as long as David, who had at first reported to him at Ramah, was with him (comp. 1 Samuel 19:22-23). The Kethib has everywhere Nevaioth, Vulg. (with Qeri) Naioth. The appellative, signifying “dwellings,” became the proper name of the place where dwelt the prophets who gathered about Samuel as their head (comp. 1 Samuel 19:20). The plu. form indicates a colony consisting of several dwellings, a prophetic cenobium.1 Samuel 19:19-20. Saul, having been informed of David’s stay in this cenobium, sent messengers to fetch him. The prophets, here appear 1) in an assembly, 2) therein engaged in prophesying, and 3) under the lead of Samuel. It is to be noted that we have here prophets, who in inspired discourse give forth their inner life filled with the Holy Ghost, not sons of the prophets, as in 2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 6:1, who as scholars and learners sit at the feet of their master and teacher. The prophetic community here, therefore, under Samuel as head is not yet a prophetic school, to educate young men for the prophetic calling, but is a prophetic seminary, in which, under Samuel’s guidance in an externally strictly ordered yet internally free association, the prophetic powers are practiced and strengthened, mutually incite, nourish, and further one another, and the prophetic charisma finds ever new nourishment and new growth by this common holy discipline. And the Spirit of God came upon the messengers of Saul; Spirit of God, not Spirit of Jehovah, because we here have not to do with the Spirit of the covenant-God, but with the supernatural principle of inspiration. And they too prophesied. Clericus: “They sang divine praises, being seized on by a sudden afflatus which they could not resist (as Saul, 1 Samuel 10:10), so that they no longer had control over themselves.” The condition of Saul’s messengers is that of ecstatic ravishment, into which they were brought by the overpowering might of the inspired song or word of the prophets. 1 Samuel 19:21. Saul’s second and third companies of messengers fall into a similar ravishment. [The repeated occurrence of this supernatural seizure adds greatly to the force and effectiveness of the narrative. The purpose of this in the divine providence, we may suppose, was to bring Saul himself.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 19:22. Then went he also to Ramah and came (on the way thither) to the great cistern (well known, as the Art. shows) that was in Sechu,—a now unknown region or locality near Ramah. The Sept. has “cistern of the threshing-floor” (βֹ ?ψֶ ?ο), instead of “great” cistern, and “on the hill” (ωְׁ ?τִ ?ι), instead of “Sechu.” But, though it is true that threshing-floors were usually on hills, there is no need here of a change of text. Saul, learning that David and Samuel were at Naioth in Ramah, went thither. 1 Samuel 19:23. While he was still in the way there happened to him what happened to his messengers. The Spirit of God came upon him also, and he went on and prophesied till he came to Naioth in Ramah. The difference between Saul and his messengers was simply that the inspiration came on him as he was approaching the residence of the prophet, and that it attained a higher grade and lasted longer, completely suppressing his self-consciousness. 1 Samuel 19:24, namely, relates: And he too stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel. The throwing off of the clothing was the effect of the heat of body produced by internal excitement. Abarbanel: “because of inward warmth, and to spread the garments out.” We may suppose that the messengers also cast away their garments (though it is not expressly so said), as the prophets in their times of excitement and heat may well have done. The “he also” is not found in the following sentence: he lay naked all day and all night. This does not necessarily mean complete nakedness (ςָ ?ψֹ ?ν, 2 Samuel 6:20), because there was worn under the kethoneth or tunic a fine woven shirt of linen or cotton (ξָ ?γִ ?ιο, Judges 14:12 sq.; Isaiah 3:23), and over it a long sleeveless outer garment (ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ, 1 Samuel 18:4; 1 Samuel 14:5-12). Comp. Keil, Bibl, Arch., II., 39.—Saul lay in his under-garment (a sort of shirt which was next to the body, but did not completely cover it) unconscious; so completely was he overcome by the ecstacy. Wherefore they say, Is Saul also among the prophets? See 1 Samuel 10:11-12, where the origin of this saying is related. Here we have not the origin, but the application of the already existing proverb. AND 1. The picture of a true, faithful friend, already presented to us in Jonathan, is here completed in the account of his conduct towards Saul and David in individual significant traits and clear colors; but at the same time along with this picture of noble friendship we find one of an humble, reverent, childlike spirit towards the sinful purpose of his father. As soon as Jonathan has learned from his father the danger that threatened David’s life, he shows his faithful love for his friend by imparting to him the evil designs of his father, by enjoining on him to hide himself, by promising to soften if possible his father’s wrath, and by informing him how he (David) should soon learn the result of his effort at mediation and rescue. But Jonathan’s noble character appears in yet clearer light in his conduct towards his father. For his friend’s sake he dares, at the risk of his life, to oppose the rage and the sinister designs of his own father. Openly and frankly he represents to his father the great crime he would commit by slaying David. His heart is free from envy and jealousy while he sets before his father David’s great services to the royal house and the whole nation. His words and bearing show manly firmness and decision, and yet childlike piety, reverence, and obedience; no word not in keeping with the Fourth Commandment from his lips. And in addition to all this is his magnanimous self-denial, since he doubtless suspected that his friend would ascend the throne after his father. Though he himself possessed all the qualities which should adorn God’s Anointed on the throne, heroic courage, undisputed, universally acknowledged military renown, firm trust in the living God, and a noble disposition, he shows not the slightest trace of envy and unkindness towards David. “Notwithstanding all this he was not only nobly ready, if the Lord should so command, to give up his birthright, but strove wisely and vigorously to defeat all that was conceived and undertaken against God’s decree, even at the risk of falling by his own father’s hand, a sacrifice to his piety and friendship” (F. W. Krummacher). Jonathan is a character that rises on the platform of Old Testament-life in peculiarly noble, harmonious, ethical-sympathetic form, whether we regard him as the heroic warrior and leader, or as faithful, self-denying friend, or as humble, modest prince-royal, or as the frank, unshrinking denouncer of wrong and sin. 2. In David’s ethical-historical character, as presented to us in this section, we have to note in the first place his humble and obedient behaviour in the calling appointed him by the divine providence at the royal court, in spite of the quickly changing and fiercely outbreaking passionate moods of Saul, and in spite of the dangers which he saw threatened him. Every moment he put himself at the king’s disposition, and was at his side to help him whenever it was necessary. He went quietly on the way which the Lord had appointed him. And therefore he was under God’s protection, and experienced the preserving help of his God.—Yet this flight, in which his wife’s faithful love was the Lord’s means of saving him, began the unbroken series of severe sufferings and trials by which David was to be confirmed in his faith and trained in a hard school for his royal calling. In this long life of suffering he had uninterrupted experience as a confirmed servant of God of the help, the consolation, the strengthening from above to which his Psalms bear testimony. Roos: “Lay David’s good and bad fortune in the balances. A courtier and officer, who falls under the king’s displeasure, whom the king with implacable rage seeks to kill, whom the courtiers and many others, to please the king, despise and persecute, a man who is compelled to flee, who in need and affliction must always conceal himself, who can often find no place on earth where to lay his head, such a man may well talk of misfortune, and is in this view a miserable person. But if we remember that God in his deepest needs vouchsafes gracious visitations to the soul of this man, lifts it, as it were, above all mists and clouds, grants it clearest insight into truth, refreshes it by undeceptive addresses and friendly consolations, and through it points all men to happiness, we must admit that this man’s good fortune is greater than his bad fortune, that his honor is greater than his reproach, and that the good that he has super-abundantly makes up for all his outward want.” 2. The title of the 59th Psalm refers its origin to David’s dangerous situation in Gibeah, “when Saul sent and they watched the house to kill him.” And in fact the recurring verses 7 and 15 [6 and 14] of this very artistically arranged Psalm point to ambushments which begin in the evening. But it is repeated ambuscades that are there spoken of. Since now in our history only one night is mentioned, it seems more appropriate not to refer this Psalm to those dangerous days in Gibeah (Delitzsch, Moll), but with Hengstenberg to find its occasion in David’s remembrance of the deliverance wrought that night through Michal, which was the beginning of the weary flight, wherein he encountered such unspeakable dangers and sufferings. “Such being the importance of the fact, we should expect David to perpetuate its recollection by a Psalm” (Hengst.). The Psalm was sung when he looked back on the long line of enemies’ snares and divine deliverances, of which the events of that evening and night were the beginning and type. We must not, however, confine ourselves to that event alone, but must include all David’s similar experiences of Saul’s traps. “From the Psalm it appears only that it was called forth by an attempt on the singer’s life; in other respects the circumstances are those which belong in general to the Saul-period” (Hengst.).4. The teraphim-image, which Michal employs, shows that these Aramζan idols, these forms of “strange gods” which Rachel took secretly from her father’s house (Genesis 31:19; Genesis 31:34)—in spite of their burial by Jacob (Genesis 35:2 sq.), and their ordered removal by Joshua (Joshua 24:22) and Samuel’s zealous opposition to them (1 Samuel 15:23)—hid in the privacy of domestic life, whence in the time of the Judges they came openly forth (Judges 17 compared with 1 Samuel 18:14 sq.), still maintained themselves. As the teraphim were oracular deities in their old homes (so in Ezekiel 21:21 Nebuchadnezzar inquires through them whether he shall march against Jerusalem or against Ammon), so also in Israel (Judg. 17:18; 1 Samuel 15:23; Hosea 3:4; Ezekiel 21:26; Zechariah 10:2) they were superstitiously used as oracles, counsel being asked through them concerning the future. Hδvernick (on Ezekiel 21:26): “The use of the teraphim as oracles came no doubt through their connection with the Ephod (comp. Hosea 3:4; Zechariah 10:2), the ancient general notion of their magical power passing over into the more special one of prediction”. Under Josiah (2 Kings 23:24) their removal was decreed in connection with other idolatrous abominations, but they kept their place till the Exile. 5. In respect to the history and theocratic significance of the so-called Schools of the prophets, we must distinguish the two periods in which, in point of fact, the only mention of them occurs. In the first place we meet with prophetic unions or prophetic communities in the age of Samuel, which are more exactly defined during his relations with Saul: first that band of prophets (1 Samuel 10:5; 1 Samuel 10:10), which in Gibeah descends from the sacrificial hill and meets Saul, prophesying with music and song. Perhaps this community resided in Gibeah, in support of which we may perhaps with Keil adduce the name “Gibeah of God.” In 1 Samuel 19 the prophetic community stands in a near relation to Samuel as the “president.” The members are called Nebiim (prophets]; they prophesy under Samuel’s lead; their inspiration (as in 1 Samuel 10) is so mighty that persons that do not belong to them, as Saul’s servants and Saul himself, are seized and overpowered by it, and fall into a like ecstacy. David is closely connected with them, as is shown by his flight to them and stay with them. He found there only temporary safety indeed from Saul’s persecutions, but abiding consolation and strength in the inspired prophetic word, in the blessings of the fraternal community, and in the consoling and elevating power of the holy poetic art, whereby he doubtless stood in peculiarly intimate connection with the community. The members of the body formed a Cenobium; their outward life of union symbolized their inward union under the mighty impulse of one and the same Spirit, the Holy Spirit, a union which they saw accomplished through this prophetic Spirit which informed them all. In point of fact we find certainly at this time such an organized prophetic community only in Ramah; whether Samuel, who was its president there in the latter part of his life, was also the establisher of the form of associated life, is doubtful; but in any case it may be confidently maintained that through the powerful influence which he exerted on his contemporaries by the prophetic Spirit which dwelt and worked in him, awakening and fashioning a new life, this Spirit, which in its essential nature tended to produce association, showed itself in such unions of prophetic men. The original power and vigor of this Spirit expresses itself in these extraordinary phenomena and overwhelming effects, just as in the Apostolic church they appear as the fruit of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2; 1 Corinthians 14). The theocratic significance of this association consisted in the fact that, along with Samuel’s lofty prophetical form, they were the centre and source of the reviving religious-moral life of the nation, after it had lost its theocratic centre in the national sanctuary, which was despoiled of the ark of the covenant. The prophetic men of this community, which is by no means to be regarded as an association of pupils, represent the manifold theocratic-prophetic influence on the people, which was first completely brought to bear by Samuel’s labors; they form, when Samuel’s life is approaching its end, the aftergrowth (nurtured by him) of the combined divinely-appointed theocratic office of prophet and judge (alongside of the royal office), as bearers of which we find the prophets in David’s time. In their midst originated and was cultivated the theocratic-prophetic writing of history, as representatives of which a Gad (comp. 1 Samuel 22:5) and a Nathan are mentioned along with Samuel (1 Chronicles 29:29). Comp. Thenius on 1 Samuel 19:19; 1 Samuel 22:5—On the prophetic schools under Samuel see Oehler in Herz. R.-E., s. v. Prophetenthum des A. T., XII. 214–217. The history is silent concerning the prophetic communities during the whole period from Samuel to the age of Elijah and Elisha. Not till the epoch in the development of the prophetic Order in Israel marked by the grand prophetic characters of Elijah and his successor Elisha do we again meet with these communities, and then only in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes at Gilgal, Bethel, and Jericho, in which places there was a numerous membership (2 Kings 4:38; 2 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 2:5; 2 Kings 2:7; 2 Kings 2:15-16; 2 Kings 4:1; 2 Kings 4:43; 2 Kings 6:1; 2 Kings 9:1); here, however, they are not called “prophets” as under Samuel’s lead, but sons of the prophets (1 Kings 20:35), a name which indicates that they stood to the leaders and presidents of the communities in a dependent relation as scholars and disciples. They have their places of assembly and abode, designed for a large number, where they sit at the feet of their prophetic masters (comp. 2 Kings 6:1 sq.), and receive prophetic instruction and cultivation. Only such can we properly call prophetic schools, whose prophetic presidents and leaders (as Elisha’s case shows) had to legitimate themselves by the power of the prophetic spirit dwelling in them. While under Samuel’s presidency the prophetic communities appear as freer associations of prophetic men for the exertion of united influence on the people, these later ones are distinct Unions, in which teachers and scholars, masters and disciples stand in a relation of mutual co-ordination [control and subordination]. The subject-matter of the instruction was the divine law and the history of the divine dealings with the covenant people; the aim of the instruction was the nurture and furtherance of the prophetic spirit by holy discipline in an organized God-serving life. The pupils were trained in unconditional obedience to the divine law, in living appropriation of the holy will of God as absolute norm for their own wills; from their Cenobia thus equipped they went forth among the people to testify of the living God, of His word and His righteous and gracious dealings, and with absolute obedience to perform the special tasks imposed on them by the masters with divine authority (comp. 1 Kings 13:20 sq.). Besides this general theocratic significance these Unions had the special duty to form the centre of the service of God for the people in their separation from the sanctuary at Jerusalem (comp. 2 Kings 4:23; 2 Kings 4:42), and in the prophetical work of their members to oppose a solid power to the heathenism which pressed in on the people under an idolatrous government, and to maintain the honor of the living God. Comp. Oehler ubi supra, p. 220 sq.—In respect to the historical continuity of such prophetic associated life in the interval between the prophetic communities of Samuel and these later schools of the prophets, nothing can be certainly determined, although, as Oehler shows against Keil (as above, p. 215), the great number of prophets, which, according to 1 Kings 18:13, must have existed when Elijah appeared, seems to favor such continuity. Comp, on the other side Keil’s remarks in his commentary on 1 Samuel 19. p. 147 sq. [Eng. Transl., pp. 199–205. [Michal’s deception in 1 Samuel 19:13) may be called a stratagem, her statement in 1 Samuel 19:14 is a falsehood carrying out the stratagem, and her answer to her father in 1 Samuel 19:17 is, as Erdmann terms it, a “lie of necessity;” that is, a lie held to be necessary, in order to save one from suffering or perplexity. Clearly this last is unjustifiable; when Saul demanded an explanation Michal ought to have answered that she thought it right to save her husband. Her stratagem (1 Samuel 19:13 may be defended on the ground that Saul, in assuming the position towards David of an open enemy (without legal warrant), having previously tried to kill him, had thus put himself out of ordinary relation with him, and was to be treated as a public enemy or a madman. Whether the statement in 1 Samuel 19:14 is then properly a part of the stratagem is not so easy to say. The decisive question is: Was it necessary to the success of the stratagem? was it based on Saul’s abnormal, unnatural, criminal attitude towards David?—Tr.] AND 1 Samuel 19:1-4. Berl. Bible: So far is Saul carried by self-love, which often transforms itself into fury against the friends of God, and it is incredible how far it can go wrong. Jonathan acted as a true friend to David, and presents therein a picture of a faithful and upright friend, who not only warns David of danger and gives him good counsel, but also at his own peril speaks to his father for him, declares his innocence and praises his noble services, and thereby brings him again into his father’s favor.—Schlier: Even in grown persons there is nothing more beautiful than reverence for parents, and doubly beautiful is this ornament when one thing is understood, how to lead parents away from sin and yet in so doing always show modesty and respect, when one thing is understood, how to fulfil the Fourth Commandment in truth and love. [Taylor: Such a manifestation of prudence and principle combined. Prudence did not go so far as to make him silent about the sin which Saul was purposing to commit; principle was not so asserted as to arouse his father’s indignation.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 19:6 sqq. Berl. Bible: A kindly and hearty, an humble but also righteous opposition is suited to turn away the evil that has been resolved on and hinder it from coming to the birth.—Schlier: Open thy mouth for thy neighbor, and stand up for him, excuse him where thou canst, speak to his advantage wherever it is possible, let it be a joy to thee to bring to light his good side, be in earnest to promote peace wherever it is practicable. 1 Samuel 19:8. Berl. Bible: O my God, how wonderfully dost Thou lead Thy servants! Scarcely are they out of one trial when again Thou stirrest up for them another. 1 Samuel 19:9. Schlier: God the Lord allows the evil spirit no power over us, if we have not first called down punishment upon ourselves by our sins; he who is in the power of darkness and therefore does the works of darkness, has before given himself up to darkness. 1 Samuel 19:10. Berlenb. Bible: Temptation with men who are grudging and envious and cannot bear the righteousness of the child of God, does not last long, because such men condemn their unrighteousness. 1 Samuel 19:11. Krummacher: The Lord in every way takes care that His servant David, adorned with His laurels, shall not lift his head too high. In David, too, is richly verified the apostolical saying: Whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth. 1 Samuel 19:13-14. Cramer: In cases of urgent need, where there is no time for long reflection, a woman can often more quickly devise a plan, surpassing therein the male sex (Ecc. 25:19; Genesis 31:35; Joshua 2:6). [Hall: Who can but wonder to see how … Saul’s own children are the only means to cross him in the sin, and to preserve his guiltless adversary.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 19:17. Schlier: A “lie of necessity” is never permissible, wrong can never become right; lying always remains wrong, and doubly wrong when the lie is spoken to a father. Truth is well-pleasing to God the Lord, and truth, spoken with an eye to the Lord, always finds the Lord’s protection.—Cramer: There are three sorts of lies: lies of necessity (Exodus 1:19; Genesis 20:2; Genesis 26:7; Joshua 2:6); lies of sport (Genesis 42:9; Genesis 27:15; Judges 9:8); shameful and hurtful lies. Guard against all three, and speak and love the truth from thy heart.—[Taylor: Michal’s affection for David could not stand the strain of trial. It was not like that of Jonathan, because it had not, like Jonathan’s its root in devotion to the Lord. She could not and did not follow her husband through persecution, and exile, and danger, because she was not one with him in God. (An idolater perhaps without the cognizance of her husband). She could tell lies for David, but she had not the courage and the faith to go with him into suffering, or to tell the truth for him.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 19:18. Osiander: Those who are in trouble should betake themselves to the assembly where God’s word is taught, and there seek consolation.—Cramer: God always raises up for His people good friends and patrons, who must help them (1 Kings 18:13).—Schlier: Instead of any further answer, Samuel led David to his Naioth, into his school of the prophets; amid the songs of praise of his prophet-scholars, amid their common prayers and studies of God’s word it was good to dwell; there was consolation and peace, there was help to be found even for such a troubled heart as David had. Let not such an example be presented you in vain. Are you troubled, then seek the word of the Lord and prayer, seek it especially there where men are gathered to attend to God’s word and to pray. [Hall: God intended to make David not a warrior and a king only, but a prophet too. As the field fitted him for the first, and the court for the second, so Naioth shall fit him for the third.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 19:20 sqq. Starke [from Hall]: It is good going up to Naioth, into the holy assemblies; who knows how we may be changed, beside our intention? Many a one hath come into God’s house to carp, or scoff, or sleep, or gaze, that hath returned a convert (1 Corinthians 14:24-25).—As one coal kindles another, so it happens that where good is taught and heard, hearts also do not remain unmoved (Acts 16:13-14).—Berl. Bible: That is the blessing which God Often grants to devout assemblies, that many a one goes in with an evil, impure and hostile mind, and comes out again with quite another heart and mind. 1 Samuel 19:23-24. Wuert. Summ.: Saul’s prophesying was more an irresistible work of divine power, than an evidence of divine grace. We see also by his example, that not all who prophesy, who exhibit extraordinary movements of spirit, are thereby shown to have the Spirit of God, and to stand in favor with Him. Many of them, according to the saying of Jesus (Matthew 7:22-23), will on that day be found out and condemned as evil-doers.—Schlier: In Saul we have an example how God follows a man till he either turns or hardens himself. How deep was Saul already sunken; yet God the Lord did not yet leave him, but again turned toward him. He felt the mighty hand of God, and yet he would not bow. Then God’s hand, which could not make him bow, must harden him more and more.—When the Lord’s hand comes upon us, we wish to bow, we wish to enter into ourselves, and to humble ourselves. Well for him who lets himself be reproved and chastised, but woe to us if we shut ourselves up against the Lord’s hand.—[Taylor: In reviewing this narrative, observe how diversified are the resources which Jehovah has at command for the protection of His people. Each time the means by which David was delivered are different. At first he is defended by God’s blessing on his own valor against the Philistines; then he is indebted for his safety to the mediation of Jonathan; then to the agency of Michal; and finally to the miraculous work of God’s own Holy Spirit, In the subsequent portion of the history we shall find that the same principle holds, and that in each new peril he is preserved by some new instrumentality.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 19:11-12. F. W. Krummacher: A new storm: 1) By what David is threatened; 2) How he is delivered from the danger. 1 Samuel 19:18. David at Ramah: 1) He breathes the atmosphere of the communion of the saints; 2) He sees a new plan to murder him wonderfully frustrated. [1 Samuel 19:4-7. An attempt at Peacemaking: 1) The means employed. Jonathan appeals, with tact and delicacy, to justice, gratitude, piety, memories of the past, conscience. 2) The apparent effect. Saul’s better feelings revived, his conscience aroused. In his passionate way, he takes a solemn oath, no doubt with superficial sincerity. All seems restored “as in times past,” 3) The final result. David’s merits, at the call of Providence, shine forth with new lustre. Slumbering envy wakes, and the last enmity is worse than the first. (Comp. 1 Samuel 20:33-34). Lessons: (1) It is at any rate a consolation to have tried, and to have had even temporary success. (2) Peacemaking does not always fail. (3) We must fear for the results wherever the wrong-doer does not repent of the sin involved; the only sure peacemaking must begin in peace with God. (4) How deep-rooted and ruinous a sin is envy; it may swallow up the noblest feelings, break the most solemn promises, lead to madness and murder. And no wonder, for the envious man sins at once against himself, his neighbor, and his God.—Tr.] II. Jonathan’s faithful friendship proved by his last vain attempt at a reconciliation of Saul and David. Chapter 1 Samuel 20:1 to 1 Samuel 21:1 [Eng. A. V., 1 Samuel 20:42] 1. Conference between David and Jonathan as to the discovery of Saul’s disposition towards the former and the mode of informing him thereof Footnotes: [1 Samuel 19:1. This is the literal rendering of the Heb., and so the ancient VSS., except Vulg., which makes “they” the subject of the killing (so Eng. A. V.), and Arab., which correctly makes “he” (Saul) the subject. The context shows that neither to Jonathan nor to the servants of Saul was charge given to slay David.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:2. Literally: “in the morning.” Sept. αὔριονπρωί, which Thenius says is the rendering of Heb. ξָ ?ηָ ?ψ; but αַּ ?αֶֹּ ?χψ, as Wellh. points out, includes the notion “early in the morning.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:2. Sept. reverses the order and reads: “hide thyself and remain in secret,” as if the hiding must precede the dwelling in secret; but the hiding may just as well be regarded as the consequence of dwelling in secret (against Wellh.).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:5. Sept.: “all Israel saw and rejoiced,” other VSS. as Heb. It is here more fitting and politic in Jonathan to refer to Saul’s own knowledge of David.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:6. Sept., Syr. and some MSS. have Qal.: “shall not die.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:8. Sept. κατίσχυσε, either an explanation (Schleusner), or they read εַ ?ιָּ ?ΰֶ ?υ (Wellh.); the Heb. is to be maintained.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:9. In this divine name the VSS. vary. The Vat. MS. has θεοῦ, Alex. has κυρίου, text in Stier and Theile’s Polygl. (which is an eclectic text) omits it, as does Arab.; the others as Heb. That ψָ ?ςָ ?δ is without the Art. is not decisive in favor of ΰֱ ?μֹ ?δִ ?ιν, for an evil spirit could as well come from Jehovah as from Elohim (i.e. the deity), and may as well be called “a spirit of Jehovah.” Elsewhere the Heb. has ξֵ ?ςִ ?νιΧ; but it is at least as probable that the Vat. would change the text to secure uniformity as that the Masorites would change for no reason at all. See note on 1 Samuel 16:14.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:10. On this reading see Erdmann in the Exposition.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:11. Wellhausen (following Sept.) objects to the “and” on the ground that the two actions (of watching and killing) are not here co-ordinated, the killing not being entrusted to the watchers. This is perhaps an unnecessary refinement, 1 Samuel 19:14 being possibly a repetition of this statement, not necessarily a sending of additional messengers. Yet, as Saul sends in 1 Samuel 19:14 apparently to take, not to kill David, the reference of the killing here to Saul and the omission of the ε (which may have been repeated from the preceding word) give a good sense.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:13. “Teraphim” is a plu. word, but is here used in the Heb. as sing.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:13. The Eng. A. V. renders “bolster” to correspond to its above rendering “pillow.” The Heb. means simply “at its head;” the exact use which Michal made of the quilt is not clear.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:14. The Sept. has “they said,” that is, the people of the house, the servants, speaking with the messengers at the door. But the Heb. text is perfectly natural: either it means Michal sent word, that is, said through her servants, or, if she herself spoke with the messengers, she reported David sick to gain time, having meantime prepared the bed to deceive her own servants (whose fidelity she might doubt) or Saul’s messengers in case they should go to look for David.—The Vulg. has the indefinite responsum est.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:16. ϊּ ?ψτιν, teraphim. Chald., Syr., Arab., Vulg., render “image.” Sept. has κενοτάφια, “cenotaphs, empty tombs,” a contemptuous designation of the vanity of the idols, Aq. gives μορφώματα or προτομαί, the latter (meaning “half figures”) being important as bearing on the form of the teraphim.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:16. ξְ ?ψַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֹׁ ?ϊָ ?ιε, from ψΰωׁ or ψֶ ?ΰωֶׁ ?ϊ by the local preformative ξְ. The plu. would be properly ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֲ ?ωׁ ?εֹ ?ϊ (see Jeremiah 13:18) as from ξַ ?ψְ ?ΰֶ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ. Comp. Ew., Gr. § 160 b, Fόrst’s Concordance s. v.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:17. Or: “send me away.” The verb is fem. in many MSS. and Edd.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 19:18. So the Qeri, but the Kethib is Nevaioth.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:20. So universally taken (=χδμϊ). Lud. de Dieu, however, refers to the Ζth. stem μδχ = crescere, whence he thinks our word may mean magnum numerum, or, senatum, presbyterium Prophetarum. In Ζth. the word represents only magistracy, superiority (Dillmann, Lex. Ζth.), which does not suit here.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:22. The word is anarthrous, and so far supports the Sept.: “the cistern of the threshing floor” (Wellh.), as this construction is unusual; but that it is not unexampled is shown by 2 Samuel 12:4; 1 Kings 7:8; 1 Kings 7:12, and would be not unnatural here in speaking of a well-known cistern, where αּ ?εֹ ?ψ might almost have the force of a proper name. The addition of Sept. at beginning of 1 Samuel 19:22 : “and Saul became very angry,” is suspicious because of its naturalness.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 19:22. Sept. Σεφί, Ar. Ramah. The Heb. is to be preferred.—Tr.] [The Heb. (λַּ ?σ) means the “palm or hollow of the hand,” as the proper place in which to put something, usually the hand as receptacle, not as instrument.—Tr.] [See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] [See other opinions in Poole’s Synopsis on Genesis 31:19, and in Patrick’s Comm. here.—Tr.] [On the character of the bed (here a separate couch, not the oriental divan) see Philippson in loco, and Works on Archζology.—Tr.] [Chald. renders “house of instruction,” and in 1 Samuel 19:20 “scribes.” Smith’s Bib.-Dict., Art. Naioth.—Tr.] The Sing. εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?ΰ is surprising. According to Ewald, § 316 a, 1, the Verb or Adj., when it stands as one half of the sentence before the yet unnamed (and not clearly conceived) subject, may remain in the most indefinite Pers., the masc. sing., as in 1 Kings 22:16; Joshua 8:20; Genesis 1:14; Micah 6:16 etc.; but when the subject has been named, this indefiniteness cannot exist. The Sing, must therefore be here regarded as a corruption, and we must read (with Ew., Then., and all vss.) the Plu.—The word μַ ?δֲ ?χַ ?ϊ, which sounds remarkably like the preceding μָ ?χַ ?δַ ?ϊ here from the connection = assembly = χַ ?δֲ ?μָ ?δ. It appears here only, and is to be regarded as a transposition (so the Greek and several Rabbis) of the word meaning “assembly,” occasioned by the similar sound of the preceding μָ ?χַ ?δַ ?ϊ. [Chald: “They saw the company of the scribes praising and Samuel standing over them teaching.”—Tr.] [See “Text. and Gram.” The Vat. Sept. reads Sephi, not “on the hill.”—Tr.] [The way in which this Ps. contrasts Israel and the heathen makes it difficult to refer it to this incident in David’s life; and it is the city, not the house that the enemy here surrounds. The title is not necessarily part of the inspired Psalm.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 20:1-231 And David fled from Naioth in Ramah, and came and said before Jonathan, What have I done? what is my iniquity and what is my sin before thy father that 2he seeketh my life? And he said unto him, God forbid [Far be it]! Thou shalt not die; behold, my father will do nothing either great or small but that he will 3show it me, and why should my father hide this thing from me? it is not so. And David sware moreover, and said, Thy father certainly knoweth [knoweth well] that I have found grace in thine eyes, and he saith, Let not Jonathan know this. lest he be grieved. But truly, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, and as thy soul 4liveth, there is but a step between me and death. Then said Jonathan [And Jonathan said] unto David, Whatsoever thy soul desireth [saith], I will even [om. 5even] do it for thee. And David said unto Jonathan, Behold, to-morrow is the new moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king at meat; but let me go, that 6I may hide myself in the field unto the third day at even. If thy father at all [decidedly] miss me, then say, David earnestly asked leave of me that he might run to Bethlehem, his city, for there is a yearly sacrifice there for all the family. 7If he say thus, It is well, [ins. then] thy servant shall have peace; but if he be 8very wroth, then be sure that evil is determined by him. Therefore [And] thou shalt deal kindly with thy servant, for thou hast brought thy servant into a covenant of the Lord [Jehovah] with thee; notwithstanding [but], if there be in me iniquity, slay me thyself, for why shouldest thou bring me to thy father? And Jonathan 9said, Far be it from thee; for, if I knew certainly that evil were determined 10by my father to come upon thee, then would I not tell it thee? Then said David [And David said] to Jonathan, Who shall tell me? or what if thy father answer thee roughly ? And Jonathan said unto David, Come and let us go out 11into the field. And they went out both of them into the field. 12And Jonathan said unto David, O [By] Lord [Jehovah], God of Israel, when I have sounded my father about to-morrow any time [this time to-morrow] or the third day, and behold, if there be good towards David, and I then send not 13unto thee and shew it thee, the Lord [Jehovah] do so and much more to Jonathan. [13] But if it please my father to do thee evil, then I will shew it thee, and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace, and the Lord [Jehovah] be with thee 14as he hath been with my father. And thou shalt not only [And O that thou wouldest] while yet I live show me the kindness of the Lord [Jehovah] that I 15die not [And O,23 if I die]. But also thou shalt [that thou wouldst] not cut off thy kindness from my house forever, no, not [ins. even] when the Lord [Jehovah] 16hath cut off the enemies of David every one from the face of the earth. So [And] Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, Let the Lore, even require [David, and Jehovah required] it at the hand of David’s enemies. 17And Jonathan caused David to swear again, because he loved him, for he loved him as he loved his own soul. 18Then [And] Jonathan said to David [him], To-morrow is the new moon, and 19thou shalt [wilt] be missed, because thy seat will be empty. And when thou hast stayed three days, then [om. then] thou shalt go down quickly and come to the place where thou didst hide thyself when the business was in hand, and thou shalt 20remain by the stone Ezel. And I will shoot three arrows on the side thereof, as 21though I shot at a mark. And, behold, I will send a lad, saying, Go, find out [om. out] the arrows. If I expressly say unto the lad, Behold, the arrows are on this side of thee, take them, then come thou, for there is peace to thee and no hurt, 22as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth. But if I say thus unto the young man, Behold the arrows are beyond thee, [ins. then] go thy way, for the Lord [Jehovah] hath sent 23thee away. And, as touching [as to] the matter which thou and I [I and thou] have spoken of, behold the Lord [Jehovah] be between thee and me [me and thee] forever.2. Jonathan learns Saul’s disposition towards David, and gives information to the latter, who flees 1 Samuel 20:24 to 1 Samuel 21:1 [1 Samuel 20:42]24So [And] David hid himself in the field. And when the new moon was 25come, the king sat him down to eat meat. And the king sat upon his seat as at other times, even [om. even] upon a [the] seat by the wall, and Jonathan arose 26and Abner sat by Saul’s side, and David’s place was empty. Nevertheless [And] Saul spake not any thing that day, for he thought, Something hath befallen him, he 27is not clean, surely he is not clean. And it came to pass on the morrow, which was the second day of the month [the morrow of the new moon, the second day], that David’s place was empty; and Saul said unto Jonathan his son, Wherefore 28cometh not the son of Jesse to meat, neither yesterday nor to-day? And Jonathan 29answered Saul, David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem; And he said, Let me go, I pray thee, for our family hath a sacrifice in the city, and my brother, he hath commanded me to be there; and now, if I have found favor in thine eyes, let me get away, I pray thee, and see my brother. Therefore he cometh not unto the king’s table. 30Then Saul’s anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of the perverse rebellious woman, do I not know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse to thy own confusion [shame] and unto the confusion [shame] of thy 31mother’s nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore [And] now, send and fetch 32him unto me, for he shall surely die. And Jonathan answered Saul his father and 33said unto him, Wherefore shall he be slain? what hath he done? And Saul cast a [his] javelin at him to smite him, whereby [and] Jonathan knew that it was determined 34of his father to slay David. So [And] Jonathan arose from the table in fierce anger, and did eat no meat the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, because his father had done him shame. 35And it came to pass in the morning that Jonathan went out into the field at the 36time appointed with David, and a little lad with him. And he said unto his lad, Run, find out [om. out] now the arrows which I shoot. And as [om. and as] the 37lad ran [ins. and] he shot an [the] arrow beyond him. And when the lad was come to the place of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, Jonathan cried after the 38lad and said, Is not the arrow beyond thee? And Jonathan cried after the lad, Make speed, haste, stay not. And Jonathan’s lad gathered up the arrows and 39came to his master. But [And] the lad knew not any thing; only Jonathan and 40David knew the matter. And Jonathan gave his artillery unto his lad, and said 41unto him, Go, carry them to the city. As soon as the lad was gone [The lad went.] [ins. And] David arose out of a place toward the south [arose from beside the stone], and fell on his face to the ground, and bowed himself three times; and they kissed one another and wept with one another until David exceeded [wept greatly]. 42And Jonathan said to David, Go in peace, forasmuch as we have sworn both of us in the name of the Lord [Jehovah] saying, The Lord [Jehovah] be between me and thee and between my seed and thy seed forever. 1 Samuel 21:1 And he arose and departed; and Jonathan went into the city. AND 1. 1 Samuel 20:1-23. Conversation and agreement between David and Jonathan on the mode of discovering Saul’s real attitude toward David, and informing him of it. 1 Samuel 20:1 is connected immediately with the foregoing, the narrative of David’s flight from Naioth in Ramah standing in pragmatic connection with the account (close of 1 Samuel 19.) of the proceedings of Saul and his messengers. They came to seize David; instead of which the irresistible Spirit of God had overpowered them and defeated their design. David must herein have seen the protecting hand of his God, which thus gave him opportunity to flee from Naioth, where he could no longer Find asylum.—Having by flight escaped the machinations of Saul and his followers, he seeks and finds a way to an interview with Jonathan.—David’s three-fold question as to his fault is a three-fold denial of it, since it involves as many assertions of his innocence. An echo of this assertion is found in the declaration, so frequent in the Davidic Psalms, of his innocence and purity in respect to the persecutions of his enemies.—That he seeks my soul, that is, my life, comp. Exodus 4:19. S. Schmid: “The questions in this verse are an appeal to Jonathan’s own knowledge.” 1 Samuel 20:2. Jonathan’s answer to David’s complaint is (1) the distinct assurance: far be it, thou shalt not die, and (2) the ground of this affirmation. Though this assurance has immediate reference to what David says of Saul’s attack on him (as Jonathan’s following words are intended to show that he knew nothing of such a murderous plan on Saul’s part), yet at the same time Jonathan, looking to David’s high divine mission for the people, prophetically declares what was determined in the Divine counsel concerning the maintenance and preservation of his friend’s life.—For με (“to him”) read μֹ ?ΰ (“not.”) The marginal Impf. (ιַ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?η) is to be preferred to the Perf. of the text, expressing customary action (“does nothing” [Eng. A. V. “will do nothing”]); so Sept., Vulg., Chald. We may indeed read the word as Prtcp. with Bunsen, who therefore regards the “masoretic change” as unnecessary. Jonathan means to say: “My father as a rule does nothing without telling me, nothing great or small,” that is, absolutely nothing, comp. 1 Samuel 22:15, 1 Samuel 25:36, Numbers 22:18. The appended remark: “Why should my father hide this thing from me? It is not so!” supposes that the intitimate relation between Jonathan and David had been concealed as far as possible from Saul. They were secret friends, as far as he was concerned. Otherwise Saul would certainly not have spoken to his son Jonathan (1 Samuel 19:1) of his purpose to kill David. This confirms what Jonathan here says to David. Saul’s lack of self-control showed itself in his taking counsel about his scheme of murder with those about him, his violent passion so mastering him that he could not at all conceal the fury of his heart. His communication of his plan (1 Samuel 19:1) was the occasion of Jonathan’s hindering it; Saul even swore to Jonathan that he would not kill David, and this Jonathan told David (1 Samuel 19:6-7). To this Jonathan’s word here refers: “thou shalt not die,” &c. Since that time there had been another war with the Philistines (ib. 1 Samuel 20:8), and shortly before this conversation of David and Jonathan the incident narrated in 1 Samuel 20:9-24 occurred. David’s words in 1 Samuel 20:3 : “he (Saul) thought Jonathan must not know this,” confirm Jonathan’s assurance that his father had told him nothing of a plan of murder. But, it may properly be asked, did Jonathan know nothing of the events just described, on which David’s declaration is based? It is certainly possible that he [Jonathan] was at that time absent from court; but the connection does not favor this view. But, if he were present, Saul’s attempt against David could not possibly have remained concealed from him. Accepting this supposition as the more probable, we must, in order to understand Jonathan’s words, look at the whole situation. The account of all the occurrences from 1 Samuel 19:9 on exhibits Saul in a relatively unsound state of mind, produced by a new attack of rage and madness. As now Saul had before, after recovering from such an attack, sworn to Jonathan in consequence of his representations, that he would not kill David, Jonathan might regard this late attempt on David as the result of a new but temporary access of rage, and, remembering his distinct oath in his lucid period, might suppose that he would not in a quiet state of mind resolve on and execute such a murder. Thus his decided “it is not so” may be psychologically explained. Nδgelsbach: “Between 1 Samuel 19:2 and 1 Samuel 20:2 there is no contradiction, since in the latter passage Jonathan merely denies that there is now a new attempt against David’s life” (Herz. R.-E. xiii. 403). But while Jonathan had in mind merely the symptom in his father’s condition, David knew how deeply rooted in envy and jealousy Saul’s hate toward him was. He assures him with an oath, what was perfectly clear to him, that Saul sought his destruction. ςεֹ ?γ refers to what is said in 1 Samuel 20:1, and so=“thereto, moreover,” not “the second time, again,” since nothing is said of a previous oath. David’s reply contains two things: (1) the explanation (connected with the indirect affirmation that Saul had resolved to murder him) of Jonathan’s statement that Saul had said nothing to him of the murder, by referring to Saul’s undoubted knowledge of the friendship between them, and (2) the assertion (with a double oath) that he saw nothing but death before him. (λִּ ?ι is here intensive, =imo, so especially in oaths, 1 Samuel 14:44, 1 Kings 1:29 sq., 1 Samuel 2:23 f., 2 Kings 3:14.—λְּ expresses comparison or similarity). “Yea, as a step, like a step.” The picture is of a precipice, from which he is only a step removed, over which he may any moment be plunged. 1 Samuel 20:4. Jonathan’s answer supposes that he gives credence to David’s assertion, and proves his friendship by offering his help, with the declaration that he wished to fulfill every wish of his soul. The reply of David (1 Samuel 20:5) shows how far he had cause to fear that there was only a step between him and death. The recollection of the obligation on him to take part in the new moon feast at court as a member of Saul’s family (not merely as one (Then.) who had a standing formal invitation), brings him face to face with the danger in which his life stood; for the feast fell on the following day. On the religious celebration of the day of new moon with burnt-offering and sin-offering and sound of trumpet see Numbers 10:10; Numbers 28:11-15. As a joyful festival it was connected with a cheerful meal. To this refers Saul’s conjecture (1 Samuel 20:26) that David was absent on account of levitical uncleanness. And I must sit at table with the King. That is, as a matter of course, according to custom, he would be expected by Saul to take part in the meal. The Vulg. rightly renders ex more sedere soleo, but the Sept., proceeding from the fact that David was not present, wrongly inserts a negative: “I shall not sit at meat.” Ew. § 338 b.: “I am to sit,” where the meaning is, “I will certainly sit.” As in 1 Samuel 16:2, it is here supposed that the custom was to sit, not to recline at table.—Let me go, that I may hide myself. This is not a mere formula of courtesy, but a request that Jonathan would not press him to appear at table, but permit him to depart, that he might escape the danger threatening him. Till the evening of the third day, that is, from the present day. This supposes that the festival was prolonged by a meal the day after new moon.—Comp. 1 Samuel 20:12; 1 Samuel 20:27; 1 Samuel 20:34, where Saul looks for David also the day after new moon.—From the fact that both David and Saul here look to the former’s appearance at the royal table, it has been held (Then., Ew.) that this whole narrative contradicts 1 Samuel 19., and is taken from another source. But there is no contradiction if we remember that Saul acted (according to 1 Samuel 19:9 sq.) under an attack of rage or madness, and, on the return of a quiet frame of mind, would expect everything to go on as usual, and the whole personnel of his family to be present at table. After his previous experiences, David must now know certainly whether Saul in his times of quiet and lucidness, maintained against him that hostile disposition which showed itself in his intermittent attacks of rage. 1 Samuel 20:6. David wishes through Jonathan to determine Saul’s attitude toward him, and find out certainly whether in his hate the latter has really conceived a plan for his destruction. As David, according to 1 Samuel 20:5, is to hide in the field till the evening of the third day, his excuse for absence can be regarded only as a pretext, or a “lie of necessity,” and the explanation that, by reason of the proximity of Bethlehem to Gibeah, he might, meantime, easily go home, must be rejected as out of keeping with the sense of the whole narrative. In this statement, which Jonathan was to make in case Saul missed David, namely, that the latter had gone to attend a family feast, the fact (easily explained from the absence of a central sanctuary) is supposed “that individual families in Israel were accustomed to celebrate yearly festivals” (Keil); this would be the case more naturally in those places where, as in Bethlehem (comp. 1 Samuel 16:2 sq.), there were altars dedicated to the Lord as centres of sacrifice. O. v. Gerlach: “In the then disorganized condition of public worship, to which David first gave regular form, family usages of this sort, after the manner of other nations, had established themselves, which were contrary to the prescriptions concerning the unity of divine worship.” On the yearly sacrifice see on 1 Samuel 1:1.,—(πִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰַ ?μ from the connection not Pass. but Reflex.,=“sought for himself.”) David could ask leave of absence from Jonathan as competent representative of the royal family, if he did not wish to go to Saul. 1 Samuel 20:7. Saul’s conduct in these two contrasted forms, was for Jonathan as for David the sign of his permanent attitude towards David in the condition of quiet in which he now was; for such a sign was necessary not only for Jonathan (S. Schmid) but also for David, since, as appears from the tenor of the whole narration, he did not yet certainly know how Saul in the depths of his heart was disposed towards him. If he says “well,” it means peace for thy servant, that is, from the connection, “he has laid no plot of murder against me.” In the other event, if his “anger burn,” know that evil on his part is a settled thing. λָּ ?μָ ?η = “to be finished, settled,” “firmiter decretum est” (S. Schmid). The “evil” is not “malice,” and its development to the highest point (Vulg.), but the danger to David, Saul’s murder scheme, as appears from the phrase “by him.” 1 Samuel 20:8. And show mercy to thy servant,—this refers not merely to the request of 1 Samuel 20:6 (S. Schmid, Keil), nor to what Jonathan should do in case Saul’s answer was unfavorable, but to the general help expected from him, that David might escape the threatened danger. That it includes what David looks for from Jonathan in case Saul answers angrily, appears from Jonathan’s reply in 1 Samuel 20:9. David grounds his request on the covenant of the Lord which Jonathan had made with him. So he calls their covenant of friendship, because it was not only made with invocation of the Lord’s name, but also had its deepest ground and origin in God, and its consecration in their life-like communion with God. Thou hast brought me,—this indicates the initiative which, in the concluding of the covenant, was on the side of Jonathan (1 Samuel 18:1-3).—In the words: “If there is iniquity in me, slay thou me,” David adds a special request, which is closely connected with what precedes. He would rather atone for any sin which might rest on him by death at his friend’s hand; Jonathan shall do him the kindness in this case not to deliver him up to Saul, that he may not be slain by him. This supposes that Jonathan had the right to inflict capital punishment for crimes against his father as king. 1 Samuel 20:9. Jonathan’s answer first decidedly sets aside the case last put by David. The “far be it from thee” is not to be connected with what follows, as if it were here said what was to be far (Ges., Del., Maur.), but is to be taken absolutely, and to be referred (as 1 Samuel 20:2) to what David had just said. The “from thee” is therefore not expletive (Cleric.) The Vulg. rightly: absit hoc a te. This involves Jonathan’s firm conviction of David’s innocence.—Then follows Jonathan’s solemn assurance that he will inform David if Saul exhibits a hostile disposition towards him. This was the service of love which he had first to do for his friend, that the latter might then take further measures for saving his life. (λִּ ?ι is particle of asseveration=yea, truly.) If I know certainly that that is, if, from your statement (1 Samuel 20:7), I know beyond doubt that evil on my father’s part is a thing determined. From the connection, and on account of the vigor and emphasis of the interrogation, which is in keeping with Jonathan’s excited feeling, it is better to construe the “if,” etc., as first member (protasis), and the “and not,” &c, as second interrogative member (apodosis) of a conditional sentence [as in Eng. A. V.] 1 Samuel 20:10, Tremell, Ges., Ew. (§ 352 a), Then, and Bunsen take this as one sentence: “who will show me what rough thing perchance thy father will answer thee” (ΰεֹ ξָ ?η = whatever thing); against which we must insist with Keil that this signification of ΰε occurs only where another case is mentioned, where the ground-meaning is “or.” As ξָ ?δ [“what”] indicates a new question, we must here suppose two questions. The first: Who will show me? is connected immediately with the last words of Jonathan in 1 Samuel 20:9 : “I will come to thee and tell thee,” namely, the evil determined on by my father. David is thinking in this first question of the danger which Jonathan would thus incur, and, for that very reason, putting him out of the question, asks: “Who will show me (the evil),” that is, what thy father decrees against me (Maur.) “He asks what he would be willing to tell a servant” (S. Schmid). The Berl. Bib. explains excellently: “The matter cannot be entrusted to a servant, and thou must have care for thyself, lest thou also come under thy father’s displeasure.” The sense is therefore: “No one will tell me,” namely, the evil determined by Saul. This question, with its negative sense, is the answer, spoken with excited feeling, to Jonathan’s word: “I will tell thee the evil determined on,” and the tender, thoughtful form in which he clothes the decided: “Thou canst not tell me.” The second question: Or what harsh thing will thy father answer thee? refers to Saul’s anger (1 Samuel 20:7), whence Jonathan purposed learning that Saul’s evil plan against David was completed. Schmid’s explanation: “and if thou choose a messenger, how shall I understand what evil thy father answers?” rests on the false distinction between a person bringing the information (to whom only the first question is to refer), and the nature of the information (to which the second question is to refer), and requires us to supply a sentence which could by no means have been omitted. Maur., De Wette, Keil regard the question as referring to the evil consequences to Jonathan, if he himself brought the information to David: What would thy father answer thee hard (Maur.: “what thinkest thou he would decree against thee,” contrary to to the meaning of ςָ ?πָ ?δ), if thou thyself didst it? Against this is the word “answer,” since Jonathan would not say to Saul that he intended to tell David—and we cannot appropriately supply the idea that, if Saul afterwards heard of Jonathan’s going to David, he would answer him harshly. Rather the second question reads fully: “Or who will tell what thy father,” etc. Saul’s evil word, by which his fixed evil purpose is to be discovered, is distinguished from this latter. But the evil answer is not to be understood of threats against David (Bφttcher), but of harsh language towards Jonathan (1 Samuel 20:6-7). In this double question David denies or doubts that in this unfortunate case information can be given him. The two-fold question, with its negative meaning, corresponds to David’s excited state of mind, and makes a full and candid conversation necessary, for which purpose Jonathan invites David to go with him to the field. [Erdmann’s translation is hardly satisfactory; the second clause does not suit the question: “who will tell?” The rendering: “who will tell me if perchance thy father,” &c, is the smoother, and suits the context better, but it is doubtful whether ΰεֹ can mean simply “if.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 20:11. Let us go into the field, namely, out of the city of Gibeah, or the royal residence therein, where this conversation was held. It certainly accords with David’s words to suppose that they wished to escape from observation (Then.), in order to speak further undisturbedly of the matter, and to think over ways and means (Berl. Bib.); but at the same time the context suggests as another aim, that Jonathan wished to point out what he thought a fit place wherein to give his friend by a trustworthy sign the desired information, comp. 1 Samuel 20:19-24. This obviously supposes Jonathan’s fixed determination, in spite of David’s protest, to bring the message himself. That Jonathan went out for the sake of the oath which he afterwards [see 1 Samuel 20:42] renewed with David (Grot.: “they used to swear in the open air”) is less probable. 1 Samuel 20:12-23 is essentially the full positive answer to David’s question, which was meant in a negative sense. 1 Samuel 20:12-13. Jonathan’s solemn oath that he will inform him of the mind of his father. The solemnity and loftiness of the vow, heightened by the oath, answers to the epoch-making importance and decisive significance of this moment in David’s life; for from this moment David’s way must coincide with that of Saul, or for ever diverge from it and be for him a way of uninterrupted suffering.—That Jonathan begins his address with a solemn invocation of God, “Jehovah, God of Israel” (De Wette, Keil) [so Eng. A. V., see “Text, and Gram.”] is untenable, because there is no analogy for such a mode of address, and because of the introduction “Jonathan said to David” (Thenius). Nor can we suppose an interrupted discourse, resumed in 1 Samuel 20:13, for against this is the beginning of 1 Samuel 20:13 : “The Lord do so.” As an oath follows, it is simplest to regard this as the formula of an oath by God, not supplying (with Maurer): “may God destroy me,” or (Syr., Arab.): “God is my witness,” but (with Thenius supplying ηַ ?ι “after Cod. Kenn. 560 and 224 margin,” which might easily fall out before ιδεδ) reading: “as God lives;” unless with Bunsen we take the “Jehovah, God of Israel,” as a lively ejaculation in the sense of an oath = “by God.”—The protasis begins: “when I sound my father,” and goes to the end of 1 Samuel 20:12. λָּ ?ςֵ ?ϊξָ ?ηָ ?ψ = “to-morrow about this time,” as in 1 Kings 19:2; 1 Kings 20:6; 2 Kings 7:1; 2 Kings 7:18, and the full phrase in Joshua 11:6 (Gesen.). The following word “on the third day” is without a conjunction (which with Sept. and Vulg. is to be supplied from the sense) and similarly depends on λָּ ?ςֵ ?ϊ,= “the third day about this time.” This expression “to-morrow or next day” refers to the statement of time in 1 Samuel 20:5, and supposes that the festival was continued by a meal the day after new moon. And behold, there is good for David, etc.—In circumstantial phrase, which befits the solemn and serious character of the situation, Jonathan distinguishes the two cases, the favorable and the unfavorable, in order to make each the object of a solemn oath. Jonathan swears that in the first case he will send to David to uncover his ear, that is, to reveal to him, inform him that Saul is favorably disposed towards him, comp. 1 Samuel 22:8. 1 Samuel 20:13 the apodosis: “so do the Lord to Jonathan,” etc. The same formula in oaths in 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Kings 19:2.—The opposite case is introduced with λִּ ?ι without adversative particle: “(But) if it please my father to do thee evil,” etc. The apodosis: “I will show it thee and send thee away that thou mayest go in peace,” asserts, in distinction from the preceding apodosis, that Jonathan in this case will bring David the information himself without the intervention of a messenger. With this promise, confirmed by an oath, Jonathan connects the wish: “The Lord be with thee as he hath been with my father.” This indicates that Jonathan has at least a presentiment of David’s high destiny and his future calling, which he is some time to fulfil as King of Israel in Saul’s place.—This comes out still more clearly in what follows. For in 1 Samuel 20:14-16 with such a presentiment he begs David in the future to maintain faithfully his mercy and love towards him even in misfortune. On the ground of what is now happening to Saul and David under the divine providence, he foresees how Saul and his house will be hurled from the royal power, and David thereto elevated. In Jonathan’s pious soul, which felt and perceived God’s righteous working, there lay hid a divinatory and prophetic element, as here appears. Jonathan, having before expressed his wish for David, here declares what he desires from David as counter-proof of faithful friendship. With reference to the oriental custom of killing the children and relations of the former king on ascending the throne, Jonathan begs David hereafter to show mercy to his house. “The syntactical construction is a somewhat violent one, as accords with the emotion of the speaker” (Bunsen). Of the various explanations of this difficult passage only the two following are worthy of consideration. The one understands a question to the end of 1 Samuel 20:14 : “And wilt thou not, if I yet live, wilt thou not show me the kindness of the Lord, that I die not?” 1 Samuel 20:15 cannot then be a part of the question, but must be taken as the subjoined expression of confident expectation: “And thou wilt not cut off thy kindness from my house for ever, not even when,” etc. But this sudden, abrupt transition to a question and then again to direct discourse is strange, even if these vacillations and diversities of discourse are referred to Jonathan’s excited feeling. The second explanation, which is the preferable one, introduces a wish by a slight change in the pointing of the Hebrew. Jonathan, having invoked a blessing on David, thus expresses his wish for himself: “And wouldst thou, if I still live, wouldst thou show me the kindness of God, and not, if I die, not cut off thy love from my house for ever?” So Syr., Arab., Maur., Then., Ew., Keil. The correspondence and parallelism of the clauses is thus evident: to “if I yet live” answers “if I die.” To the “show kindness to me” answers the similar negative request, “cut not off thy kindness from my house,—not even when,” &c. “Kindness of the Lord;” that is, love, goodness, such as the Lord, as covenant-God, shows His people according to His promise, and, therefore, one member of the people ought to show to another, especially in such a covenant of love made in the presence of the Lord. By this request for the “kindness of the Lord” Jonathan indicates David’s duty to show him this love. “Not even when the Lord shall cut off the enemies of David, every one from the face of the earth.” The αְֹּ ?δַ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ιϊ forms an assonance ϊַ ?λְ ?ψִ ?ιϊεְ ?μֹ ?ΰ: “do not cut off … even when the Lord shall cut off.” Jonathan clearly understands that enmity against David is enmity against the Lord’s purpose and act, and that God s destroying judgment must fall on his father’s house because of its opposition to the will of the Lord. His request that his house may be excepted from this judgment, as executor of which he regards David, is founded on and justified by his position outside of the circle of “enemies” (since he recognises God’s will concerning David, and bends to it as David’s friend), so that, though a member of Saul’s house, he does not belong to it so far as concerns the judgment of extermination.—See the fulfilment of Jonathan’s request, 2 Samuel 9. 1 Samuel 20:16 is a remark of the narrator 1) on this covenant between Jonathan and David, and 2) on the actual fulfilment of Jonathan’s word respecting the overthrow of David’s enemies. “And Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David.” After εַ ?ιִּ ?λְ ?ψֹ ?ϊ supply αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ: comp. 1 Samuel 22:8; Joshua 6:1; Judges 19:30; 2 Chronicles 7:18 [1 Kings 8:9. The examples from Josh, and Judges present omissions of other words.—Tr.]—The second part of the verse (εּ ?αֵ ?χִּ ?ωׁ) is by many put into Jonathan’s mouth as part of his oath, “and the Lord take vengeance on the enemies of David” (Then., Maur., De Wette, Buns.). But the objection to this is, that then (unless with Then, we adopt the corrupt Sept. and Vulg. text: “and may Jonathan’s name not be cut off from the house of David”) we must supply “saying” (ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ between εּ and αֵ ?χִּ ?ωׁ), which is hard, and is not found elsewhere. And Keil rightly remarks that after the insertion between conjunction and verb the Perf. could not have an Optative sense. Finally against this view is the fact that it is psychologically and ethically not quite conceivable how Jonathan should have expressed such a wish, especially as this judgment as a future fact had already been distinctly looked at by him, and was the condition and basis of his wish. “Require at the hand” (αֵּ ?χִּ ?ωׁ ξִ ?ιַ ?γ =“take vengeance, punish,” with the word “blood,” 2 Samuel 4:11, without it here and Joshua 22:23. 1 Samuel 20:17. And Jonathan caused David to swear again. According to the connection this does not refer to what follows from 1 Samuel 20:18 on (Maur.), but concludes naturally the transaction between Jonathan and David,—but not as an oath by which Jonathan assures David anew that he will keep his promise (Then.), according to the incorrect rendering of Sept. and Vulg. “he swore to David” (from which Then, would read “to David,” instead of Acc. “David”)—rather it is an oath by which Jonathan adjures David to fulfil his last request (1 Samuel 20:14-15). The “again” refers to 1 Samuel 20:12. He adjured him “by his love to him;” that is, he made his love to David the ground of his request, so that David might in turn show his love. [Or, his love to David made him anxious to maintain friendly relations between their houses; he could not bear to think of his children shut out from the love of this his much-loved friend, whom he loved as himself.—Tr.]. The words: “for he loved him as his own soul” confirm and define the preceding “by his love to him,” and indicate the cordialness of his friendly love, which is like his love for himself; that is, he loves his friend as himself. The “soul” is the centre of the inner life and of the whole personality. Comp. 1 Samuel 18:1-3. 1 Samuel 20:18 sq. Further conversation on the carrying out of Jonathan’s promise.—As to 1 Samuel 20:18 comp. 1 Samuel 20:5.—(The Perf. with Waw consec. has a future signification when preceded not only by an express Fut. but also by any indication of futurity, as here the words: “to-morrow is new moon.”) The presupposed situation is resumed as basis for the following agreement. 1 Samuel 20:19. And on the third day come down quickly. If we point the Heb. form as a verb =“to do a thing the third day” (εְ ?ωִׁ ?μַּ ?ωְׁ ?ϊָּ), Ges., Ew., Maur., it is to be taken asyndetically with the following word in an adverbial sense (Ges., § 142, 3, c) = “do it on the third day that thou come down.” But this sense of the word occurs nowhere else; Gesenius’ reference to the Arab. “to come every fourth day” does not suit here, because nothing is said of coming every fourth day. We might more easily assume the meaning “to do a thing the third time” (1 Kings 18:34), and render “a third time come down.” The first time of his going down was in 1 Samuel 19:2, our present narrative gives the second time, and 1 Samuel 20:35 would be the third time. But besides the forced character of this explanation, we have against this vocalization of the Heb. text (the Sept. τρισσεύσεις favors it) the Chald., Syr., Arab., and Vulg., which render “And on the third day,” and we must therefore read εּ ?ωְׁ ?μִ ?ωִׁ ?ιϊ, which agrees with 1 Samuel 20:5. The words “Come down very” [so literally the Heb.] are also somewhat strange; not on account of the Adv. “down” (Then.), for this is explained by the nature of the ground, the field of meeting being lower than the surrounding highlands (Cler.: “Jonathan seems to wish David to go down into a very deep valley as near as possible to Gibeah, where Jonathan himself would tell him what was to be done”—but on account of the word “very” (ξְ ?ΰֹ ?ψ). The Vulg. has “descend quickly.” From the difficulty of the reading some substitute “thou wilt be missed” (ϊִּ ?τָּ ?χֵ ?γ, Chald., Syr., Ar.) for the “come down;” but, apart from the difficulty of explaining how the Heb. text came from this reading, the expression “On the third day thou wilt be much missed” is very strange, and the “very” with “come down” is less surprising if we take it = “quickly,” and suppose it necessary to insist on a quick descent to the place of meeting on account of the danger of being observed. Perhaps, however, the text is corrupt, and instead of ξְ ?ΰֹ ?γ (“very”) we should read ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γ, “appointed place of meeting,” comp. Joshua 8:14. It would be an Acc. of place as in 1 Samuel 20:11; see the similar expression in verse 35, which refers to this passage. [Eng. A. V. gives a very doubtful translation of the Heb. text; see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.].—And come to the place where thou didst hide on the day of the business. These words are usually rightly referred to the narrative in 1 Samuel 19:2. But what does “the day of the business” mean? Against the reference to the wicked deed of Saul, which forced David to fly (Maur., Ew., De Wette), Thenius rightly says that the word never means “wicked deed” in itself, but only when the connection points to it (Job 33:17). But in 1 Samuel 19:2. there is mention not of a deed, but only of a purpose of Saul; the explanation “on the day of the purposed evil” (Ew.) adds something not contained in the word. Against the rendering “on the work day” as opposed to “feast-day” (Chald., Sept., Vulg., Ges., Luther) is the fact that, as Then. remarks, to obtain a fitting sense, we must then read: “Thou wilt come from, the place where thou (on the work-day) shalt have hidden thyself.” Bunsen’s explanation “on the day when that happened” (1 Samuel 19:2-3) attenuates the meaning of the Heb. word (ξַּ ?ςֲ ?ωֶׂ ?δ), yea, directly contradicts it. [The word means “something done.”—Tr.] The rendering “on the day of the business (known to thee)” (Tanchum, Then., Keil) is unsatisfactory, because it is then wholly uncertain what business occurred on that day. Holding fast to the view that that day (1 Samuel 19:2 sq.) was the one here referred to, the “business,” regarded by Jonathan as specially memorable, could only be Jonathan’s deed, when near that spot he turned aside his father’s murderous thoughts from David, having brought him to the spot where David was hidden and could hear the conversation. This was the business which Jonathan’s brief allusion would suggest to David. A reference to this explanation is found as early as Clericus: “rather the allusion seems to be to the day when Jonathan occupied himself with this very business of David’s safety.”—And remain by the stone Ezel. (Sept. παρὰτὸΕργὰβἐκεῖνο, δָ ?ΰַ ?ψְ ?βּ ?αδַ ?μָּ ?ζ, “by that stone-heap.” So Then, and Ew., except that the latter reads δָ ?ΰָ ?ζֵ ?μ, “the lonely waste.” There is, however, no need for change of text; ΰֶ ?αֶ ?ο is a hollow rock as a hiding-place, and Ezel is a proper name.) [On the reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 20:20. He will shoot three arrows on the side of the stone; the Art. “the three arrows” is explained by supposing that Jonathan, who had no doubt come armed, showed David three arrows by which the latter might from his hiding-place recognise his presence. Jonathan would act as if he were practicing at a mark (Vulg. “as if exercising at a mark”), it being understood that the arrows thus shot were to be gathered up from the place where they fell, whether in front of or behind the mark. (Bφttcher: In φγָּ ?δֿ the Raphe, as the accent shows, denotes that δ loses its aspiration by reason of the neighboring hard consonants (2 φ and then ψ), or remains as suffix Ξָ ?δּ, not as toneless local Ξַ ?δ; this—Ξָ ?δ refers to the preceding fem. ΰֶ ?αֶ ?ο, so that φִ ?γָּ ?δֿ = juxta eam, at its (the stone’s) side (so render Vulg., De Wette, and even Luther), expresses a definite mark.) 1 Samuel 20:21. The agreement as to the sign, whereby David was to know whether there was danger for him or not. Before “go, find the arrows” the word “saying” has not fallen out, but is to be supplied (with Sept. and Vulg.) from the sense. Comp. 1 Samuel 11:7; Isaiah 10:3-4. The procedure is as follows: The servant, taking position by order on the side of the mark, is first, after the shooting, to go to the mark in order to find the arrows; if then Jonathan calls to him: “The arrows are from thee,” that is from the place where thou art “hitherward,” bring them,—that is a sign for David that it is well, he is to come; for there is peace to thee, and it is nothing, as the Lord liveth. But if (1 Samuel 20:22) he says: “The arrows are from thee,” that is “yonsides,” that is a sign that David is to go away, to flee. For the Lord sendeth thee away, that is, commands thee to go away. 1 Samuel 20:23. And the word that we have spoken, that is, not merely the sign agreed on, but (as is indicated by the “we” and the “I and thou”) what they had said to one another in the whole affair, and promised one another before the Lord. Behold, the Lord is between me and thee for ever, comp. Genesis 31:49. We need not with Sept. supply the word “witness,” since without it the thought is clearly expressed that it is the Lord in whom they have here anew concluded their covenant of friendship, and in whose fear they feel themselves bound to maintain it and fulfil their promises to one another. 1 Samuel 20:24-34. The execution of the agreement, and the open exhibition of Saul’s deadly hate against David. 1 Samuel 20:24. Instead of “sat,” the Sept. has “came to the table,” but the Heb. text is to be retained as in keeping with the rapid and minute portraiture of the narrative. The text “on” (above) the food [ςַ ?μ, Eng. A. V. omits the prep.] is to be retained against the marginal reading (Qeri) “to;” “he who sits at table is elevated, comp. Proverbs 23:30” (Maur.).—“David hid himself—Saul sat at table on new-moon-day,”—this lapidary double remark admirably and vividly introduces the following narration, which is marked precisely by this two-fold fact. Saul sat in his “seat by the wall,” as the highest, most honorable place, opposite the door. See Harmar, Beob. όber d. Orient, II. 66 sq. “As time on time,” that is, as formerly, as usually, comp. iii. 4; Numbers 24:1. Vulg. secundum consuetudinem. The word “arose” presents serious difficulties. It is proposed to adopt the Sept. κὰιπροέφθασετὸν ’Ιωνάθαν (εַ ?ιְּ ?χַ ?γֵּ ?ν for εַ ?ιָּ ?χָּ ?ν), and render “Jonathan sat in front” (Then., Ew., Buns.). But this meaning of the Heb. word is not proved, while the rendering of the Sept. “he (Saul) went before Jonathan” would certainly accord with it, since the verb means “to go before.” But that would be understood of itself, apart from the fact that the context and the syntax do not allow us to take “Saul” as subject; therefore, too, Clericus’ explanation falls to the ground; “Saul alone preceded Jonathan,” that is, Jonathan sat down next after him. The rendering of the Sept. clearly springs from the difficulty of the expression “And Jonathan arose.” We must try to hold to the text. The Syr. renders: “And Jonathan arose and seated himself and Abner (seated himself) at Saul’s side” (connecting εַ ?ιֵּ ?ωֶׁ ?α with εַ ?ιָ ?χָ ?ν, and putting εְ before ΰַ ?αְ ?πֵ ?ψ). But the insertion of “and” is arbitrary, the “sat” must be connected with “Abner,” and the circumstantial introduction of the simple matter-of-course act “sat” by the phrase “arose,” which always emphatically indicates a transition from rest to a new act or activity, is somewhat farcical. The explanation “and Jonathan came” (De Wette, Maurer: Jonathan sat down next after Saul) does not agree with the meaning of the Heb. word (χεּ ?ν), which is used instead of “coming” in the elevated, solemn sense = “appearing,” but never of simple “coming.” If we keep the text and render “and Jonathan arose, and Abner sat” (Vulg.), the only possible explanation is: Jonathan rose from his place when Abner came, whether to show him honor as his uncle, or to give him his proper place at Saul’s side, which he had taken perhaps in Abner’s absence under the impression that the latter would not come to the meal.—Another rendering, however, naturally suggests itself; pointing the verb (ιωׁ ?α) as causative (Hiph. εַ ?ιּ ?ωֶׁ ?α), written defectively) as in 2 Chronicles 10:2 (Ges. § 69, 3 R. 7), and understanding that Jonathan had already seated himself after Saul, and that David’s absence was observed, we translate “he arose, and seated Abner at Saul’s side,” that is, in the place left vacant by David’s absence, in order that the seat next to Saul might not be empty, he himself having taken the seat on the other side of Saul.—Maurer conjectures that the words “and Jonathan arose” have been inserted here by the mistake of a transcriber from the beginning of 1 Samuel 20:34. 1 Samuel 20:26. The first day Saul explained David’s absence by supposing that he was ceremonially unclean and unable to take part in the religious festival. See Leviticus 7:20 sq.; 1 Samuel 15:16; Deuteronomy 23:4. [Kitto suggests as the explanation of Saul’s expecting David, that he supposed David would infer from the occurrence at Naioth 1 Samuel 19:24, that Saul’s mood was changed, and there was no longer danger.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 20:27. The statement of time here is with Keil to be literally rendered: “it was on the morrow after the new moon, the second day (δַ ?ωֵּׁ ?πִ ?ι is Nom. with εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι, not Gen. after δַ ?ηֹ ?γֶ ?ωׁ) and David’s place was missed,” so De Wette: “it came to pass on the following day of the new moon, the second.” In reply to Saul’s question about him Jonathan gave the answer agreed on in 1 Samuel 20:6, only adding that David was called to Bethlehem by his brother. 1 Samuel 20:28. David earnestly asked leave of me to Bethlehem, an elliptical expression, in which “to go” (1 Samuel 20:6) is to be supplied 1 Samuel 20:29. And he hath commanded me, my brother, and now, etc. Stumbling at the Sing. “brother,” the Sept. has “brothers;” we are to understand the eldest brother (Ew.) as head of the family, who had the care of the domestic arrangements for the feast. Vulg. wrongly: “one of my brothers.” Syr. and Arab. wrongly translate: “and he (David) exhorted me and said to me, my brother, if, etc.” Jonathan’s quotation of David’s words is somewhat loose and incompact, agreeing with the cordial, light tone in which one friend makes such statements to another in confidential intercourse. This is the explanation also of the somewhat rough and jocose phrase “let me get away, take myself off” (ΰִ ?ξָּ ?μְ ?θָ ?δ). Comp. the “run” in 1 Samuel 20:6 (Bunsen). 1 Samuel 20:30 sq. Saul’s outbreak of wrath in consequence of these words of Jonathan. Against the rendering “thou son of a woman perverse and rebellious” (literally, “perverse one of rebellion,” πַ ?ςֲ ?εָ ?δ as Ni. partcp., Maurer: “son of a perverse and contumacious mother—O perverse and obstinate son”) is partly the hardness of the phrase “perverse one of rebellion,” partly the monstrosity of the insult thus offered to Jonathan’s mother, which contradicts the Heb. family-spirit. The last objection lies also against the rendering of Sept. and Vulg. “thou son of a rebellious woman” (πַ ?ςֲ ?εָ ?δ for πַ ?ςֲ ?εָ ?δ, Then.), or, as Vulg., “thou son of a woman who voluntarily seizes on a man” (obviously reading δַ ?ξֻּ ?ψְ ?γָּ ?σ (Isaiah 14:6) or δַ ?ξִּ ?ψְ ?γּ ?εֹ ?σ for ξַ ?ψְ ?γּ ?εּ ?ϊ). So Ew., who puts Plu. instead of Sing.: “thou son of wenches who run after (men).” The most tolerable rendering is that of Kφster, unjustly made light of by Then., found also in Clericus: “Thou son of perversity of rebellion” (taking πַ ?ςֲ ?εϊַ as abstract noun, Ni. particip. of ςεδ), full of perverse rebellion. Cleric.: “It is much better to say that Jonathan is called a son of perversity of rebellion, a common Hebraism for a man of perverse and refractory nature.” Saul observes that Jonathan is on the side of David, whom he wishes to destroy as an aspirant after the throne and therefore a rebel. And so he looks on Jonathan also as a rebel.—In the words “Do I not know?” Saul intimates that he is well aware of the secret friendship between Jonathan and David, and regards this excuse as confirmatory of his opinion. (αָּ ?ηַ ?ψ denotes choice out of love, commonly construed with αְּ, here only with μְ. [On the unnecessary Sept. reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]). To thy shame and to the shame of thy mother’s nakedness, who will be ashamed of having borne thee. So we must translate, and not with De Wette, “to the shame and nakedness of thy mother,” nor with Bunsen, “to the shame of thy unchaste mother.” Such an expression from Saul would be in contradiction to his previous reference to Jonathan’s mother according to the translation which we have rejected. In 1 Samuel 20:31 we see clearly why Saul called Jonathan a “son of perverse rebellion.” David is making a rebellious attempt on the royal throne, and Jonathan, bound to him in intimate friendship, is therefore a rebel. He calls this rebellion “perversity,” because “as long as the son of Jesse lives on the earth, he (Jonathan) and his kingdom will not be established.” It is therefore Saul’s determined and permanent purpose to slay David as a rebel. And so he says: Now send and fetch him to me, for he is a son of death. These words fully reveal his disposition towards David. 1 Samuel 20:32. In spite of this outbreak of rage on his father’s part Jonathan tries with mild and quiet words to set forth David’s innocence and the injustice of putting him to death, as in 1 Samuel 19:4-5. At that time Saul’s better feeling got the upper hand. Here, completely enslaved by his passion, he is an impotent instrument of his own blind hate. 1 Samuel 20:33. As David before, so now Jonathan is the mark of his spear hurled [or, brandished,—Tr.], in blind rage (comp. 1 Samuel 18:11). Jonathan saw that it was a settled thing with his father to kill David (comp. 1 Samuel 20:9). 1 Samuel 20:34. A vivid and psychologically true description of Jonathan’s consequent conduct; he rises in fierce anger from the table, eats nothing this second day of the new moon (in contrast with the first, when he took part in the meal), and, what is the reason of his not eating, is grieved for David, because his father had done him shame [that is, done David, not Jonathan shame.—Tr.]. That there is nothing of this in the text (Then.) cannot be maintained, for the way in which Saul spoke of the relation of Jonathan to David, and his indirect declaration that David was a rebel against him, the king, and therefore deserved death, was shame and insult enough. And that Jonathan thought this insult offered to his friend as a completely innocent man is clear from his question: Why shall he die? What has he done? 1 Samuel 20:35-42. [Heb. 21:1]. According to the agreement David is informed of Saul’s attitude towards him, and, after a sorrowful parting with his friend, betakes himself to flight. 1 Samuel 20:35. The following morning Jonathan went to the field to meet David at the appointed place (μְ ?ξεֹ ?ςֵ ?γγּ ?Χ), not “at the time agreed on,” which translation requires too much to be supplied; and with him a small servant “who would not so easily suspect anything; this trifling notice is of great value as testimony to the historical realness of the occurrence”—(Then.). 1 Samuel 20:36. The narration is evidently abridged. Jonathan says to the servant: Bring the arrows. This plural answers to the agreement in 1 Samuel 20:20 sq., which seems to be contradicted by the following statement that Jonathan shot only one arrow (ηֵֽ ?φִ ?ι is ancient unshortened Sing. for later ηֵ ?υ, as in 1 Samuel 20:37-38; 2 Kings 9:24; see Ew., § 186, 2 e). “To send it beyond him,” so that the arrow went further than the servant had run. 1 Samuel 20:37. To the place (or, the region, Thenius) of the arrow which Jonathan had shot, according to the agreement with David, which referred to three arrows to be shot, Jonathan calls to the boy: “Is not the arrow beyond thee?” Jonathan uses a question instead of direct discourse (as in 1 Samuel 20:20-22) in order more certainly to make the boy believe that he was merely practicing at a mark. He heaps up words of command “hasten, hurry, stay not,” to keep the boy’s attention fixed on the arrow, that he might not chance to see David, who was hid near by. “The boy took up the arrow.” The text (Sing.) is to be retained against the Qeri (Plu.), since the purpose is to tell of one arrow only. “He came (not as Sept. ‘brought’) to his master,” that is, bringing the arrow. While in 1 Samuel 20:20-22 this procedure is summarily described of three arrows, the account here is of one. The difference is not to be explained by the supposition that Jonathan shortened the affair and shot only once, because there was danger in delay (Then.), for the shooting of three arrows was a principal point in the agreement, and if there had been such need of haste, the following parting-scene could not have taken place. Rather we must suppose that Jonathan did so with each of the three arrows. Either, as Bunsen remarks, Jonathan shot the arrows one right after another, or he thrice repeated it. In the first case we must hold with Keil that the Sing. here “stands in an indefinite general way, the author not thinking it necessary, after what he has before said, to state that Jonathan shot three arrows one after another.” 1 Samuel 20:40. Jonathan, having given his artillery to the lad—we need not with Sept. read ςַ ?μ for ΰֶ ?μ (Then.)—sent him to the city, that he might be alone with David. 1 Samuel 20:41. David rose from the south side of the rock, where he had been concealed, the preceding affair having occurred on the north side, whence the boy returned to the city which lay north of David’s hiding-place, so that the latter was completely hid from him. It accords very well with this statement of the points of the compass that David afterward fled southward to Nob. The affecting description of the sorrowful parting is in keeping with the deep emotion of these two hearts (one loving the other as himself) not merely on account of the separation, which was final, but on account of the great dangers and grievous sufferings which the one saw that the other must inevitably endure from Saul. “David fell on his face to the ground and bowed himself thrice.” Clericus: “To do Jonathan honor, that he might implore his help or gratefully acknowledge his kindness.” Josephus: “he did obeisance and called him the saviour of his life.”—There is no need to render with Vulgate and Syriac (ΰַ ?κְ for ςַ ?γ): “But David wept still more,” that is, than Jonathan. No sense can be extracted from the reading of the Septuagint “unto a great consummation” (ἔωςσυντελείαςμεγάλης, according to Thenius from substitution of ϊֹּ ?ν for γָּ ?εִ ?γ), which provokes from Capell the merry remark that, according to this, the two friends are still weeping, and will continue to weep till the last day. We must render literally: “David did greatly,”—namely, wept violently, aloud. For the construction comp. Joe 2:20-21; Psalms 126:2-3. 1 Samuel 20:42. Jonathan must quickly part from his weeping friend to spare him further danger. From the connection and the circumstances it is not probable that another conversation [of which Jonathan’s words are merely the conclusion] had before taken place (Keil). Jonathan’s parting word is: 1) a wish for peace or blessing, and 2) conjuring him that the covenant of friendship be forever maintained. The apodosis is not uttered; the aposiopesis accords with Jonathan’s deep emotion.—1 Samuel 20:1 [in Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 20:42]. The concluding scene. David goes his way in flight; Jonathan returns in the opposite direction to the city. AND 1. David designates the covenant of friendship which Jonathan had made with him (1 Samuel 28:1 sq.) as one which he made with him in the Lord (comp. 1 Samuel 23:18). It was therefore not a friendship which rested merely on mutual good feeling, but was based on a recognized common union of heart with the living God. Jonathan’s heart clung in firm faith and trust to the Lord; this was the root of his heroic courage and his victorious prowess (comp. 1 Samuel 24:6); this fresh power of faith, which elevated and sanctified his whole being, won him David’s regard and love. David’s whole life-course showed Jonathan the direct wonderful gracious leading of the Lord, to which he humbly submitted himself. The two hearts were one in looking to and hoping in the living God, in humble obedience to His holy will. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ III. David’s flight to Nob to the high-priest Ahimelech and to Gath to king Achish1 Samuel 21:1-15 (2–16)1Then came David [And D. came] to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David [Ahimelech went frightened to meet David] and said unto him, Why art thou alone and no man with thee? And David 2said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee and what [which] I have commanded thee; and I have appointed my servants 3[the young men] to such and such a place. Now, therefore, what is under thy 4hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed [holy] bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least 5from women. And David answered the priest and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though 6it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So [And] the priest gave him hallowed [holy] bread, for there was no bread there but the show-bread, that was taken from before the Lord [Jehovah], to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. 7Now [And] a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day detained before the Lord [Jehovah], and his name was Doeg an [the] Edomite, the chiefest 8of the herdsmen that belonged to Saul [of Saul]. And David said to Ahimelech, And is there not here under thy hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste. 9And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold it is here [om. here] wrapped in a cloth [the garment] behind the ephod; if thou wilt take that, take it, for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.10And David arose and fled that day for fear of Saul, and went to Achish the 11king of Gath. And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul 12hath slain his thousands and David his ten thousands? And David laid up these 13words in his heart, and was sore afraid of Achish the king of Gath. And he changed his behaviour [understanding] before them [in their eyes] and feigned himself mad [acted like a madman] in their hands, and scrabbled [scrawled]13 on 14the doors of the gate, and let his spittle fall down upon his beard. Then said Achish [And Achish said] unto his servants, Lo, ye see the man is mad; wherefore 15then [om. then] have ye brought [do ye bring] him to me? Have I need of mad men, that ye have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? shall this fellow come into my house? AND 1 Samuel 21:2-10 [Eng. A. V. 1–9]. David flees to Nob to the high-priest Ahimelech. 1 Samuel 21:2 (1). According to 1 Sam. 22:11, 19, 32; 2 Samuel 21:16; Isaiah 10:32; Nehemiah 11:32, the name of this refuge of David is Nob. (The Heb. form here and 1 Samuel 22:9 is with δ local (with short vowel) after a verb of coming, Ges. § 90, 2.) According to 1 Samuel 22:19 Nob was at this time a priestly city. Here at this time was the tabernacle, which, as we under David and Solomon find it in Gibeon, was probably carried thither in consequence of the destruction of Nob by Saul (1 Samuel 22). The position of Nob is no longer determinable—only from Isaiah 10:28-33 we know that it was near Jerusalem on the road northward between Anathoth (Anata) and Jerusalem in the tribe of Benjamin (Nehemiah 11:32). According to Jerome (on Isa. l. c.), in whose time nothing remained of the place, Jerusalem was visible from it. Whether it stood on the site of the present village El Isawieh, between Anata and Jerusalem, about two and a half miles from the latter, and as far south-east of Gibeah of Saul (Tuleil el Ful), which Tobler (Topog. von Jerus. II. 719 sq.) describes, as Kiepert (Map to Rob.’s Researches) and Raumer (Palδst. p. 215, 4 ed.) [and Grove] suppose, cannot be decided; the objection is that Jerusalem is not visible from this place.—See Herz. R.-E. and Winer s. v.—Thither David betook himself, as the nearest place of refuge from Gibeah, where he might for the present find shelter and concealment with the priests. From 1 Samuel 22:10-14 [15] it appears, though it is not mentioned here, that he wished in this holy place to inquire God’s will concerning his further way. He wished besides to provide himself with arms and food for-his continued flight. His stay there was therefore intended to be temporary, as his whole conduct shows. We may assume that he stood in intimate relations with the priests there, and especially with their head, from whom therefore he expected not only the announcement of the divine will, but also consolatory and strengthening words.—Ahimelech is the same person with Ahiah (1 Samuel 14:3), son of Ahitub (1 Samuel 22:9; 1 Samuel 22:20), the elder brother of Ichabod, son of Phinehas, son of Eli, therefore great-grandson of Eli. His son was the high-priest Abiathar (1 Samuel 30:7), with whom he is confounded in Mark 2:26. The designation “priest” here=high-priest, as in 1 Samuel 14:3.—He is frightened at David’s appearing alone, without retinue or arms; therefore he went to meet him fearfully, supposing such an appearance to be a sign of impending misfortune. We must presume that he knew of Saul’s hatred to David, but not of the most recent occurrences. David must have feared that if he told the high-priest of these, the latter, for fear of bringing Saul’s wrath on himself, would refuse him refuge. Therefore he has recourse here again to a lie; he pretends that the king has given him a secret commission, of which no one is to know, and represents to the high-priest that he has appointed his men some place at which to meet him. Maurer: “I ordered my servants to go to a certain place.” (ιεֹ ?γַ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι is Po. of ιγς, “to know”=“appoint.”) “At such and such a place,” comp. Rth 4:1. Clericus remarks that he really took some faithful followers with him, at least to the Philistine border, and during his stay in Nob assigned them to some place, where he would meet them, and Keil supposes that he left his few attendants (1 Samuel 21:3 [2]) near by, in order to speak privately with the high-priest; but against this is the fact that in his flight, after his interview without witness with Jonathan (1 Samuel 20.), there is no mention of any attendant, nor afterwards in his flight to Gath. He seeks to quiet Ahimelech’s apprehension by the double statement that his commission is secret, and that he has appointed his people a place to stay. Clericus’ remark: “all these things are inventions,” is to be accepted of everything, not merely of his commission from the king.—[But in Mark 2:25-26, it is asserted that there were men with David, and it is in itself natural and probable that a man of his high official position and popularity should find some willing to share his flight.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 21:4 (3). Now, what thou hast in hand, the five loaves, give me, a request in keeping with David’s hurry and eagerness. (ξַ ?δΞιֵּ ?ωׁ is not a question, which would require something like μֶ ?ΰֱ ?αμ (Then.) to follow.) He asks for five loaves with apparent reference to his retinue, but really for his own needs, since his way would lead him into the wilderness, and he must avoid meeting men. 1 Samuel 21:5 (4). No common bread—but holy bread have I here, answers Ahimelech. The five loaves which Ahimelech then had were a part of the twelve loaves which were laid up in the tabernacle, as the offering of the Twelve Tribes to the Lord, before his face, and thence called “Bread of presence, show-bread” (Exodus 25:30; Exodus 35:13; Exodus 39:36; Exodus 40:23). They had just been taken away (1 Samuel 21:7 [6]) to be replaced by fresh ones (Leviticus 24:8). The legal precept was that this bread, as something most holy, could be eaten only by the priests in the holy place (Leviticus 24:9). Ahimelech’s answer to David therefore means that if he is here to make an exception to this rule, he must at least insist on ceremonial purity as a condition.—If the men have only kept themselves from women. See Leviticus 15:18. Thereby the principle of the legal prescription of levitical purity was satisfied, inasmuch as the circumstances—namely, the lack of ordinary bread, the haste which the alleged important commission of the king required, the duty of aiding in its execution as much as possible, and the pious behaviour of David in inquiring the Lord’s will at the holy place—seemed to justify a deviation from the rule concerning the eating of the show-bread. But it is inferring too much from this isolated case when Clericus remarks: “It is clear from Ahimelech’s demand as to women that the eating of the consecrated bread was not absolutely forbidden to the laity in case of urgent necessity.” See Matthew 12:3, where the Lord uses this example to justify divergence from the letter of the Law when its outward observance would violate the inner spirit of the Law and hinder the fulfilment of sacred duties to one’s self and one’s neighbor. 1 Samuel 21:6 (5). In David’s answer the introductory “but” (λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν) relates to the negative in Ahimelech’s last words: “they are not unclean, but;” we may therefore render “rather” [Eng. A. V. “of a truth.”] David affirms the purity of his men and of himself in this regard: “Women have been kept from us.” The following words from “since I came out” to “in the vessel” present many difficulties. The “came out” may be connected with the preceding or the following context. In favor of the former it may be said that it naturally connects itself with the phrase “yesterday and the day before” [= about these three days] as an exacter statement of time; David says: “this abstinence has existed from the day of my departure till now.” In fact this connection is necessary in order to establish the assertion that the men had refrained from women since “yesterday and the day before,” for from the day of departure it could not be otherwise. S. Schmid: “in the words ‘yesterday and the day before’ David seems to refer to his three days’ hiding in the field or in Bethlehem.” Further we have to consider the meaning of the words “vessel” (λְּ ?μִ ?ι) and “way” (γֶּ ?ψֶ ?κְ). As to the former, the reference here to purity of body does not justify us in understanding it figuratively of the body, as σκεῦος in 2 Corinthians 4:7; 1 Thessalonians 4:4 (Ewald), for the word never has this sense in Hebrew literature. Bunsen: “that is certainly not Hebrew usage.” Keil, expressly departing from the usual meaning “vessels,” takes the word (from Deuteronomy 22:5) in the sense of “clothing,” and with reference to Leviticus 15:18 (on the defilement of “garments” by seminal discharge) makes David say: “The garments of my men were clean.” But the word cannot mean “garment” in Deuteronomy 22:5 (where it is in the Sing.); it never means garment as such, as we should here have to take it in the supposed reference to defilement by seminal flow. But what would be the bearing of such a remark after David had already affirmed that, in consequence of their removal from women, no such defilement could be found in them?—We must do what we can with the usual meaning of the word “implement, vessel.” The “vessels of the men” = apart from their arms, everything that pertained to personal preparation for the journey; see Jeremiah 46:19, λְּ ?μֵ ?ιβεֹ ?μָ ?δ, “exile-gear,” [Eng. A. V. “furnish thyself to go into captivity.”] So S. Schmid: “the reference is to packs and sacks for food for the journey.” Such leathern and other articles might as well as persons become unclean, according to the Law, Leviticus 11:32 sq.; Leviticus 13:47 sq. Comp. Sommer, bibl. Abhandlung, “Rein und Unrein” [Clean and Unclean], p. 204, 211, 223. The gear or baggage of the men, as well as their persons, might be unclean. But the holy bread, which even exceptionally could be eaten only by levitically clean persons, could not be carried in vessels which were legally unclean. David therefore says that the vessels of his men were holy at starting, in order to assure Ahimelech that there was not the slightest legal objection to their taking the bread, nothing unclean either in their persons or in their baggage. So the Vulg.: “and the vessels (vasa) of the young men were holy.” S. Schmid: “David means to say: since we have just left home, whence people usually take clean things, you may readily suppose that no impurity has been contracted; it would be different if we were returning home from a journey, where on the way, especially in war uncleanness might be contracted by the blood of enemies, or otherwise.”—The rendering of the Sept. “all the young men” (λֹּ ?μ for λְּ ?μֵ ?ι), adopted by Thenius as a necessary emendation, is suspicious from its easiness, and must be rejected, since we can derive a good sense from the text.—We have next to examine the meaning of the word “way.” In the first place, no explanation is allowable which does not maintain the reference to the subject in hand, namely, the showbread. We reject therefore those explanations in which this word is made to mean the way in which David was going, and the last word (λְּ ?μִ ?ι) = “gear.” Vulg.: “and this way is unclean, but itself also will be sanctified to-day in the vessels.” So the Sept.—Maurer: “I am sure that it (the way) is sanctified to-day,” etc. De Wette: “and if the way is unholy, it is to-day sanctified by the vessels.” Dathe and Schulz: “though the journey is undertaken on profane business.” O. v. Gerlach and Keil: “though it is an unholy way that we go, namely, in performing the king’s commission.” From the connection one does not at all see how the way, or the undertaking is unholy, profane. To supply: “the way has no religious object” (O. v. Gerl.), “ordinary business, not ecclesiastical” (Ew.), is to insert a new idea into the words. Nor does the connection warrant O. v. Gerl. and Keil (taking λְּ ?μִ ?ι as Sing. in the sense of “instrument, organ”) in making David say: “The way was holy before God, since it was through necessity trodden by him, God’s chosen servant, the upholder of God’s true kingdom in Israel, the way was sanctified through him as instrument, as ambassador of the Lord’s Anointed.” Thenius rightly says that the words must contain a remark by which the priest is to be induced to give the bread, and that it is important to keep in mind the Sing. “vessel,” which has not always been regarded. Clericus is quite correct in saying: “way is everywhere used for the manner of doing a thing.” But he is wrong in taking “way” = “somehow” (aliquo modo), supplying “bread” [as Eng. A. V.], and, with the remark that otherwise there is no sense in the passage, explaining: “This holy bread, removed from the presence of the Lord, had become in some sort (aliquo modo) profane, because other (bread) was to be substituted for it that day, and this was now sanctified in the vessels in which it was to be placed, that it might be carried into the holy place, and set on the table;” this is an arbitrary and violent treatment of the words, and moreover, gives no clear sense—apart from the fact that it is not true that the bread, when taken from the table, thereby becomes profane, since, even when so removed, it remains the consecrated bread, for the eating of which levitical purity is a necessary condition. So the translation of S. Schmid “but itself (the bread) is of the nature of profane (bread), yet it will be holily carried in the vessel,” is neither in accordance with the words nor at all intelligible. The word “way” = conduct, mode of procedure, here refers to the procedure demanded by David, by which the high-priest was, contrary to the legal prescription, to give the showbread to persons who were not priests; “though it is an unholy procedure, yet to-day it becomes holy through the instrument.” The Heb. word (λִּ ?μִ ?ι “instrument, organ”) is so used of men also, Genesis 45:5; Isaiah 13:5; Isaiah 32:7; Jeremiah 50:25; comp. σκεῦος, Acts 9:15. The instrument is here the sacred person of the priest, Ahimelech himself, as bearer of the high-priestly dignity. So also Thenius. The “to-day” points with emphasis to the special circumstances of that day, which induced Ahimelech to grant David’s request. The “yea, verily” (ΰַ ?σλִּ ?ι, so 1 Samuel 14:30) is in keeping with the excitement with which David speaks, in order to persuade the high-priest. 1 Samuel 21:7 (6). The priest yields to David’s representation, and gives him the “holy.” Lack of other bread is expressly said to be the reason of his compliance, he departed from the legal prescription through sheer necessity only. It seems to be mentioned as an alleviating fact, that the bread had already been taken away from before the Lord, having remained on the table in the holy place seven days according to the Law (Leviticus 24:6-9); “to-day” was the “day of removal,” that is, when it was exchanged for fresh bread. It is probable that in the “today” of 1 Samuel 21:6 (5) there is a reference to this “day of removal.” 1 Samuel 21:8 (7). Mention of a servant of Saul, Doeg the Edomite, which brings the narrative into pragmatic connection with 1 Samuel 22:9 sq., and at the same time exhibits the divine providence, by which David’s lie, intended to conceal his real position and flight from Saul, proved useless, rather led to the destruction of Nob and its inhabitants. A man of the servants of Saul.—These words stand significantly first, in order to show that, in spite of David’s trouble to conceal his way from Saul, the latter received information of his visit to this very place. “Detained, shut in (πֶ ?ςְ ?φָ ?ψ), before the Lord,” not continens se, “lingering, remaining” (S. Schmid); that is, detained for some religious or ceremonial purpose, housed at the holy place, whether as a proselyte received by circumcision, or in fulfilment of a vow, or received for a purification-offering, or on account of a temporary Nazarite-vow, or for suspected leprosy (Leviticus 13:4); in any case, as one “who was committed to the custody of the priests ministering in the tabernacle” (Cler.). Vulg.: “Within the tabernacle.” His name was Doeg, the Edomite, “he had probably come over to Saul in his war with Edom,” (Ew.). His official position was “Ruler over the herdsmen of Saul.” Vulgate: “Most powerful of Saul’s herdsmen,” and so all ancient versions except Sept., which has wrongly νέμωντὰςἡμιόνους “tending the mules of Saul.” (ψֹ ?ςֶ ?δΰֶ ?ϊΞτִּ ?ψְ ?γֵ ?ιωּ ?Χ). On account of the importance which still attached in Saul’s time to the possession of herds as a family-power, Doeg’s position as Overseer of Herds and Herdsmen must have been a prominent one. 1 Samuel 21:9 (8). Besides food, David needed arms. That in such pressing danger he fled without arms is to be explained on the ground that he “feared that he would be recognized, or, as an armed man concealing himself, be suspected” (Cler.)—or that he fled in great haste. This last is the reason he gives to Ahimelech, carrying out his pretence about the royal commission: “I did not bring my sword and weapons, because the king’s business was hasty,” literally “pressed” (πָ ?ηεּ ?υ), stronger than “pressing.” Vulg.: “the king’s word was urgent;” Sept.: “in haste” (κατὰσπουδήν).—“Hast thou not here spear or sword?” a question which, like the demand for bread above, clearly reveals in part David’s haste, in part his anxiety to conceal by a light tone the pressing danger of his situation. 1 Samuel 21:10 (9). The priest answers by referring to the sword of Goliath, with which David had slain him in the Terebinth-valley (1 Samuel 17:2). To preserve it from dust, moisture and rust it was carefully wrapped in a garment or cloth, and kept in the holy place behind the priestly ephod (not hung on a nail (Ew.), but in a safe and visible place). How it came hither, David having carried Goliath’s armor to his tent, that is, taken possession of it (1 Samuel 17:54), is nowhere said. There is no contradiction of the earlier statement; the apparent difference is removed “by the perfectly natural supposition that David carried home Goliath’s armor except his sword, or that this sword was afterwards deposited for safe keeping in the national sanctuary” (Then.) See on 1 Samuel 17:54. (αַּ ?ζֶּ ?δ for αָּ ?ζֶ ?δ, here only.)—David here declared the particular value of this sword for him, thinking, undoubtedly, of its importance for his whole life in connection with that deed of heroism. He thus received not merely a weapon, but, by the divine arrangement, “a holy weapon, promising victory” (O. v. Gerl.). 1 Samuel 21:11-15 [10–15]. Provided with arms and bread David flees to Gath to the Philistine king Achish. 1 Samuel 21:11 (10). The that day shows that David stayed in Nob only long enough to consult the oracle and procure arms and food; the same day that he arrived he continued his flight. We do not know whether he had already determined to go to Philistia, or now first suddenly resolved on it, possibly in consequence of Doeg’s unexpected appearance. The words he fled before Saul do not mean that this flight began with his departure from Nob (Keil), for in the narrative of his parting from Jonathan (and indeed before that) we see him in flight. The expression “from before Saul” indicates the significance of his further flight in respect to Saul as his king and lord, in that he now entirely abandons actual subjection to him, appearing as a deserter to king Achish and into a foreign country. This expression does not require us to regard this section (1 Samuel 21:11-15 [10–15]) as coming from another source and here arbitrarily interpolated (Thenius). Even supposing (as is possible) that the section is from another source than the preceding, in which not the account of Saul’s schemes and David’s flight from the beginning is given, but only this flight to Philistia, it does not appear that the words “David fled that day from Saul” are an arbitrary interpolation. However, this opinion rests on the view that the flight here is the same as that in chap. 27, only in the form of a popular story, and here inappositely inserted, while the correct recension is given in 1 Samuel 27, where it is suitably put in David’s time of extremest need towards the end of his fugitive wandering (Then.). But the difference of the circumstances is an objection to identifying this flight with that in chap. 27.—especially that here David goes to the Philistines alone and tries for some time to gain a safe residence by feigning madness, while there [ch. 27] he goes with his family and a numerous retinue, and gains the favor of the Philistine king by numerous military undertakings and expeditions. Nor can it be admitted that the narrative in 1 Samuel 21:11-15 [10–15] is historically improbable, and therefore has no historical value. It is said that David would not in the beginning of his flight have taken the step of going over to the Philistines, which was possible only in extremest necessity; but, we answer, the expression “extremest necessity” is a very indefinite one, and further, as appears from the connection, David’s inner excitement, consequent on Saul’s enduring murderous hate and present intense rage, from which he could never feel safe in his own land, made his need and danger seem to him so great and pressing, that a flight over the border cannot appear in the least historically untrustworthy. He thought that appearing as a deserter he would be safest with Saul’s enemy. That is psychologically easily intelligible. But, as he could not even thus mollify the hatred and suspicion of the Philistines, he was obliged to play the madman; nor does this bring him security, his stay is a very short one,—this is all truly historical, these are traits of real life, which oppose the supposition that we here have an improbable unhistorical narration. As to the objection from Goliath’s sword, that, as well-known to the Philistines, it would certainly have betrayed David, Nδgelsbach justly remarks (Herz. XIII. 403), that it is said in 1 Samuel 21:9 only that David took it from Nob, not that he carried it to Gath. He needed a weapon immediately for the long and possibly dangerous road to the Philistine border; on the way he might provide himself with other arms, so that, if he needed weapons on the other side, he might not betray himself by the sword of Goliath.—In the title to Psalms 34. the Philistine king is called Abimelech, which along with Achish was the standing official name of the Philistine princes of Gath (comp. Genesis 26:1). 1 Samuel 21:12 [11]. The courtiers soon recognize the fugitive, though some time had elapsed since his victorious combat with Goliath. Let the situation be considered: David must have been an object of astonishment, and his appearance as fugitive and deserter an object of wonder to the Philistines, who knew what he had done for his country by that heroic exploit. Hence first, such talk, as is here narrated, about him (ΰֵ ?μָ ?ιε [Eng. A. V. “unto him”]), which phrase from the connection (their thoughts and talk naturally turning on David) refers to David, not to Achish.—Is this not David, the king of the land?—This question exhibits the great impression which David’s exploit had made on the Philistines in their ideas concerning his position in his nation and country. They call him king of the land “because David had appeared as such in taking up Goliath’s challenge, and had thrown Saul entirely into the shade” (Then.). This impression was favored by their recollection of the song of triumph, in which David was honored above Saul, and which was still well known to them. Sang they not of him in dances?—See 1 Samuel 18:7. With this astounding recollection is connected the apprehension that this dangerous enemy of the Philistine people comes with evil intent. The supposition that with these words of 1 Samuel 21:12 (11) the courtiers introduced David into Achish’s presence (Thenius) is nowhere supported, is improbable from the form of the words, which rather indicate the immediate impression made on them by David’s appearance, and is untenable from David’s consequent behaviour, (1 Samuel 21:13 (12)). Then, for the first time, David lays them to heart and reflects on them, and then fear of Achish comes over him. He sees that he is recognized, and fears that, if the courtiers remind the king of the past, they will take vengeance on him and kill him. Therefore, when brought to the king as a dangerous enemy, he suddenly resorts to the device of acting as a madman. This would have been an absurd procedure, if he had already been presented to Achish by the courtiers, and so was already acquainted with them. Rather it must be supposed that, at the moment when David heard those words, the above reflection occurred to him, and he straightway determined on and carried out this simulation, before the servants of Achish could suspect that he was only pretending. He changed his sense [1 Samuel 21:14 (13)], he perverted his understanding (Luther wrongly, after Sept. and Vulg., “his features”), feigned madness; the same words are found in the title of Psalms 34. (The apparently superfluous suffix in εַ ?ιְּ ?ωַׁ ?πּ ?εֹ is either to be taken as reflexive, and the following word explicative or objective, “he changed himself, his spiritual being, in respect to his understanding” (Then.), or with Keil we must explain it “from the circumstantial character of common popular speech, as in 2 Samuel 14:6, and in the not quite analogous cases Exodus 2:6; Proverbs 5:22; Ezekiel 10:3, (comp. Ges. Gr., § 121, 6 Rem. 3”).—The following words show that David played the part of an insane person. The view of some older expositors (and recently Schlier) that by God’s permission, under the excitement produced by fear and anguish of soul, David really fell into temporary insanity, is in direct contradiction to the words of the narrative. He moved hither and thither like a madman [Heb., “played the madman.”—Tr.]. Thenius refers to Jeremiah 25:16; Jeremiah 51:7; Nehemiah 2:5, under their hands, they seeking to hold the madman. He smote (drummed on) the gate-doors, so we must read with Sept. and Vulg. instead of “scribbled” (εַ ?ιָּ ?ϊָ ?σ from ϊָּ ?τַ ?σ instead of εַ ?ιְ ?ϊַ ?ε from ϊָּ ?εָ ?δ), the latter not being the gesture of a madman, and not agreeing with the last word: And he let his spittle fall on his beard. This is to be understood of the foam which comes from the mouth of madmen. 1 Samuel 21:15, 16 [1 Samuel 21:14-15]. By his pretended madness David was safe from the servants of Achish, since in ancient, times the persons of madmen were looked on as inviolable, in a certain sense as sacred. Danger from Achish he likewise avoided by so cleverly counterfeiting insanity when brought before the king, that the latter declared he should not come to his court, he had already mad folks enough. Behold, ye see.—This expression shows the impression that David’s gestures made on the king, so that he did not doubt that he had a madman before him. A man who acts insanely, that is, not “who so represents himself,” but who objectively exhibits himself as a madman. For the question of reproach: Why do ye bring him to me? the reason is first given in the question, 1 Samuel 21:16 [1 Samuel 21:15]: Have I need, etc. … to play the madman against me?—The Prep. (ςָ ?μָ ?ι) = not in my presence (De Wette), but against me. Achish fears personal harm from him. With the third question: Shall this fellow come into my house? he thrusts him away. David’s plan, to remain unknown and concealed among the Philistines, did not succeed; but he succeeded in so simulating madness as to escape the dangerous situation into which he had gotten so soon as he was recognized as the victorious enemy of the Philistines. [From this narrative it appears that David and the Philistines understood one another’s language, as on other grounds it is probable that the Hebrew and Philistine dialects were nearly identical.—Tr.] AND 1. The more the history of David’s providential guidance in this troublous time unfolds itself, the more gloriously does his God-devoted, humbly-obedient spirit shine forth out of this gloomiest period of his life. But the prophetic-historical narrative is so little concerned to make prominent this light in David’s life, that it contents itself with a simple presentation of facts, and with equal freedom from tendentiousness and prepossession, brings out sharp and unsoftened the dark spots in David’s moral conduct. On the one hand David shows, in this time of hard trial and waiting, passive resignation to God’s will and complete abnegation of his own will, and though he is sure of his calling to be king of Israel, he takes no steps at all to realize his calling by his own efforts against Saul. But, on the other hand, we see him falling into great fear in Nob and Gath (as formerly in his interview with Jonathan), his strong faith tottering, himself resorting to lies and pretence, and putting self-help, unbecoming an obedient servant of God, in the place of the Lord’s help. In his deviation from truth for a good end he follows the principle often expressed by the Greek poets, e. g., Eurip.: “ὅτω̣δ’ ὄλεθρονδεινὸνἡἀλήθει’ ἄγεισυγγνωστὸνἐιπεῖνἐστικαὶτὸμὴκαλόν [“when truth, brings ruin it is pardonable to speak untruth.”] Hamann: “The Holy Spirit is become the chronicler of men’s foolish, yea, sinful actions. He has narrated the lies of an Abraham, the incest of Lot, the simulation of a man after God’s heart. O God, Thy wisdom, by counsel which no reason can sufficiently wonder at and honor, has made the foolishness of men our instructor unto Christ, our glory in Christ.”—Grotius: “Something must be forgiven those times, when eternal life was scarcely known.” 2. Though the national sanctuary could not be re-established in Nob for the whole people, yet the high-priest and the other priests resided there, the will of God was inquired by Urim and Thummim, the legal prescriptions relating to worship were carried out as far as possible; and though the ark was wanting in the tabernacle, the latter was still regarded as the visible symbol of God’s gracious presence. And so, though there were several centres of worship (see on 1 Samuel 7:5), Nob was the most prominent of them, and with its incomplete arrangements was a substitute for the sanctuary for whose legal completeness for the whole people the presence of the ark was necessary. This more general significance for the whole people Nob had not merely by the presence of the ark, but also by the sacred vessels and arrangements connected with it. Among these were the twelve loaves of showbread according to the number of the twelve tribes on the sacred table appointed for them; for these were a covenant-sign to set forth Israel’s permanent consecration in obedience and in producing the fruit of good works, which were offered to the Lord as His well-pleasing food. 3. The precepts of the Old Testament law were the outer shell of eternally valid demands of God’s holy will on the will of His people. That the bread, consecrated by its holy meaning and use, could be eaten only by clean males of the priestly order in the holy place, was only the clothing of the [real] requirement, which read: only when you keep yourselves pure from the stain of sin and disobedience, and sanctify yourselves to me in heart, life, and walk, are ye in My sight a truly priestly people, and have part in the enjoyment of the gifts and goods of My house, and are members of My kingdom. The outer form and shell, the letter of the legal precept might be broken, if only the content, the essence was maintained; yea, this outer form, inadequate to the eternal ethical spiritual content of the Law, must be broken through, when its external preservation involved the violation or destruction of the essence and inner kernel. The duty of self-preservation justified David in eating the show-bread, to which, according to the letter of the law, he was not entitled; neighborly love required Ahimelech to deviate from the outer prescription in order to help the needy fugitive. Both acted in the higher sense as priests. On this Christ grounded the application of this instance to Himself and His disciples, who broke the sabbath-law by plucking corn (Matthew 12:3; Mark 2:26; Luke 6:3). “The Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath-day,”—in Him, and by communion with Him, in the power of His Spirit, is the true fulfilment of the eternal will of God hidden in Old Testament precepts, so that redeemed and sanctified man stands no longer under the disciplinary form of the law, but stands above and controls the form of the requirement. Even the Old Testament ritual law itself pointed involuntarily beyond itself to the fulfilment of its hidden truths and ideas by regulations and injunctions which of necessity violated the legal ordination [Matthew 12:5]. The rabbis themselves well say: “In the sanctuary is no sabbath; sacrifice abolishes the sabbath.” 4. The history of David’s flight to the Philistines, and his escape thence by simulating madness, is, in the first place, the basis of Psalms 34, which bears the title: “By David, when he changed his understanding before Abimelech, and he drove him away and he departed.” This title agrees precisely with the principal points of the narrative in 1 Samuel 21:11-15, and is, as it were, a brief compendium of it. The Abimelech of the title is identical with the Achish of the history, for the former name was the nomen dignitatis of all the Philistine kings, like Pharaoh among the Egyptians and Agag among the Amalekites. So Basilius in Euthym. Zigab. in the Introduction to this Ps. Comp. Hengst. Beitrδge [Contributions] III., 306 sq., and Introduction to this Ps. That the private name should appear in the history, and the official name in the title of the Ps., is perfectly natural.—The Psalm, however, contains no express reference to the history, but is rather didactic and reflective; it contains: 1 Samuel 21:2-4 (1–3) a vow to praise God continually, and an exhortation to the pious to unite in this praise, 1 Samuel 21:5-11 (4–10), the reason for this vow and exhortation, namely, personal deliverance from great fear and danger, then 1 Samuel 21:12-15 (11–22), the teaching that only through the fear of God is one saved in time of need. This didactic poem, with its reflective, gnomic character and its alphabetic arrangement, cannot have been produced contemporaneously with the events of the history; but we cannot on this account, and from the absence of direct references to the history, reject the Davidic authorship, if we keep in view its genuine Davidic features and the concurrence of some of its thoughts and expressions with undoubtedly Davidic Psalms (see Moll on the Psalter [in Lange’s Biblework]). The content is a reflection of that experience of David of divine help (set forth in this history), which sunk so deep into his soul, and an application of it to the instruction, consolation, and edification of the pious. The difference in the Philistine king’s name shows indeed that the writer of the title did not have our history before him, and must have had other authority for referring the Ps. to this occurrence; this authority we may with Delitzsch and Moll hold to be the written tradition in the Annals of David, this Psalm, like others (as 2 Samuel 22:1 compared with Psalms 18 shows) being found in the historical account, which is given in the title in the words of that authority.—To the same dangerous situation of David refers Psalms 56, the words of the title “when the Philistines took him in Gath” being confirmed by the expression in our history “in their hands,” 1 Samuel 21:14 (13). Compare also 1 Samuel 21:9 (8) of the Psalm: “Thou countest my flight,” or “hast counted my fugitive life” (Moll). From the recollection of these dangers David colors the portraiture of his dangers from his enemies, but at the same time exhibits throughout the Psalm confidence in God’s help and faith in God’s support, closing with a vow of thanksgiving for the divine aid, which he with assurance expects, through which he will walk before God in the light of life.—“When David sang these two songs, God’s grace had already dried his tears. Their fundamental tone is thanksgiving for favor and deliverance. But he who has an eye therefor will observe that they are still wet with tears, and cannot fail to see in the singer’s outpourings of heart the sorrowfulest recollections of former sins and errors” (F. W. Krummacher). AND 1 Samuel 21:1. Schlier: When David finds no more help in the world, he goes to the Lord and His sanctuary. There he hopes certainly to find counsel and consolation. The Lord’s word has counsel and consolation for all the necessities and perplexities of our life—and he who heartily seeks and longs for the Lord’s word finds what he wants. 1 Samuel 21:2. [From Hall]: God lets us see some blemishes in His holiest servants, that we may neither be too highly conceited of flesh and blood, nor too much dejected when we have been miscarried into sin.]—Schlier: How good it would be if we should never indeed imitate David’s “lie of necessity,” but should always lay to heart the fact that in his need he betook himself to the sanctuary in Nob.—J. Disselhoff: It is one thing to show faith when a single wave of trouble rolls in upon us, and another to continue in faith when wave after wave bursts upon us, and the terrified eye sees spreading out before it an endless sea. This latter temptation David did not yet encounter.—Two lies in one breath!—[Henry: Here David did not behave like himself; he told Ahimelech a gross untruth. …… What shall we say to this? The Scripture does not conceal it, and we dare not justify it: it was ill done and proved of bad consequence (1 Samuel 22:22). It was needless for him thus to dissemble with the priest—for we may suppose that if he had told him the—truth, he would have sheltered and relieved him as readily as Samuel did.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 21:4 sq. Schlier: What right and custom required under the Old Covenant is all well, but love goes beyond this; love is the royal law, to which all other ordinances must yield, and any fulfilling of the law which forgets love commits a wrong.—Love is the royal law—all God’s commandments call for nothing else than love. That which is love is worth something; but the apparently best and noblest things have no value if love is not manifested in them.—Cramer: The love of our neighbor surpasses ceremonies (Mark 2:27; Matthew 12:5). [1 Samuel 21:6. Our Lord simply justifies this giving and eating the show-bread in a case of necessity as His hearers would do. If He had stopped to explain about David’s falsehood, it would have interrupted His argument and thus diminished its force; and no one had a right to imagine that He approved the falsehood. We cannot be always pausing to guard against the possibility of mistake or misrepresentation, or we shall never say any thing with vigor and effect.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 21:8. Schlier: It is not wrong if in time of need we seek weapons too, if we do not neglect human means and precautions; that too we may and ought to keep in view. But we should never place our confidence therein. Our confidence should be in the Lord alone. 1 Samuel 21:9. Cramer: God has wonderful and manifold means of consoling a troubled man and strengthening him in the faith. 1 Samuel 21:10. S. Schmid: If one must flee, lot him so flee as to have recourse to God rather than to men.—Wuertemburg Bible: Through God’s government our enemies are often compelled to do us more good than our friends. Proverbs 16:7; Matthew 2:13.—[1 Samuel 21:10-11. Taylor: Nothing more salutary could have happened to David than such a reception as that which was given to him at Gath. When a youth is going on a wrong course, the best thing that can befall him is failure and disgrace, and the worst thing that can come to him is what the world calls success. If he succeed, the probability is that he will go farther astray than ever; but if he fail, there is hope that he will return to the right path, and seek alliance with Jehovah.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 21:14-15. Starke: God always holds His hand over His people to protect them, and rescues them from the power of the ungodly. Psalms 34:5; Psalms 34:7. J. Disselhoff to chapters 21, 22, 27. Lies in the mouth of the Anointed one. 1) Whence are lies in such a mouth? (From shaken faith in the living God and the unrest of unbelief, from seeking refuge in one’s own wisdom and in the suggestions of his own heart.) 2) What delivers from such lies? (God’s great mercy and His holy chastisement in the consequences of lies as being the chastenings of His righteousness, and a return to genuine repentance and to living faith.)—F. W. Krummacher: David’s mad wanderings. 1) His behaviour at Nob, 2) His flight to Gath and experiences there. The opposite ways in which one may seek refuge in want and opposition: 1) The way of humble, believing obedience, in which one takes refuge in the living God, searches to know His will, and unreservedly commits himself to His guidance. 2) The way of little faith and unbelief, in which one takes refuge in flesh and blood, and in which self-will and self-wisdom are to lead to a self-determined aim. [Chap. 21. Mingling of good and evil in David’s behaviour. 1) Though a brave and devout man, he falls into grievous falsehood and degrading deception, through cowardly fear and lack of trust in God.—A warning to us. Comp. Nehemiah 13:26; 1 Corinthians 10:12. 2) Though so weak and erring, he remembers God’s help in the past (1 Samuel 21:9), cries to Him now (Psalms 34:6), rejoices in Him anew (ib. 1 Samuel 21:1), and resolves henceforth to speak truth and do good (ib. 1 Samuel 21:13-14; comp. Psalms 56:13).—An encouragement to us. Comp. 1 John 2:1.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 21:1. μִ ?χְ ?ψַ ?ΰϊ supposes a verb of “going” before it.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:2. Literally “in respect to the business.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:2. ιεֹ ?γַ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι Poel of ιָ ?γַ ?ς “to know”=“taught, instructed.” Some take it as error for δεֹ ?γַ ?ςְ ?ϊִּ ?ι (Buxtorf.) not so well. Sept. διαμεμαρτύρημαι = ιεֹ ?ςַ ?γְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, Poel of ιָ ?ςַ ?γ, which is a better reading. The Syr. supports the Heb. text—other versions not decisive.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:2. Heb. “Peloni almoni.” This is translated by Syr. and Chald. “secret and hidden.” Sept. (Vat.) has a duplet; it translates by θεοῦπίστις, “faith of God,” and transfers by “Phellani m�moni.” On the derivation of the Heb. words see Ges. Lex. s. v. Fόrst suggests that peloni may be from palmoni, and in the Annot. to Daniel 8:13 in the ed. princeps of Codex Chis. the latter is held to be the original form, and is derived from the Egyptian Ammon (with prefix μ and Egypt. article = pa. l. ammon = palmoni), which is wholly improbable. Buxtorf (after Kimchi) says that the words here after “place” indicate a person: “to the place of such a one.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:4. Or: “have only kept themselves.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:5. More exactly “(nay) but women.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:5. On this sentence see Erdmann’s Exposition and a long list of translations in Poole’s Synopsis. The principal renderings are as follows: 1) “And though it is a profane (i.e., military) way, yet it is sanctified to-day in the vessel” (i.e., David or Ahimelech or the young men’s body). Ewald: “how much more will they (the young men, changing the Numb. of the verb) be holy in the vessel” (i.e., their bodies), since, namely, they were clean at starting, how much more now the third day! 2) “Though it is a profane (i.e., ceremonially illegal) procedure (to take the show-bread), yet it is sanctified by the vessel (David or Ahimelech)”—so Thenius and Erdmann. 3) “If this is our way with profane things (i.e., we have not defiled ourselves on the road), how much more will the bread now given us be kept holy in our vessels” (Philippson); 4) “And though this is the manner of common bread (i.e., to give it to us), yet surely to-day the bread in the vessel (i.e., the fresh show-bread) is holy” (Bib. Comm.). 5) “It (the show-bread) is in a manner profane, even though it were to-day sanctified” (Rashi, Eng. A. V.).—There is no good ground for changing the text, and the word “vessels” cannot be taken (according to O. T. usage) in the N. T. sense (2 Corinthians 4:7). It is a hurried, excited sentence, almost utterly obscure. The second rendering above given (that of Thenius, adopted by Erdmann) seems the least open to objection.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:7. Sept.: “the Syrian” (ψ for γ).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:7. Sept. “keeper of the mules,” ψֹ ?ςֵ ?δδַ ?τֶּ ?ψֶ ?γ, perhaps by inversion and misreading of the text; comp. the designation of Doeg in 1 Samuel 22:9.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:8. ΰֵ ?ιοιֶ ?ωׁ is somewhat strange. Sept. ἴδεεἰἔστιν = ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δδֲ ?ιֵ ?ωׁ (Wellh.), Chald. “if there is here!” Syr. “is there not (μιϊ)?” Vulg. si habes hic. Gesen. supposes that the Interrog. δֲ has fallen out. We may perhaps take ΰιο as Interrog, = ΰι.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:9. Sept. adds “and he gave it to him,” a natural completion of the transaction, but the omission of a self-understood act like that is also natural.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:10. Literally: “from the face of.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:13. On these words see Erdmann. For the first Wellh. proposes to read εַ ?ιְ ?ωַׁ ?πֶּ ?δ.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 21:15. Literally: “unto.”—Tr.] [So Hackett in Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. “Nob.” Porter (Hand-book II. 307, ed. of 1868) identifies Nob with a conical tell opposite Shafat, where are remains of a small, but apparently ancient town, with cisterns and a tower, whence Mount Zion is visible.—Tr.] [On possible explanations of this, see Comms. of Lange and Alexander in loco, and Hackett in Note to Art. “Abiathar” in Smith’s Bib. Dict., and on the general chronological difficulties see Comms. on 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 18:16; 1 Chronicles 24:3; 1 Chronicles 24:6; 1 Chronicles 24:31.—Tr.] [Rendered incorrectly in Eng. A. V. (and by others) “in a manner.”—Tr.] [On rabbinical opinions about Doeg see Philippson in “Die Israel. Bibel” in loco.—Tr.] [To which it may be added that, even if he carried the sword to Gath, he might have kept it concealed during his stay there.—Tr.] [So Maurer: De eo, but other Comms. and ancient vss., as Eng. A. V.—Tr.] [It is noticeable that Goliath’s name is not mentioned by the Philistines, perhaps from natural indisposition to recall a grievous calamity, and out of regard for Goliath’s family and friends.—Tr.] [Luther has geberde = mien, gestures, the Sept. has πρόσωπον and the Vulg. os.—Tr.] [On this reading see “Text and Gram.” David might have learned the signs of madness from his association with Saul.—Tr.] [According to Jewish tradition or fancy the wife and daughter of Achish were insane (Philippson).—Tr.] [We have no word in English to express the German tendenz-schrift, “a writing which has a special aim or object” (in politics or religion), and the adjective tendenziφs, tendentious, “having a tendency or aim, written in the interest of some idea.” Here it would set forth that the Book of Samuel was written for the purpose of glorifying David.—Tr.] [But the priest did not know that David was a fugitive; he helped him as an official of the king in momentary need. Whether David, as an official person, could not have gotten food elsewhere, does not appear.—Tr.] [As, however, the name Abimelech may be otherwise accounted for (see Smith’s Bib.-Dict., s. v. Abimelech), and the opinion of Basil is of doubtful authority, and the content of this Ps. agrees as much with the Hokmah-period as with David, it is to say the least, very doubtful whether David is its author.—Tr.] IV. David’s fugitive life in Judah and Moab. Saul’s murder of the priests at Nob 1 Samuel 22:1-231 David therefore [And David] departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam; and when his brethren and all his father’s house heard it, they went down 2thither to him. And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented [embittered in soul] gathered themselves unto him, and he became a [om. a] captain over them; and there were with him 3about four hundred men. And David went thence to Mizpeh of Moab, and he [om. he] said unto the king of Moab, Let my father and my mother, I pray thee, 4come forth and be with you, till I know what God will do for [to] me. And he brought them before the king of Moab, and they dwelt with him all the while that 5David was in the hold. And the prophet Gad said unto David, Abide not in the hold, depart and get thee into the land of Judah. Then [And] David departed and came into the forest of Hareth [Hereth]. 6When [And] Saul heard that David was discovered, and the men that were with him; [om. parenthesis] now [and] Saul abode in Gibeah under a tree in Ramah [the tamarisk-tree on the height], having [and] his spear [ins. was] in his 7hand, and all his servants were standing about him. Then [And] Saul said unto his servants that stood about him, Hear now, ye Benjaminites, will the son of Jesse give every one [all] of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of 8thousands and captains of hundreds, That all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that showeth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or showeth unto me that my son hath stirred up [set up] my servant against me to lie in wait [as a waylayer], 9as at this day? Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which [who] was set over the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse coming [come] to Nob to Ahimelech 10the son of Ahitub. And he inquired of the Lord [Jehovah] for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine. 11Then [And] the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest the son of Ahitub, and all his father’s house, the priests that were in Nob; and they came all of them to 12the king. And Saul said, Hear now, thou son of Ahitub. And he answered 13[said], Here I am, my lord. And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread and a sword, and hast inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me to lie in 14wait [as a waylayer] as at this day? Then [And] Ahimelech answered the king and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David [And who among all thy servants is as David trusty], which is [om. which is, ins. and] the king’s son-in-law, and goeth at thy bidding [and hath thy private ear], and Isaiah 15 honorable in thine house? Did I then begin to inquire of God for him? be [Be] it far from me; let not the king impute anything unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father, for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more [little or 16much].And the king said, Thou shalt surely die, Ahimelech, thou and all thy 17father’s house. And the king said unto the footmen [runners] that stood about him, Turn and slay the priests of the Lord [Jehovah]; because their hand also is with David, and because they knew when [that] he fled, and did not show it to me. But the servants of the king would not put forth their hand to fall upon the 18priests of the Lord [Jehovah]. And the king said to Doeg, Turn thou, and fall upon the priests, and Doeg the Edomite turned, and he fell upon the priests, and 19slew on that day fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod. And Nob, the city of the priests, smote he with the edge of the sword, both men and women, children and sucklings, and oxen and asses and sheep with the edge of the sword. 20And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, 21and fled after David. And Abiathar showed David that Saul had slain the Lord’s 22[Jehovah’s] priests. And David said unto Abiathar, I knew it [om. it] that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there that he would surely tell Saul; I have occasioned 23the death of all the persons of thy father’s house. Abide thou with me, fear not; for he that seeketh my life seeketh thy life; but [for] with me thou shalt be [art] in safeguard. AND 1 Samuel 22:1-5. David a fugitive in Judah and in Moab.1 Samuel 22:1. His flight to the cave of Adullam in Judah. In the uncertainty as to this locality our best plan is to look to the city of the same name. Adullam, an ancient place (Genesis 38:1), according to Joshua 12:15 a Canaanitish royal city, was situated (Joshua 15:35) near Jarmuth and Socho, now Shuweikeh, under the mountains of Judah (different from the Shuweikeh [Socho] in these mountains, Joshua 15:48) in the lowland of Judah, about sixteen miles [English] south-west of Jerusalem, and twelve miles south-east of Gath. As the present Jarmuth lies on the eastern border of the Wady Sumt, that is, on the declivity of the Judah-mountain towards Philistia, and as there are many caves in the neighborhood, it is a probable conjecture that one of these caves took the name Adullam from the neighboring city. Perhaps we may regard the great cave Deir Dubban near Jarmuth (Rob., Amer. ed., II., 23, 51–53; Ritter, XVI., 136), as David’s retreat (so v. d. Velde, Reise, II., p. 163 sq.). However, there are other caves near in the western declivity of the mountain. Tobler locates Adullam in the present village Bat-Dula, about fifteen miles southwest of Bethlehem. The great caves on the western declivity of the mountain are dry and roomy enough to hold a larger number of men than is here mentioned. Since it is expressly said that the place was in the lowland of Judah, the statement of Euseb. and Jerome that it was ten (twelve) miles east from Eleutheropolis, is decidedly wrong, as the cave would in that case be in the mountains (see Winer, R.-W., s. v.). The supposition (from 2 Samuel 23:13-14) that it was near Bethlehem (Thenius) is opposed by the fact that David would then have cast himself into Saul’s hands unprotected. Similarly the traditional site near the village Khureitun, five miles southeast of Bethlehem, is incompatible with the geographical and historical situation of the narrative (Rob., I., 481, 482). As the combat between David and Goliath occurred in the Terebinth-vale (in Wady Sumt) between Socho and Azekah, David, in there seeking a fit refuge from Saul and the Philistines, might see in this experience a pledge of the further protection and deliverance of the Lord’s hand.—“Thence,” not from Nob (Then.), but from Gath, whence the place of refuge was not far.—That David’s family must already have had proofs of enmity from Saul is clear from the statement that his brethren and all his father’s house went to him in his retreat at Adullam. For Saul looked on them as sharers in David’s presumed conspiracy against him, and they had therefore every reason to fear for themselves a repetition of the tragedy of Nob. See the statement in Clericus from Marcell. 23, 6, as to the procedure of oriental princes, according to which “the whole family perished for the fault of one person.” 1 Samuel 22:2. But along with his family a constantly increasing number of other persons gathered around David. They are described as partly those who were externally in distress, especially through debt, and therefore seeking to escape their creditors, partly those who were internally discontented, embittered in soul. He became their captain, leader, so that they were not a wild and lawless rabble, but a community controlled by and obedient to one will. The number at present was about four hundred, but afterwards rose to six hundred (1 Samuel 23:13).—The comparison of this body with Catiline’s followers (Cler., Then.) supposes that David’s retinue was of similar character with Catiline’s, a riotous, adventure-seeking rabble. But there is nothing in the narrative to support such a supposition, and David’s position as to them and to Saul is decidedly against it. He is far from making insurrection against Saul. His past history and his after-life up to Saul’s death absolutely excludes such a view. With such a position towards Saul he could not be the “head” or “captain” of a seditious band, and with such a head these people could not be rebels and seditious. Hengstenberg (on Psalms 7:10) rightly remarks: “David’s war with Saul was one not of individuals, but of parties; the wicked espoused Saul’s side, the righteous David’s; comp. the much-misunderstood passage, 1 Samuel 22:2.” The “distressed” persons were those who were persecuted by Saul’s government on account of their love for David. The debtors were such as, under Saul’s arbitrary misrule, were oppressed by their creditors, and received from the government no protection against the violation of the law of loan and interest (Exodus 22:25; Leviticus 25:36; Deuteronomy 23:19). They were “bitter of soul,” not as “desirous of new things,” not as merely “dissatisfied with their present condition” (Cler.), but as those “whose anxiety of soul over the ever-worsening condition of the kingdom under Saul drove them to a leader, from whom for the future they might hope for better things” (Ew.).—Comp. Jephthah’s fugitive life and retinue of “poor, empty persons,” Judges 11:3. 1 Samuel 22:3. Without further statement concerning David’s life here with his family and his band, it is next related that he went “thence” (answering to the “thence” of 1 Samuel 22:1) to Mizpeh of Moab. David betook himself to the king of Moab, and asked him: Let my father and my mother come [out] to thee and abide with thee till I know what God will do to me. It is remarkable, in the first place, that he here mentions only “father and mother;” the reason obviously is that in his present dangerous condition he could not afford these aged, helpless persons secure protection. For in this continuation of the narrative it is clearly supposed that the caves at Adullam had become an uncertain and dangerous residence through Saul’s hostile attempts against David’s family. His choice of Moab as refuge for his parents was probably based on the relations of his great-grandmother, the Moabitess Ruth, to this country. Whether the “come forth” refers to Bethlehem or Adullam as point of departure is uncertain; in any case the road to Mizpeh of Moab passed through Bethlehem, because this was the shortest way; for this “Mizpeh of Moab,” which is to be taken as a proper name, undoubtedly lay not in the Moabitish territory proper south of the Arnon, but far north of it, “probably a city above the ‘araboth of Moab’ (Numbers 22:1; Deuteronomy 34:1; Deuteronomy 34:8; Joshua 13:32) opposite Jericho, whither by way of Bethlehem and the Dead Sea one might come in little time” (Then.), perhaps on the mount Abarim or Pisgah (Deuteronomy 34:1). Saul had also to wage war with the Moabites (1 Samuel 14:47); at this time, therefore, the latter had possession of the southern portion of the transjordanic territory of the Israelites. From David’s taking his parents to the king of Moab, it is probable that there was now no war between the latter and Saul. The pregnant construction of the verb “come forth,” followed by the Prep. “with,” is not to be rejected as unsuitable, but to be retained as example of the frequent connection of a verb of motion with a predicate of rest. The renderings of the Sept. “let them be with thee,” and the Vulg. “let them remain,” are explanations, not signs of a different original text.1 Samuel 22:4. Bunsen, after Jerome, renders: “left them in the presence of the king” (εַ ?ιַּ ?πִּ ?ηֵ ?ν), against which Thenius remarks that “no change in the vocalization to avoid harshness is required,” and refers to Ew., § 217, 1.—In regard to the length of his parents’ stay with the king of Moab, David says (1 Samuel 22:3): “till I know what God will do to me,” appropriately using to the king the divine name Elohim. According to this David did not remain with his parents, but went back to his life of motion and danger. Whither? The narrator says afterwards (1 Samuel 22:4) that the parents remained in Moab “all the while that David was in the mountain-fastness or hold.” But this fastness “on which David intrenched himself” (Bunsen) is not a height near the cave of Adullam (Bunsen); still less is it the retreat in the cave (Stδhelin, Then.), or elsewhere in the wilderness; but, as David had to carry his parents to Moab for safety, we shall be justified in supposing that he had to find temporary shelter also for himself and his band in Moab. The refuge which he here found was no other than that Mizpeh of Moab; Mizpeh signifies “watch-place, mountain-height;” here David made himself a strong position, which became a mountain-fastness (ξְ ?φεּ ?γָ ?δ). For this meaning see Job 39:38. Here he would await what the Lord would further do to him. The danger threatening his parents was the Lord’s factual hint to him to go where it would be safer not only for them, but also for him. To these humble, trustful words corresponds the further statement that God gave him directions concerning his further way through the prophet Gad. Through this prophet he is commanded (1 Samuel 22:5) to go into the land of Judah; whence it clearly appears that he was now not in that land, in which, however, Adullam lay, and therefore he could be only in the land of Moab. “The prophet Gad” is undoubtedly the same who is called “David’s seer” in 1 Chronicles 21:9, announces to him God’s punishment for his sin in numbering the people, 2 Samuel 24:11 sq., and according to 1 Chronicles 29:29, wrote down David’s acts. How Gad came into connection with David, is never said. Probably David’s intimate relation and here presupposed acquaintance with him date from the former’s close connection with Samuel’s prophetic communities. It is not clear whether Gad had gone to him at the cave of Adullam, or now came for the first time to him in Moab. It is equally uncertain whether he remained with him permanently from now on. In short, Gad’s sudden entrance on the scene in Moab suggests many unanswerable questions, which Stδhelin excellently states: “How came he among such people? Was he always with David? Was he consulted by David as Samuel by Saul, 1 Samuel 9.? Was Gad connected with Samuel, or not?” We cannot suppose that the expression “and Gad said” refers to a message which he sent to David (Then.). The answer to the question “why David was not to stay in the hold, but go to Judah,” is not that “he ought not to have fled anew to a foreign nation, as before to the Philistines, to the displeasure of God” (Brenz., S. Schmid, Keil); for it does not appear that his stay in Philistia was in itself displeasing to God; and if his journey to Moab had been displeasing to God, he might have been restrained therefrom beforehand by divine direction. The reason for this prophetic direction is rather to be found in the circumstances; according to 1 Samuel 23:1 the Philistines were now making plundering incursions into the south of Judah, help and protection against them was needed, and this David with his valiant band could give. He was commanded to go into Judah and free it from its enemies, and thus fulfil part of the theocratic calling, in respect to which the distracted, arbitrary rule of Saul was now impotent. Of this new divine direction in David’s life Grotius well remarks: “God shows great care for David, instructing him now by prophets, now by Urim and Thummim.” Proceeding on the supposition that David goes from the king of Moab to the cave of Adullam, Thenius, in order to account for the prophetic direction to go into the land of Judah, where also the city Adullam was situated, is obliged to say that probably the cave of Adullam was in Benjamin on the border, and, as his retreat might thus, being near Gibeah, easily be betrayed to Saul, Gad advised him to go to Judah. This explanation stands and falls with its unfounded geographical basis, which also O. v. Gerlach adopts.—By this direction to go to Judah for the above end, the prophet Gad gave David, in divine commission, instructions as to his further course; in this interval of suffering and trial between his call to be king and his actual entrance on the duties of the office, he was to be not only passive but also active, serving his people and his God against the enemies of the theocracy.—He went into the forest of Hereth—an unknown region, probably according to 1 Samuel 23:1 in the western part of Judah. [Sept. and Josephus have “city of Hereth (Sarik).” Lieut. Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund, says (Dec., 1874) that there are now no trees in this district, and argues from the geological conditions that there never could have been. He is disposed to adopt the Sept. reading “city,” and to identify Hereth with a site called Kharas (near Keilah), which name is substantially identical with Hereth.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 22:6-23. Saul’s savage vengeance on Nob. While David goes the way shown him by God’s prophet the terrible consequences of his self-willed conduct at Nob, which did not accord with the Lord’s will, are accomplished. 1 Samuel 22:6-10. In a formal council, in which Saul expresses his suspicion in relation to a conspiracy made against him by David and his son, Doeg betrays the proceeding of Ahimelech towards David. 1 Samuel 22:6. It is first stated that the abode of David and his men was known at Saul’s court, and that Saul received information of his servants’ acquaintance with this circumstance. It is this fact, that Saul heard, received information of their knowledge of David’s position, that is the ground of his charging them (1 Samuel 22:7) with complicity in the supposed conspiracy of David and Jonathan. In 1 Samuel 22:6 the words: “And Saul heard …. with him” belong syntactically and logically to 1 Samuel 22:7, and the rest of 1 Samuel 22:6 forms a parenthesis [so Eng. A. V., but it is better to preserve in the translation the simple, direct form of the Hebrew.—Tr.]. And Saul abode in Gibeah (not, as Sept., “on the hill”) under the tamarisk,—the Article indicates that this place was the appointed and usual one for such councils. On the height (not with Luther [and Eng. A. V.] “in Ramah”) points out the elevated situation, in keeping with the solemnity of the occasion, as it is hereafter described.—His spear in his hand,—the spear, as well as the sceptre, was the symbol of royal power. All his servants stood about him, it was, therefore, a full assembly of the whole personnel of the Court. Bunsen: “He held a formal court, surrounded by all the magnates (chiefly Benjaminites) of his kingdom.” 1 Samuel 22:7. The address: Hear, ye Benjaminites, is in keeping with the importance of the solemn scene (so vividly sketched in a few strokes) as a sort of judicial assembly [Bib. Com. Parliament.—Tr.], and at the same time has a particularistic-partisan tone, as Saul was himself of the tribe of Benjamin. Saul’s question: Will the son of Jesse give you all fields and vineyards? make you all captains of hundreds and captains of thousands? is noteworthily and characteristically prefixed to the words which express his complaint and suspicion of the courtiers, on which only a question so spiteful and so tinged with venomous savagery could be based. In thus putting things hindmost first and upside down, Saul again exhibits himself as a man, who, through burning hatred to David and blind suspicion, has lost his mental control.—Also to you [Heb. literally: “also to you all will the son of Jesse give?” etc.—Tr.]; the Heb. text is to be maintained against the groundless change proposed by Thenius “in truth will the son,” etc. (δַ ?ΰֻ ?ξְ ?πָ ?ν after the merely elucidatory Sept. and Vulg.). This phrase does not mean “to you all also, besides the others to whom he has already given,” since it is nowhere said of David that he provided for his adherents, nor was he in condition to do so. According to the rule that the Heb. particle [βַּ ?ν] expresses reciprocal relation, the thought here is: “will David also by gifts show himself so grateful to you all for your making common cause with him against me?” The word (as here) is toneless [with maqqeph.—Tr.] in questions, to indicate reciprocity. Saul imagines that his courtiers all secretly hold with David, hence his question: “will he also give you all?”=“will he then give?” etc. In Saul’s words there is the latent sense: Will he, of another tribe, reward you, as I have done to you, my fellow-tribesmen? Will he not rather favor his tribesmen, the men of Judah? Will it not be to your interest to stand on my side? Seb. Schmid: “Ye have received the greatest benefits from me, such as ye could not expect from him, and yet ye are more attached to him than to me.” These words give us an insight into Saul’s partisan and particularistic mode of governing, in which he preferably filled court-offices with persons of his own tribe. From landed possessions (fields and vineyards), Saul goes on to refer to places of honor in the now organized army. The μְ before the second “all of you” is not to be exchanged for “and” (so Then, [and Eng. A. V.] after Sept. and Vulg., which indeed give the sense correctly), but is to be taken either in the sense of “as regards”—“will he (also) as regards you all make captains?” etc., that is, take account of you all in filling these offices (Ew., § 310 a), or, in the distributive sense, which it sometimes has (Ew., § 217 a, § 277 e)=“will he make all and each of you” (Ewald)? The sense is given correctly by Maurer: “Will he make as many tribunes and centurions as may be necessary in order that each of you may have such an office?” 1 Samuel 22:8. In his mental derangement and passionate excitement Saul takes it as certain that they have all conspired against him: because, as he says, they told him nothing of the covenant which his son had made with David against him. These words pre-suppose that he had learned something of the occurrence related in 1 Samuel 20:12-17 [the covenant between David and Jonathan], for they are too definite [made (Heb. cut) a covenant] to refer merely to the friendship of Jonathan and David. He assumes that his court-officials knew of this covenant, and then concludes that they had conspired against him with these two men. The words: “there is none that is sorry for me,” express the opinion that they had abandoned him in their hearts. His charge passes to the factually false assertion that his son had set his servant (David) as a lier in wait against him. (Sept. “enemy” = μְ ?ΰֹ ?ιֵ ?α, without ground, Vulg. appropriately insidiantem mihi.) There is herein a two-fold false accusation: 1) as to David, that he was lying in wait to take his throne and life; and 2) as to Jonathan, that he was the cause of this insurrectionary and insidious conduct of David. Saul fancies himself in the meshes of a conspiracy against his person and kingdom organized by his own son, and accuses his courtiers of knowledge thereof and active participation therein. To such a pitch had the darkening and wasting of his inner life grown through hate and suspicion.—As is now evident [=as it is this day], comp. Deuteronomy 8:18. In proof Saul points to David’s concealment and retinue. He was, therefore, not without information concerning this fact. S. Schmid: “as is proved by this day, in which David gathers an army, and from the forest lays snares for me.” 1 Samuel 22:9. Here we must especially note in the psychological point of view, how Doeg’s information about David’s visit to Ahimelech and the latter’s inquiring of the Lord for him and providing him with food and the sword of Goliath (comp. 1 Samuel 21:8), turns Saul’s dark thoughts away from the courtiers, and directs all his energy to the person of the high-priest, so that he now thinks only of taking vengeance on him. Doeg is said to be “set over (or, standing with) Saul’s servants;” why the version of the Sept.: “set over the mules” (τִּ ?ψְ ?γֵ ?ι), should be the “only appropriate one” [Then.], it is hard to see. The rendering of the Heb.: set over the servants of Saul (Chald., Kimchi, Vulg., Syr.)=“highest court-official, court-marshal, minister of the household,” does not agree with the description in 1 Samuel 21:7 : “overseer of the herdsmen” (as was natural in this first stage of the development of the kingdom, and in accordance with the position of his family, Saul’s possessions consisted chiefly in herds). Rather the words answer to the statement (1 Samuel 22:7): “all his servants stood by (around) him,” and are to be rendered: And (or, also) he stood with the servants of Saul (Arab., De Wette, Buns. [Philipps.]). “As chief overseer of the herds Doeg was in a sort one of the dignitaries of the kingdom” (Bunsen). There is no superfluous statement here; the narrator declares that he was now here present, having in 1 Samuel 21:8 (7) described him as being in the sanctuary at Nob. From the connection it is clear that Doeg gave his information with evil purpose, in order to turn the king’s suspicion from the courtiers to the high-priest. In Saul’s frame of mind the mere statement of actual fact, of which he was ear and eye-witness, had all the more powerful effect on him. S. Schmid: “Far better, therefore, did Saul’s other servants, who kept silence.” Hengstenberg (Introd. to Psalms 52.) absolves Doeg from enmity to David, observing that he merely stated the fact, to which the malicious interpretation was given by Saul alone; but this does not agree with what Saul had just before said against David and his courtiers, nor with Doeg’s bloody proceeding against the priests at Nob, nor with what is said in Psalms 52:3-5 of the tongue like a sharp razor, of the wickedness, falsehood, calumny and deceit of the enemy, all of which applies to Doeg, but not to Saul. Rightly Grotius: “see the description of Doeg in Psalms 52.” That Ahimelech inquired of the Lord for David is here by Doeg’s assertion added to the account in 1 Samuel 21:7-10 [6–9], and confirmed by Ahimelech himself, 1 Samuel 22:15.1 Samuel 22:11. On this treacherous and slanderous statement of Doeg, Saul straightway sends for Ahimelech and all his father’s house, that is, all the priests in Nob, “because these all belonged to the one family of Aaron” (Then.). In Nob, therefore, dwelt the whole priestly family with the high-priest. 1 Samuel 22:12 sq. The council now becomes a solemn tribunal with pleading and verdict.—Saul assumes that Ahimelech is guilty, adducing the three facts mentioned as in themselves proofs of guilt. 1 Samuel 22:14 sq. The high-priest’s answer has the stamp of quiet, clearness and a good conscience. First, he affirms that he was justified in unsuspiciously trusting to David. “And who among all thy servants is as David trusted” (De Wette)? that is object of confidence; in proof of which he refers to three things: David’s position at court as the king’s son-in-law, as his trusted privy-councillor and as an honored man in his house. The word ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ξַ ?ςַ ?ϊ [Eng. A. V. “bidding”]=“audience;” so in Isaiah 11:14, as Bφttcher has shown, “they are their (Israel’s) audience,” that is, “they are of those who seek audience of Israel, pay court to Israel, come with homage,” not “who obey them” [as in Eng. A. V., and so J. A. Alexander.—Tr.]—The word has the same signification also in 2 Samuel 23:23 and 1 Chronicles 11:25, where it is said: “And David set Benaiah for his audience” [Eng. A. V.: “over his guard”], appointed him privy councillor.—[In 1 Chronicles 11:25 the Preposition is ςַ ?μ, “over,” in 2 Samuel it is ΰֵ ?μ, “to.”—Tr.]—ρεּ ?ψ = “to withdraw, turn aside,” for a definite purpose, for example, to see (Exodus 3:3; Rth 4:1), here “withdrawing to thy audience” [Eng. A. V. “goeth”], as “having interior admission” (Bφttch.); so Maurer: “who turns aside (from the other courtiers) that he may hear thee, that is, who has access to the interior of thy palace, and there takes part in thy more weighty counsels.” Schultz: “Leaving all else, listening to thee and doing thy will.” This explanation is here confirmed by the phrase “among all thy servants” (Bφttch.). Thenius takes the word as = “obedience” in the special sense, as meaning the devotedly obedient body-guard (so also Ewald and Bertheau on 1 Chronicles 11:25) and renders “captain over the body-guard” (reading ςַ ?μ for ΰֶ ?μ and, after Sept. and Chald., ωַּׂ ?ψ for ρָ ?ψ). Against this Bφttcher rightly remarks that the traces [of a different reading] in the versions are altogether uncertain, that Thenius’ reading is not Heb. (ςַ ?μ is found with ωַׂ ?ψ, instead of the Gen., only where it is dependent on a verb), that according to 1 Samuel 18:5; 1 Samuel 18:13, David had command not of the body-guard, but of other more distant troops, that, as the other designation of David in the verse (even “son-in-law”) are moral marks of confidence, the mention of a military position would be strange, and the very question “Who is among thy servants captain over thy body-guard as David?” would sound somewhat queerly.—Ahimelech says, therefore, that he could have done nothing less than in good conscience trust a man so trusted and honored by the king, “as a faithful subject of the king” (Keil) giving David bread and arms on his assertion that he had a secret commission from the king.—Further, in the question: Did I that day begin to inquire of God for him? he insists on the fact that David had often before received from him in the sanctuary divine direction in important undertakings. [This interpretation is denied by some (so Bib.-Com.) on the ground that nothing is said in 1 Samuel 21 of such an inquiry by Ahimelech for David. The Midrash also says that counsel was given by Urim and Thummim only to the king or his public ambassador (Philipps.); but Rashi agrees with the common interpretation, and Abarbanel gives both that and the direct form “that was the first day that I inquired of God for him, and I did not know that it was displeasing to thee.” Some, taking the phrase δֵ ?ηֵ ?μμִ ?ωְׁ ?ΰεֹ ?μ to mean simply “to inquire,” find a negative sense in the question: “did I inquire? Nay, I did not.” But this weakening of δֵ ?ηֵ ?μ is not justified by usage; the idea of “beginning” must be expressed here. This being so, the choice is between the two interpretations above given, the interrogatory and the direct, and of these the former (that of Erdmann) seems more in keeping with Ahimelech’s dignity of character. The omission of the fact in chap. 21 must then be attributed to the curtness of the narrative. Yet this omission is surprising, and, while Ahimelech’s somewhat obscure words here scarcely admit of any other satisfactory translation than that given by Erdmann, there is room for doubt as to his meaning.—Tr.].—On this statement of facts Ahimelech founds his affirmation: Far be it from me, that is, such a crime as he is accused of, that he was party to a conspiracy against the king.—In respect to this accusation, his defence culminates in the request: Let not the king impute anything to his servant, to the whole house of my father, wherein the absence of the copula [“nor,” supplied in Eng. A. V.] is to be referred with Keil to the excitement of the speaker. Finally he adds as reason: For thy servant knows nothing of all this, little or great, that is, nothing at all. The “all this” refers not to what David had told him, as if he intended to say that he knew nothing of David’s false assertion, but to what Saul had charged him with.—This answer of the high-priest supposes certainly that he knew nothing of the unhappy condition of things in respect to David, or of his flight with its causes and circumstances. 1 Samuel 22:16. Saul’s arbitrary, precipitate judgment as contrasted with the innocence of the high-priest and of the whole body of priests. 1 Samuel 22:17. The order for its immediate execution is given to the “runners,” who were either servants for running on messages, or guards who ran before or beside the king in his public appearance, [Eng. A. V., “footmen”]. Comp. 1 Samuel 9:11; 2 Kings 10:25. As court-officials they stood also in this solemn assembly by the king. For the expression “stood by or about,” see 1 Samuel 22:6; 1 Samuel 22:9 [on 1 Samuel 22:9 see the Exposition.—Tr.]. According to Saul’s decision not only the high-priest, but also the whole priesthood should die for alleged participation in David’s conspiracy. For their hand also is with David, they make common cause with him against me. This assertion he bases on the unproved fact: they knew that he fled, and did not show it me. (Instead of Kethib “his ear” read with Qeri “my ear,” for such a sudden transition to indirect discourse “and (as he said) did not show him,” is impossible).—The guards refuse to obey Saul’s order, a proof of the disorder which his blind rage produced. This refusal reminds us of the scene in 1 Samuel 14:45, where Saul’s sentence of death against Jonathan is opposed. Saul’s servants will not lay their hands on the sacred persons of the priests; this is indicated in the expression “the priests of the Lord.” [Wordsworth: Thus they were more faithful to Saul than if they had obeyed his order, which was against the commandment of the Lord. Theodoret (in Wordsw.): The heinousness of Saul’s sin is made more conspicuous by his servants’ refusal.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 22:18. Saul’s choice of Doeg as the executor of his order is a proof of the savageness which was combined with wickedness and guile in this Edomite. On the form of his name “Doyeg” (as in 1 Samuel 22:22) see Ew. § 45 d. The pron. “he” [“he fell”] emphasizes Doeg’s willingness in contrast with the refusal of the guards. As above by the expression “priests of the Lord,” so here the wickedness of this act is brought prominently out by the significant reference to the official dress of the priests, “who wore a linen ephod,” the sign of the holiness of their persons. On the wearing of the ephod see 1 Samuel 2:18. Linen; the common priests, therefore, wore a linen over-garment similar in form to the high-priestly cape or ephod (Buns.). 1 Samuel 22:19. Nob is here expressly called the “city of the priests.” The whole city, as such, with all living things therein, is devoted to destruction by Saul in his fury. It is treated by him as a city under the ban (Cherem), which is polluted by idolatry and therefore devoted to destruction. The wrong alleged to be done to him by the priests is laid on the whole city as an idolatrous wrong against the Lord Himself, which is therefore thus to be avenged. Comp. Deuteronomy 13:13 sq. [Saul does not seem to have had the theocratic cherem or ban in mind, but in an access of rage did what was not uncommon among ancient oriental princes.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 22:20. Only one son of Ahimelech, Abiathar, escaped the slaughter. How that happened is not said. Perhaps he was not present at this trial, and hastened away from Nob while it was being destroyed. “After David,” that is, to the retreat of the fugitive David, This is another proof of the intimate relations between David and the high-priestly family. 1 Samuel 22:21-23. Through Abiathar David received information of Saul’s bloody vengeance on Nob. David said to Abiathar: “I knew that day (comp. chap, 1 Samuel 21:7-8) that, because Doeg the Edomite was there, he would certainly tell Saul.” So Vulg. and Then.; not (Keil): “I knew that day that Doeg … that he,” etc., nor (De Wette): “I knew … that Doeg … and that.” David confesses himself guilty of the blood shed in Nob, because his flight thither and conduct there, while he knew of Doeg’s presence, gave occasion to it. Vulg.: “I am guilty of all the souls.” This confession of David shows the strictness of his self-judgment. (ρָ ?αַ ?α here = “to be guilty of a thing,” see Ges. Lex. s. v. In the Talmud ρַ ?αַּ ?δ “cause”). 1 Samuel 22:23. The consequence of David’s invitation to Abiathar to abide with him is that the high-priesthood goes over to David and to the new future kingdom, though David entered into no rebellion against Saul for this end. Fear not,—namely, Saul’s snares and power. For he that seeketh my life, etc.—Certainly the converse assertion would be natural here: “He that seeks thy life seeks mine;” but we are not therefore with Then, (after the Sept., whose translation seeks to get rid of this difficulty) to change the text, so that it would read: “for whatever place I seek for myself, that will I (also) seek for thee,” but we must explain it from the reference that David therein has to Saul. As against Saul David binds the fate of the fugitive high-priest to his own in an indissoluble covenant under the protection of God. The sense is: “The persecution which I suffer, touches thee also. But I stand under God’s protection as one that suffers injustice; so art thou, because thy life like mine is threatened, safely kept in company with me.” The second “for” [Eng. A. V. “but” λִּ ?ι] is also dependent on the “fear not.” This consolatory assurance is based first, on the reference to their common enemy, and on the reference to the protection which Abiathar will enjoy with him, who knew that, as regarded Saul, he was under God’s special protection, ξִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֶ ?ψֶ ?ϊ “preservation” (Exodus 12:6; Exodus 16:33 sq), abstract for concrete, “a precious deposit or trust” (Ewald). [During this first period of David’s life as outlaw several incidents occurred which are not mentioned in this narrative. We learn from 2 Samuel 23:13 that three of his chief heroes came to him in the cave of Adullam, one of whom was his nephew Abishai, afterwards a famous general. A little after (1 Chronicles 11:15-19) occurred that noble act of loving daring, when the “three mightiest” broke through the Philistine army and brought their leader water from the well of Bethlehem, for which he longed. This was while he was in the “hold;” and at this time apparently came to him the stout band of lion-faced, gazelle-footed Gadites, who swam the Jordan when its banks were overflowed, and scattered all enemies before them (1 Chronicles 12:8-15), and an enthusiastic body of men of Judah and Benjamin, for whose friendship Amasai answered in his passionate speech (1 Chronicles 12:16-18). As to whether David was at Keilah when Abiathar came to him, see Erdmann on 1 Samuel 23:6. For fuller accounts of this period see Chandler (1 Samuel 7) and Stanley’s Lectures, 22—Tr.] AND 1. Whether Psalms 57, whose title is: “By David, when he fled from Saul in the cave,” refers to the case of Adullam or to Engedi (1 Samuel 24) is uncertain. Certainly, however, the situation here, the condition of his inner life as fugitive, and his experience of divine help, form the basis of the thought of the Psalm, in which first “believing hope (founded on experience) of speedy and sure divine help out of great peril of life from violent men, shows itself in the prayer for a new manifestation of divine grace, whereby God’s truth and trustworthiness will be shown by deeds,” and then, “after a short description of the snares, which resulted in the destruction of the enemies themselves, the certain assurance of victory is expressed in the invocation of the author’s own soul to praise God in all the world on the ground of His self-revelation in His glory” (Moll).—Psalms 52 certainly in its essential content agrees with David’s position as indicated by the reference in the title to Doeg’s treachery. But, from the general nature of the didactic content of the Psalm, we must also suppose a reference to the hate and persecution of Saul, whose tool Doeg was. 2. David is the representative of the theocratic principle, for which he suffers and endures. The uninterrupted tribulation which he experiences from now till he enters into the theocratic kingly office, he bears, for the sake of the Lord, who has chosen him for this office and the calling therewith conjoined for all Israel; it serves to humble and purify him, and its precious fruit is that he yields himself more absolutely into God’s hands, and treads solely the path which the divine providence points out; he will know only what God will do for him; he listens only to what God says, and obeys unconditionally God’s command announced by the mouth of the prophet. So, in the development of his inner and outer life under the many testing and purifying sufferings sent by God, David becomes more and more a shining type of the humble faith, which bows unmurmuringly under the Lord’s afflicting hand, accepts unconditionally God’s hidden providences, is attentive to the Lord’s word, and yields joyful obedience to His commands.—Saul has become the representative of the antitheocratic principle; conscious that the kingdom is justly taken from him for his self-willed apostasy from God, he suffers pain and anguish in the fear of losing the throne through David, and, his look distorted by this inner unrest, sees everywhere only conspiracy and treachery against his throne and life; the more he shuts his eyes to the divine leadings in David’s life, and obstinately withstands God’s known will concerning David, the more does he harden his heart against God’s word and instructions, the deeper does he sink into the abyss of wretched fear of man, and the farther from his heart recedes true fear of God, the more irretardably rushes on his inner life, pursued by the terrors of the angry God, and of a conscience pressed down by the burden of unforgiven sin, which yet leads him not to pure self-knowledge and humble subjection to God’s almighty hand, towards the abyss of doubt and the judgment of inner hardening of heart. 3. While apparently under Saul’s sharply-sketched despotic and cruel rule (a horrible caricature of the theocratic government) the three pillars of God’s kingdom in Israel break down—the theocratic kingdom in David hunted to the death, prophets oppressed and silenced, the priesthood exterminated—yet just here this threefold office appears in most significant facts under the protection of the almighty, faithful God, who will not let His covenant fail, as factual divine promise or prediction: about David, as the Lord’s chosen king, is grouped His family as representatives of Israel’s hope of salvation, and is gathered the root of the theocratic congregation, in Gad appears prophecy in God’s name, and with the light of His word pointing the way out of the gloom, and in Abiathar the high-priesthood is rescued from Saul’s purposed destruction into the safe-keeping of the future king. [4. It is hardly necessary now to discuss the question, whether David was a rebel against Saul. As he never lifted his hand against his king, as he always cherished love for him, as his military enterprises were all against the enemies of Israel, as his efforts were confined to the saving of his life from Saul’s attempts, it is clear that he was not a traitor and a rebel. He was an outlaw, but a patriotic, God-fearing, loyal outlaw. See Chandler’s elaborate defence of David against Bayle in chs. 7 and 8 of his “Life of David.”—Tr.] AND 1 Samuel 22:1. S. Schmid: When God has rescued us from danger, we should make such a use of it as to grow wiser thereby.—Osiander: It makes our cross much heavier to see that evil comes upon our dearest friends and kindred for our sake. 1 Samuel 22:2. Berl. Bible: Though thou findest thyself without refuge, yet thou becomest a refuge for all the distressed.—All who find themselves in distress are even in the midst of their pains filled with joy, when they meet with other men who have to bear the same oppressions. This at once forms a very close union among them.—[1 Samuel 22:4. Descendants of Ruth compelled by civil strife to leave Jehovah’s country, and seek shelter in Moab.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 22:6-10. Schlier (Saul): Saul is filled with fear of men, because he lacks true fear of God.—O how much fear and anxiety there is, and so often it has no other ground than in an evil conscience; how much fear of man there is, and the fountain is in sins unforgiven; how much despondency there is, and yet all might be so far otherwise if people would only humble themselves and confess their sins. 1 Samuel 22:8. Starke: That is the way with the ungodly, that with their evil behaviour they yet want to have their rights.—Berl. Bible: Perturbation and distrust are constantly the companions of malevolence and sin, while tranquillity stands by the side of persecuted innocence.—[1 Samuel 22:9. A ruler who wants informers can always find them.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 22:11-15. Schlier (Saul): O how unkingly stands King Saul before us, how dignified, how truly kingly stands Ahimelech! So true is it that he that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city!—It is manliness to place the truth above everything, and go security for the truth, and defend the truth, even unto death. Let us learn from this royal manliness of an Ahimelech; who also confessed the truth even unto death.—[1 Samuel 22:13. It is so easy for the passionate to cheat themselves with hasty inferences.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 22:16 sq. Doeg and Saul were also men like ourselves, both had also a conscience, both were also yielding and receptive, and Saul was once even in good ways, he had learned to fear and love God, and yet both were now so deep-sunken, both were now hardened, and to human eyes irrecoverably lost. The reason is, they trifled with God’s word, they were not willing to obey the truth, they wilfully lived on in their sins.—No man is sure that he will not fall into sin, nor is any man sure that he will remain in a good way; it holds good for all that they must always work out their salvation with fear and trembling.—[1 Samuel 22:17. The best friends of an angry man are those who refuse to aid him in doing wrong. 1 Samuel 22:16-19. Henry: See the desperate wickedness of Saul, when the Spirit of the Lord was departed from him. Nothing so vile but they may be hurried to it, who have provoked God to give them up to their heart’s lusts. He that was so compassionate as to spare Agag and the cattle of the Amalekites, in disobedience to the command of God, could now, with unrelenting bowels, see the priests of the Lord murdered, and nothing spared of all that belonged to them. For that sin, God left him to this.—There are many historical cases in which sentimental humanity has become transformed into savage cruelty. 1 Samuel 22:18. So often in what calls itself the administration of justice, many innocent men are punished because the one man who did the wrong has escaped.—God makes the wrath of man to praise Him (Psalms 76:10). The punishment foretold against the house of Eli (1 Samuel 2:31) is executed through the madness of Saul and the baseness of Doeg.—Hall: It was just in God, which in Doeg was most unjust. Saul’s cruelty, and the treachery of Doeg, do not lose one dram of their guilt by the counsel of God, neither doth the holy counsel of God gather any blemish by their wickedness. … If Saul and Doeg be instead of a pestilence or fever, who can cavil? 1 Samuel 22:19. A madly passionate man in authority (despot, parent, teacher) often seeks to justify his cruel conduct by still greater cruelty.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:22. Taylor: Behold how impossible it is to arrest the consequences of our evil actions. … I have no doubt that when David heard of all this, he would willingly have given all that he had, ay, even his hopes of one day sitting on the throne of Israel, if he could have recalled the evil which he had spoken, and undone its dismal consequences. But it was impossible. The lie had gone forth from him; and having done so, it was no longer under his control, but would go on producing its diabolical fruits. And so it is yet. … We may, indeed, repent of our sin; we may even, through the grace of God for Christ’s sake, have the assurance that we are forgiven for it; but the sin itself will go on working its deadly results.—Tr.] [Ch. 22. David struggling upward, Saul sinking downward. (Comp. Hist. and Theol., No. 2.) [1 Samuel 22:3. Our Future. 1) Our future will be determined by God. Comp. Psalms 31:15. 2) Our future cannot be clearly foreseen by us, and this is well. Comp. Proverbs 27:1. 3) We must provide as wisely as we can for our future, and then wait. 4) Whatever God may do to us in the future, we must try to receive it as from Him. [1 Samuel 22:5. Danger and Duty. 1) Where no duty calls, let us keep away from danger. Comp. Genesis 13:12-13; Exodus 2:15; 1 Samuel 23:13; John 4:1; John 11:53-54. 2) But often, to keep away from danger is to be out of the reach of success. If David had remained in Moab, he would never have become king of Israel. “Nothing venture, nothing have.” Comp. Matthew 16:25; Acts 21:13; John 12:23. 3) How can we tell when duty calls us into danger? Not now by special revelation, but by keeping our minds familiar with the written word, watching the leadings of Providence, seeking counsel from the wise and good, striving to judge calmly even amid perturbations, and praying all the while for the guidance of God’s Spirit. Comp. 1 Chronicles 28:9; Proverbs 3:6. [1 Samuel 22:17. Three scenes in the life of Saul, 1 Samuel 11:13; 1 Samuel 15:22-23; 1 Samuel 22:16-19. [1 Samuel 22:6-23. Pictures of Human Nature. 1) A man in authority, whose misfortunes, though due to his own fault, make him suspicious (1 Samuel 22:8) and cruelly unjust (1 Samuel 22:16). 2) A basely ambitious man who seeks to build himself up by ruining others (1 Samuel 22:9-10; 1 Samuel 22:18, comp. Psalms 52). 3) An innocent man accused, who defends himself both with forcible argument (1 Samuel 22:14) and with dignified denial (1 Samuel 22:15). 4) A good, but erring man who mournfully sees that his sin has brought destruction on his friends (1 Samuel 22:22).—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 22:1. Wellhausen proposes to read ξְ ?φָ ?γַ ?ϊ, “hold,” on the ground of the identity of the locality with the ξְ ?φεּ ?γָ ?δ of 1 Samuel 22:4. But, in addition to the uniform support which the VSS. give to the Heb. text, the same locality might be called from one feature of it a “cave,” and from another a “mountain-hold.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:3. It has been questioned whether 1 Samuel 22:3-4, belonged to the original narrative, because they carry David to Moab, and say nothing of his return. But this omission is not against the habit of these ancient narratives. However, supposing this paragraph to be an insertion from another source by the editor, this does not affect the genuineness of the narrative as a whole. That David’s parents are mentioned here, and not in 1 Samuel 22:1, or in 1 Samuel 20:29, accords with the circumstances; there is occasion here to mention them, there was none before.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:3. Sept., Syr., Arab., Vulg., write this with a in the first syllable, which is perhaps an old pronunciation. Some Greek VSS. render σκοπίαν.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:3. One MS. has ιֵ ?ωֵׁ ?α, “dwell” (with you), and so Sept., Syr., Arab., Vulg.; this is probably the correct reading, the ιφΰ, “go out,” not suiting the following preposition “with,” and a construct. pregn. being improbable here.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:4. Sept. takes this from stem πָ ?ηַ ?ν, and renders: “he persuaded [or appealed to] the king,” which is contrary to the meaning of this verb, and against the other VSS. Wellhausen prefers the pointing εַ ?ιַּ ?πִּ ?ηֵ ?ν (from πεּ ?ηַ), “he settled or left them with the king,” as better agreeing with the following ΰֶ ?ϊΞτְ ?πֵ ?ι, and so read Chald., Syr., Arab., Vulg. This seems the better rendering, though after εַ ?ιַּ ?πִּ ?ηֵ ?ν the usage would lead us to expect either simple ΰֵ ?ϊ, “with,” or μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι, “before.” Possibly we have here a blending of the two prepositions.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:5. So the VSS. except Sept., which has πόλει, “city” (ςִ ?ιψ instead of ιַ ?ςַ ?ψ), and this is approved by Lieut. Conder, of the Palestine Exploration Fund on topographical grounds. As to this we must await further explorations.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:6. On the various and apparently arbitrary treatment of this word in the VSS. see Ges., Thes. s. v. The ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?μ of 1 Samuel 31:3 is ΰֵ ?μָ ?δ in 1 Chronicles 10:12, and Gesen. suggests that the word may have come to have the general signification “tree.” See Stanley’s “Sinai and Pal.,” App., § 79. There is no ground for doubting the correctness of the Heb. text here.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:7. The μ is strange, perhaps an Aramaism after ιָ ?ωִׂ ?ιν (the Chald. and Syr. have it), perhaps by error for ε, “and.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:8. Literally “that uncovereth my ear.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:8. Omission of αְּ ?ψִ ?ιϊ as in 1 Samuel 20:16.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:9. Sept. “mules,” as in 1 Samuel 21:8 (7). Or: “was standing with the servants of Saul.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:10. One Heb. MS. and Grk., Syr., Arab., have “Elohim.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:14. On this difficult phrase see Erdmann’s exposition.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:15. The Kethib has the full form ωְ ?ΰεֹ ?μ, which before Maqqeph the Qeri reduces to the slenderer ωְׁ ?ΰָ ?μ.—Tr.]. [1 Samuel 22:15. Heb. simply αְּ, “in,” before which a ε has probably fallen out.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:18. Heb. 85, Sept. 305. Josephus 385. Thenius suggests that Sept. 300 is for 400 represented in Heb. by ϊ, which was mistakenly read for σ (80), to which Wellh. objects that the final σ is not 80, but 800.—The Kethib γּ ?εֹ ?ιֵ ?β has ι where Qeri γεֹ ?ΰֵ ?β has ΰ, a not unfrequent interchange in Heb. The Syriac usage is according to the Kethib.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:22. Literally: “I am cause as to all the souls.” On this use of ρָ ?αַ ?α in the sense of “cause, occasion,” see Ges., Thes. s. v. But Then, after Sept. ἐγώεἰμιαἵτιοςτῶνψυχῶν, reads ηַ ?αְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, “I am guilty;” this stem ηεּ ?α occurs only once in Old Test. in Daniel 1:19 in Piel as causative; it is frequent in later Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 22:23. On this reading see Erdmann’s Expos.—Tr.] [Comp. 2 Samuel 23:13-17; 1 Chronicles 12:8-19.—Tr.] [On Adullam see Smith’s Bib.-Dict.; Stanley’s Lectures, II., 69; Thomson, Land and Book, II., 424–427. The latter decides for Khureitun, and gives a vivid description of its labyrinthine intricacies and its strength.—Tr.] [“The same phrase is used of Hannah, 1 Samuel 1:10; of David and his companions, 2 Samuel 17:8; and of David’s followers, 1 Samuel 30:6. Hence the phrase here denotes those who are exasperated by Saul’s tyranny” (Bib.-Com.) It is not necessary to suppose in all these men a theocratic feeling or love for David.—Tr.] [On this reading see “Text. and Gramm.”—Tr.] [As distinguished from Jehovah. Yet that the name Jehovah was not unknown in Moab is made probable by its occurrence on the Inscription of Mesha, dating about one hundred and fifty years after this time.—Tr.] [Syr. here has Mizpeh. Wordsworth (on 1 Samuel 22:4) strangely derives ξְ ?φεּ ?γָ ?δ from φεּ ?ψ, “rock.”—Tr.] [This rule (Ew., § 352) hardly applies here; βַּ ?ν=“together” (Psalms 133:1), and can express reciprocity only when the connection affirms something to be true of two or more persons; here it would apply to the courtiers only, excluding David. It is better to take it as qualifying the whole sentence,=“yet” (Ew., § 354 a), or as qualifying “son of Jesse,” as it may do, though it stands at the beginning of the sentence.—Tr.] [This is not certain. See on 1 Samuel 22:15.—Tr.] [The passage 1 Chronicles 11:25, nevertheless, makes a difficulty and the differences of the vss. suggest a corruption of the text. Here the rendering of Bφttcher and Erdmann (and Philippson and Bib. Com.) seems the best, though we can hardly sever this passage from 1 Chronicles 11:25.—Tr.] V. 1. David’s expedition against the Philistines for the rescue of Keilah. 2. His abode in the wilderness of Ziph, and the treachery of the Ziphites against him. 3. His deliverance from Saul in the wilderness of MoonChap. 23. [Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 23:1-28]1Then [And] they told David, saying, Behold, the Philistines fight against Keilah, 2and they rob the threshing-floors. Therefore [And] David enquired of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, Shall I go and smite these Philistines? And the Lord 3[Jehovah] said unto David, Go and smite the Philistines, and save Keilah. And David’s men said unto him, Behold, we be [are] afraid here in Judah; how much more, then, if we come [go] to Keilah against the armies [ranks] of the Philistines? 4Then [And] David enquired of the Lord [Jehovah] yet again. And the Lord [Jehovah] answered him and said, Arise, go down to Keilah, for I will deliver 5[give] the Philistines into thine hand. So [And] David, and [with] his men, went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines, and brought away their cattle, and smote them with a great slaughter; so [and] David saved the inhabitants of Keilah. 6And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, that he came down with an ephod in his hand [an ephod came down in his hand].7And it was told Saul that David was come to Keilah. And Saul said, God hath delivered him into mine hand, for he is shut in by entering into a town [city] that 8hath gates and bars. And Saul called all the people together [summoned all the people] to war, to go down to Keilah to besiege David and his men. And David 9knew that Saul secretly [om. secretly] practised mischief against him, and he said 10to Abiathar the priest, Bring hither the ephod. Then said David [And David said], O Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, thy servant hath certainly heard that Saul seeketh to come to Keilah to destroy the city for my sake. Will the men [citizens] 11of Keilah deliver me up into his hand? will Saul come down, as thy servant hath heard? O Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, I beseech thee, tell thy servant. And 12the Lord [Jehovah] said, He will come down. Then said David [And David said], Will the men [citizens] of Keilah deliver me and my men into the hand of Saul? And the Lord [Jehovah] said, They will deliver thee up. 13Then [And] David and his men, which were about six hundred, arose and departed out of Keilah, and went whithersoever they could go. And it was told Saul 14that David was escaped from Keilah; and he forbare to go forth. And David abode in the wilderness in [ins. the] strongholds, and remained [abode] in a [the] mountain in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul sought him every day, but God delivered him not into his hand. 15And David saw that Saul was come out to seek his life. And David was in 16the wilderness of Ziph in a [the] wood. And Jonathan, Saul’s son arose, and went 17to David into the wood, and strengthened his hand in God, And he [om. he] said to him, Fear not, for the hand of Saul my father shall not find thee, and thou shalt be king over Israel, and I shall be next unto thee; and that also Saul my father 18knoweth [and that knoweth Saul my father also]. And they two made a covenant before the Lord [Jehovah]. And David abode in the wood, and Jonathan went to his house.19Then came up the Ziphites to Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself with us in [ins. the] strongholds in the wood, in the hill of Hachilah, which 20is on the south of Jeshimon [the desert]? Now, therefore, O king, come down according to all the desire of thy soul to come down, and our part shall be to deliver 21him into the king’s hand. And Saul said, Blessed be ye of the Lord [Jehovah], 22for ye have compassion on me. Go, I pray you, prepare yet [be yet heedful], and know and see his place where his haunt [foot] is, and [om. and] who hath seen 23him there; for it is told me that he dealeth very subtilly. See therefore, [And see], and take knowledge of all the lurking places where he hideth himself, and come ye again to me with the certainty, and I will go with you; and it shall come to pass, if he be in the land, that I will search him out throughout [among] all the thousands 24of Judah. And they arose and went to Ziph before Saul; but [and] David and his men were in the wilderness of Maon, in the plain on the south of Jeshimon 25[the desert]. Saul also [And Saul] and his men went to seek him. And they told [it was told] David, wherefore [and] he came down into a [to the] rock [cliff] 26and abode in the wilderness of Maon. And Saul went on the side of the mountain; and David made haste to get away for fear of Saul, for [and] Saul and his 27men compassed David and his men round about to take them, But [And] there came a messenger unto Saul, saying, Haste thee and come, for the Philistines have 28invaded the land. Wherefore [And] Saul returned from pursuing after David, and went against [to meet] the Philistines. Therefore they called that place Sela hammahlekoth. AND 1 Samuel 23:1-14. David’s march against the Philistines to rescue Keilah. 1 Samuel 23:1. David’s recall to Judah by Gad, and the distress of a part of Judah in consequence of a Philistine inroad stood probably in pragmatical connection. In this, his people’s time of need, David the fugitive was to do them a service by a successful feat of arms against the hereditary enemy; and this was to be of service to him by gaining for him higher consideration as God’s chosen one for the throne and the helper of his people. The Philistines were warring against Keilah, a fortified city (1 Samuel 23:7) in the lowland of Judah (Joshua 15:44), according to the Onomasticon eight miles from Eleutheropolis towards Hebron, with an evil-disposed population, who acted ungratefully and treacherously toward David (verse 12), though he had saved them from imminent danger. Inhabitants of this city took part (Nehemiah 3:17-18) in the building of the wall of Jerusalem. According to Kiepert’s map (from the Onom. Κεειλά, Ceila, or ’Εχελά), it lay somewhat south-west of Tarkumieh, and is, according to Tobler (3 Wand. 151), the present Kila, near the Philistine border.—The Philistine inroad was also a predatory incursion, in which they had an eye to the grain which was threshed and stored in the threshing-floors. 1 Samuel 23:2. The news of the Philistines’ incursion determined David to attack them. It is probable, as we have already intimated, that he was brought to Judah by Gad for this purpose. But here, in David’s inquiry of the Lord, the agent is not the prophet Gad (Ew.), of whom it is not said, that he remained with David after 1 Samuel 22:20, but the high-priest Abiathar by Urim and Thummim, the expression “to inquire of Jehovah” being never used when the divine will was sought through a prophet, but undoubtedly of the high-priest’s inquiry by the sacred lot (as in 1 Samuel 22:10; 1 Samuel 22:13; 1 Samuel 22:15).—By this inquiry David learns God’s will; to attack the Philistines and rescue Keilah is now a divine command with the promise of victory in the order: “Rescue Keilah.” 1 Samuel 23:3. Against this David’s men protest from the point of view of their present situation, which on merely human grounds was certainly not of a nature to inspire them with courage.—We are afraid here in Judah, namely, as persecuted fugitives, who have abandoned a comparatively safe abode for the present more dangerous one, and are now further to rush into this danger by open war against the Philistines; we are always in danger from Saul, and now shall we march against the Philistine ranks at Keilah? Being not safe in Judah, ought we forsooth to go to Keilah against the Philistines? (ΰַ ?σλִּ ?ι, comp. Habakkuk 2:5; 1 Samuel 14:30; 1 Samuel 21:6; Ew., § 354 c [= “yea, is it that?” or: “how much more when?”—Tr.]). 1 Samuel 23:4. David holds to his resolution against these objections; to confirm it and to encourage his men he again inquires of the Lord and receives the same affirmative answer with the assurance that the Lord has given his enemies into his hand.—Though treated by the king as an outlaw, he yet maintains true love to his people, which impels him to help them in their need, and to show that, in spite of his undeserved sufferings, he will not sin against them by refusing to perform a deed of deliverance which is well-pleasing to God.—The “go down” indicates that David was still in the mountains of Judah whence he must descend in order to reach Keilah. 1 Samuel 23:5. In accordance with the divine declaration the attack on the Philistines was successful; David inflicted a severe defeat on them, and gained large booty, driving off their flocks. Thus he rescued the people of Keilah. 1 Samuel 23:6 is a supplementary historical explanation relative to the possibility of the inquiry of the Lord in 1 Samuel 23:2-3, which was not possible without the high-priestly cape or ephod to which was attached the Urim and Thummim. The main point is that, when Abiathar fled from Saul to David, he brought with him the high-priestly dress from Nob. But it was before this time that Abiathar came to David; he came as fugitive (1 Samuel 22:20) before David went to Keilah, for before this David inquired of the Lord through the high-priestly oracle. Accordingly, the remark: “when Abiathar fled to David to Keilah” is an indefinite statement, in which Keilah is by anticipation put as the first goal of his flight. The Sept. correctly explains: “When Abiathar, the son of Ahitub, fled to David, the ephod was in his hand, and he had gone down with David to Keilah, the ephod in his hand.” [Dr. Erdmann here gives not the reading of the Sept., but the Hebrew text as amended by Thenius after the Sept.; the Greek text, however does imply that Abiathar had come to Keilah with David, having fled to him before. Thenius’ amended Heb. text would indicate the back reference of this statement in 1 Samuel 23:6; but the present Heb. text naturally means that it was at Keilah that Abiathar first came to David, and so it is understood by Ewald, Stanley and the Bible Commentary. In 1 Samuel 22:20-23 it is not said where or when the priest reached David, and the statement may be an anticipatory conclusion of the narrative of the massacre, the intermediate fact 1 Samuel 23:1-5 being then taken up with its consequent procedures. Ewald also remarks that the account of the inquiry in 1 Samuel 23:2-3 is differently worded from that in 1 Samuel 23:9-12; the former may have been by the prophet Gad, against which, however, as Erdmann remarks, is the use of the phrase “inquire of the Lord,” which regularly refers to the sacred oracle.—On the whole, if we retain the Heb. text of 1 Samuel 23:6, we must hold that Abiathar joined David after the rescue of Keilah; but a slight change in the text (which seems to be corrupt) will permit us to adopt the view of Thenius, Keil, Philippson, and Erdmann, which is in other respects more satisfactory. This latter is also the view of Wordsworth, while Bp. Patrick adopts the other (referring to the employment of Urim and Thummim by Saul 1 Samuel 28:6, on which see Erdmann), but neither of these writers mentions the difficulties of the question.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 23:7. On hearing of David’s march to Keilah, Saul imagines that God has given him into his hands. He thinks that he will act as an instrument of the Lord against David. His reason therefor is indeed external and superficial enough: “for he is there shut in in a city with gates and bars.” (πִ ?λַּ ?ψ in pregnant sense = “look at, ignore, Deuteronomy 32:27, despise, reject,” Jeremiah 19:4); into my hands [Heb. hand], that is, he hath given him, by abandoning and rejecting him. By blinding and self-deception Saul has fallen into the dreadful illusion that it is David, instead of himself, that is rejected by God.—The difficulty of the pregnant expression [God has rejected him into my hands] no doubt occasioned the change in the Sept. to “sold.”—For he is shut in in entering. The fact that David has entered or been drawn into this city with gates and bars, Saul thinks equivalent to his being shut in. 1 Samuel 23:8. And Saul caused the whole people to hear, summoned them to war (comp. 1 Samuel 15:4). Such summons to war was a royal right. The reason assigned to the people for the summons was to drive out the Philistines. Saul’s real purpose, which he could the more easily conceal under this pretext of war on the Philistines, was: to besiege David and his men, who were already in Keilah, the city with gates and bars. 1 Samuel 23:9. David, however, had information of these evil plans, which Saul was forging against him; the Heb. (ηָ ?ψַ ?ωׁ) is literally “to work in metals,” and so “vigorously to work evil,” as in Proverbs 3:29; Proverbs 14:22; comp. Hosea 10:13. [The “secretly” of Eng. A. V. is to be omitted.—Tr.]. This gives David occasion again to consult the divine oracle. Bring hither the ephod, said he to Abiathar (comp. 1 Samuel 14:13; 1 Samuel 30:7). The high-priestly dress had to be brought, because it was the sacred dress for official duties. 1 Samuel 23:10. This inquiry of the Lord by the ephod was connected with outspoken prayer, whereby is indicated the innermost kernel and most essential significance of this questioning of the divine oracle. In the invocation of God there is here to be noted 1) the designation of the covenant-God as the God of Israel, and 2) David’s avowal that he is the servant of this God, in whose service he knew himself to be. The reason for his questions is given in the words: I, thy servant, have heard that Saul seeks to come, etc.1 Samuel 23:11. The two questions. The first is: Will the citizens of Keilah deliver me into his hand?—“Citizens” (‍ ?αַ ?ςֵ ?μֵ ?ιχΧ) comp. Joshua 24:11, “citizens” of Jericho, 2 Samuel 21:12; Judges 9:6. That this question stands first is certainly surprising, since logically this position belongs to the second question: Will Saul come down? We cannot regard this as a mere inconcinnity in the narrative. We may see in it the expression of David’s excited state of mind. Thenius’ proposed reading in order to secure logical arrangement in the two questions, namely: “Saul comes … to destroy the city, in order that the citizens of Keilah may deliver me into his hand” (he omits the suffix in αַ ?ςֲ ?αεּ ?ψִ ?ι in 1 Samuel 23:10 and for δֲ ?ιַ ?ρְ ?πִּ ?ψֻ ?πִ ?ι reads δַ ?ρְ ?βִּ ?ψֻ ?πִ ?ι) is all the more hazardous and untenable, as no version gives any hint for such a reading.—The divine answer, which is affirmative, refers only to the second question. Therefore the first question is repeated in 1 Samuel 23:12, and is then answered in the affirmative. There is thus a sort of chiasm or crossing in the order of the questions and answers. 1 Samuel 23:13. The certainty that Saul will come with an army, and that the men of Keilah will treacherously deliver him up, determines David to depart with his band (about six hundred men) before Saul can carry out his plan. They went about whither they went, “whither their way led them” (Maurer), as chance circumstances required, without fixed plan or aim. A mode of warfare by means of scouts and spies now arose between the two men. They have precise information of each other’s plans and enterprises. Saul soon learns that David has escaped from Keilah, and accordingly abandons his intended march thither. 1 Samuel 23:14. David in the wilderness of Ziph and the treachery of the Ziphites towards him. 1 Samuel 23:14. David’s next place of abode is in general the wilderness, that is, of Judah, and its sheltering heights; but “the mountain in the wilderness of Ziph” is specially mentioned as a more permanent dwelling-place. Ziph (different from the place named in Joshua 15:24, which lay southwest of Arad), perhaps the present Kuseifeh (Rob. III., 184, 188 [Am. ed., II., 200]) Joshua 15:55, lay farther north on the highland, about eight miles southeast of Hebron; see Robins., II., 47 [Am. ed., I., 492] who found there a hill, Tell Zif, and near by considerable ruins of old fortifications. [Mr. Grove, who formerly objected to Robinson’s conjecture, now accepts it, but puts Zif (= Ziph) three miles south of Hebron. See his Art. in Smith’s Bib.-Dict., and Dr. Hackett’s note in Am. ed.—Tr.] Individual parts of the great wilderness of Judah, which extended from the north of Judah to the Amorite mountain in the south between the mountains of Judah and the Dead Sea, were named from the various cities on the border of the mountains and the wilderness; so, besides the wilderness of Ziph, the wilderness of Maon, whither David afterwards went from Ziph (1 Samuel 23:25). The mountain in the wilderness of Ziph is probably the mount Hachilah of 1 Samuel 23:19. The general remark is here proleptically made that all Saul’s attempts against David were vain. Saul sought him every day, not: throughout his life (Keil), but = continually; but God gave him not into his (Saul’s) hands.—David was under the special protection of God. These words form the contrast to Saul’s word, 1 Samuel 23:7 : “God has rejected [delivered] him into my hand.” After the general remark on the failure of Saul’s continued attempts follows (1 Samuel 23:15) the mention of special cases, and the description of David’s persecution. Thus connected with the preceding this verse (15) is not a “useless repetition” (Then.); for, after the statement that Saul pursued David, it is here first declared that David received information of this pursuit, and then David’s retreat in the wilderness is more exactly described by the word “wood,” or thick wood (αַ ?δֹ ?ψְ ?ωָׁ ?δ, from ηֹ ?ψֶ ?ωׂ, with δ parag.). Here, too, the forest is David’s chief means of concealment. Perhaps the word is also a proper name [Horesh], so called from the forests, of which there is now no trace in that region. 1 Samuel 23:16-18. Here is related how Jonathan comforted and strengthened David, when the latter, having heard of Saul’s attempts against him, greatly needed consolation. There is no ground for regarding this (Then.) as merely the essential content of the traditional narration of Jonathan’s secret interview with David in 1 Samuel 20. It is another interview of Jonathan with his friend, whose distress and danger led him to hasten to him in order by consoling and encouraging words to give him the most precious proof of his faithful friendship. The fact is especially emphasized that Jonathan went to David into the wood; there they could be safest from Saul. He strengthened his hand in God; that is, he revived his sunken courage (comp. Nehemiah 12:18), by pointing to the divine promises, the divine protection, and the great things that God had in store for him. Not wholly correct and exhaustive is Clericus’ remark: “he drew consolation from his innocence and God’s promises.” 1 Samuel 23:17. The words of Jonathan, explaining what was just before said. Fear not, is the key-note of Jonathan’s address. As ground of which he points 1) to God’s almighty help: Saul’s hand will not find thee,—he is firmly convinced that he (David) is under God’s protection, and that therefore Saul can gain no advantage over him,—and 2) to the fixed divine decree: Thou wilt be king over Israel; Jonathan was certain through divine illumination that David was called by the Lord to be king of Israel, and could therefore console and encourage him; for Saul could not make void God’s counsel and will (comp. 1 Samuel 20:13 sq.). I shall be next to thee,—herein Jonathan shows 1) his absolute willingness to resign all claim to the throne, and 2) his hope that David will confer on him as a subject the place nearest in association to himself. And so also Saul knows, my father is sure that thou wilt be king. Saul must therefore have already learned this through the voice of God and of the people. 1 Samuel 23:18. A new covenant is made by the two men, comp. 1 Samuel 20:16 sq., 42. Here, as there, the parting is briefly and vividly described: David remained in the thicket—Jonathan went his way home. [The two friends meet no more in life. How it would have been if Jonathan had lived we cannot tell; but all possible complications were avoided by his death. His life thus presents an untarnished picture of pure, self-denying friendship. This parting is one of the many dramatic situations that occur in this Book.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 23:19-24 a. The Ziphites betray to Saul David’s abode among them; Saul forms with the betrayers his crafty scheme against David. 1 Samuel 23:19 is connected with 1 Samuel 23:15, not with 1 Samuel 23:14 (Thenius). “Ziphites,” people of Ziph [without the Art.—Tr.] Some Ziphites went up to Saul to Gibeah to betray to him David’s abode. The mountain Hachilah, with its wood and its rocks, lay “on the right of the desert;” that is, south of the waste region which stretched out on the west of the Dead Sea within the steppe of Judah. The Article indicates the desert to be that well-known desert in this region, the designation being almost a proper name [written as nom. pr. “Jeshimon” in Eng. A. V.—Tr.] So in Numbers 21:20; Numbers 23:28, a desert is called “the desert” [Eng. A. V. Jeshimon]. This is the desert northeastern border of the Dead Sea. 1 Samuel 23:20. The lively tone of the address of the Ziphites shows that they were somewhat passionate adherents of Saul, and acquainted with his most secret desires. Two things they say to him: 1) Come down to us, for all thy desire to get David in thy power may now be fulfilled; 2) it is our affair to deliver him up to thee. [Bib.-Com. less well renders: “it is in our power,” etc.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 23:21. The feeling expressed in Saul’s answer agrees with the Ziphites’ word as to his keen desire to come down to them. He invokes God’s blessing on them for their offer and promise. He remains true to his illusion that David is attempting his throne and life, and so committing a crime against God. He imagines that he is in a dangerous situation, and that the Ziphites had compassion on him or sympathy with him in making him this offer. 1 Samuel 23:22. He directs them how to act in order to gain information of every retreat of David in his constant shifting of place. “Fix your mind, observe” (supply μֵ ?α as in Judges 12:6; 2 Chronicles 29:36). The heaping up of synonyms is no argument against this rendering; the conception “see” is not thrice expressed (Then.), but there is a gradation, Saul describing in an animated manner how they are to get information of David’s abode: “Keep a good look-out still, that ye may learn, and that ye may see in what place his foot will be,” that is, where he fixes himself in his wandering. “Who has seen him” refers to the last: “And see his place,” etc. The words, in keeping with Saul’s animated manner, are loosely put together, he having in mind the moment when the man who discovers David’s abode comes to inform him. Saul affirms the necessity for this espionage in the remark: “for it is told me that he is very subtle.” This trait of character in David agrees with what we otherwise know of him in this respect. 1 Samuel 23:23. Saul continues his directions, and cannot say enough (to satisfy himself) to exhort them to search in every nook and cranny. “Return to me unto what is certain;” that is, when you have gotten certain information. Not till then will he go down with them. He confidently declares that he will then seize him among all the thousands of Judah. The Alaphim, thousands are, according to Numbers 1:16; Numbers 10:4, the larger divisions of the twelve Tribes. 1 Samuel 23:24 a. The Ziphites went back to their region before Saul, who, according to the agreement, was to follow later. 1 Samuel 23:24 b–28. David retires to the wilderness of Maon, and is delivered from Saul. 1 Samuel 23:24 b. The wilderness of Maon lay farther south. The name still exists, = Maοn, eight miles southeast of Hebron; the distance from Ziph is therefore only six miles. Maοn lies on a conical hill, which commands a wide view, so that Rob. (II., 433 [Am. Ed., I., 493–495]) thence saw nine cities of the hill-country of Judah, Maon, Carmel, Ziph, Juttah, Jattir, Socho, Anab, Eshtemoa, and Hebron (Joshua 15:48-55). On the character of the ground see Van de Velde II. 107 sq. [Mr. Grove in Smith’s Bible Dict. thinks that the wilderness of Maon formed part of the larger region called the Arabah, rendered in Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 23:24, “the plain.”—Tr.].—David, doubtless in consequence of information received as to the designs of Saul and the Ziphites, betook himself to the wilderness of Maon. 1 Samuel 23:25. And Saul … went, namely, after he had gotten information from the Ziphites. The “rock,” on which it is here presupposed that David was staying, and which was in the wilderness of Maon, is perhaps the conical hill of the present Maοn, whose summit is surrounded with ruins. He went down not (as Sept.) “into the rock,” nor “to the rock” (Buns.), but “descended the rock,” in order to conceal himself in the lowland or in the caves at its base. It is the same mountain that is mentioned in 1 Samuel 23:26, on opposite sides of which Saul and David found themselves. Here (1 Samuel 23:26) David was sore troubled (πֶ ?ηְ ?τָּ ?ζ) to escape Saul, while, on his part, Saul attempted to surround and seize him. 1 Samuel 23:27. But suddenly, when David is in the greatest danger of being surrounded, Saul receives information of a new Philistine incursion. He must desist from farther pursuit. This was God’s plan to save David. The Philistines had seized on the moment when Saul had withdrawn his men to the south in pursuit of David, to invade the upper part of the land. 1 Samuel 23:28. The place was called Sela hammahlekoth (ρֶ ?μַ ?ςδַ ?ξַּ ?ηְ ?μְ ?χεֹ ?ϊ). There are two explanations of the name: 1) rock of smoothness, that is, of escape, and 2) rock of dividings or divisions. The first (Ges., De Wette, Keil), takes the notion of “escape” from the signification of the verb (ηָ ?μַ ?χ) “to be smooth,” for which application, however, only Jeremiah 37:12, and that very doubtfully, can be adduced. Further the substantive here used never means “escape,” but always “distribution” (Joshua 11:23; Joshua 12:7; Joshua 18:10; Ezekiel 48:29) and “division” (1 Chronicles 26:1; 1 Chronicles 27:1; 2 Chronicles 31:17) and it must so be taken here. This explanation is favored also by the word “therefore,” which clearly refers to the circumstantially related fact that the armies of Saul and David were separated, divided by the rock. Ewald’s explanation: “lot of fate” (= ηֶ ?μֶ ?χ) is unfounded. It accordingly means: “Rock of division.” Cler.: “rock of divisions, where Saul and David were separated.” The rock divided the two armies, held them asunder. Bφttcher conjectures that the rock might originally from its nature have been called “rock of smoothness,” and this name might afterwards from historical recollection have been made to refer to the movements of Saul and David, who according to 1 Samuel 23:26 had divided the rock-ground between them. Certainly this explanation of the name “Rock of dividings, partings,” would be possible as respects the ground. But, by reason of the “therefore,” the reference to Saul and David’s relation to one another suits the connection better. AND 1. David did not seek, but received from the Lord’s hand the opportunity by the march to Keilah to perform a heroic deed, and thus to win further consideration in the eyes of the people as a warrior blessed by God and crowned with glorious success. The king left the city open to the attacks of the Philistines. He neglected his duty as protector of his people against the hereditary foe, thinking only of revenging himself on David. Here also David was under God’s protection, to which he humbly resigned himself. After he had at the Lord’s command returned from Moab to Judah, he must, in the fact that the Philistines undisturbed besieged Keilah and carried off the grain, while Saul took no steps to oppose them, have recognized God’s command to draw the sword for his people, especially as he was the king’s general, though he had received no order from the king. But for his conscience and his assurance of faith, as well as for the certainty and success of the whole undertaking, he needed the divine authorization; if he had not the sanction of the theocratic king, he must have that of God Himself, since the question was of a matter important for the people of God and for the affairs of God’s kingdom in Israel,—war against Israel’s hereditary foe. He received the divine authorization and the promise of success through a twice affirmed divine oracle. By the divine promise he is inwardly certain of success. Even in straits and danger, he now with the Lord’s support becomes the saviour of his people out of straits and danger. But in the deed of deliverance itself lies the seed of new suffering. The rescue of Keilah by David occasioned Saul’s march to Keilah against David. The inhabitants of Keilah exhibit base ingratitude towards him. By God’s word he learns what dangers here threaten him. By God’s direction he again takes to flight to save himself from Saul—but the incursion of the Philistines, occasioned by Saul’s march to the south, compels him to desist from following David, who thus escapes his persecutor. Thus this section exhibits David anew in the clearest light of divine guidance as the Chosen and Anointed of God: 1) submitting himself unconditionally to God’s determining word and guiding will, and 2) guided directly by God’s hand and determined in all his affairs by God’s will and word. 2. Whatever may have been the form of the inquiry of God through the Urim and Thummim (which was attached to the ephod of the high-priest), yet in this section it is clearly and distinctly indicated that it was an embodied prayer to God for the revelation of His will, and only to such prayer was God’s counsel and will thus revealed. One’s own natural objection and other men’s opposition to God’s will must by this repeated questioning of the Lord and decision and confirmation of His will be most completely refuted and set aside. Flesh-and-blood’s deliberations concerning what pertains to God’s kingdom lead to indecision, doubt, timidity; taking counsel with God in direct access to His grace and truth makes the heart firm and the look clear, and gives true courage and victorious prowess, as is shown by the example of David, who repeatedly inquired of the Lord. 3. The teaching of the Ziphites forms the historical background of Psalms 54, the title of which refers its origin to David’s thence resulting sorrowful experiences, 1 Samuel 23:19 sq. In full accordance with his then dangerous situation and with a backward glance at God’s wonderful help, he first utters a prayer for deliverance from wicked and ungodly enemies, 1 Samuel 23:3-5 (1–3), and then expresses his assurance of divine help, together with the promise of thanksgiving for deliverance, 1 Samuel 23:6-9 (4–7). 4. Out of these great experiences, in David’s sorrowful life, of the grace and power, wisdom and justice, mercy and goodness of God, was developed in him and through him in his people that intelligence of faith and theological knowledge which we see in the Psalms and the prophetical writings. AND 1 Samuel 23:2. Starke: God forsakes not those who seek Him (Psalms 9:11 [10]). When we wish to begin any thing, we should first ask counsel of God. 1 Samuel 23:3. Cramer: Flesh and blood trembles when at God’s command we have to encounter danger. Schmid: Corrupt human reason always has something which it opposes to the word of God. 1 Samuel 23:4. Starke: When we have God’s will on our side, we should not let ourselves be led astray by men (Acts 21:13-14). The shield of the pious is with God, who helps pious hearts (Psalms 7:11 [10]). 1 Samuel 23:5. Cramer: In trouble God yet sometimes gives a joyous day, and after the troublous storm He shows a glimpse of His grace (Ecclesiastes 7:14). 1 Samuel 23:7. Osiander: Hypocrites have God’s name in the mouth, but the devil always in the heart. And although they speak of God, yet they have always a bloody mind against God’s people (Psalms 50:16-17). 1 Samuel 23:11-12. God foresees not only what will really happen, but also what would follow if this and that should happen. His omniscience and foreknowledge is a boundless and bottomless sea (Acts 27:24-31).—The greatest benefits are often requited with the greatest ingratitude, and this is a shameful evil among men, which then most betrays itself when they should be thankful.—Schlier: True thankfulness which fears God knows well how to find out the right. Let us be thankful in all things! We need not for that reason do wrong when the point is to be thankful, but when true thankfulness fills the heart there open up ways enough to show it. 1 Samuel 23:16 sq. Osiander: It is a work acceptable to God to comfort the afflicted (Isaiah 40:1; 1 Thessalonians 5:14).—God is wont always to refresh again His people who are in danger, that they may not utterly sink under the cross (2 Corinthians 7:6).—Starke: True friendship must be grounded in communion with God. Real love does not diminish, but increases.—Schlier: God lets a David be persecuted—lets him be driven about like a hunted animal; but at His own time He also sends him a Jonathan with friendly words. And so God the Lord still always does to all His servants.—F. W. Krummacher: The picture of this pair of friends—a picture nobler and more exalting than that of the heathen Dioscuri, beams inextinguishably in the heaven of the church, as a kindling and inspiring ideal of unfeigned manly friendship, sanctified in God. 1 Samuel 23:25 sq. Starke: God never leaves one that loves Him without a cross, and when one cross has ceased, another is at once ready (Psalms 73:14).—Osiander: God often lets His people fall into extreme need, so that they can neither counsel nor help themselves, in order that the divine help may be so much the more recognized and honored (Matthew 8:25).—Cramer: God lets nothing so bad happen, but that He knows how to make out of it something good (Genesis 50:20).—Wuert. Bib.: Even enemies must serve our God in reserving His believing children from peril or need (2 Peter 2:9). 1 Samuel 23:28. Osiander: The benefits of God we should with thankful mind keep in lively remembrance (Psalms 103:2).—Schlier: Why is it that the Lord very often helps only when the need has reached its height! It is in order that we may give the honor to the Lord alone.—F. W. Krummacher: David was delivered “at the last hour,” it is true; but this never strikes too late for the Lord still to furnish in it the proof to those that trust in Him, that His word is Yea and Amen when it says, “I will never leave thee nor forsake thee.” J. Disselhoff: How trying days should be borne after God’s heart: 1) By despairing of all self-help and believingly fleeing to God’s heart, there to learn supplication and thanksgiving. 2) By opening heart and hand amid our own need for others’ need. 3) By contending with the weapons of gentleness and humility against the supposed or real authors of the trials. [1 Samuel 23:7-13. David at Keilah. 1) Saul eagerly arranges to seize him: a) Rejoicing beforehand in a success taken for granted. “Counting the chickens,” etc.; b) Inferring that God was on his side from the mere prospect of a single success; misinterpreting Providence, comp. 1 Samuel 24:4. 2) The citizens of Keilah ready to betray him—doubtless remembering Nob; Ingratitude—which always finds itself some excuse. 3) David sees reason to fear them, and seeks divine direction: a) He speaks humbly as God’s servant; b) He earnestly implores direction. Prayer. In answer to humble and earnest prayer, God often delivers from ungrateful friends and scheming foes. [1 Samuel 23:16-18. The last meeting of Jonathan and David: 1) David feeble and fearful (“strengthened,” “fear not”). Naturally discouraged by cowardly ingratitude, malignant hostility, weary wandering, uncertainty of life. 2) Jonathan encourages him: a) By the mere fact of coming to meet him through difficulties and dangers; b) By piously pointing him to God; c) By confident assurances of preservation and triumph; d) By declaring that his great enemy himself knows this, comp. 1 Samuel 24:20; e) By avowing his own willingness to be second to David. 3) They renew their league of friendship before the Lord (comp. 1 Samuel 18:3; 1 Samuel 20:16; 1 Samuel 20:42). They part to meet no more on earth. Jonathan is next mentioned in David’s pathetic lament (2 Samuel 1:17-27). [1 Samuel 23:25-27. David’s narrow escape: 1) He is betrayed by men of his own tribe (1 Samuel 23:19), and skilful plans are laid to apprehend him (1 Samuel 23:22-23). 2) Hard pressed, fleeing in haste, surrounded (1 Samuel 23:26). 3) Prays to God for help and deliverance (Psalms 54). 4) Strangely delivered at the last moment by overruling Providence (1 Samuel 23:27).—Tr.] Footnotes: 1 Samuel 23:3. Erdmann: “and we are really to go, etc.?” Syr.: “how shall we go?” Sept.: “how will it be if we go?” all of which give the general sense; Eng. A. V. has the more exact rendering, and so Chald. and Vulg.—Then.: “how much less shall we go?”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:3. Sept. σκῦλα “spoil,” which Then. prefers, supposing it to represent ξְ ?ωִׁ ?ρּ ?εֹ ?ϊ “booty,” whence the Heb. text ξַ ?ςַ ?ψְ ?λεֹ ?ϊ might easily come. Against this Wellhausen justly points out the unsuitableness of the resulting thought, and suggests that σκῦλα (variants σκωλα, κοιλιας) is another form of Κεἴλά, and that the Greek omits the ξַ ?ςַ ?ψְ ?λεֹ ?ϊ—as to the improbability of battle-lines in Philistine raiding-parties, they might well exist, or David’s men may naturally exaggerate the danger. [1 Samuel 23:4. Heb.: “David and his men,” but the following verbs are in the Singular, making David the subject.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:6. Erdmann: “The ephod came down to him,” which, however, the Heb. does not mean from the connection. Erdmann suggests the right sense in the Exposition.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:7. πִ ?λַּ ?ψ is rendered by the VSS. “delivered,” but Sept. “sold” ξָ ?λַ ?ψ, adopted by Then.; Wellh. says the text seems made up of ξλψ and πϊο. The word is literally “ignored,” and so perhaps=“abandoned.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:7. Literally. “at entering” (μָ ?αεֹ ?ΰ), not “shut in (forced) to enter.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:8. Sept. in inverse order; “to go down to war,” perhaps a mere softening. The Heb. order is better; Saul summons the people generally to war, and then the special purpose is added of going down to Keilah.—Instead of φεּ ?ψ some MSS. have φεּ ?γ. [1 Samuel 23:9. ηַ ?ψַ ?ωׁ ?= “cut, work on the forge” = “practice.” Eng. A. V. gets its “secretly” from Vulg. clam, and this is perhaps from the meaning “to be deaf, dumb,” also found in this verb, but not applicable here; so Sept. rendered παρασιωπᾷ before which, however, it naturally found itself obliged to insert the negative.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:10. Thenius reads: “Saul seeks … to destroy the city in order that the citizens of Keilah may deliver me into his hand,” on which see Erdmann. To this the objections are 1) that it supposes a construction (Inf. with suffix followed by Accus.-subject) doubtful in Heb. (Wellh.), and 2) Saul’s purpose in destroying the city, namely, that the citizens may deliver David up, seems a strange one. On the other hand the omission of the first clause of 1 Samuel 23:11 (Wellh.) is a violent procedure, like that of Syr., which omits the whole of this verse. The procedure of the vers. shows the difficulty they had with the text, but also seems to vouch for its integrity. It is perhaps better to attribute the repetition to excitement, or to regard the first question as a general one, which is afterwards for the sake of clearness, divided into two.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:13. Sept. four hundred by error from 1 Samuel 22:2.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:15. Ewald and Wellhausen emend to εַ ?ιִּ ?ψָ ?ΰ “feared” on the ground that this is required in order to connect with the preceding context and to explain the words of Jonathan in 1 Samuel 23:17. Yet the connection is so general a one that such a change seems unnecessary.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:18. Some MSS. have γַּ ?ψְ ?λּ ?ε “his way,” but the text is best supported.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:19. The Heb. has not the Art., but the connection seems to involve it.—Wellhausen thinks the minute description of place here interpolated from 1 Samuel 26:1, because otherwise Saul’s minute directions in 1 Samuel 23:22-23, would be out of place; but the statement of the Ziphites is not so minute as to supersede the necessity of search for the fugitive, who might be in any one of a hundred places “in the wood on the hill.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:19. Some MSS. have (probably wrongly) Habilah and Havilah.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:21. Instead of δָ ?λִ ?ιπεּ “set your mind),” some MSS. have δָ ?αִ ?ιπεּ ?“understand, learn.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:22. Thenius reads ψַ ?βְ ?μεֹ δַ ?ξְּ ?δֵ ?ψָ ?δ “where his quick or fleet foot is,” Sept. ἐντάχει, an ingenious and smooth reading; yet the rugged Heb. text suits the hurry of the command better.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:25. The suffix, omitted in the Heb., is added in the Sept.—Erdmann renders “went down the cliff.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:26. Sept. “Saul and his men.” a natural (and therefore suspicious) supplement.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 23:28. On the meaning of this name see Erdmann in Exposition.—Tr.] [Mr. Grove (in Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. Keilah) referring to Tobler’s identification of Keilah with Kila says “thus another is added to the list of places which, though specified as in the ‘lowland’ are yet actually found in the mountains: a puzzling fact.” In connection with the signification “fortress” given to Keilah by Gesenius and others, Mr. Grove also points to the expression “marvellous kindness in a strong city” in Psalms 31:21 and to 1 Samuel 23:8 and the general tenor of the Psalm.—Tr.] [See on 1 Samuel 23:6.—Tr.] [Bib. Com.: “Implying that Keilah was not in Judah.” Yet it may mean simply that the Philistines now had control of the region of Keilah.—Tr.] [Read: “When Abiathar, etc. fled to David, the ephod was in his hand, and he came down to Keilah.”—Tr.] μָ ?αεֹ ?ΰ eundo—comp. μֵ ?ΰξֹ ?ψ dicendo, “saying.” The Inf. with μ is often used to introduce a subordinate circumstance. Ew. § 280d. Comp. 1 Kings 16:7; Psalms 78:18; Psalms 63:3; 1 Chronicles 12:8; Proverbs 26:2; Joe 2:26. [They act, perhaps, partly from attachment to Saul, partly from policy.—Tr.] [It is suggested in Bib.-Com. that Jonathan had informed David of his father’s designs (1 Samuel 23:15), but this is nowhere intimated.—Tr.] VI. David in the Wilderness of Engedi. He spares Saul in the cave. His conversation with SaulChap. 24. [Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 23:29 to 1 Samuel 24:22]29(1) And David went up from thence and dwelt in [ins. the] strongholds at [of] 1(2) Engedi. And it came to pass, when Saul was returned from following the Philistines, that it was told him, saying, Behold, David is in the wilderness 2(3) of Engedi. Then [And] Saul took three thousand chosen men [men chosen] out of all Israel; and went to seek David and his men upon the rocks of the 3(4) wild goats. And he came to the sheep-cotes by [on] the way, where [and there] was a cave, and Saul went in to cover his feet; and David and his 4(5) men remained [were abiding] in the sides of the cave. And the men of David said unto him, Behold the day of which the Lord [Jehovah] said unto thee, Behold, I will deliver thine enemy into thine hand, that thou mayest do to him as it shall seem good unto thee. Then [And] David arose, and cut 5(6) off the skirt of Saul’s robe privily. And it came to pass afterward that 6(7) David’s heart smote him because he had cut off Saul’s skirt. And he said unto his men, The Lord [Jehovah] forbid that I should do this thing unto my master [lord], the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed, to stretch forth mine 7(8) hand against him, seeing [for] he is the anointed of the Lord [Jehovah]. So [And] David stayed his servants [men] with these [om. these] words, and suffered them not to rise against Saul. But [And] Saul rose up out of the cave, and went on his way. 8(9) David also [And David] arose afterward and went out of the cave and cried after Saul, saying, My lord the king. And when [om. when] Saul looked behind him, [ins. and] David stooped with his face to the earth and 9(10) bowed himself. And David said to Saul, Wherefore hearest thou men’s 10(11) words, saying, Behold, David seeketh thy hurt? Behold, this day thine eyes have seen how that the Lord [Jehovah] had [om. had] delivered thee to-day into my hand in the cave, and some bade me kill thee; but [and] mine eye spared thee, and I said, I will not put forth my hand against my lord, for Hebrews 11(12) is the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed. Moreover [And] my father, see, yea see the skirt of thy robe in my hand; for, in that I cut off the skirt of thy robe and killed thee not, know thou and see that there is neither evil nor transgression in mine hand, and I have not sinned against thee; yet thou huntest 12(13) my soul to take it. The Lord [Jehovah] judge between me and thee, and the Lord [Jehovah] avenge me of thee; but my hand shall not be upon thee. 13(14) As saith the proverb of the ancients, Wickedness proceedeth from the wicked. 14(15) But my hand shall not be upon thee. After whom is the king of Israel come out? after whom dost thou pursue? after a dead dog, after a [one] flea. 15(16) The Lord therefore [And Jehovah] be judge, and judge between me and thee, and see, and plead my cause, and deliver [judge] me out of thine hand. 16(17) And it came to pass, when David had made an end of speaking these words 17(18) unto Saul, that Saul said, Is this thy voice, my son David? And Saul lifted up his voice and wept. And he said to David, Thou art more righteous than I, for thou hast rewarded [done] me good, whereas [and] I have rewarded 18(19) [done] thee evil. And thou hast showed this day how that thou hast dealt well with me, forasmuch as when the Lord [Jehovah] had [om. had] delivered 19(20) me into thine hand, thou killedst me not. For, if a man find his enemy, will he let him go well away? wherefore the Lord [Jehovah] reward 20(21) thee good for that [what] thou hast done unto me this day. And now, behold I know well [om. well] that thou shalt surely be king, and that the kingdom of Israel shall be established in thine hand. Swear now therefore unto me by the Lord [Jehovah] that thou wilt not cut off my seed after me, 22(23) and that thou wilt not destroy my name out of my father’s house. And David sware unto Saul. And Saul went home [to his house], but [and] David and his men gat them up into the hold. AND 1 Samuel 24:1-8 [29–27]. David’s abode in Engedi and his meeting there with Saul in a cave. 1 Samuel 24:1 [1 Samuel 23:29]. Engedi the present Ain Jidy (Jeddi), “Fountain of the kid” (’Εγγαδί, ’Εγγαδαί, Ptol. 5, 16, 8), about the middle of the west shore of the Dead Sea, about thirteen miles north-east of Maon on the border of the wilderness of Judah, in a mountainous region with limestone-soil, with precipitous rocks and deep gorges which run towards the Dead Sea, and with many caves in the limestone-hills. It belonged to the then few very fruitful regions of the wilderness of Judah.—[For a good account of Engedi with its magnificent scenery, its frightful and dangerous rock-passes and its many roomy caverns, see Bib. Com. in loco. Thomson, in “The Land and the Book,” speaks of the wild goats still to be found there.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 24:2 [1 Samuel 24:1] sq. The obstinacy of Saul’s adherence to his bloody plan against David appears in the fact that immediately after his campaign against the Philistines, perhaps even before they were completely overthrown, he again sends out spies against David, and sets out with a large body of warriors (3000) in order to seize him. He sees in him a rival king, against whom he must march fully equipped, and whom he must destroy by a superior force of disciplined troops. The ibex-rocks, so called by the people perhaps, because from their steepness and wildness the ibexes or wild-goats could subsist there. See Rob. II. 432 [Am. Ed. I. 500]. Mountain-goats still abound there. In the hardly accessible gorges and caves Saul with his men sought David and his followers, rightly supposing that the latter, being few in number, would seek to hide in this region so full of hiding-places. There were and are caves there wherein thousands might hide.—The words: The sheepcotes on the way indicate (like the “ibex-rocks”) a well-known locality, which from its fruitfulness in this otherwise waste region served for the abode of flocks. [Thomson saw many sheepfolds at the mouths of caves; they were made by piling stones up in a circle and covering them with thorns.—Tr.]. Saul looks out a cave in the vicinity to cover his feet, that is, to obey a call of nature, when the Orientals usually cover their feet (the ancient Vss. [except Syr.], Keil, Then.), not: “to sleep” (Mich., Ew. [Syr.]). David and his men abode within or in the back of the cave [1 Samuel 24:4 (3)], while Saul was in front not far from the entrance. The description supposes a very large cave, of such as are numerous there. But whether this cave is to be identified (as Van de Velde supposes) with the one near the village Chareitun in the Wady of the same name southwest of the Frank Mountain and north-east of Tekoa (it is a limestone arch with many side-passages and wide dark rear-spaces) is uncertain, inasmuch as the latter on account of its proximity to Tekoa would be reckoned to the wilderness of Tekoa rather than to the wilderness of Engedi, and besides is from fourteen to nineteen miles from Engedi, which does not seem to have been the case with the one here described. [De Saulcy (B. Com.) suggests Bir-el-Mauquouchieh near Wady Hasasa as the place.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 24:5 [4]. David’s men advise him to seize this opportunity, given him, as they think, by God, to rid himself of his deadly foe. See, this is the day of which the Lord said to thee.—The Lord’s “saying” can here be understood only in the general sense of the divine ordering of this favorable opportunity. This day, with its fortunate meeting, seemed to them a hint and direction from God. A reference to a definite divine declaration, given to David through a prophet (Clericus: “There would come a time when, his enemies all conquered and prostrate, he would peacefully govern Israel”) is not in the words themselves.—Saul had laid aside his upper garment [robe] for his present purpose [or, remaining on him, it may have been spread out.—Tr.]. The situation was such that David could, without being observed, cut off a corner of the upper garment. David wished to have in hand this sign that Saul had been defenceless in his power, and that he could have killed him, in order to use it with Saul at the proper time. His heart smote him, not with fright at the bold undertaking (Then., Ew.), for the deed was already done, but in the ethical sense: his conscience smote him. From what follows it is clear that David regarded Saul’s person as sacred; he reproached himself with having secretly cut off a piece of his garment, and thus failed in reverence for his person. Cler.: “David was afraid that Saul would take this, though a clear sign of (David’s) magnanimity, in bad part, and regard it as a violation of his royal majesty.” 1 Samuel 24:7 [6]. The decisive and solemn rejection of the advice of the warriors to assail Saul. Be it far from me from the Lord, that is, on the Lord’s account; it is a religious ground which restrains him from following the advice of his men. For God’s sake he will not do it, because Saul is the anointed of the Lord, a person made sacred by the Lord. And therefore also David could not have received command from the Lord to deal with Saul according to his good pleasure. 1 Samuel 24:8 [7]. “David cut down his men with words” (ωָׁ ?ρַּ ?ς “to rend, cut to pieces,” then figuratively “cut down with words” verbis dilaceravit), Luther “beat back” (abweisen), too weak [so Eng. A. V. “stayed.”—Tr.]; Berl. Bib. better: “pulled away” (abreissen). David was obliged to hold back his men with reproving words from taking bloody vengeance on Saul. We must suppose that Saul went alone into the cave at a distance from his people, and did not suspect that such a body of men lay immediately behind his back. 1 Samuel 24:9-22 [8–22]. The conversation of David and Saul at a distance. 1 Samuel 24:9 [8]. David uses this God-given opportunity to assure his persecutor of his innocence, and to lodge a sting in his conscience. His words are a declaration (wrung out by suffering) from heart to heart, from conscience to conscience. The address: My Lord, O king! indicates the double point of view whence David in what follows declares by deed and by word his relation and attitude to Saul. He recognizes and honors Saul as his lord to whom he feels himself bound to be subject; in calling him his lord he declares himself guiltless of insurrection against him. In the king he sees the anointed of the Lord, the bearer of the holy theocratic office, in which character he was inviolable. In calling him king he affirms that he is far from attacking his person and working him harm. To this address corresponds David’s behaviour, his gesture of deepest reverence: he bent his face to the earth and bowed himself. 1 Samuel 24:10 [9]. David refers first to the calumnies by which he had been blackened to Saul as his enemy seeking his destruction. Compare the title of Psalms 7., which refers to the present situation; there were calumniating go-betweens, one of whom was the otherwise unknown Benjamite Cush, who stood, therefore, in the same category with the Ziphites and Doeg. Saul hearkened to these slanders and believed them, because his heart was full of mistrust and hate against David. 1 Samuel 24:11 [10]. David expressly represents it as a divinely ordered circumstance that Saul was put into his power. He also expressly affirms that the temptation to kill him was presented to him (ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ “one said” as in 1 Samuel 23:22), but at the same time declares that he spared him; to the “spared” of the Heb. supply “my eye” [so Eng. A. V.—Tr.], as in Genesis 45:20; Deuteronomy 7:16 (so most expositors) or “my hand” or “my soul” (Cler.). He further gives the reason which deterred him from laying hand on Saul, his lord: for he is the Lord’s anointed.—By the royal anointing, as a divine act, Saul’s person was for him sacred, inviolable. 1 Samuel 24:12 [11]. And my father; with this address David passes from his relation to Saul as king to the divinely ordered relation which he occupied towards him as father. To this “my father” answers Saul’s “my son.” David calls Saul father not (as Grotius thinks) because he was his father-in-law, but to indicate the pious feeling which so fills his heart as he speaks, that he involuntarily breaks out into this address. See 1 Samuel 24:17 [16] and 1 Samuel 26:17.—See, yea see.—A lively introduction of the factual proof of what he had just said that Saul had been given into his hand so that he could have done to him what he would. The “yea” (βַּ ?ν) is here intensive, not merely copulative (Ges. § 155, 2 a). The skirt of the upper garment in David’s hand is to be at the same time ocular proof that David is innocent of the wicked accusations brought against him by the calumniators. With his innocence, set forth in heaped up words: “in my hand is no evil nor transgression, and I have not sinned against thee,” he next contrasts (with the adversative phrase “and thou” and in curt, incisive words) Saul’s criminal conduct towards him: Thou workest after my soul, properly “huntest my soul;” Cler.: “A very suitable phrase concerning a man whom his enemy was pursuing like a beast over mountains and forests;” Sept.: “bindest,” with allusion to the nets of the hunter, and so, in accordance with this figure, it is added: to take it, Vulg. ut auferas eam. 1 Samuel 24:13 [12] is similarly to be taken from the point of view that he has no evil design against Saul.—The Lord will judge between me and thee, that is, though the Lord gave thee into my hand, I attempted, and shall attempt nothing against thee, because I leave the decision wholly to the Lord. Here speaks submission to God’s will, leaving to him the decision concerning right and wrong, innocence and guilt. And the Lord will avenge me of thee,—the expression of David’s confidence that for his guilty conduct towards his (David’s) innocence Saul will not go unpunished, that against him will be manifested the weight of the divine punitive justice.—But my hand shall not be against thee, as I have hitherto been, so I will continue to be pure from crime against thee; God’s hand will punish thy injustice towards me, my hand shall not touch thee. 1 Samuel 24:14 [13]. David grounds this declaration of innocence on the reference to its inner foundation and root by means of an “old proverb:” from the evil comes evil, evil doing springs from an evil heart. Cler. well explains: “David means to say that if he had been guilty of conspiracy against the king, he would not have neglected this favorable opportunity to kill him, since men usually indulge their feelings, and from a mind guilty of conspiracy nothing but corresponding deeds could come forth.” Compare the Greek proverb: κακοῦκόρακοςκακὸνὠόν [“from a bad raven a bad egg,” see Matthew 7:15-20.—Tr.]—Grotius: “Actions usually correspond to the quality of the mind.” The repetition of the words: “but my hand shall not be against thee,” after the proverb is the declaration of innocence: “I am not wicked and criminal, and, therefore, according to the old proverb, I shall undertake and do nothing evil against thee, wreak no vengeance on thee.” 1 Samuel 24:15 [14] David points out how foolish, superfluous and unroyal is Saul’s persecuting campaign against a mean, undangerous man like him. Grot.: “A very pathetic appeal and a proof of David’s very great modesty.” Comp. Psalms 131. The king of Israel is with special emphasis made to follow the “after whom?” in contrast with the position and significance of the person persecuted by him. With the king of Israel adorned with honor and power David contrasts himself under the figure of a dead dog: 1) as a despised, lowly, qualitatively insignificant man, comp. 1 Samuel 17:43; 2 Samuel 3:8, where the figure of a dog represents a man despicable in the eyes of one who is, or is supposed to be of high standing; 2) as a harmless, or in no wise dangerous man, comp. the figure of the dead dog, 2 Samuel 9:8; 2 Samuel 16:9.—The comparison with the flea adds the idea of the quantitatively petty, mean, comp. 1 Samuel 26:20. “Wherefore,” would David say, “O thou mighty king of Israel, dost thou summon thy army against so little and insignificant a man?” Berl. Bib.: “against a single flea, which is not easily caught, and easily escapes, and if it is caught, is poor game for a royal hunter.” No more than a dead dog can harm, and a flea endanger thee, am I, apart from the fact that I have no wish thereto, in position to work thee destruction. 1 Samuel 24:16 [15]. Therefore—because Saul persecutes him unjustly as an innocent man, and foolishly as an undangerous man, because he, David, is unjustly slandered and persecuted as a malicious enemy of Saul—he appeals to the Judge who alone is just and gives success to a righteous cause. Two things David here says: 1) he repeats his appeal to the judicial decision of the Lord (1 Samuel 24:13 [12]), and 2) declares his firm conviction that the Lord will by such decision help him to his rights against Saul: He will conduct my cause, that is, the just God, before whom I am not only consciously, but really innocent, will be my advocate, undertake my cause; and do me justice from thy hand, I shall be delivered out of thy hand, freed from the sufferings which thou preparest me. A zeugmatic construction.—[Rather a pregnant construction: “will judge me (and thus deliver me) from thy hand.”—Tr.]1 Samuel 24:17 [16]. Saul’s answer to these words of David shows that they deeply and powerfully impressed his mind and sharply pricked his conscience. The address: Is that thy voice, my son David? indicates by its soft, mild tone that David’s words, issuing from a deeply-moved heart, and in the “my father” and “thou king of Israel, my lord,” expressing profound piety and reverence, had struck a chord in Saul’s inner life on the side of feeling and disposition, which he could not help letting sound forth in this address counter to the fierceness and hate that otherwise possessed him. The sign of this sudden awakening of nobler feeling is Saul’s weeping aloud. There is no hypocrisy or pretence here. Saul, tossed powerless hither and thither by fierce passions without self-control and without harmony of soul-life, is here laid hold of in a hidden corner of his heart, where he was still accessible to the power of truth, and involuntarily yields to this nobler arousing of his soul, though it is not destined to be permanent. 1 Samuel 24:18 [17]. On this psychologically so significant address follows the ethically so important confession: Thou art more righteous than I, for thou hast done me good, and I have done thee evil.—This proves that his conscience was touched by David’s word, which had so sharply contrasted innocence and baseless persecution, righteousness and unrighteousness. Saul must do honor to the truth; the overwhelming force of David’s words, founded in truth, forces this confession from him; though a thorough and permanent change for the better is not thereby effected in his heart. Grotius: “The confession is unwillingly extorted, the mind being nothing bettered.” But we see from this of how high a degree of good Saul was capable, if he had been willing to deny himself. The mode in which David’s word so struck his conscience that he was compelled involuntarily to acknowledge his innocence and the justice of his cause is indicated by his own words; it was his perception of the glaring contrast between his evil, destructive operations against David, and the wholly opposite conduct of the latter, who did only good to the hostile king: The requital of evil with good. Saul thinks of all the good that David had done him by his faithful service. By right moral conduct, absolutely accordant with God’s holy will, and simple avowal springing from truth and from the heart, a deep impression for the better may under certain circumstances be made on the corruptest and most hardened nature. 1 Samuel 24:19 [18]. In proof of this affirmation Saul adduces David’s present behaviour, which is distinguished from the preceding: “thou hast done me good.”—And thou hast to-day showed, hast given a proof of what good thou hast done to me, namely therein, that the Lord had delivered me into thy hand; Saul also here recognizes the fact that it was God’s hand that had to-day delivered him into David’s hand, in contrast with his previous declarations that God had given David into his hand, 1 Samuel 23:7.—But thou didst not kill me, thou didst not use the opportunity given thee by God’s providence, because thou wishest not to avenge thyself on me, and thinkest only good towards me. All this is a splendid justification of David and confirmation of the assertions that he made to Saul. 1 Samuel 24:20 [19]. Thenius, from the Sept., Syr. and Arab., undertakes to restore the supposed original text of this verse as follows: 1) after “his enemy,” we are to hold, stood originally “in straits” (αַּ ?φָּ ?ψָ ?δ). Thenius thinks this reading “necessary,” since one might find his enemy without having opportunity to hurt him; but this opportunity is especially afforded when he finds him in angustiis, “in straits.” But this is a hair-splitting and far-fetched argument, since the connection does not leave it doubtful what is meant by finding the enemy. “Find” here as in 1 Samuel 23:17; Psalms 21:9 [8]; Isaiah 10:10, means so to come upon as to affect with suffering or punishment,=“get into one’s power.” 2) After θεֹ ?αָ ?δ [Eng. A. V. after “well away.”—Tr.] Then, supposes “the Lord will reward him good” to have fallen away, and 3) instead of the last words of the verse, to have originally stood: “the Lord reward thee good for what thou hast to-day done to me.” But the authority of the versions is the less decisive here, because their purpose is obvious, to avoid a harshness and produce conformity. They included the whole sentence in the protasis: “if one find his enemy and send him away,” and there was no apodosis. To supply this apodosis and correspondingly to express the good which Saul afterwards wishes David, they added: “the Lord will reward him good.”—The words, as they stand in the text, give even according to Thenius a “tolerable sense;” yea more, they give a satisfactory sense if we translate: If one find his enemy, will he let him go on a good way (a peaceful, unimperilled way)? that is, it is usual, when one has his enemy in his power, not to let him go in peace untouched. In the lively feeling with which Saul speaks, the omission of the intermediate thought, the expression of which might be expected, namely, “so hast thou not acted towards me,” is quite natural. The negative answer to this question is omitted (an omission psychologically easily understood), and immediately follows the wish: The Lord reward thee good for what thou hast this day done to me. (So Maur., De Wette, Buns., Keil.) That Saul at this moment truly and honestly meant these words, is beyond doubt; it is the witness not only of a bright, but also of a good moment in his inner life, though indeed no deep and permanent improvement followed. Under the influence of David’s presence and words the evil spirit had for a moment yielded to the good. 1 Samuel 24:21 [20] sq. Following the better impulse of his heart Saul sees clearly that the theocratic kingship will pass from him and his house to David, and only through him as its future bearer be permanently established. How did Saul come to this knowledge which he here expresses, and which Jonathan had already affirmed that his father had (1 Samuel 23:17)? Not through direct divine revelation, but by the observation that all his undertakings against David were unsuccessful, and that David in respect to his persecutions was under special divine protection, coupled with the recollection of what Samuel had once said to him in the name of God respecting his rejection for disobedience. The declaration of his conscience: “Thou art rejected by God” was confirmed by the manifest signs of divine guidance and protection in David’s life, and by the imposing moral power of David’s conduct. Cler.: “From this great magnanimity of David he concluded that a man who was much superior in soul to kings could not but reign.” Two things he says: 1) “Thou wilt become king,” and 2) “in thy hand the kingdom will be permanently established,” not “will be raised up, grow, increase” (Gramb.). So far has the dark cloud of envy and hate passed away from Saul’s soul, that he not only recognizes and affirms David’s future kingship, but to him as future king prefers a request in the form of an adjuration, that he would show royal kindness and mercy to his house and name. David gave him the promise in an oath that he would not after his death exterminate his posterity, as was often the case in changes of dynasty in the East, and, as Keil well points out, repeatedly occurred also in the kingdom of the Ten Tribes. 1 Kings 15:28 sq.; 1 Samuel 16:11 sq.; 2 Kings 10. Similar request by Jonathan 1 Samuel 20:15. [Bib.-Com.: “The deep genealogical feeling of the Israelites breaks out here as so often elsewhere.” Saul’s declaration as to David’s future kingship is not divine prophecy, but human foresight.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 24:23 [22]. The description of the interview, so significant for both parties to it, concludes with the statement that Saul went to his residence, while David with his men went up into the strong and secure mountain-heights. The latter did not return home, because he could not expect that Saul would retain this disposition and essentially change his bearing towards him.—Cler.: “He knew Saul’s changeable and perfidious nature, and was afraid of his snares.” [Nor, apparently, did Saul invite or expect him to go home. His presence at court would have been embarrassing; his training in the fields is to continue yet some time.—Tr.] AND 1. This incident of David’s life in 1 Samuel 24 (not 26) forms the basis of Psalms 7 (of which he is the author), which is rich in references to this event and whose title: “Shiggaion of David which he sang to the Lord concerning the words of Cush the Benjaminite,” giving the slanderous accusations of this man as the occasion of the Psalm, presents a situation identical with that of 1 Samuel 24:10 [9] of 1 Samuel 24. There were men who, by all sorts of slanders, blackened David with Saul, and inflamed his hate against him. Among these, according to the title, was the Benjaminite Cush. The Benjaminites, on account of the tribal relationship, were pronounced adherents of Saul, and he had bound them to him by all sorts of favors (comp. 1 Samuel 22:7). Cush is not a symbolical name for a man of black wickedness, namely here for Saul (to whose father’s name Kish, Hengstenberg and Kimchi see an allusion), but the proper name of a Benjaminite man, one of those slanderers and go-betweens, whose mention in the title of this Psalm (the situation in which accords throughout with that in 1 Samuel 24) is a supplement to the allusion in 1 Samuel 24:10. How the content of the Psalm is based on David’s assertion of innocence and confident appeal to God which is given here in 1 Samuel 24. is clear from the train of thought: After the singer’s introductory cry for help, 1 Samuel 24:2-3 [1, 2] follows the affirmation of freedom from revenge and of innocence as to the accusations made against him (pointing to 1 Samuel 24:5-8; 1 Samuel 24:18-19 [4–7, 17, 18]), 1 Samuel 24:4-6 [3–5]. On this is based (see 1 Samuel 24:13-16 [12–15]) the appeal to the Lord for execution of His judgment, to which he submits in firm confidence and good conscience, 1 Samuel 24:7-10 [6–9]. To this is added (see 1 Samuel 24:16 [15]) avowal of trust in the help of the righteous God, and in the self-prepared destruction of the unrighteous, 1 Samuel 24:11-17 [10–16]. In conclusion the vow of thanksgiving [1 Samuel 24:17.—What Delitzsch excellently says of the character of the Psalm: “It is the most solemn pathos of lofty self-consciousness, that here speaks,—anxious unrest, defiant self-trust, triumphant upsoaring, confident trust, prophetic certainty, all these tones find expression in the irregular strophe-sequence of this Davidic dithyramb,” all this is found substantially in David’s words to Saul.—Hengstenberg’s statement of the didactic content of the Psalm: “There is a twofold didactic element in the Psalm: 1) it is a necessary condition of divine help that one lift up pure hands to God, and 2) this condition being fulfilled, the divine righteousness vouches for the absolute certainty of the deliverance,” answers precisely in both points to the two fundamental thoughts of David’s address (1 Samuel 24) to Saul: 1) I am innocent, and therefore sure of divine help, and 2) God’s justice will bring my innocence to light, and punish my unrighteous persecutors. 2. As fundamental traits in the religious-moral character of David appear in this section the following: magnanimous forbearance towards his enemy providentially given into his hand, decided repulse of the temptation to revenge on him, tenderness of conscience whereby his heart smote him for appropriating a piece of Saul’s garment, frank and bold affirmation of his innocence against slanders and persecutions, reverent piety towards the sacred person of the Lord’s chosen and the de facto theocratic king, the confidence of a good conscience, and the patient waiting of a mind resigned to God’s dispensations in respect to the severe sufferings appointed him, and the expected decision of the divine justice, love of enemies which not only puts far away revenge, but repays evil with good, firm confidence in God’s justice (having its root in humility), with which in the consciousness of innocence he appeals to the highest tribunal, clear knowledge of the ways of the divine justice, whose aim is the maintenance of the divinely-appointed holy order of his kingdom (namely, that the unrighteously introduced evil be punished), and hope in the saving help of God founded on faith in God’s justice. “That David was magnanimous towards enemies, that, when his foe was through chance in his hands, instead of satiating his vengeance, he sent him reverently away, is wholly in keeping with his nature, and in the song Psalms 7:5 [4] is referred to by him briefly and incidentally, but clearly enough; that to Saul himself, even when there would have been the most favorable opportunity to inflict grievous injury on him, he could do no bodily harm, follows immediately from the idea itself of the ‘Anointed of God’ which filled his soul” (Ew., III., 130). 3. The old proverb: “From the evil comes evil” (1 Samuel 24:14 [13] expresses the truth that the moral character of the man necessarily determines his conduct; the ethical actus is always the expression of the ethical habitus; the precise nature of the inner life, whether in good or in evil, the ethical character of the personality shows itself in the man’s outward doing. It is the same truth which is expressed in the New Test. declaration: “As the tree so the fruit” (Matthew 7:17). 4. The simple self-presentation and self-witness of moral purity and truth (as here in David in word and deed) has a great missionary power, and often makes a mighty impression on spiritually darkened and morally perverted natures (as Saul’s here) in such wise that the divine in them is freed from the binding power of the evil, and the religious-moral element of the conscience, which is concealed deep under religious-moral corruption, breaks freely forth, at least in some bright and good moments, in order to point to the way of salvation and show the possibility of deliverance, provided the man is willing to be saved and renewed. AND 1 Samuel 24:3 [2]. S. Schmid: How much it were to be wished that the pious would apply as much diligence to the practice of good as the ungodly do to the practice of evil (Romans 6:19). 1 Samuel 24:5 [4]. Wuert. Bib.: It happens quite often that men seek to mislead us by an apparent application of the Word of God; let us therefore prove all things and hold fast that which is good (Matthew 4:6). [Hall: Those temptations are most powerful which fetch their force from the pretence of a religious obedience.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 24:6-7 [5, 6]. Cramer: It is a praiseworthy virtue to be able to conquer one’s self, and he that ruleth his spirit is better than he that taketh a city (Proverbs 16:32).—Schlier: David really gained a greater victory at this moment than formerly in the fight against Goliath.—Let us be master over ourselves, let us fight against our anger and overcome the enemy in our own heart. It is a wonderful, every way instructive and shame-inspiring sight, the fugitive David protecting his deadly foe against the hand of his friends. [Chrysostom remarks that David had reason to fear lest his men should rebel and do violence to him if he spared their common enemy; also that they were very cunning in not suggesting revenge—to which they knew David would not incline—but the pious recognition of God’s hand.—Taylor: No doubt it might be said that God had rejected Saul, and had caused David to be anointed in his room; but that had not given to David the right to deal summarily with Saul; it had only indicated that when, in the course of Providence, Saul should be removed, David would be set upon his throne. For this, therefore, David would wait. He would not take Providence into his own hands. He would bide God’s time, and it should not be said for him that he had come into the kingdom by the assassination of his predecessor. Even his cutting off a portion of Saul’s robe caused him some misgivings of heart, the rather as perhaps after he had done it, his men, emboldened by his example, might have felt themselves at liberty to go farther, and lay hands on the king himself. If any such disposition was manifested by them, it was immediately repressed by their leader.—Tr.]—Hall: Tender consciences are moved to regret at those actions, which strong hearts pass over with a careless ease. 1 Samuel 24:8 [7]. Schmid: What one cannot himself do with a good conscience, he must also not permit those to do whom he has to command. [This holds good only within certain limits.—Tr.]—Starke: We must not yield even to our dearest and best friends when they desire from us something wrong. 1 Samuel 24:9 [8]. Schlier: How instructive is this union of reverence with genuine manly spirit! It is a servant of the Lord who speaks—a servant of the Lord filled with fear of God.—Modesty and respect are becoming to a Christian in all cases. But that does not exclude us from also telling the truth, with all modesty, to be sure, but yet with all candor. 1 Samuel 24:10 [9]. Osiander: One must not lay his hand on even an ungodly ruler. 1 Samuel 24:12 [11]. S. Schmid: That is the highest love towards God and one’s neighbor, when any one restrains himself from revenge in such a manner that he returns his enemy good for the highest wrong (Romans 12:21).—Berl. Bib.: As men are, so are their actions. As the tree, so is the fruit. What the heart is full of, the mouth runs over with and the hands work at and accomplish. 1 Samuel 24:16 [15]. Osiander: God is advocate, judge, avenger and protector for those who suffer for righteousness’ sake. 1 Samuel 24:17 [16]. Starke: A good word finds a good reception often even with the most corrupt men. 1 Samuel 24:18 [17]. Berlenburg. Bible: See how David’s patience works upon Saul, and how one may heap coals of fire upon the heads of his enemies (Proverbs 25:22). Try this means on thy unfriendly and perverse neighbor or relative (Romans 12:20). 1 Samuel 24:20 [19]. Cramer: A mighty thing is the truth. Therefore, if thy brother sins against thee, go and rebuke him between thee and him alone (Matthew 18:15).—S. Schmid: The ungodly, too, must at last confess that it is right for God to requite the righteous according to their righteousness. 1 Samuel 24:21-22 [20–22]. Cramer: To be able to constrain and win an enemy with good words, gentleness and modesty, is the noblest victory (Proverbs 15:1).—Osiander: Enemies are often overcome much sooner by good deeds than by force.—S. Schmid: What God has according to His wise counsel designed for His pious and upright servants, must become theirs, although the ungodly with all their powers set themselves against it and begrudge it to them; yea, at last the ungodly must themselves confess that their efforts against it are in vain.—Schlier: How often we think, too, as soon as good thoughts and feelings stir in us, that already it is all done; how often we think with a couple of good purposes and resolutions to get to the end! O believe it though: before all things there must be a change towards the living God, before all things must we bow before God, before all things confess our sins to Him; the first thing and the most necessary of all is repentance! That is the only way there can be a real and thorough change. (See above “Hist. and Theolog.”) [1 Samuel 24:4. Providential purpose, apparent and real. 1) What was here the apparent purpose of God? To give an injured man opportunity for delivering and avenging himself. He was strongly tempted: a) It was indeed a “special providence” of an extraordinary and very striking kind (comp. 1 Samuel 5:10). b) He had been cruelly wronged, by friend (1 Samuel 23:12) and foe, and there seemed no other hope of deliverance from this perpetual persecution, c) His followers insisted on his embracing the tempting opportunity, and might rebel if he refused. 2) How did he know that such could not be the purpose of Providence? Because it would involve his doing what was wrong in itself (1 Samuel 24:5-6; 1 Samuel 24:10). An enlightened and tender conscience must check our interpretations of Providence. 3) What was the real Providential purpose? As usual, it was manifold: we can see the following points: a) To make him more conscientious by obeying conscience under sore temptation (1 Samuel 24:5-6). b) To present a noble example to his rude followers and the people at large (1 Samuel 24:6; 1 Samuel 24:10). c) To furnish a most convincing proof that he was wrongly accused (1 Samuel 24:9-11). d) To give him ground for a confident appeal to Providence in future (1 Samuel 24:12 sq.; comp. 1 Samuel 26:23-24). e) To heighten his reputation for loyalty and magnanimity, and smooth the way to his finally becoming king (comp. 1 Samuel 24:20). [1 Samuel 24:1-15. David’s magnanimity. (Group homiletically the materials indicated in “Hist. and Theol.,” No. 2.) [1 Samuel 24:13. A Bible proverb before Solomon: 1) Habitual bad conduct proves bad character. 2) Habitual good conduct, notwithstanding tempting occasions for wickedness, proves that the character is not bad. 3) It is well when one can appeal to his actions as supporting his words and proving the purity of his motives. [1 Samuel 24:9-15. A good man defending himself against suspicion and slander: 1) He remonstrates against listening to slanderous accusers (1 Samuel 24:9). 2) He sets forth his actions as showing that the charges are false (1 Samuel 24:10-11; 1 Samuel 24:13). 3) He declares the persecution of him to be utterly unbecoming in a person of high position (1 Samuel 24:14). 4) He solemnly appeals to God: a) to plead his cause, b) to deliver him, c) to punish his persecutor, which he will not himself do (1 Samuel 24:12; 1 Samuel 24:15; comp. Psalms 7.). 1 Samuel 24:16-22. Temporary amendment in a fallen man: 1) Its occasion—an exhibition of magnanimous kindness touches his better feelings. 2) Its signs. a) Bitter weeping, b) Frank confession (1 Samuel 24:17). c) Prayer that a man he has been wronging may be blessed of God (1 Samuel 24:19). d) Acknowledgment that this man is not only better than himself, but has a righteous cause (1 Samuel 24:20). e) Abandonment of his attempts to wrong the other. 3) Why the amendment proves only temporary: a) It is only matter of feeling, not of principle (1 Samuel 24:16). b) He is thinking more of his own interests than of justice to another (1 Samuel 24:21). c) He does not really return to God, but only softens towards a man. d) Sooner or later comes a fresh temptation (1 Samuel 26:1 sq.).—Tr.] Footnotes:[1 Samuel 23:29 (1). See the various VSS. in this verse as an illustration of the uncertainty in proper names.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:2 (3). “On the face of the rocks.” Possibly we have here a proper name, the Jeelim or ibex-rocks.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:3 (4). Explained in all the VSS. as = τὰςΦυσικὰςἐκκρίσειςποιήσασθαι (so Erdmann), except Syr., which has “to sleep.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:5 (6). All ancient VSS., except Chald,, read: “the skirt of Saul’s robe,” and so some MSS. In the present Heb. text we should expect the Art. before λπσ, and, apparently, we should either supply the Art., or adopt the reading of the VSS.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:6 (7). Literally: “a profane thing be it to me from Jehovah.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:7 (8). This word ψַ ?ιְ ?ωַׁ ?ρַּ ?ς is variously rendered by the VSS.: συνεκάλεσεν, περιέσπασεν, ἔπεισεν, ἡπάτησεν, Chald. “quieted” (‬ ?τַּ ?ιֵּ ?ν), Syr. “caused to repent, turned aside” (so Eng. A. V.), Arab. “threateningly admonished,” Vulg. “confregit.” Levy suggests ειωׁ ?ξς as the reading of the Vat. Sept. (ἐπεισε). The Heb. word contains a strong figure (so Gesen. and Erdmann) “cut up” = “hindered, restrained.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:9 (10). Or: “hearkenest thou to.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:10 (11). ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ, indefinite as in 1 Samuel 23:22 (Maurer), so Syr., Arab., Chald. The phrase, however, presents some difficulties. It is objected (Bib. Com.) that the subject of ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ in the present Heb. text is naturally “Jehovah,” so that it would read: “and Jehovah said (commanded) to kill thee;” but this is not necessarily required by the grammar, and is in David’s mouth impossible (Bib. Com.). Thenius rejects the sense of “command” here as belonging to later Heb. (but it is found in 2 Samuel 1:18; 2 Samuel 16:11), and adopts the reading μֹ ?ΰΰָ ?αִ ?ιϊִ ?ι, “I did not wish,” after the Sept. οὐκἠβουλήθην, adding that the Heb. text is most readily explained from the Vulg.: “et cogitavi ut occiderem te,” whence Heb. εְ ?ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψְ ?ϊִּ ?ι (so Bib. Com.). Both these readings (and ε with Impf.) Wellhausen rejects, and reads after Sept. εָ ?ΰֲ ?ξָ ?ΰֵ ?ο (as in 1 Samuel 8:19), which is more probable from the form (the present Heb. might easily come from it), and gives a good sense. We cannot infer anything as to the text from Josephus’ omission of this clause.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:11 (12). The mutilation of the Sept. here loses the expression of excitement which is so natural to the occasion.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 24:11 (12). Sept. δεσμεύεις=“bindest in toils”=“huntest.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:13 (14). Wellhausen holds this verse to be an interpolation because its last clause is identical with the last clause of the preceding verse; but would not this repetition here be very natural?—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:14 (15). The rendering “one” for ΰֶ ?ηָ ?γ is more lively, yet not linguistically necessary; the numeral is sometimes used as Indef. Art., as in 1 Samuel 1:1.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:15 (16). Of the three words here rendered “judge” the second and third are the same in the Heb. (ωָׁ ?τַ ?θ, indicating the act of a governor-judge) and the first different from these (γַּ ?ιָ ?ο= a judicial officer).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:17 (18). The sense of retribution is sometimes, but not always found in this word (βָּ ?ξַ ?μ).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:18 (19). This clause seems awkward. We would expect: “thou hast showed thy willingness to deal well,” or simply: “thou hast dealt well,” for the “showing” and the “dealing” are identical in content; nor does the Sept. ἀπήγγειλας help. Perhaps we should render: “Thou hast showed this day that thou dealest well,” that is, that such is thy purpose and policy.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:19 (20). On this text see Erdmann in the Exposition.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:20 (22). Here one MS. and Arab. add ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψַ ?ι, “after me,” an obvious supplement.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 24:22(23). Heb. ςַ ?μ, “upon,” but thirty MSS. read ΰֵ ?μ, “to.”—Tr.] [Some cite 1 Samuel 15:28; 1 Samuel 16:1; 1 Samuel 16:12, and also 1 Samuel 20:15; 1 Samuel 23:17, but it is not probable that David’s men would know these. Of any other promise we have no mention.—Tr.] [That is the reverence, the pietas of the Romans.—Tr.] [Philippson: “This address of David has so much natural eloquence, so much glow, and such a tone of conviction, that no one who has any sense for the simple beauties of the Bible can read it without being moved. The whole situation, too, is noble: David, standing on the rocky height in the desert, holding on high the trophy of his magnanimity, looking at and addressing the melancholy Saul, whom he loved as a father, honored as king, revered as the Lord’s Anointed, who yet without ground hated him and persecuted him with relentless and deadly zeal—using the opportunity with rapid words, which expressed his deepest feelings, to touch the heart of his enemy—he himself full or humility, oppressed by indescribable suffering and weighed down by the feeling of powerlessness, yet inspired by the consciousness of a noble deed.”—Tr.] [On this verse and its translation see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] VII. Samuel’s death. David’s march into the wilderness of Paran. The history of the foolish Nabal and the wise Abigail 1 Samuel 25:1-441 And Samuel died; and all the Israelites [Israel] were gathered together, and lamented him and buried him in his house at Ramah. And David arose and went down to the wilderness of Paran.2And there was a man in Maon, whose possessions were in Carmel. And the man was very great, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats; and Hebrews 3 was shearing his sheep in Carmel. Now [And] the name of the man was Nabal, and the name of his wife Abigail; and she was a woman [the woman was] of good understanding and of a beautiful countenance; but the man was churlish and evil 4in his doings; and he was of the house of Caleb. And David heard in the wilderness 5that Nabal did shear his sheep. And David sent out [om. out] ten young men, and David said unto the young men, Get you up to Carmel and go to Nabal and 6greet him in my name. And thus shall ye say to him that liveth in prosperity [om. that liveth in prosperity], Peace be both [om. both] to thee, and peace be to 7thy house, and peace be unto all that thou hast. And now I have heard that thou hast shearers. Now thy shepherds which [om. which] were with us; we hurt them not, neither was there aught missing unto them all the while they were in Carmel. 8Ask thy young men and they will show [tell] thee. Wherefore let the young men find favor in thine eyes, for we come in a good day; give, I pray thee, whatsoever 9[what] cometh to thine hand unto thy servants and to thy son David. And when [om. when] David’s young men came they [and] spake to Nabal according to all 10those words in the name of David, and ceased. And Nabal answered David’s servants and said, Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be [are] many 11servants nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread and my water and my flesh [meat] that I have killed for my shearers, 12and give it unto men whom I know not whence they be? So [And] David’s young men turned [ins. to] their way, and went again [returned] and came and told 13him [ins. according to] all those sayings. And David said unto his men, Gird ye on every man his sword. And they girded on every man his sword, and David also girded on his sword. And there went up after David about four hundred men, and two hundred abode by the stuff. 14But [And] one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of [from] the wilderness to salute our master; and he railed 15on them. But [And] the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we anything, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were 16in the fields [field]. They were a wall unto us both by night and day all the while 17we were with them keeping sheep. Now therefore [And now] know and consider what thou wilt do, for evil is determined against our master and against all his household, for he is such a son of Belial [bad man] that a man [one] cannot speak to him.18Then [And] Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves and two bottles [skins] of wine and five sheep ready dressed and five measures [seahs] of parched corn and an hundred clusters of raisins and two hundred cakes of figs and laid them 19on [ins. the] asses, And she [om. she] said unto her servants [young men], Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But [And] she told not her husband Nabal. 20And it was so, as she rode [And she was riding] on the ass that she came down by [and descending into] the covert of the hill [mountain], and behold, David and his 21men came down [were coming down] against her, and she met them. Now [And] David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him, and he hath requited 22me evil for good. So and more also do God unto the enemies of [om. the enemies of] David if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall [any male]. 23And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before 24David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be [On me, even me, my lord, be the sin], and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the 25words of thine handmaid. Let not my lord, I pray thee [om. thee], regard this man of Belial [this bad man], even [om. even] Nabal. For, as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name and folly is with him. But I, thine handmaid, saw not the 26young men of my lord whom thou didst send. Now, therefore [And now], my lord, as the Lord [Jehovah] liveth and as thy soul liveth, seeing [om. seeing] the Lord [Jehovah] hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood [into blood-guiltiness] and from avenging [saving] thyself with thine own hand. [ins. And] now, let 27thine enemies and they that seek evil to my lord be as Nabal. And now, this blessing which thine handmaid hath brought unto my lord, let it even [om. even] be 28given unto the young men that follow my lord. I pray thee, forgive [Forgive, I pray thee] the trespass of thine handmaid; for the Lord [Jehovah] will certainly make my lord a sure house, because my lord fighteth the battles of the Lord [Jehovah], 29and evil hath not been [shall not be] found in thee all thy days. Yet [And] a man is risen to pursue thee, and to seek thy soul [life]; but [and] the soul [life] of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord [Jehovah] thy God, and the souls [life] of thine enemies, them [it] shall he sling out as out of 30the middle [sling out in the pan] of a [the] sling. And it shall come to pass, when the Lord [Jehovah] shall have done [shall do] to my lord according to all the good that he hath spoken concerning thee, and shall have appointed [shall appoint] 31thee ruler over Israel, That this shall be no grief unto thee nor offence of heart unto my lord, either [om. either] that thou hast shed blood causeless [causelessly] or [and] that my lord hath avenged himself [hath saved himself with his own hand]. But [And] when the Lord [Jehovah] shall have dealt [shall deal] well with my lord, then remember thine handmaid.32And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] God of Israel, which 33[who] sent thee this day to meet me; And blessed be thy advice [understanding], and blessed be thou, which [who] hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood 34[into blood-guiltiness] and from avenging [saving] myself with my own hand. For [And] in very deed, as the Lord [Jehovah], God of Israel liveth, which [who] hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely [om. surely] there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning-light any 35that pisseth against the wall [any male]. So [And] David received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and have accepted thy person. 36And Abigail came to Nabal. And behold, he held a feast in his house like the feast of a king; and Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for [and] he was very 37drunken, wherefore she told him nothing, less or more, until the morning light. But [And] it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and [that] his wife had [om. had] told him these things, that [and] his heart died 38within him and he became as a stone. And it came to pass about ten days after, 39that the Lord [Jehovah] smote Nabal that [and] he died. And when [om. when] David heard that Nabal was dead [ins. and] he said, Blessed be the Lord [Jehovah] that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal, and hath kept his servant from evil, for [and] the Lord [Jehovah] hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail 40to take her to him to wife. And when [om. when] the servants of David were come [came] to Abigail to Carmel they [and] spake unto her saying, David sent us unto 41thee to take thee to him to wife. And she arose and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thy handmaid be [thy handmaid is] a servant to 42wash the feet of the servants of my lord. And Abigail hasted and arose and rode upon an [the] ass with five damsels of hers that went after her, and she went after the messengers of David and became his wife. 43David also [And David] took Ahinoam of Jezreel; and they were also both of 44them his wives. But Saul had given [And Saul gave] Michal his daughter, David’s wife to Phalti the son of Laish, which [who] was of Gallim. AND 1 Samuel 25:1. Brief account of Samuel’s death.—And Samuel died.—The narrator supposed Samuel’s death to fall in the time of the events here related.—All Israel mourned him, not merely because his career as judge and leader up to the time of the establishment of the kingdom was fresh in the memory of the people, but because his political work as prophet and watcher over the kingdom had remained to the end of profound importance for the whole people, as is clear from his relation to Saul and David on the one hand, and his position as head of the prophetic community, on the other. At his burial the people were no doubt represented by their elders. As to such mourning for the dead see Genesis 50:10.—And buried him in his house at Ramah.—Not literally: “in his house,”—this “would not have accorded (Leviticus 19:16) with the Jewish purification laws” (Then.),—but in some space, court or garden (Matthew 27:60) belonging to the house. Grot.: “Sepulchres were then usually private, see Genesis 23:9; Genesis 50:5.” On such interments “in the house,” comp. 1 Kings 2:34; 2 Kings 21:18; 2 Chronicles 33:20. Tradition puts the burial-place of Samuel on the height of Mizpah, where it is yet shown. The harmonization of this statement with our passage by regarding Ramah as a region (Pressel, s. v. “Ramah” in Herzog) is untrustworthy by reason of the untenableness of this geographical and topographical supposition and the distance of Mizpah from the city Ramah (comp. Nδgelsbach in Herz. XIII. 399). In Ramah—“for the prophets seem, though we infer it only from this passage and 1 Samuel 28:3, to have shared with the kings the right of burial within the city” (Thenius).1 Samuel 25:2 sq. David’s affair with the rich land-holder and herd-owner Nabal of Maon, after he had gone down from his hitherto abode in the highland of Engedi farther south and into the wilderness of Paran. The Sept. (Vat.) has Maon instead of Paran, and this is taken as the original reading by Then., Ew., Bunsen, because the wilderness of Paran would be too far off (at least fifteen geographical miles) from Nabal’s residence (Thenius). But this supposition is “certainly unnecessary” (Win. s. v. 193, Rem. 1); for David, descending southward, withdrew into the northernmost part of this somewhat undefined wilderness, “which extended widely between the wilderness of Shur on the west, the present Jebel et-Tih on the south, the Edomite territory on the east, and the land of Canaan on the north” (Winer). Cler.: “the boundaries of this desert are not clearly defined.” Comp. Keil on Numbers 10:12. Probably the wilderness of Judah no longer afforded sustenance to David and his large body of six hundred men (Keil). Nabal is called a man of Maon because he dwelt in this city in the hill-country of Judah (Joshua 15:55). His business (see Exodus 23:6) on the contrary was in Carmel, where Saul had raised his monument of victory over the Amalekites, whence also came his wife Abigail, “the Carmelitess” (1 Samuel 27:3). It is the present Kurmul on the elevated plain of the highland of Judah, about a mile north of Maon [and ten miles south-east of Hebron.—Tr.]. It is thence easily understood how Nabal, living in the mountain-city Maon, had his herds on the high plain in Carmel. Thenius understands mount Carmel [in the north], because a mountain is spoken of in 1 Samuel 25:5; 1 Samuel 25:7-8; 1 Samuel 25:13; 1 Samuel 25:20; 1 Samuel 25:35, and because it is said that Nabal had his possessions, his herds, on Carmel, and the mountain-meadow would be specially wholesome for the sheep and goats. But, as to height, the place Carmel lay on a mountain-plain, which afforded the best pasture for the herds. Moreover, the distance of Mount Carmel from the scene of this history [nearly one hundred miles north-west.—Tr.] would exclude it. Maon, Carmel, Ziph, are named together in Joshua 15:55. Nabal’s claim to the title of “very great,” that is, rich man, is proved by the size of his herds (“three thousand sheep and one thousand goats”).—Sheep-shearing was usually accompanied by festivities, as now also on great estates. While the rich man was shearing at Carmel, David sent to him; the protasis begins with “and it came to pass, in the shearing” (εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ιαִ ?βְ ?ζζ), 1 Samuel 25:3-4, is explanatory parenthesis, and the apodosis begins with 1 Samuel 25:5 (Then.). The statements of the names, Nabal, Abigail, and the descriptions of the persons are arranged chiastically: The woman good of understanding (sensible, wise) and beautiful of form—the man, on the contrary, hard, churlish of disposition and wicked in conduct. As to the last word of the verse, the Kethib or text (λְּ ?μִ ?αּ ?εֹ) “according to his heart” would mean “following only the desire of his mind” (Maur.), that is, self-willed—which is, however, “linguistically impossible” (Buns.). The Qeri or marginal reading (λָּ ?μִ ?αִּ ?ι), “found also in some manuscripts and printed editions in the text” (Then.), is, with Targum and Vulgate, certainly preferable: “he was of the family of Caleb.” The two former statements sufficiently characterize his disposition; a third would be out of keeping with the simplicity of the description. On the other hand, the statement of his origin accords with his importance as a man “great” by his riches, and it is introduced as something new by the words “and he” (εְ ?δεּ ?ΰ), which would not suit the continuation of the moral portraiture. Caleb had received for a possession the region of Hebron, near which Maon and Carmel lay (Joshua 15:13 sq.). Comp. 1 Samuel 30:14 : the southland of Caleb, a region in the south of Judah. The translation of the Sept., “a doggish, cynical man” (so Arab, and Syr.) and of Josephus leading a cynical life” (from λֶּ ?μֶ ?α a dog”) must be rejected. [So Boothroyd: “irritable as a dog” (Philipps.)—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 25:4. As Nabal was a man rich in herds, it was worth while to send an embassy to him from some distance for the purpose indicated in the context. The distance would indeed be great and improbable, if with Thenius we took Carmel to be the mountain of that name. The stately number ten of the messengers shows the importance and solemnity of the embassy; such a solemn sending would not suit the proximity of “Maon,” David’s abode according to the reading of the Sept. In Carmel Nabal had a house (1 Samuel 25:35-36). The Sept. adds to Nabal: “the Carmelite,” taking the designation from 1 Samuel 30:5, where it belongs to Abigail. Ask in my name after his peace, give him friendly greeting. Comp. Exodus 18:7. 1 Samuel 25:6. Here the content and form of the greeting is exactly prescribed. First, the general wish: μֶ ?ηַ ?ι [Eng. A. V.: “to him that liveth (in prosperity”)]. The translation “to my brothers” (μְ ?ΰַ ?ηַ ?ι, Vulg.), is impossible by reason of the following “thou;” it could only be “my brother” = “friend,” but it is an arbitrary conjecture. Some take the word (ηַ ?ι) as adjective [“living,” so Eng. A. V.—Tr.]. Clericus joins it to the preceding “say” and renders: “to the living (say), if ye find him alive,” S. Schmid: “and thus shall ye say: to the living (that is, the living God) I commend thee.” But the first (Clericus) is superfluous, since in sending the messengers, David assumed that Nabal still lived; the latter (Schmid) is untenable because of the arbitrariness of the reference to God. Bφttcher connects it with the “say,” and takes the Sing. (ηַ ?ι) in the sense of “man” (as one possessing vigorous life), adducing the use of the Plu. (ηַ ?ιִּ ?ιν) and the Collective-form (ηַ ?ιָּ ?δ) in the sense of “people,” as in 1 Samuel 18:18; Numbers 35:3; 2 Samuel 23:13. The meaning would then be: “Say to the living one,” that is, to the man. But the Sing, is never used in this sense. Against De Wette’s earlier rendering: “say to the well-living” [so Philippson and Eng. A. V.—Tr.] is the fact that the simple word will not bear this meaning [the addition of “well” or “in prosperity” is unwarranted.—Tr.]. The Sept. has “for this year” (εἰςὥρας as in Genesis 18:10; Genesis 18:14), that is, mayest thou with thy house be in peace till the return of this happy day—a “tolerably far-fetched idea,” impossible as a translation of the text, and a mere makeshift to avoid the difficulty.—It is better (considering the difficulties) to take the word as Subst. = “life.” It is objected that only the Plu. is so used; but the Sing, is found not only in the formula of swearing “by the life of thy soul, of Jehovah,” but also in Leviticus 25:36 in the signification “life.” The phrase (μֶ ?ηַ ?ι), however, can then mean neither “for a long time, for many years” (Vulg. according to another reading, and Jos.), nor “for the life, the whole lifetime, forever” (Chald., D. Kimchi, Dathe); the expression does not allow these renderings, which introduce a foreign idea (long), unless we change the following letter (ε) into the suffix (κָ) and read “for thy life.” But, instead of this bold and unsupported conjecture, it is better to take life (De Wette: zum leben “unto life”) as = “fortune, prosperity,” and to regard the expression as a popular form of congratulation, not found in the literary language; Luther: “success” (glόck auf)! Maurer: “to life, that is, may it turn out well; may thy affairs be fortunate” [so Rashi, and apparently Talmud Bab., Berakoth fol. 55, 2.—Tr.]. We cannot admit such a congratulation is superfluous by reason of what follows (Then.), for the threefold special “peace” on Nabal, his house and his possessions is the unfolding of the general wish, the latter is the prelude, the former the triple chord. It may be freely rendered “thou shalt live” or “live thou long!” [Bib. Com. prefers to attach the following letter (ε) as suffix and render: “and ye shall say thus about his life,” which seems forced and unsatisfactory, though it accounts for the ε, which in its present position is disturbing. Cahen: ainsi pour la vie! “thus for life!” which is obscure. Wellhausen sees nothing better than “to my brother.” In support of the rendering which Erdmann adopts Gesenius cites the Arabic formula: “may God grant thee life!” The phrase cannot be said to have received a satisfactory explanation.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:17 sq. After the instruction to greet comes the direction how to present his earnest request to Nabal. Now I have heard that thou hast shearers.—These words correspond precisely to the real life, and can only be rightly understood when we recollect that the regularly recurring sheepshearing was one of the greatest events in the housekeeping of such an establishment. In accordance with the urgency of his request, which is due to his pressing need of sustenance for his men, David’s introduction is very circumstantial and is based on a captatio benevolentiζ; he reminds Nabal of the peaceful association of his men with Nabal’s herdsmen during his stay in the wilderness (“thy herdsmen were with us”), of the forbearance exercised by his warriors towards the unarmed herdsmen (“we did not injure them”—δֶ ?λְ ?μַ ?ξְ ?πεּ as in Judges 18:7; on the form see Ges. § 53, 3 Rem. 6), and of the honorable disinterestedness with which his people had refrained from appropriating the property of others (“nothing was missing to them”). The last words may refer, however, to the protection afforded the herdsmen by David’s people against the predatory incursions of the neighboring desert-tribes; for such protection against thieving attacks (which came especially from the south) is expressly affirmed in 1 Samuel 25:16; 1 Samuel 25:21. “Thus, even in his outlawry, David showed himself the protector of his people” (Keil). Apart, therefore, from eastern custom, according to which such a request would seem no ways strange, David had a certain right to ask a gift from Nabal’s superfluity; he had indirectly no small share in the festal joy of Nabal and his house; “without some part of the superfluity of the inhabitants whom he protected, he could not have maintained himself with his army” (Ewald). And this must modify Stδhelin’s remark (p. 19), that “this narrative shows that David blackmailed even his own countrymen, regarding himself, like an Arab sheikh, as lord of the desert where he lived.” For the rest Robinson remarks II. 429 [Am. ed. I., 498—Tr.] in reference to the permanence of customs in the East: “On such a festive occasion near a town or village, even in our own day an Arab Sheikh of the neighboring desert would hardly fail to put in a word, either in person or by message; and his message, both in form and substance, would be only the transcript of that of David.”—In a “good day,” that is, a festive, happy day; sheep-shearing was conducted like a festival (comp. Genesis 38:12; 2 Samuel 13:23), when feasts were held, strangers entertained, and portions given to the poor. Give what thy hand finds, that is, as much as thou canst, to thy servants and thy son David, an expression of deepest reverence and devotion, and of the piety of the younger man towards the older, in order that he might share in his paternal goodwill. 1 Samuel 25:9. The messengers executed their commission, making the request in David’s name. And they sat down, so we must translate the Heb. word (εַ ?ιָּ ?πεּ ?ηεּ), not “they waited modestly for an answer” (Buns.), not “they were silent” (Vulg., Grot., De Wette). That they sat down is not a superfluous remark, but serves to complete the description, which is true to the reality in the smallest details. Formal sitting down is part of oriental custom in such visits; it is not necessary, therefore, to refer to their need of rest, though, after so long a journey, they need not have been weakly persons (Then.), to require rest. Thenius’ change of text so that this shall read “and he arose” (εַ ?ιָ ?χָ ?ν after Sept. ἀνεπήδησε “he sprang up”) is improbable. 1 Samuel 25:10 sq. The insulting answer with which Nabal contemptuously rebuffed David’s ambassadors. Who is David? Who is the son of Jesse?—He knew him well; all the more insulting is this answer, whose meaning is: what do I care for David? what have I to do with him? There are many servants nowadays that break away every one from his master.—(The Art. stands here with Partcp., not with Subst., ςֲ ?αָ ?γִ ?ινδַ ?Χ, because the former alone is to be distinctly defined (Maurer)).—To his impertinent question Nabal adds a rude insult to David’s servants, whom he characterizes as good-for-nothing runaways, and also to David himself, to whose relation to Saul he maliciously alludes. 1 Samuel 25:11. Nabal speaks out his mean, niggardly mind (εְ ?μָ ?χַ ?ηְ ?ϊִּ ?ι, Perf. with ε consec., here expressing future time, Ges. § 126, 6, Rem. 1). The whole sentence is to be taken as a question: Shall I take? The bread and water represents the necessary sustenance of life. The flesh stands for luxuries beyond mere necessaries. Instead of “water” the Sept. has “wine” in accordance with its arbitrary way of getting rid of difficulties. In the excitement of his avaricious soul, Nabal declares that he will give David and his men neither necessaries of life nor what he had killed for the feasting of his shearers.—[Bib. Com.: The mention of water indicates a country where water was scarce, Joshua 15:19. Or, “bread and water” may=“meat and drink.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:12. The report of this contemptuous and insulting rebuff. 1 Samuel 25:13. David determines to take bloody revenge for the insult and hostile reception. Nabal’s wicked response to his friendly and modest overture excites his anger. The following narrative shows that he herein sinned before God, but also how God’s wonderful providence saved him from the factual completion of his sin. 1 Samuel 25:14-22. Abigail, Nabal’s wife, goes to David. 1 Samuel 25:14-17. One of Nabal’s servants informs Abigail of what has occurred; he relates Nabal’s bearing towards David’s greeting (1 Samuel 25:14), describes the friendly protection they had had from David’s people (1 Samuel 25:15-16), asks Abigail’s counsel and help in respect to the danger that threatened her husband and his whole household, and excuses himself for applying to her by referring to Nabal’s bad character and inaccessibility to well-meant representations and requests. 1 Samuel 25:14. A lad of the lads.—The word “lad” (πַ ?ςַ ?ψ), which is wanting in Sept. and Vulg. [which render, as Eng. A. V., “one of the lads.”—Tr.], is indeed a rounding of the phrase, but is not, for this reason, and because these translations have properly declined to transfer the phrase literally, to be regarded as the error of a copyist (Then.). αָּ ?ψֵ ?κ [lit. “to bless.”—Tr.] = “to congratulate, greet,” comp. 1 Samuel 13:10.—And he drove over them, that is, as above described, with insulting, angry words.—[Eng. A. V. “railed on them,” better “flew on them.”—Tr.] See on 1 Samuel 14:32, 1 Samuel 15:19.1 Samuel 25:15 is the confirmation of the words of 1 Samuel 25:8 : “ask thy young men, and they will tell thee.” The testimony of these youths to the friendly and helpful conduct of David’s men agrees exactly with what David told his messengers to say, 1 Samuel 25:7. On the phrase: “all the days of our walking with them” (λָּ ?μΞιְ ?ξֵ ?ιδΧ, Eng. A. V.: “conversant with them”), it is to be remarked, that sometimes, as here, substantives of time, place or manner stand in construct relation to a whole sentence (Ew., § 286, 3, 1).—The words: “while we were in the field” (Vulg., Syr., Arab.: “in the wilderness”), are not to be connected with the following (Sept., Syr., Then.), making “they were a wall to us” [1 Samuel 25:16] the apodosis, because then in the words: “as long as we were with them keeping the flocks,” there would be a second indication of time in the same sentence (comp. Zechariah 2:5). 1 Samuel 25:16. A wall, that is, a powerful protection against the wild beasts and the attacks of robbers from the Arabian desert. 1 Samuel 25:17. “Is determined” (λָּ ?μָ ?δ), “is a thing settled,” as in 1 Samuel 20:9. It is not necessary on account of the “and he” (εְ ?δεּ ?ΰ), which refers not to David, but to Nabal, to insert with the Sept. “thou” (ΰַ ?ϊְּ) after “consider” (ψְ ?ΰִ ?ι), as Thenius insists, for such a contrast is not demanded. Nabal is described as a “bad man” [so should Eng. A. V. read instead of “son of Belial.”—Tr.], see on 1 Samuel 1:16; 1 Samuel 30:22; 2 Samuel 2:12; 1 Kings 21:10. “So that one cannot speak” (ξִ ?γַּ ?αֵ ?ψ=“from speaking”), or “he is too wicked for one to be able to speak to him.” This is the confidential expression of the estimation in which Nabal was held by his household and servants, comp. 1 Samuel 25:3. 1 Samuel 25:18 sq. To avert the impending danger, Abigail, on the representation and at the request of the faithful servant, sets out to go to David without her husband’s knowledge, with a rich present of various articles of food. They carried two hundred loaves of bread, two skins, not jars (De Wette), five prepared sheep, of parched corn (χָ ?μִ ?ι, 1 Samuel 17:17=by-meat) five seahs=one and two-thirds ephahs (Then.). Sept. has five ephahs instead of five seahs, thinking the latter too little for so many people [the seah about one and a half pecks, ephah=about four and a half pecks.—Tr.]; but it would not be too little as entremets. We need not, therefore, with Ewald read five hundred seahs.—[Abigail’s present was intended not to supply David’s army, but to show her good-will.—Tr.]; one hundred cakes of dried grapes (φξΧ), two hundred cakes of pressed figs (γαΧ). 1 Samuel 25:19. Her journey is described in the minutest particulars; she sends the servants on before with the present, herself following, riding on an ass, in order the better to superintend the movement. 1 Samuel 25:20. Her meeting with David. In the covert, a hidden place in the mountain. It was “probably a depression between two peaks of a mountain” (Keil), so that David’s march, in the main upward, was here downward, and he encountered Abigail’s train, which was also moving downward.—[Wellhausen’s objection to this explanation as topographically taking too much for granted, seems unfounded, and there is no need for taking the verb (ιָ ?ψַ ?γ) in the general sense of “pursuing one’s way.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:21-22. A parenthetical explanation of David’s feeling and motive in making this movement. ΰָ ?ξַ ?ψ = “had said.”—Only to deception [Eng. A. V. “surely in vain”], that is, only to be deceived in my just expectations, have I kept, etc. (comp. 1 Samuel 25:16), so that nothing was missed, he is indebted to me for the undiminished possession of his herds. David had a right to expect grateful requital from Nabal, instead of which Nabal returned him evil for good. 1 Samuel 25:22. Oath of vengeance. In this formula [“God do so to me and more also,” etc.], the divine punishment is commonly invoked on the swearer: “God punish me if,” etc. (comp. 1 Samuel 14:44; 1 Samuel 20:13). In some cases it is invoked on the person addressed, as in 1 Samuel 3:17.—[But there it is for failure in the person addressed, and, in general, the curse is invoked on the person failing to do something mentioned.—Tr.]—But here the curse is directed against persons not present; the sense is: God shall punish David’s enemies, if I take not this vengeance on them; so surely as God will not let this evil go unpunished, will I, etc. Instead of “enemies” (μְ ?ΰεֹ ?ιְ ?αֵ ?ι) Then, reads, after Syr. and Arab.: “his servant” (μִ ?ςַ ?αְ ?γּ ?εֹ); but these versions have evidently substituted this reading to avoid the difficulty of the text.—[In spite of the support of Vulg. and Chald. (and indirectly of Syr. and Arab.), the word “enemies” must be omitted with Sept., being here meaningless and disturbing, and the curse must be considered as invoked on David’s own head. Erdmann’s defence of the text is far-fetched and unavailing. See “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.]—Mingentem ad parietem, that is, “every male.” Bδhr on 1 Kings 14:10 : “The expression may have been taken originally from dogs, and it is certainly not an honorable designation of the male sex, being used every-where (1 Kings 16:11; 1 Kings 21:21; 2 Kings 9:8) of those who are cast out and exterminated.”—[See Ges., Thes. s. v. ωִׁ ?ιο, where the authorities are quoted, and decision given for the meaning “male person,” and not “mean, insignificant male”—Tr.]—David swears to root out Nabal and all the males of his house in revenge for the insult to his person, which he regards as a sin against the Lord in whose service he is.—[There is not the least evidence that David so regarded, or had a right so to regard Nabal’s fault; he acted under a weak, human impulse of unworthy revenge, from which he was estopped by God’s mercy.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:23-31. Abigail’s address to David. 1 Samuel 25:23 sq. In the most circumstantial manner five things are first mentioned as to Abigail’s conduct on meeting David, before the narrative comes to her words, which in their form and content confirm what is said in 1 Samuel 25:3 of her understanding. Her mode of doing reverence to David is based on her conviction that he is the divinely chosen future king of Israel, comp. 1 Samuel 25:30. This conviction had spread not only in the king’s house (Saul included), but also among the people.—On me, me, my lord, be the blame (αִּ ?ιΰֲ ?πִ ?ι, see Ges., § 121, 3). At the outset she gives the matter such a turn that David has to deal with her only, and is obliged to put Nabal out of sight. At the outset she assuredly opposes to David’s vengeance the contradictory statement, that, on the one hand (1 Samuel 25:25), she did not see David’s servants and knew nothing of Nabal’s contemptuous behaviour, and, on the other hand, she takes all the blame on herself. “Think not,” she says, “of the bad man, Nabal; for he is what his name signifies: foolishness is his companion (ςִ ?ξּ ?εֹ with him).” Here, as often happens, foolishness appears connected with wickedness and ungodliness. “Consider me alone as the guilty person with whom thou hast to do.” She does not, however, ask for pardon and forbearance; this she does not do till 1 Samuel 25:28; till then she urges what may turn David away from his revenge; from there on she points out to him the blessing he will receive from the Lord if he grants her request. 1 Samuel 25:26-27. She begins with “and now” each of the three sentences with which she introduces the petition, and seeks to secure David’s favor for it. First, indicating the highest point of view in which, as a God-fearing woman, she regards this meeting with the vengeful David, she affirms that God has thus restrained him from committing a grievous sin. (ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ is not here the superfluous ὅτι of indirect discourse, but is (Then.) dependent on the double ηֵ ?ιΞ.) So true as—so true is it—the Lord hath kept thee from coming into blood-guiltiness and saving thyself. David would have brought the crime of blood on himself, and with his own hand against God’s will and command have procured help for himself.—Then she says: May all thy enemies be as Nabal, such fools as he; that is, thou standest under God’s protection and guidance, so that all who as thine enemies will, like Nabal, do thee evil, shall like him become fools, and fall under God’s punishment. Seb. Schmid: “whosoever does good to his enemies, and takes not vengeance on them, him will God Himself avenge, as it is said, Vengeance is mine, I will repay.” Thirdly, she says, 1 Samuel 25:27 : And now, this present … blessing (αְ ?ψָ ?λָ ?δ) = gift of blessing, 1 Samuel 30:26; Genesis 33:11. It is a delicate feature of her wise and skilful procedure that she offers the present, with which she designs to make good her husband’s neglect by dispensing what he ought to have offered, not to David himself, but to his men. On the: in the retinue of my lord comp. Exodus 11:8; Judges 4:10 (Keil). 1 Samuel 25:28. Forgive the trespass of thy handmaid.—With this brief word, which rests on that other: “on me be the blame,” she now makes her request for forgiveness and sparing. The following words to 1 Samuel 25:31 inclusive contain the promise of the divine blessing which, by fulfilling this request, David will receive instead of the curse that would follow revenge. Her personal affair serves her as occasion to speak to David of the future of his house and his life, and, indeed, she belongs to the prophetic women who, like Hannah, filled with the Spirit of the Lord, share in the theocratic inspiration and in the prophetic outlook into the future development of the theocracy. She says to David that the Lord would not leave the fulfilment of her request unrequited: 1) For the Lord will make my lord a sure house. Since she is sure of David’s call to the kingship of Israel, she means by “sure house” permanent kingly rule in his house. Comp. the divine promise, 2 Samuel 7:8 sq. [Bib.-Com. compares Rahab’s faith and foresight, Joshua 11:9-13, and cites Abigail as an illustration of how faith and reason may concur now in leading men to Christ. “In connecting her prayer for forgiveness with the reference to David’s future reign, she is asking for complete pardon to be in force then.”—Tr.] 2) For my lord will fight the battles (wars) of the Lord. On the expression “wars of the Lord,” comp. 1 Samuel 18:17. In the celebrated warrior, who has fought and conquered in the name and power of the Lord, she sees the future royal hero, who, in the wars which the covenant-God as King of His people will wage against their enemies, will prove himself God’s champion. 3) And no evil will be found in thee all thy days. “Evil” (ψָ ?ςָ ?δ) is here misfortune,” not “wickedness” (Mich., Dathe). She does not mean to say: “Thy hand will not be stained with wickedness, as would be the case if thou tookest revenge for this insult;” she says that in 1 Samuel 25:31. Here she predicts for him safety and good fortune as the gift of the Lord. 1 Samuel 25:29 attaches itself in its content to this third affirmation. The text reads “hath arisen” or “arises” (εָ ?ιָּ ?χν), instead of which we must, with Then, and Bφttch., after Tanchum, read it as Impf. (εְ ?ιָ ?χֹ ?ν): And should a man arise.… Though she knows that Saul is persecuting David, she yet with delicate reserve expresses herself hypothetically. In relation to what precedes the sense is: “Though such a misfortune should come upon thee that some one should rise against thee … yet it will not continue.” [The text, however, as rendered in Eng. A. V., gives a good sense, and, as the fact was so notorious, the more open reference to Saul’s persecution could not be considered as an offence against delicacy. Bib.-Com., interpreting the sense properly, renders: “Though a man is risen … yet,” etc.—Tr.] What is bound in a bundle is safely kept. The bundle of the living [Eng. A. V. life] with the Lord is thus the figurative expression for those whose life is under the protection of God’s love. In contrast with the wicked human power, which might seek after his life, she points him to the safe preservation of his life which is involved in the inclusion of his person in the community of the godly, whose life—that is, their temporal-earthly life, since she is not speaking here of the eternal life beyond, to which Keil finds here an indirect reference—is preserved inviolable in God’s hand. Then the contrast: But the life of thy enemies will he sling out in the pan of the sling—an energetic expression for the divine rejection in contrast with gracious preservation. The “pan” of the sling is the hollow for the reception of the missile. See Genesis 32:26 [hollow of the thigh]. 1 Samuel 25:30 is the protasis, 1 Samuel 25:31 the apodosis. In the words: And when the Lord shall appoint thee ruler over Israel, Abigail shows that she is acquainted with God’s choice and calling of David to be king of Israel. This she had probably learned through personal acquaintance with those prophetic circles, her spiritual affinity with which is shown by her words. Here she looks out beyond the attacks of his enemies to the goal of his divine calling which David has reached. Then (1 Samuel 25:31) “this will not be a stumbling-block and vexation of heart to thee that thou didst shed blood without cause, and also that my lord with his own hand helped himself.” The word “this” (ζֹ ?ΰϊ) does not refer to the request for forgiveness in 1 Samuel 25:28 (Keil), but to the two following facts, namely, bloodshed and self-help. The sense is: After obtaining the kingdom, thou wilt not have a bad conscience in the recollection of having shed innocent (innocent, that is, in respect to such revenge) blood, and depended on thyself for help. In the words: And when the Lord shall do good to my lord, she briefly includes all her wishes and hopes for David, that to her so deeply-grounded request for forgiveness (1 Samuel 25:28) she may in conclusion attach the thought of future prosperity. (εְ ?δֵ ?ιθִ ?ια is to be taken as condition or hypothetical indication of the desired result). 1 Samuel 25:32-35. David’s answer and conduct to Abigail. 1 Samuel 25:32. Thankful acknowledgment that the Lord had sent her to him. So, in his whole life even in errors and faults David knows himself to be under the oversight and guidance of the divine providence. 1 Samuel 25:33. Having given due honor to the Lord, he praises Abigail’s wisdom and her opposition to his purpose so displeasing to the Lord. He acknowledges that she has restrained him from bloody revenge and ungodly self-help, and confesses his sin and guilt in forming such a plan. 1 Samuel 25:34. His discourse advances rapidly to the declaration (which strengthens that thankful acknowledgment) that, but for her interposition, he would have exterminated Nabal’s house. “For otherwise” (εְ ?ΰεּ ?μָ ?ν), Vulg. alioquin, “otherwise” [Eng. A. V. “in very deed”].—By the life of the Lord, the God of Israel, who, etc., I swear that if thou, etc., that nothing would have remained.—The thought that the Lord had brought her to meet him is here completed by the parenthetic declaration: God the Lord has here Himself interfered with my purpose, and through thee prevented the execution of the wicked deed.1 Samuel 25:35. David accepts the present, and dismisses Abigail with the assurance that her request is granted. “To accept the person” (πָ ?ωָׂ ?ΰτָ ?πִ ?ιν) = “to have regard to,” Genesis 19:21. 1 Samuel 25:36-38. Nabal’s death. 1 Samuel 25:36. Abigail finds Nabal in the revel of a feast.—Like a king’s feast, as rich and luxurious. Compare the description of the rich man, Luke 19. “Merry on account of it,” that is, the feast. The reference (in ςָ ?μָ ?ιε) to the feast (Maur., De W., Keil), as in Proverbs 23:30, answers better to Nabal’s thorough self-abandonment to pleasure than the reference to his person: “within him” [so Eng. A. V.]; and this view is confirmed by the following words: he was very drunken. 1 Samuel 25:37. Not till next morning, when the wine was gone out of him, that is, not by vomiting, but by the gradual passing off of the debauch, can Abigail tell him what has happened. The choleric man is so affected by it that he has an apoplectic stroke. The cause of this is neither horror at his loss (Then.), for Abigail’s gift to David was insignificant, nor at the danger, hitherto unsuspected, which threatened him (Cler., Mich.), for this could not surprise him, he must have contemplated its possibility when he dismissed David’s messengers,—but the violent anger and vexation of the passionate man (always hard and inflexible), because his right had been usurped, his authority as master ignored, and the whole business transacted by his wife against his will with the hated David.—His heart … stone; here we must retain the text [“he became a stone”], and not render with the VSS.: “as a stone” (Then.)., the strong hyperbole of the text corresponding to the preceding expression: “his heart died,” and the reading of these VSS. being obviously an explanatory change [so Eng. A. V.]. 1 Samuel 25:38. It is expressly said, that Nabal’s death, which did not occur till ten days after the stroke, was a dispensation of the Lord. As an execution by God’s hand, this death is here, though not expressly in words (as in 1 Samuel 25:39), yet in the connection represented as a punishment for his ungodliness. 1 Samuel 25:39-42. Abigail David’s wife. 1 Samuel 25:39. In Nabal’s sudden death David recognizes God’s judgment for the insult offered him, over against the revenge which he himself would have taken, from which the Lord estopped him in order Himself to exercise vengeance. This rests on the thought that the insult offered David was also offered to the Lord, since David was the Lord’s Anointed, and represented the Lord’s cause. The figure is of a case in law, which is settled by the judicial decision. The “law-cause of my reproach,” that is, the reproach offered me, on account of which the Lord had to appear against Nabal as Judge and Avenger. Connect the “from the hand” with “pleaded” [ψָ ?α], not with “my reproach,” and render pregnantly [Germ. zeugmatically.—Tr.]: “he has conducted my cause to a conclusion out of the hand,” that is, he has collected the costs from the condemned person, and has settled the matter by the infliction of the proper punishment.”—And the wickedness of Nabal. The connection shows that these are the words of David, not of the narrator (Then.). 1 Samuel 25:40. David’s formal application for the hand of Abigail. 1 Samuel 25:41. With the expression of the deepest devotion in gesture and word, according to oriental custom, she declares herself ready to become David’s wife. 1 Samuel 25:42. She sets out with a small train, “five damsels,” her ordinary retinue (δַ ?δֹ ?μֽ ?λεֹ ?ϊμΧ), to follow David’s servants and become his wife. 1 Samuel 25:43-44. Appendix concerning David’s matrimonial and domestic relations, occasioned by the account of his marriage with Abigail.—And Ahinoam David had taken from Jezreel, that is, before his marriage with Abigail (Then.); Jezreel is not the city in Issachar (Joshua 19:18), but in the hill-country of Judah (Joshua 15:55-56), near Maon, Carmel and Ziph. “And these two also,” where “also” (βַּ ?ν) refers to Michal, 1 Samuel 18:28. Ver.44. Saul “had given” (πָ ?ϊַ ?ο, as the “had taken” above, in Pluperf. sense) Michal to Palti (2 Samuel 3:18) to wife. Gallim, in Benjamin, between Gibeah of Saul and Jerusalem, Isaiah 10:30. AND 1. The universal mourning among the whole people at Samuel’s death is a sign that they had preserved the deepest impressions and influences of his reformatory work, and honored in him, even after his withdrawal from public labors, the great restorer of the genuine theocracy. Their sorrow at his decease was the deeper, the more heavily the yoke of Saul’s misgovernment pressed on them. “It was as if from the noble star, as long as it shone in the heaven of the holy land, though veiled by clouds, there streamed a mild, beneficent light over all Israel. Now this star was extinguished in Israel” (F. W. Krummacher). 2. Self-help by one’s own might through revenge is as sinful and ungodly when one knows or supposes that he has suffered insult for the Lord’s sake, or in His service, as when one feels his own honor violated. There is always thus a headstrong and impatient anticipating of God’s counsel and work in the interest of passion, opposition to the fundamental law, according to which God’s justice, not man’s revenge, is the guardian of moral order, and every man receives what is his in the right time and way, according to the attitude of his heart to God. By his excitable temperament, which tends to overflow in passion, David is in great danger of setting himself against the supreme tribunal of divine justice, and taking vengeance into his own hands instead of leaving it to God. “For the first time we find him not master of his spirit, overborne by the passion, which is indeed a natural trait of his character.—He purposes to break the peace, to seize the property of others, and to stain his hands with the blood of peaceful, yea, kindred citizens. This time surely he had not prayed, nor inquired of the Lord through the ‘Light and Right’ [Urim and Thummim]. If he had executed what his wrath suggested—and it was not his doing if it went no farther than suggestion—he would have given the death-blow to his honor and his cause” (F. W. Krummacher). 3. God rules and watches with such paternal special providence and care over those that humbly look to His guidance that, when they are in danger through their own flesh and blood of falling into sin, He raises up persons to guide them by exhortation, warning, and instruction into the right way, He enlightens and strengthens them by His word, so that they see in good time their moral danger and how to avoid it, and go firmly on, and at last praise the Lord for such gracious preservation. “David praised God that He had kept him from sin, and yet saved his honor.—So well does everything at last turn out with those who give heed to God and their own heart. God receives them when they fall, and raises them up when they are cast down; but the ungodly, who listen to nothing and hate instruction, cool their wrath and perish” (Roos).—“That David, like every human being, was not free from desire of revenge, to which he was especially exposed from his liveliness of feeling, is shown in 1 Samuel 25. But there is needed only a slight rousing of his conscience, and he says to Abigail (1 Samuel 25:31-32): ‘The Lord be praised who hath sent thee to meet me to-day. And blessed be thy discourse, and blessed be thou,’ etc. And what Abigail could do, could not the presence of the Holy One have done, before whom he stood when he sang his Psalm?” (Hengst., 4:302.) 4. Abigail belongs to the prophetic personages of this time, and takes a prominent place among the pious women of the Old Covenant. In contrast with her ungodly, doltish, hard-hearted, thankless, avaricious, purse-proud, rough, and riotous husband, she is deeply pious, clever and intelligent, thankful, generous, humble, of noble disposition and fine tact, intellectual, and gifted with pleasing and winning speech.—Solomon says: “By wise women the house is builded, but a foolish woman destroys it.” This word finds a noble confirmation in Abigail as housewife in respect to this perverse man sunk in sordid avarice and gross materialism.—“Where do we find in all the heathen world a woman comparable with Abigail, the daughter of the wilderness? Unfortunate, indeed, she is. Ah, her house, however blessed with earthly goods, is no Bethany-cottage. With deep sorrow she must call her rude, Mammon-serving husband a ‘fool.’ But she bears with him in patient, hopeful love and faithfulness, and doubtless often lifts holy hands to God for him. So for him she goes to David, like a sacrificial lamb taking her husband’s misdeed on herself. She holds up also to David the grievous sin with which he would have laden himself if he had carried out his purpose against the man.—Indeed the truth and sincerity, the dovelike simplicity united to sanctified wisdom, which appears in the childlike-pious address of the noble woman, is worthy of our liveliest admiration. Who can fail to see that here already the Spirit from above was working mightily? Is it not almost as if in her we heard an advanced disciple of the Gospel speak? Has not her word: ‘Thou shalt be bound in the bundle of the living of the Lord’ been long naturalized in the language of the whole Christian congregation as a favorite expression, and as the designation of the most precious thing that man can desire on earth?” (F. W. Krummacher).—“What wisdom, what humility, what free-heartedness, what order we find in her words! How well she knew how to speak to David’s heart! How well her whole discourse was suited to her position as woman! I know no example of eloquence that excels this. Doubtless she had not studied eloquence in the schools, but the Spirit of God alone made her such an orator. God put wisdom into her heart, and it flowed out in wise discourse” (Roos).—Abigail appears as an organ of the Spirit of God, the prophetic spirit breathes through her words, and she speaks to David in the manner of the prophets. She sees clearly and declares to David with vigorous, heart-searching, and conscience-piercing words, that his high-handed, revengeful purpose is against God’s law and order; she convinces him of his deep guilt, and brings him to acknowledge that she is God’s instrument to save him from a wicked deed which would have cast a dark shadow over his future life; she announces his future royal calling and his lofty mission therein as hero to wage the wars of the Lord against the enemies of God’s people, earnestly exhorts him to walk conformably to the glory and holiness of this calling, predicts under this condition the continuance of the royal dignity in his house (comp. 2 Samuel 7), and promises him the rich blessings of the favor of God. Thus in her is presented the type of the guardian watch-office of prophecy in relation to the royal office. Abigail could so speak only as moved or filled by the prophetic Spirit; and the means thereto was her personal relation to the prophetic circles, whose centre Samuel was till his death and to which all truly God-fearing persons attached themselves. As the prophetic community was at this time of great importance for awakening and cherishing a new religious-moral life in the people, it cannot be surprising if we meet with personages, like Abigail, among the people, filled and illuminated with the prophetic Spirit. AND Chap. 25. J. Disselhoff: Let the righteous smite me kindly and reprove me: 1) Even the beloved of the Lord, when he watches not his heart, falls into wrath that deserves reproof; 2) The gracious God sends His beloved ones the deserved reproof through some human mouth; 3) The way in which any one receives reproof shows how far he is a man after God’s own heart. 1 Samuel 25:1. Remember your teachers, etc. Hebrews 13:7. [The aged man is laid aside, and sinks out of the popular view; and when at length he dies, people are startled as they recall how great a man he was in his prime, how great a work he did. It is something to live so that one’s death will be truly mourned by a whole people. The old, who sadly think themselves forgotten, may find solace not only in reviewing the past, but also in the persuasion that yet once again they will be vividly remembered; while the younger should strive to anticipate the feelings of that coming time, and show respect and affection while it can be fully enjoyed.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:2 sqq. Cramer: Wealth, consideration, power, and good fortune, are nothing without wisdom (Proverbs 17:16). Therefore we should prefer wisdom and virtue to all temporal things; for riches and rank do not help against folly.—Schlier: What does money help us, when we make Mammon our idol, and know only how to rake and scrape and get rich? How well it would be if we did but once believe that money is not man’s fortune, and that with all riches we may yet be unfortunate people.—[Hall: Even the line of faithful Caleb will afford an ill-conditioned Nabal. Virtue is not, like unto lands, inheritable.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:10 sq. Berl. B.: The fountain of his speech is avarice, and the stream is malignity. So the rich of the world are often haughty and unfriendly, and thereby show themselves to be true Nabals or fools, as Christ also named that rich farmer.—Schlier: Let us not look at Nabal, we will rather think of ourselves.—There is nothing that releases us from the duty of thankfulness, let the other person be as he will. To whomsoever you owe thanks, to him you should also show your thanks. And such ingratitude is doubly a wrong, when the fault on the other’s part, because of which you refuse the thanks, is only an imagined fault, when you have only a wicked grudge against him, as Nabal considered David a seditious person, although he was the most faithful subject of the king.—[Scott: When worldly men are determined not to relieve the necessitous, they often excuse themselves by railing; by charging the vices of some poor persons upon all; and by representing almsgiving as an encouragement to idleness, impertinence, and extravagance: nor are the most excellent characters any defence against such undistinguishing invectives.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:13. Starke: How subject are the best of God’s saints to weak passions! Ye who are pious, recognise this fact, and diligently call on God for the government of His Spirit (Jeremiah 10:23). Schlier: If wrong is done us, we will commit vengeance to the Lord, and will be afraid of all self-revenge. He who suffers injuries and commits his revenge to the Lord, is a righteous man; but it is unmanly to give free course to one’s revenge, and to do what flesh and blood prompts.—Berl. B.: David here felt something quite human, and fell into sudden heat at the affront offered him, and the contemptuous ingratitude of the rude arch-churl. His passions started up, and most of all because Nabal had treated him shamefully when he had done him no hurt. In such a case it may well be said: “The wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God” (James 1:20).—[1 Samuel 25:13. Henry: “Is this thy voice, O David?” Can this man after God’s own heart speak thus unadvisedly with his lips? … .Is this he who, but the other day, spared him who sought his life, and yet now will not spare anything that belongs to him who had only put an affront on his messengers? Lord, what is man! What need have we to pray, Lord, “lead us not into temptation!” 1 Samuel 25:18 : Henry: The passion of fools often makes those breaches in a little time, which the wise, with all their wisdom, have much ado to make up again.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:19. Starke: Silence has its time, speech has also its time. Well for those who know how to suit themselves thereto (Ecclesiastes 3:7 sq.). 1 Samuel 25:22. Berl. Bib.: David here completely changes into a barbarous man, and forgets himself altogether. If this purpose had been carried into execution, Saul would for the first time have had a just cause for pursuing him as a disturber of the public peace. 1 Samuel 25:23 sqq. Schlier: Men’s wrath is a frightful enemy, and works not the righteousness of God, and yet there is a means of making this enemy no longer hurtful, namely, a friendly, loving word.—Let us especially when one falls into wrath observe well whether we cannot perhaps quiet such wrath by a mild, gentle word. A word spoken in season, and with an eye to the Lord, is not in vain.—When we are on a bad way, the Lord comes not in miracles and signs to bring us to good ways, but He interposes through men. He warns us through parents and friends and other connections, and their word is the Lord’s word. 1 Samuel 25:27. Starke: Free and rich gifts bring blessing with them; therefore give, and it is given to you (2 Corinthians 9:5-6).—Osiander: 1 Samuel 25:29. Our life is not in the power of our enemies, except so far as God permits it them (Job 2:6).—[1 Samuel 25:31. Henry: When we are tempted to sin, we should consider how it will appear in the reflection. Let us never do anything for which our own conscience will afterward have occasion to upbraid us.—Taylor: Only a woman could have managed such a negotiation as this so smoothly and successfully; but only a God-fearing woman would have managed it so as to bring David to a sense of the sinfulness of the act which he had been about to commit. 1 Samuel 25:32-35. Hall: A good heart is easily stayed from sinning, and is glad when it finds occasion to be crossed in ill purposes.—Wicked vows are ill made, but worse kept. Our tongue cannot tie us to commit sin. Good men think themselves happy, that since they had not the grace to deny sin, yet they had not the opportunity to accomplish it.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:36-38. Schlier: So true it is that sin is ruin to the people. What multitudes think that with avarice one can get rich, and yet avarice is a root of all evil; how many think by hard-heartedness and selfishness to get on, and yet thereby every one is only building up his own misfortune; what multitudes think that if they should give themselves up to excesses, they would get pleasure and enjoyment therefrom, and yet all good-living comes only of evil.—[Hall: It was no time to advise Nabal, while his reason was drowned in a deluge of wine. A beast, or a stone, is as capable of good counsel as a drunkard. O that the noblest creature should so far abase himself as for a little liquor to lose the use of those faculties whereby he is a man!—“O that men should put an enemy in their mouths to steal away their brains!”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 25:39 sqq. Schlier: It is a good thing to trust in the Lord and give up everything to Him. All self-revenge in every case comes of evil; but to contain one’s self, to suppress one’s wrath, to turn over vengeance to the Lord, brings good fortune and blessing. [1 Samuel 25:2-11. Nabal: 1) His advantages: a) Of excellent family (1 Samuel 25:3, comp. Joshua 14:6; Joshua 15:13); b) Very wealthy; c) Having a wife most remarkable not only for personal beauty (1 Samuel 25:3), but for thoughtfulness, energy, tact and grace. 2) His faults: a) Avaricious and stingy in the extreme; b) Yet ostentatious of his wealth (1 Samuel 25:36); c) A drunken sot; d) A fool; e) Rude and insulting habitually (1 Samuel 25:17). What a son of Caleb! what a husband for Abigail! 3) His ignoble end. Remembered for his faults, and from his connection with the men he insulted. [1 Samuel 25:23-31. A specimen of the soft answer that turneth away wrath: 1) She takes the blame on herself, so as to divert attention from the offender (1 Samuel 25:24). 2) She extenuates the offence, and makes amends for it, as far as the circumstances admit (1 Samuel 25:25; 1 Samuel 25:27). 3) She delicately assumes that the wrathful purpose will be abandoned through divine influence (1 Samuel 25:26). 4) She turns the angry man’s mind towards a future of great and sure prosperity, through Jehovah’s blessing (1 Samuel 25:28-29). 5) She declares that in that happy time he will be glad he did not to-day incur blood-guiltiness (1 Samuel 25:30-31). The sum of the whole is that she makes him forget his wrath in thoughts of Jehovah and of the brilliant future which Jehovah has in reserve for him. The result appears in 1 Samuel 25:32-33. [1 Samuel 25:32-33. South: “Prevention of sin is one of the greatest mercies that God can vouchsafe a man in this world.” South a) shows the danger that sin unprevented may never be pardoned, and b) argues that prevention is better than pardon; and in the “Application,” urges a) that a higher satisfaction is to be found from a conquered than from a conquering passion; b) that the temper with which we receive providential prevention of sin is a criterion of the gracious or ungracious disposition of our hearts; c) that we ought thankfully to acquiesce in any providential crosses, since these may be the instruments of preventing grace.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 25:1. Some MSS. have simply “went,” ιֵ ?μֵ ?κְ instead of ιֵ ?ψִ ?γִ.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 25:1. This reading is well defended by Erdmann against the Sept. “Maon” which is preferred by Wellh. and Bib. Comm.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 25:2. Eng. A. V. here follows the Vulg., factum est ut tonderetur grex eius. But the exacter rendering seems to be: “and he was, when he was shearing his sheep, in Carmel” (so Cahen, Philippson, and apparently Sept.). On the other hand the Syr. takes εַ ?ιְ ?δִ ?ι in the sense: “and it came to pass,” the rest of the clause being the Relative protasis, 1 Samuel 25:3-4 parenthesis, and 1 Samuel 25:5 the apodosis: “and it came to pass, when he was shearing, etc., (and the name … his sheep), that David sent, etc.” This construction is adopted by Then., Erdmann, and in part (1 Samuel 25:3) by Cahen. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ VIII. David, betrayed again by the Ziphites, spares Saul the second time 1 Samuel 26:1-251 And the Ziphites came unto Saul to Gibeah, saying, Doth not David hide himself 2in the hill of Hachilah which Isaiah 2 before Jeshimon. Then [And] Saul arose and went down to the wilderness of Ziph, having three thousand chosen men of 3Israel with him, to seek David in the wilderness of Ziph. And Saul pitched in the hill of Hachilah which is before Jeshimon in the way, but [and] David abode 4in the wilderness. And he saw that Saul came after him into the wilderness, David therefore [And David] sent out spies, and understood that Saul was come in very 5deed. And David arose and came to the place where Saul had pitched. And David beheld the place where Saul lay, and Abner, the son of Ner, the captain of the host; and Saul lay in the trench [wagon-rampart], and the people pitched round about him. 6Then answered David [And David answered] and said to Ahimelech the Hittite and to Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, brother to Joab, saying, Who will go down 7with me to Saul to the camp? And Abishai said, I will go down with thee. So [And] David and Abishai came to the people by night, and behold, Saul lay sleeping within the trench [in the wagon-rampart], and his spear stuck in the ground at his bolster [head], but [and] Abner and the people lay round about him. 8Then said Abishai [And Abishai said] to David, God hath [ins. this day] delivered thine enemy into thine hand this day [om. this day]; now, therefore [and now,] let me smite him, I pray thee, with the spear even [om. even] to the earth 9at [om. at] once, and I will not smite him the second time. And David said to Abishai, Destroy him not; for who can stretch forth his hand against the Lord’s 10[Jehovah’s] anointed, and be guiltless? David said furthermore [And David said], As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, [ins. but] the Lord [Jehovah] shall smite him, or his day shall come to die [and he shall die], or he shall descend into battle 11and perish. The Lord [Jehovah] forbid that I should stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed; but, I pray thee, take thou now [and now, take] the spear that is at his bolster [head] and the cruse of water, and let 12us go. And David took the spear and the cruse of water from Saul’s bolster [head], and they gat them away, and no man saw it, nor knew it, neither awaked, for they were all asleep, because [for] a deep sleep from the Lord [Jehovah] was fallen upon them. 13Then David went over to the other side, and stood on the top of an hill [the 14mountain] afar off, a great space being between them, And David cried to the people and to Abner, the son of Ner, saying, Answerest thou not, Abner? Then 15[And] Abner answered and said, Who art thou that criest to the king? And David said to Abner, Art not thou a valiant [om. valiant] man? and who is like to thee in Israel? wherefore, then, hast thou not kept thy lord the king? for there 16came one of the people in to destroy the king thy lord. This thing is not good that thou hast done. As the Lord [Jehovah] liveth, ye are worthy to die, because ye have not kept [watched over] your master [lord] [ins. over] the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] anointed. And now, see where the king’s spear is, and the cruse of water that was at his bolster [head]. 17And Saul knew [recognized] David’s voice and said, Is this thy voice, my son 18David? And David said, It is my voice, my lord, O king. And he said, Wherefore doth my lord thus [om. thus] pursue after his servant? for what have I done? 19or [and] what evil is in mine hand? Now, therefore [And now], I pray thee, let my lord the king hear the words of his servant. If the Lord [Jehovah] have stirred thee up against me, let him accept an offering; but if they be [it be] the children of men, cursed be they before the Lord [Jehovah], for they have driven me out this day from abiding in the inheritance of the Lord [Jehovah], saying, 20Go, serve other gods. Now, therefore, [And now,] let not my blood fall to the earth before the face of the Lord [Jehovah]; for the king of Israel is come out to seek a flea, as when [om. when] one doth hunt a [the] partridge in the mountains. 21Then said Saul [And Saul said], I have sinned; return, my son David; for I will no more do thee harm, because my soul [life] was precious in thine eyes this 22day; behold, I have played the fool, and have erred exceedingly. And David answered and said, Behold the king’s spear! and let one of the young men come 23over and fetch it. [Ins. And] the Lord [Jehovah] render to every man his righteousness and his faithfulness; for the Lord [Jehovah] delivered thee into my hand to-day, but [and] I would not stretch forth mine hand against the Lord’s [Jehovah’s] 24anointed. And behold, as thy life was much set by this day in my eyes, so let my life be much set by in the eyes of the Lord [Jehovah], and let him deliver 25me out of all tribulation. Then [And] Saul said to David, Blessed be thou, my son David; thou shalt both do great things, and also shalt surely prevail. So David went on his way, and Saul returned to his place. AND The comparison of chap. 26 with the section 1 Samuel 23:19-24; 1 Samuel 23:24, shows that the narratives agree in three principal points, in the treachery of the Ziphites towards David, in the persecution of David by Saul, and in the sparing of Saul by David. There is besides much concerning localities, connected circumstances, conversation, wherein an agreement cannot be denied. 1 Samuel 26:1 = 1 Samuel 23:19, the coming of the Ziphites to Saul, and their information as to David’s whereabouts. 1 Samuel 26:2 = 1 Samuel 24:3 [2], Saul’s march against David with three thousand men. 1 Samuel 26:8-11 = 1 Samuel 24:5-7 [4–6., David’s protest against laying hands on Saul as the anointed of the Lord. 1 Samuel 26:17 = 1 Samuel 24:17 [16], Saul’s question about the voice of David. 1 Samuel 26:18 = 1 Samuel 24:10-12 [9–11., David’s affirmation of his innocence. 1 Samuel 26:20 = 1 Samuel 24:15 [14] concerning the flea. 1 Samuel 26:21 = 1 Samuel 24:18 [17. Saul’s penitent confession of his guilt. 1 Samuel 26:23 = 1 Samuel 24:13-16 [12–15], David’s appeal to his innocence and to the divine justice. 1 Samuel 26:25 = 1 Samuel 24:20-21 [19, 20], Saul’s invocation of blessing. But it does not follow necessarily from these agreements that these narratives are two accounts of the same event, as Ew., Then., De Wette, Bleek (the last, however, “with some probability” only) and others suppose. The wilderness of Ziph, and especially the strong, protected position on the mountain Hachilah, might well seem to David on his return from the wilderness of Paran a suitable abiding-place for himself and his men. That the Ziphites, who held with Saul, consequently again showed him David’s abode cannot, however, seem strange. The coincidence as to the three thousand men need not be regarded as showing that there was only one occurrence, since according to 1 Samuel 13:2 Saul had found a body of “three thousand chosen men out of Israel” (as they are called here also 1 Samuel 26:2) as a standing army, with which guard he might easily under similar circumstances have marched a second time against David. Thenius, indeed, affirms that “Saul must have been a moral monster, which he, however, evidently was not, if he had deliberately and under the persuasion of the same persons made a second attempt on David’s life after the latter had so magnanimously spared his life.” Against which Nδgelsbach (Herz. XII., 402 sq.) rightly says: “That Saul marched a second time against David is psychologically only too easily explained, even though he was no moral monster. His hatred to David was so deeply rooted that it could be only temporarily suppressed by that magnanimous deed, not extinguished.” Saul’s inner life under the dominion of envy and hate towards David, on the one hand, and of the various influences of the better spirit, on the other hand, had hitherto been full of vacillations and contradictions. Why should it seem strange if, in the better impulses which, through David’s presence, words, and noble conduct, got suddenly the upper hand and lasted for awhile, there followed in all the stronger reaction of the evil spirit, especially as the spur to violent procedure against David again came from the same quarter as before? How little David himself relied on the permanence of Saul’s good inclinations (expressed in 1 Samuel 23:19-24; 1 Samuel 23:24) appears from the fact that he did not leave the wilderness, and foreseeing a repetition of Saul’s persecution, determined to go to another land. Thenius’ own remark on 1 Samuel 27:1 sq., that “David knew how quickly Saul could change his mind, and therefore preferred to leave the country,” confirms the clear statement of the preceding history as to Saul’s vacillation and moral ungodliness, which makes a new persecution, as narrated in chap. 24. psychologically and ethically easily explicable. According to this remark of Thenius, therefore, the account of this second march fits in pyschologically between chaps, 24. and 27., which sections are referred by him to the same author. Thenius affirms that “this narrative [chap, 26. is shown by the dramatic form of the action (Night—Secret entry into the camp—Spear and water-cruse—Ironical address to Abner), by an improbability (1 Samuel 26:24), individual declarations (1 Samuel 26:19-20), and in part also by the language (1 Samuel 26:6; 1 Samuel 26:11-12) to be the later, resting on popular tradition; but these particulars pertain to those points of the narrative in which its difference from the former account (23, 24), and therefore its reference to another occurrence may be recognised, as will appear in the explanation of the special points and the comparison with the related passages. See Keil’s excellent remarks. 1 Samuel 26:1. The information given by the Ziphites concerning David supposes that he had returned from the wilderness of Paran into the wilderness of Judah in consequence of his marriage with Abigail. “In the face of [over against] the desert;” for which we have in 1 Samuel 23:19 more exactly “on the right;” that is, south of the desert. The agreement with the words of 1 Samuel 23:19 is the result of the narrator’s desire to conform the account of this second occurrence to that of the first in the points in which there was essential agreement. 1 Samuel 26:2. The “three thousand chosen men of Israel” are the permanent guard whose formation is mentioned in 1 Samuel 13:2. 1 Samuel 26:3 sq. Saul’s camp was near the mountain Hachilah “on the way,” that is, in a well-known highroad passing by. And David abode in the wilderness; that is, he had withdrawn from the hill Hachilah (where the Ziphites reported him as being, and Saul sought first to attack him) farther into the wilderness, and was then on the highland (comp. 1 Samuel 26:6 : “who will go down with me?”), while Saul was encamped on the road in the plain. On hearing (εַ ?ιַּ ?ψְ ?ΰ = “he learned,” not “he saw”) that Saul had followed him into the wilderness, he assured himself of the fact by scouts. Certainly [Eng. A. V. “in very deed,” Heb. “to certainty”—Tr.], undoubtedly, comp. 1 Samuel 23:23. [So in 1 Samuel 23:24-25 David learns (probably by scouts) that Saul is come into the wilderness of Maon, south of the desert.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 26:5. David now himself goes by night to examine Saul’s camp and position. The Sept. and Vulg. add: “secretly,” an explanatory addition which we need not insert in the text (= λַּ ?μָּ ?θ, Thenius). He found Saul at the wagon-rampart (see on 1 Samuel 17:29) with Abner, his general, and the army camped around him. David was accompanied by Ahimelech, the Hittite, who is nowhere else mentioned, and Abishai “the son of Zeruiah,” David’s sister (1 Chronicles 2:16), and brother of Joab, afterwards one of David’s captains (2 Samuel 18:2; 2 Samuel 20:6; 2 Samuel 23:19).—The difference in particulars between this narrative and that of 1 Samuel 23:19 sq. is as follows: There on Saul’s approach David proceeds to the wilderness of Maon, where he is surrounded, and only escapes capture by the invasion of the Philistines, which compels Saul to withdraw, 1 Samuel 23:25-28. Here, on the contrary, nothing is said of such a Philistine invasion; Saul’s camp is on another spot; the endangered person is not David, but Saul, whose camp David enters at night, and whom David might have killed. [However, this incident is parallel to 1 Samuel 24:3 [2] sq.—Tr.] There, after Saul’s return from the Philistine campaign, the scene of the persecution is Engedi, where David is hidden in a cave into which Saul enters, 1 Samuel 24:2-4—completely different circumstances and situations. 1 Samuel 26:6 sq. Ahimelech, the Hittite. This Canaanitish people, already settled around Hebron in Abraham’s time (Gen. 15:23), dwelt, after the return of the Israelites from Egypt, in the hill-country of Judah along with the Amorites reaching as far north as toward Bethel (Judg. 2:26), subdued but not exterminated by the Israelites. A portion of them had maintained a certain independence. Comp. 1 Kings 9:20; 1 Kings 10:29; 2 Kings 7:6. In the time of Saul’s reign the internal contrast between the Israelites and the remnant of the Canaanites may have greatly diminished, so that a Hittite could occupy so prominent a position with David, and be employed by him in his service. For, according to this narrative, he must have held a preferred position with David, along with Abishai (2 Samuel 2:18; 2 Samuel 16:9), who is here named. Uriah also was a Hittite (2 Samuel 11:3; 2 Samuel 11:6; 2 Samuel 23:39).—They find Saul in his camp asleep, his “spear (the sign of royal authority, in place of the sceptre) stuck in the ground at his head.” 1 Samuel 26:8. Thy enemy—the Sing. [Qeri] is preferable [Keth. has Plu.]. Abishai speaks merely according to the right of retaliation and the usage of war. The sense of his words is: I will pin him to the ground so thoroughly with one blow that it will not need another to kill him. Vulg.: “there will be no need of a second.” 1 Samuel 26:9. David rejects not the first part of Abishai’s word: “God has given thy enemy into thy hand,” but the second: “I will transfix him.” For certainly God had given Saul into his hand; but “the divine providence thus gives David opportunity not to slay his enemy, but rather to conquer him by a new kindness” (Berl. B.); David’s reply to Abishai is a brief, strict prohibition: Destroy him not, and the reason for it, made more earnest and pressing by the interrogative form: Who stretches out his hand against the Lord’s anointed and goes unpunished?—(πִ ?χָּ ?δ = Exodus 21:19; Numbers 5:31). By the royal anointing Saul’s person was made sacred and inviolable. As anointed he was the Lord’s property. Therefore only God’s hand could touch his life. And so David says, 1 Samuel 26:10, with an oath: “As God lives, his life is in God’s hand only, and far be it from me to touch it.” Translate not with De Wette: “No! but Jehovah will smite him, either his day will come, etc.”, but with Then, and Keil: “Unless the Lord smite him, etc.”, the apodosis being: “far be it from me, etc.” [1 Samuel 26:11]. David mentions three possible cases: 1) sudden death by a stroke (as in 1 Samuel 25:38); 2) dying a natural death “in his day;” the day of death, as Job 14:6; Job 15:32; Job 3) falling in battle. “Far be it to me from Jehovah” (ξιδεδ), that is, as in 1 Samuel 24:7, on the part of the Lord, on the Lord’s account I will not smite him.—Abishai is ordered to take the spear at his head, and the water pitcher (not basin, Ewald, comp. 1 Kings 17:12 sq.); then, says he, we will “go our way” (μָ ?πεּ). 1 Samuel 26:12. David took, it is said (though David had ordered Abishai to take), having reference to the fact that David was the controlling head. Their unobserved taking of the spear, and cruse and subsequent departure is vividly portrayed in three expressions: No one saw, no one observed, no one woke.—The narrative represents this as a divine arrangement by the words: for a deep sleep from the Lord was fallen on them, that is, God threw them into deep slumber, that David might so act. Comp. 1 Samuel 14:15, “the terror of God,” Psalms 76:7 (6) “at thy rebuke, God of Jacob, both chariot and horse are cast into a deep sleep.”—A comparison of 1 Samuel 26:6-12 with 1 Samuel 24:5-8 [Eng. 4–7] shows the great difference between the two narratives in spite of the sameness of the speeches of David’s men “God has delivered thy enemy into thy hand.” There they say: “Do to him as seemeth thee good,” and David cuts off the skirt of Saul’s upper garment, whereupon he says, having in mind this deed of his and his thereby disquieted conscience: Far be it from me to lay hands on the Lord’s Anointed (1 Samuel 24:5-8 [4–7]). Here Abishai wishes to kill Saul, and David in connection with this wish says similar words. [The Bib. Comm. remarks that “the description in 1 Samuel 26:7 is quite compatible with David and his companion’s being hid in the cave.” This is true, and so far as this point is concerned we might hold the two narratives to refer to the same event. But the difficulty is the numerous important changes which must then be made in one narrative or both, and, it may be added, the great carelessness which must be ascribed to the editor. At the same time the supposition of a single incident in these two narratives does not impugn the inspiration of the Book, since we should therein have merely the error of an editor, or possibly of a transcriber.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 26:13. David went beyond to the top of the mountain, that is, the mountain whence he had previously reconnoitred Saul’s camp, and whence he had descended, 1 Samuel 26:6.—The express mention of “the great distance and the wide interval between them” shows that David’s conduct was here the reverse of that at the former meeting with Saul, when he followed him out of the cave and called after him (1 Samuel 24:9 [8]). Here the danger seemed to David much greater than there. 1 Samuel 26:14. (ΰֶ ?μ = towards). David’s call concerned Abner especially, because it was his duty to watch over the king’s life. Vulg.: “who art thou that criest and disquietest the king?” 1 Samuel 26:15. David’s ironical speech.—Art thou not a man? that is, a valiant warrior, who is to answer for the protection and security of his king, (ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ψ with ΰֶ ?μ is unusual; ςַ ?μ (Then.) is probably the original reading). Then he refers to the peril of life, in which Saul just before really was. Sons of death are ye, ye deserve death for your neglect of duty.—As sign thereof he shows him the spear and the water-cruse. See, where is the king’s spear?—That was a clear proof that Saul might have been slain by him who took it away (Cler.). (ΰֶ ?ϊΞφΧ pregnant construction—supply ψְ ?ΰֵ ?δ, so Maurer, who refers to Judges 6:28). And (see after) the water cruse, namely, see where it is (Keil). 1 Samuel 26:17. In the darkness and at such a distance Saul could not recognize David’s person, but could recognize him from his voice. My voice! answers David to Saul’s question. As the Sept. reads simply “thy servant,” Thenius combines the two and takes as original text “the voice of thy servant.” But the brief “my voice,” is perfectly intelligible, and the designation “servant” is involved in the added words: My lord king.—[It may also be said in general that the less courtly form is the more probable—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 26:18. Comp. 1 Samuel 24:10-13 [9–12]. This question as to the cause of the persecution is the affirmation of his innocence and of the groundlessness of Saul’s continued hostility to him. Berl. B.: “The way in which David addresses Saul is so humble, so gentle, and so reverent, that we may sufficiently thence recognize the character of his heart.” 1 Samuel 26:19. And now let my lord the king hear the words of his servant; by this adjuration David will indicate to Saul how important he thinks his following words for their relation to one another and to God, and how serious a matter it is for him that Saul should weigh them. He supposes two causes of Saul’s hostility as possible. First: If the Lord hath incited thee against me.—Wrongly Clericus: “If Jehovah incited thee, if thou deservedly attemptedst my destruction, acting in accordance with God’s will, He would hear thy prayers and take care that thou shouldst never fall into my hands [which has not been the case].” For, according to this the divine causation would be denied, while the human would be in the next clause assumed as the factual one. [Clericus says only that the fact that Saul had been in David’s power would show that God was not watching over him, and therefore his persecution was not with God’s approval.—Tr.] David’s word is based on the conception that God sometimes incites men to evil. Comp. 2 Samuel 16:10 sq., where God is said to have commanded Shimei to curse David, and 2 Samuel 24:1, according to which God incited David to number the people. The idea that evil is, from one point of view, to be referred to God as its cause, is not a product of later times, but is early found in connection with the idea of the divine ordering of the world, in which evil must serve God in order to bring about His saving help (Genesis 50:20 comp. with Genesis 45:7-8) and reveal His judicial glory (Exodus 9:16). David therefore supposes the case that Saul’s hatred towards him rests on the divine causality,—comp. 1 Samuel 18:10; 1 Samuel 19:9, where the “evil spirit from the Lord,” which has come upon Saul, is said to be the cause of his hate to David. The “divine incitement” to evil consists, according to David’s view, in the fact that Saul, sunk deep in sin by his own fault, is further given over by God to evil in that opportunity is given him to develop in deeds the evil of his heart. [Others suppose here, not so well, an immediate reference to the possession of Saul by the evil spirit, which drives him to these persecutions.—Tr.]. The words: Let him accept [literally, smell] an offering, indicate the way by which Saul, seeing whither he is come by this self-occasioned inclination to evil from God, may again come into right relation with God. “Let him smell an offering” (ιָ ?ψַ ?δ; the Hiph. of ψִ ?ιηַ not = “cause to smell,” but = “smell;” Sept. ὀσφρανθείη, Vulg., odoretur, Luther, man lasse riechen). The odor of the offering, here to be smelled, comes from the incense which was connected with the meat-offering (of flour and groats) and was burned (Leviticus 2:15-16; Leviticus 6:15) “for a sweet odor, a memorial to the Lord.” The smelling of this odor represents God’s acceptance of the offering and the offerer (Genesis 8:21), the offering itself, the Minchah (ξִ ?πְ ?ηָ ?δ), meat-offering, signifying not atonement, but sanctification of life in devotion to the Lord, the effect of which is God’s gracious acceptance. The sense is: “Instead of the anger, in which God drives thee to evil, mayest thou gain God’s acceptance, by (as the outward offering with its sweet odor signifies) giving him thy heart and life, abstaining from evil and sanctifying thyself to Him.” David thereby also indirectly affirms that the divine incitement to evil has its ground in Saul’s evil nature and will. Bunsen, in general correctly: “The sense is: pray to God that He take the temptation from thee.” Grotius is altogether wrong: “If this anger is just, I do not deprecate that it be appeased by my death as a victim.” [Others: Let the evil spirit from God be driven away by an offering to God.—Tr.].—The other case: But if men (have stirred thee up), be they accursed before the Lord.—David here refers, as in 1 Samuel 24:10 [9], to the hostile party that calumniated him to Saul, and kindled Saul’s hatred against him. He sees no other way of escaping these dangers than flight to a heathen land. For they drive me away now; the emphasis is on the “to-day,” “now” (δַ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν); “they have now brought it about that, to be safe, I must flee the country” (Then.). His present position is such that he must regard himself as one driven out of the country. That I cannot join myself to [Eng. A. V., abide in] the inheritance of the Lord, that is, I am excluded from association with the Lord’s inheritance (Bunsen). The Lord’s inheritance is the people of God, the covenant-people. Saying, Go, serve other gods, not that his enemies had actually given this order, “but David looked to deeds rather than words” (Calvin); their enmity drove him out as effectually as a command. David’s line of thought here is as follows: Only in the people Israel and in the land of promise has the covenant-God His dwelling, for there are all His revelations in respect to Israel; only there therefore, in the consecrated place of His dwelling can there be true worship of the Lord; outside this holy region of God’s revelation and dwelling among His people is the domain of strange gods; thither driven he sees everywhere inducement and temptation to “serve other gods.”—This is the ground of his wish and prayer in 1 Samuel 26:20 : And now, may my blood not fall to the ground far from the presence of the Lord, that is, may I be preserved from such a fate, namely, driven from the place of the Lord’s gracious presence and His people, to lose my life by violence afar off in the midst of an idolatrous people. The expression “far from the presence of the Lord,” and the preceding words show indeed David’s longing after the place of divine worship in the tabernacle, but contain nothing which necessarily points “to a later insertion of this section” (Then.), or, as Ewald affirms, echoes the “bitter lament of many who in the seventh century were banished by unrighteous kings like Manasseh.” The words are sufficiently explained by the pain that David felt at his fugitive life, which must now lead him to a foreign land, where he must wander or perhaps die far from association in divine worship with the people of God and from the place of supplication to God. Grotius wrongly: “in the presence of the Lord, God being witness and hereafter Avenger” [so Eng. A. V., and this rendering is grammatically defensible, though here perhaps not so appropriate as the other.—Tr.].—For the king of Israel is come out to seek a single flea, comp. 1 Samuel 24:15 [14]. Here too the “flea” sets forth what is insignificant in contrast with the king of Israel. The sense is: Thou pursuest me, who am as weak in respect to thee as a flea in respect to him who kills it. It is herein involved not only that it is not worth Saul’s while to pursue him (Then.), but also that it will be only too easy for the powerful king of Israel to conquer, him, the powerless, as one crushes a flea. So understood, the words satisfactorily give the reason for the preceding “Let not my blood fall,” which Then, wrongly calls in question. There is no reason for substituting for the text (“a flea”) the Sept. reading “my soul” (Then.), which, however, expresses the same thought, “Thou seekest to kill me” as the reason for the preceding. As one hunts a partridge in the mountains; an unnecessary difficulty is here made (Then.) by supposing that the comparison (seeking a flea) is itself compared with something else (hunting a partridge), which would certainly be unnatural and unexampled. But there is here rather a second comparison alongside of the first, and with the same meaning: Thou strivest to destroy me, the insignificant and powerless, in my isolation and abandonment. Thenius rejects the reading partridge (χֹ ?ψֵ ?ΰ), on the ground that the bird is found not in the mountains but in the plain, and accepts the Sept. “horn-owl” (δַ ?λּ ?εֹ ?ν), and further, regarding the designation of David as an insignificant person as here out of place, proposes to render: “as the owl hunts on the mountains;” but, to say nothing of this untenable supposition and of the unheard-of figure of the owl as a “hunter,” we reply simply with Winer in reference to the “partridge on the mountains:” “Partridges are usually not hunted on the mountains, since they stay in the fields. … But the text is not so absurd; … a single straying partridge on the mountains is not thought worth hunting, since they can be found in flocks in the plain” (Bib. R.-W. II. s. v.). (Also the German “Rebhuhn” [partridge] is derived from “rufen” [to call]. Bunsen.) But from the connection and the words of David, who has before lamented his enforced separation from association with the people of Israel, the following thought also is expressed in this comparison, as in the other: Me, isolated from God’s people, far from all association, a fugitive from thy machinations on the mountain heights, thou seekest at all costs to destroy, as one hunts a single fugitive partridge on the mountains only to kill it at all costs, while otherwise from its insignificance it would not be hunted, since partridges are to be found in the field in flocks.—“This speech of David was thoroughly suited to sharpen Saul’s’ conscience and lead him to give up his enmity, if he still had an ear for the voice of truth” (Keil). While these words are similar to those in 1 Samuel 24:10-16 [9–15] (as natural from the similarity of the circumstances), the following essential differences yet exist. There David, in order to prove to Saul how unfounded his illusion is (namely, that David is seeking his life), shows him that his life was in his (David’s) hand, that he would not touch the Lord’s anointed but spared him; here, on the contrary, he calls Saul to account for his ceaseless persecution, represents to him that he is determined to destroy him who, compared with the mighty king, is insignificant, and presses him to abandon this purpose. 1 Samuel 26:21. To these words of David corresponds with precision Saul’s answer (1 Samuel 26:21), which is essentially different from that in 1 Samuel 24:18 [17]. With the confession: I have sinned, he joins the request that David would return, and the promise that he would no more do him evil, and adds as reason; because my life was precious in thy eyes this day.—[Keil thinks that Saul is less penitent, more hardened here than in chap. 24, and this shows the difference of the events; but Thenius and Bib. Comm. are right in declaring that Saul’s expression of sorrow and repentance is as decided here as in the former case. No good argument can be drawn from this for either view.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 26:22. David offers to return the spear and cruse, the sign that he had spared Saul’s life. 1 Samuel 26:23-24. These words attach themselves immediately to that silently eloquent proof of his guilelessness and pure disposition. Hebrews 1) declares himself to be a “man of righteousness and faithfulness,” and assigns as proof his sparing Saul’s life. (For αְּ ?ιָ ?γ read with all the vss. αְּ ?ιָ ?γִ ?ι, the ι might easily fall out on account of the following ε). Thenius holds this self-praise of David as proof that the section 1 Samuel 24:18-20 [17–19], where Saul praises and blesses David, is the original. But what is this alleged “self-praise” but the positive affirmation of what David says in 1 Samuel 24:12 [11] (regarded by Then, as original): “there is no evil in my hand and no iniquity, and I have not sinned against thee,” and in his confident appeal to God’s righteous judgment, 1 Samuel 26:13; 1 Samuel 26:16 [12, 15]? All that is the content of the idea “righteousness,” which he here, in contrast with Saul’s unrighteousness, applies to himself. And no more is it self-praise when he speaks of his faithfulness, but simply the expression of his reverence towards the Lord’s Anointed, in spite of Saul’s perfidious and injurious conduct.—The words “the Lord gave thee into my hand” include the thought: “Thereby did the Lord put me to the test.” This test David had stood, exhibiting “righteousness and faithfulness.” And therefore he can now 2) say in good conscience: The Lord will requite the man (namely, me) [Eng. A. V. better, “render to every man.”—Tr.]. The explanation of this assertion is given in 1 Samuel 26:24 : And behold, as thy life was much set by this day in my eyes, so will my life, etc., that is, the Lord will requite my righteousness and faithfulness towards thee in sparing thy life as the Lord’s Anointed, by so valuing my life as to save it from the dangers which thou preparest for it. It is difficult to see why (Thenius) such an expectation of the Lord’s protection and help, founded on a good conscience, is not genuinely Davidic, and therefore to be esteemed not original. Yet David here says nothing essentially different from what he declares in 1 Samuel 24:13; 1 Samuel 24:16 [12, 15] of the Lord as his judge, who will avenge him on Saul, give success to his cause, and save him from Saul’s hand. Stδhelin’s remark (Leben David’s, p. 25), that David liked to praise himself like the Arabian heroes, is thoroughly wrong; for David everywhere gives God the highest praise, even where, as here, he affirms what is true of himself.—“All tribulation” (λָּ ?μΞφָ ?ψָ ?δ), all the straits which Saul would hereafter, as he knew, prepare for him. For Saul confesses indeed that he has done him wrong, and will no more work evil against him; but this, recollecting Saul’s instability and that former tearful promise of his [1 Samuel 24:16], he could regard only as the expression of a momentary better feeling; behind this he saw Saul’s unbroken heart, more and more hardened, which, when this gust of better feeling had passed over, would exhibit its old wickedness, yea, after the quenching of these better impulses and resolutions, must be all the more hardened.1 Samuel 26:25. Saul’s last word to David: “Blessed be thou, my son David; thou wilt both undertake and also fully perform, does not express a changed disposition, love instead of the old enmity, but the fleeting better feeling which David’s noble conduct had induced, and which compelled him to affirm that David would come victorious forth through the Lord’s help out of all the straits of his persecutions.—The content and character of Saul’s words in 1 Samuel 24:17-22 [Eng. 16–22] are very different from these, though both contain Saul’s confession of wrong. But the first time [24. he makes his confession with tears, with acknowledgment of the fruitlessness of his attempts against David and the unavoidable transition of the kingdom to the latter, whom he adjures them to spare his family. But here his inward emotion is not nearly so strong and deep; he affirms merely that he is sorry for his former conduct, and will not repeat it. Keil is therefore right in saying that “he is evidently here already much more hardened.” And David went his way, and Saul returned to his place. Thus they parted forever. Berl.-B.: “Their souls were not at one; therefore they remained asunder.” It is worthy of note that it is not said of Saul, as 1 Samuel 24:23 [1 Samuel 24:22]: “He returned to his house.” This points to the fact that he continued his persecution of David, as also appears from the latter’s flight (hinted at in 1 Samuel 26:19-20) to the Philistines, where we find him in chap. 27. [It is not necessary to suppose that Saul continued his pursuit of David. David’s apprehension in 1 Samuel 27:1 was a general one, and very natural, even though Saul had returned home to his “place” in Gibeah.—Tr.] AND 1. The conception “that God incites to sin” in the Old Testament belongs to the same circle of thought as the idea, carried over by Paul into the New Testament, of man’s hardening in sin as a divine act. The hardening pertains only to the inner being, to heart and disposition (which becomes insusceptible to the influences of the divine word and Spirit), to the will, which persistently sets itself against God’s holy will, to the ethical habit of the whole personality, in which irreceptivity for good has become permanent in such wise that the capacity for free self-determination against the evil for the good has ceased. According to the law of His righteous moral government of the world, which punishes evil with evil, God abandons the man who shuts himself up against the invoking of the divine Spirit to the thereby engendered moral condition of inward hardening, sin becoming a factual necessity for him. The divine incitement to evil, on the other hand, refers to individual acts, as is shown by 1 Samuel 26:19 and the passages above cited, 2 Samuel 16:10 sq.; 1 Samuel 24:1 sq. The divine causation, however, consists not in God’s producing evil, which would he inconsistent with His holiness (comp. James 1:13), but in His occasioning the evil to break forth from the hidden depths of the heart and realize itself in deeds, though this need neither presuppose nor induce hardening, is rather intended to be the mean and avenue to the salvation and bettering of the sinner. Hengstenberg on Psalms 51:6 : “Sin pertains, indeed, to man. He may always free himself from it by penitence. But if he does not repent, then the forms in which sin exhibits itself are no longer under his control, but under God’s dispensation, who determines them as pleases Him, as accords with the plan of His government of the world, for His own honor, and, so long as He is not absolutely rejected, for the good of the sinner. He puts the sinner in positions in which just this or that temptation specially assails him; He leads the thoughts to definite objects of sinful desire, and causes them there to remain and not pass on to others.” This divine incitement to sin presupposes the actual free determination of the will in respect to the sins to which the incitement pertains. In this connection O. v. Gerlach excellently remarks on 1 Samuel 26:19 : “That the Lord incites a man to sin … must always be the result of a conscious, cherished sin or sinful direction of the will, whence then come sins of deed for punishment, and also for the possible bettering of the man. In order to obviate this terrible punishment of sin by sin, David says Saul must again approach the Lord in an offering which atones for sin and restores the heart to the Lord.” 2. The inheritance = possession, property is the people of God in so far as He is their Lord, who has made them His people by choosing them out of the mass of the other nations to be the bearer and organ of His self-revelation, and has, made a covenant with them. Comp. Deuteronomy 1:29; Deuteronomy 4:20; Deuteronomy 9:26; Deuteronomy 9:29; Psalms 28:9. The complete fulfilment of this idea of the peculiar people [= property-people] is found in the New Testament covenant-relation and the thence resulting association of men, who by Christ’s redemption and reconciliation have become God’s property; that is, [it is found] in the community of the kingdom in faith in Christ. The greatest evil David thinks to be exclusion from holy life-association with his God among idolaters. The greatest good for him is to belong to this property of God, and to this kingdom-community in the service of the living God. Therein is typically set forth the highest good which he who has become God’s property in Christ, finds in participation in God’s kingdom and its blessings. 3. There is a self-accusation which, like Saul’s confession of sin (1 Samuel 26:21), is far from true repentance, because it is based not on the broken heart and the abandoned self-will, but on a transient disposition and superficial emotion, and in the recognition of the impossibility of carrying out one’s own will over against the divine will, and there is wanting the earnestness of self-denial. In such a condition of soul, as Saul’s example shows, even these better impulses and superficial penitences gradually cease, and the judgment of hardening recedes with irretardable steps from repentance. 4. There is a self-assertion, as David’s example shows (1 Samuel 26:23-24), which not only, without becoming self-praise and self-glorification, in righteousness and faithfulness sets one in the true light against unjust accusation and enmity, for the sake of the Lord and His honor (in whose service the man knows himself to be), but also serves to affirm the moral worth of one’s own personality, and to maintain one’s real personal honor, which has its root in God’s service. One is not therein concerned with the affirmation of his own merits, but with the earnest, true declaration of the position which his inner life, in accordance with God’s demands, and through the power of His Spirit, occupies towards God in true piety. Conscious of such relation of heart to his God, the servant of God (as David knew himself to be over against his unjust persecutor, Saul) in tribulation and sufferings has the right to appeal to God’s righteous judgment, and with joyful confidence to look for His help and salvation promised to the righteous and innocent. 5. Among the Psalms of David it is particularly the 17 and 18 in which there is such clear expression of earnest, conscious power to affirm righteousness and innocence by reason of personal experience of ungodly enmity and divine deliverance, that we must at least suppose the recollection of Saul’s persecutions to be a concurring factor in them. In the title of Psalms 18 : “By the servant of the Lord, by David, who spake to the Lord the words of this Song in the day when the Lord had saved him from the hand of all his enemies and from the hand of Saul,” the reference to Saul accords with essential features in the content of the Psalm according to the points of view above indicated, though the Psalm does not refer exclusively to the time of Saul (see on 2 Samuel 22). But it is beyond doubt that the whole content of Psalms 17. presupposes such a position and such experiences as are described here in chaps. 24 and 26; for individual portions set forth the same ideas and thoughts that David here expresses; in 1 Samuel 26:1-2; 1 Samuel 26:5 is contained a similar appeal, in part to his righteousness and faithfulness, in part to God’s righteous judgment, against the unrighteousness of His enemies; through the whole Psalm sounds the same tone of firm confidence in the Lord’s help and victorious conduct of the course of the righteous against their enemies. Here, too, the experiences of the Sauline Period show themselves as the fruitful soil of David’s psalm-poetry. AND 1 Samuel 26:1. Cramer: The temporal good fortune of pious men often does not last long; ere one expects it, the cross is again before their door. Therefore boast not thyself of to-morrow; for thou knowest not what a day may bring forth. Proverbs 27:11 Sa 26:2-3. Hedinger (from Hall): Good motions that fall into wicked hearts are like some sparks that fall from the flint and steel into wet tinder, lightsome for the time but soon out. 1 Samuel 24:17—Berl. B.: Ah Saul, thou deceivedst thyself, God is stronger than thou, and thou wilt only be an occasion for new victories. 1 Samuel 26:5 sq. Schlier: Saul is in peril of his life; to human eyes he is lost. And who has cast him into such peril? Who else than himself? His hatred, with which he anew persecuted David. From this we should learn how constantly sin is the ruin of men. He who does evil, always does himself the greatest hurt.—[1 Samuel 26:8. Our best friend becomes our worst enemy, when he would persuade us to do wrong. Comp. Matthew 16:23—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 26:10-11. Hedinger: Love and righteousness in a pious man’s heart is invincible. [1 Samuel 26:9-11. Henry: David gives two reasons why he would not destroy Saul, nor permit another to do it. 1. It would be a sinful affront to God’s ordinance. Saul was the Lord’s anointed king of Israel. … No man could resist him and be guiltless; the thing David feared was guilt, and his concern respected his innocence more than his safety. 2. It would be a sinful anticipation of God’s providence; God had sufficiently showed him, in Nabal’s case, that if he left it to Him to do right He would do it in due time.… Thus bravely does he prefer his conscience to his interest, and trust God with the issue.—Tr.1 Samuel 26:12 sq. Osiander: Even though opportunity for revenge is given us, yet we should not avenge ourselves, but commit vengeance to God.—Schlier: God grant that we may all learn to love our enemies, that we may learn to requite evil with good! For this is certain: hatred excites strife; but love helps mightily to peace, and overcomes much evil. 1 Samuel 26:14. Starke: Even in cross and persecution one should rejoice and be of good courage. 1 Samuel 26:20. S. Schmid: The feebler and more powerless the pious are under trouble and persecution, the more they may lean on God’s support. 1 Samuel 26:21. Berl. B.: Nothing can more soften a hard disposition than humility and gentleness.—There is no sinner so hardened but God sends him now and then a ray of illumination to show him all his error. But ah! when they are awakened by such divine movings, it is only for some moments; and such a movement is scarcely past ere they fall back at once into their former life, and forget again all that they had promised.—Starke: Although the ungodly sometimes appear as if they wished to turn and become pious, yet they soon fall off again and go on again in their ungodliness.—Schlier: Even if we here and there lightly make a confession of our faults, how is it as to a downright confession of sin in the sight of God? Has God’s goodness led us to repentance? Has His compassion opened our heart? O let us not turn the long-suffering of God into lasciviousness.—Starke: Truly penitent sinners must confess their sins, ask forgiveness, and promise amendment, and this not hypocritically but in all sincerity (Matthew 19:16). [“I have sinned.” Spurgeon has a sermon (Am. Ed., Third Series) upon this confession as made by seven different persons in the Bible.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 26:23. God is righteous; a believing soul recognizes that to its consolation. 1 Samuel 26:24. Osiander: Just as God punishes one barbarity through another, so He rewards benefits with benefits. Seb. Schmid: No one is greater than he whose soul is much set by in the eyes of God. 1 Samuel 26:25. Cramer: Horrible wickedness, to know one thing and do another, and thus knowingly to kick against the pricks.—The ungodly must often be their own prophets. Proverbs 10:24—Seb. Schmid: When the enemies and persecutors of the pious have long enough raged and striven against the will of God, they must at last against their will yield the victory to God and the pious. [Taylor: So far as we know, this was the last meeting between Saul and David; and it is pleasing to think that after all that had occurred, Saul’s latest utterance to him was one of benediction; at once a vindication of David’s conduct in the past, and a forecast of his glory in the future. Verily, the Psalmist was speaking from his own experience when he said, “commit thy way unto the Lord; trust also in Him; and He shall bring it to pass. And He shall bring forth thy righteousness as the light, and thy judgment as the noonday.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:15. “Art thou a man?” True men exhorted not to act unworthily of their manhood.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:21. “I have played the fool.” 1) In listening to slanderers against an innocent man (1 Samuel 26:19, comp. 1 Samuel 24:9). 2) In opposing a man who evidently must succeed (1 Samuel 26:25). 3) In resisting the known designs of Providence (1 Samuel 24:20, comp. 1 Samuel 23:17). 4) In renewing a wrong already confessed and temporarily forsaken (1 Samuel 24:16-22). Remark: One may confess his folly and take no step towards becoming wiser. The benefit of such a confession depends upon whether it is made in bitterness or in humility.—Tr.] [Upon this chapter in general, comp. above on chap. 24—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 26:1. Here, as in 1 Samuel 23:19, there is diversity of spelling, Syr. and Arab. having “Havilah,” and some MSS. and Edd. “Habilah;” but the Heb. text seems preferable.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:1. The Rel. is supplied in 1 Samuel 26:3 and in 1 Samuel 23:19, and is involved in the connection. For δַ ?ιְ ?ωִׁ ?ιξεֹ ?ο Aq. has τῆςἠφανισμένης, as if from ωָׁ ?ξַ ?ν, “the desolated,” and Sym. ἐρήμου, “the desert.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:4. Instead of ΰֶ ?μΞπָ ?λεֹ ?ο, Ewald would read ΰֶ ?μΞπֶ ?χֹ ?ψξְ ?ςָ ?ψָ ?δ, “into the fissure of a cave,” partly after the Sept. Κεϊλά, or, as Thenius affirms, for the purpose of introducing here a trace of his alleged “original narrative,” though the context shows that Saul was not in a cave, but in a wagon-rampart (1 Samuel 26:5). The text-phrase occurs in 1 Samuel 23:23 in the sense “certainly,” and is quite intelligible here, though, as Wellhausen remarks, its position is strange, we should expect it after εַ ?ιֵּ ?γַ ?ς, while after αָ ?ΰωָׁ ?ΰεּ ?μ we should look for the name of the place to which Saul goes. The Sept. gives not only ἕτοιμος, but also the place from which Saul comes, ἐκΚεἴλα, which throws no light on the sense; Vulg. and Chald. support the Heb., and Syr. and Arab. render “after him,” “to him.” On the whole there does not seem sufficient reason for altering the text; the VSS. testify that there was something after ωָׁ ?ΰεּ ?μ, and nothing better than this offers itself.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:5. As in 1 Samuel 17:29. Here the VSS. vary greatly, some laying hold of the idea of the Heb. verb (ςβμ) “round” (Aq., Sym., στρογγυλώσις, another reading of Aq. κάμπη), others giving it as chariot (Sept. λαμπήνη), Sym. (σκηνή) and Vulg. (tentorium) thence passing to the notion of “tent,” while Syr. and Vulg. take the ordinary meaning of the word “way.” Bib. Com. proposes (without ground) to read ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ, and thus bring this passage into accordance with 1 Samuel 24:5.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:7. “The place at his head,” see on 1 Samuel 19:13. Derive from ξְ ?ψֶ ?ΰωֶׁ ?ϊ.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:8. Sept. κύριος, Jahveh. This variation in the divine names may be error in the Sept., or it may be from variation in manuscripts; there is no decisive internal reason for the use of one name rather than the other.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:8. So the Qeri (Kethib is plural), which is found in the text of several MSS. and Edd.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:8. The Heb. construction: “with the spear and in the ground,” is unusual; from 1 Samuel 17:11; 1 Samuel 19:10, we should expect: “with the spear in him and in the ground” (Wellh.).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:9. Sept.: “humble (ωׁ ?ηδ) him not;” here inappropriate.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:11. Literally: “be it a profane thing to me from Jehovah,” Erdmann “on Jehovah’s account,” or, it may be “by, through Jehovah” (as in Eng. A. V.).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:12. The form is variously explained (ξֵ ?ψַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֹׁ ?ϊֵ ?ι), some taking it for ξִ ?ξּ ?ψΧ, one Mem falling out (so Erdmann), others from a noun ψֶ ?ΰωֶׁ ?ϊ (so Fόrst). In any case we have to suppose the presence of the Prep. ξִ ?ο.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:12. This word (ϊַּ ?ψγֵּ ?ξָ ?δ) is used only a few times in the Old Testament, and apparently of a supernatural sleep. In prose it occurs, besides here, only in Genesis 2:21; Genesis 15:12, in both which places the sleep is supernatural. So in Job, Eliphaz (1 Samuel 4:13) and Elihu (Job 33:15) refer to revelations from God, and in Isaiah 29:10 the ψεּ ?δַ ϊַּ ?ψְ ?γֵּ ?ξָ ?δ is a divine judicial infliction. Even in Proverbs 19:15 the “deep sleep,” which is the result of slothfulness, is viewed, from the connection, as a part of God’s moral government of men. A distinctly supernatural sleep would, therefore, seem to be here intended. This is the general feeling of the Greek rendering of the word (Sept. θάμβος, Aq. καταφορά, Sym. κάρος, Theod. ἔκστασις); Syr, Arab., Vulg., Chald., render “sleep;” Sam. Vers. gives ϊּ ?πεּ ?ξϊ “sleep,” in Genesis 15:12, and in 1 Samuel 2:21 τιμεּ ?χΰ, compared by Uhlemann with Rabb. δַ ?τְ ?μָ ?πָ ?δ (hyperbole) in sense of “ecstasy,” but comp. Talm. τַּ ?μֵ ?χ, “bind,” hence, perhaps, “a binding sleep.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:15. The Adj. is understood, though not expressed, in Heb. as in English.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:16. On the construction see Erdmann. The ΰֵ ?ϊ might be regarded an emphatic sign introducing the second thing mentioned, which might then be in the Acc.: “and as to the cruse.” The Vulg. inserts a second “where?” the Sept. omits it where the Heb. has it—two ways of smoothing over the difficulty of the construction.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:19. Literally: “from joining myself to” (Ges.). So Aq. ἄπτεσθαι, Sym. συνδυάςεθαὶ, Sept. μὴἐστηρίγθαι—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:20. Or, “a single flea,” as in 1 Samuel 24:15. This repetition is somewhat surprising, and the Sept. reading “my soul” seems better. The repetition of the phrase would enter into the question whether we are to suppose two betrayals by the Ziphites, or only two accounts of the same betrayal.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:21. Syr., Arab. and 2 MSS. have “Saul said to David.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:22. The Art. with ηֲ ?πִ ?ιϊ (om. in Qeri) in stat. const. is strange, but not impossible, especially where the defining noun is comparatively insignificant, or the defined is to be brought out more prominently, as here. See Ew., § 290 d, Philippi, “Stat. Const. im Heb.,” p. 36 sq.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 26:23. The insertion of the suffix is supported by many VSS., MSS. and EDD.—Tr.] [We should, however, expect an indication of the repetition of the occurrence by some such phrase as “the Ziphites came again to Saul,” and the absence of such indication is one of those delicate features which favor the supposition of a single occurrence, while, on the other hand, the argument for two occurrences, as given by Erdmann and others, cannot be considered a weak one.—Tr.] [The proposal of Bib.-Com. to read ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ, “garment,” and represent Saul as sleeping in his garment, as in 1 Samuel 24:5 [4], is an unfounded conjecture, and the assimilation of the two accounts in this way can be effected only by a violent reconstruction of the narratives, the necessity for which is a serious objection to the supposition of one occurrence.—Tr.] In ξֵ ?ψַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֹׁ ?ϊֵ ?ι remark 1) the double Plu. εֹ ?ϊ and –ιִ ?ν, especially the stat. constr. form –ιֵ, Ges. § 87, 5, Rem. 1; Ewald, § 160 b and Anm. 2, § 211 d; 2) ξֵ for ξִ ?ξְ ?—one ξ having fallen out. [Bib. Com. “This incidental testimony to Abner’s eminence as a warrior is borne out by his whole history. At the same time David’s bantering tone, coupled with 1 Samuel 26:19, makes it probable that David considered Abner his enemy; the latter’s great influence with Saul might have prevented the persecution of David. Abner may have feared David as a rival; his opposition to him is shown by his conduct after Saul’s death.” But all this may be explained also by Abner’s devoted loyalty to his kinsman Saul.—Tr.] [The Heb. word for “partridge,” gore means “the caller,” and so perhaps the Eng. “quail.” Pictet (Orig. Indoe europ.) thinks that rebhuhn=“speckled bird,” and perdix, partridge has perhaps the same meaning.—Tr.] [Bib.-Com remarks that the sentiment here ascribed to David is put into Saul’s mouth in 1 Samuel 24:17-19 [Heb. 18–20], and that (supposing the same event related in 24 and 26) a parallel case is found in Matthew 21:41, and Luke 20:16. However this does not favor the supposition of one event, for as in the Gospels both Jesus and His hearers may have said on the same occasion what is reported, so here Saul may have said at one time what David said at another.—Tr.] IX. David at Ziglag in the land of the Philistines 1 Samuel 27:1-121 And David said in his heart, I shall now perish one day by the hand of Saul; there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape into the land of the Philistines; and Saul shall despair of me to seek me any more in any 2coast of Israel; so shall I escape out of his hand. And David arose and he [om. he] passed over with [he and] the six hundred men that were with him unto Achish, 3the son of Maoch, king of Gath. And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men; every man with his household, even [om. even] David with [and] his two wives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the Carmelitess, Nabal’s wife 4[Nabal’s wife, the Carmelitess]. And it was told Saul that David was fled to Gath; and he sought no more again for him. 5And David said unto Achish, If I have now found grace in thine eyes, let them give me a place in some town in the country [in one of the country-cities], that I may dwell there; for why should thy servant dwell in the royal city with thee? 6Then [And] Achish gave him Ziklag that day; wherefore Ziklag pertaineth unto 7[to] the kings of Judah unto this day. And the time that David dwelt in the country of the Philistines was a full [om. full] year and four months. 8And David and his men went up and invaded the Geshurites and the Gezrites and the Amalekites; for those nations were of old the inhabitants of the land, as 9thou goest to Shur, even [and] unto the land of Egypt. And David smote the land, and left [saved] neither man nor woman alive, and took away [om. away] the sheep and the oxen and the asses and the camels and the apparel, and returned 10and came to Achish. And Achish said, Whither have ye made a road [an inroad] to-day? And David said, Against the south of Judah and against the south of the 11Jerahmeelites and against the south of the Kenites. And David saved neither man nor woman alive to bring tidings [om. tidings] to Gath, saying, lest they should tell on us, saying, So did David, and so will be his manner all the while he dwelleth 12in the country of the Philistines. And Achish believed [confided in] David, saying, He hath made his people Israel utterly to abhor him, therefore [and] he shall be my servant forever. AND . 1. David flees to Philistia to king Achish of Gath. That this is not the continuation of 1 Samuel 24:23 [1 Samuel 24:22], but of 1 Samuel 26:25, has already been established, against Thenius. In spite of Saul’s renewed assurances that he would desist from his hostility, David, on account of his repeatedly exhibited vacillation in feeling and purpose, could no longer remain in the land of Judah; the event which he hints at in 1 Samuel 26:19, which his increased suffering (the explanation of which is given in chap. 26) predicts, now occurs; he is obliged by Saul’s renewed machinations (comp. 1 Samuel 27:4) to leave the country, to go to Philistia. And David said to his heart=“thought, reflected”—thus dramatically is David introduced, taking counsel with himself what he is to do in respect to Saul’s continued hostility. The word “now” (ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ) refers to his present dangerous position. I shall now be carried off into Saul’s hand—not: “by the hand” (Keil, De W., and others). This expression: “into the hand” (αְּ ?ιַ ?γωׁ ?Χ) has led the ancient versions to modify the proper meaning of the verb “snatch away” into “He delivered” (Sept.), “fall” (Vulg.). [Cahen and Philippson render “perish by the hand;” Bible Commentary: “fall into the hand.” The Niph. is used in the sense of “perish” in 1 Samuel 12:25 (so Erdmann) and 1 Samuel 26:10—and this sense suits here, though the others are also good.—Tr.] There is nothing good for me.—That is, here, or, if I remain here, as the connection suggests. On account of this negation the λִּ ?ι is to be rendered simply “but” (Chald., Syr.), not “yea, I will flee” (Maur., De W.), nor “is it not better that I flee?” (Vulg.), nor (supplying ΰִ ?ν with Sept.), “there is nothing good for me, unless” (Thenius).—His ground for this determination: Saul will desist from me …… and I shall escape him is borne out by the result (1 Samuel 27:4 referring expressly back to these words). [See “Text and Gram.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 27:2. The number six hundred has remained unchanged—1 Samuel 25:13; 1 Samuel 23:13; 1 Samuel 22:2.—Achish is identical with the Achish of 1 Samuel 21:10 sq. As a man persecuted by Achish’s enemy, Saul, David might confidently hope to be received by him. The Philistine king Achish of 1 Kings 2:39 may be the same person—though he would then have reigned about fifty years, and must have been very old. He is the son of Maachah, this Achish the “son of Maoch,” probably two forms of the same paternal name. Gath had been before conquered by the Israelites, (1 Samuel 7:14), but appears here and 1 Samuel 21:10 sq. as the residence of an independent king hostile to Saul. See 1 Chronicles 18:1, which states that David afterwards conquered it. That the event here described is a different one from that in 1 Samuel 21:10 sq. has been already there shown by pointing out the difference in the circumstances. There he is a solitary deserter, feigning madness to procure safety, being recognized as Goliath’s conqueror. Here he appears in princely style with all his retinue, and so gains the confidence of Achish. Cler.: “The long enmity that Saul had shown him had made him acceptable to the enemies of the Hebrews and of Saul.” 1 Samuel 27:3. The formal settling of this emigrant colony. Each of the warriors had a family, as appears from the words: With his house.—The same statement is found in 2 Samuel 2:3. A little ambulant kingdom.—His two wives.—See 1 Samuel 25:42-44. [These facts are mentioned to prepare the way for the narrative in chap. 30. (Bib. Com.).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 27:4. See 1 Samuel 27:1. (Read Qeri ιָ ?ρַ ?σ.) David gained his end by this immigration. [In Gath David seems to have studied music—see title of Psalms 8 (Ew.)—and may here have become acquainted with Ittai the Gittite, 2 Samuel 15:19 (Bible Com.).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 27:5-7. Achish gives David Ziklag as a residence. 1 Samuel 27:5. If I have found favor with thee.—This is presupposed as a fact in this request. Achish regarded David and his band as allies against Saul, because he sought refuge with him from Saul. He must indeed, as Ewald (III. 137) well remarks, “long since have seen his error as to this strange man, and the more bitterly he regretted it, the more disposed he would now be to receive the distinguished leader of a considerable armed band, who was so often and so sorely persecuted by Saul.” Grotius: “David’s fame and the expectation excited by him must have been great, that a city……should have been granted him for safety.” Give me one of the country-cities.—David asked such a city as property; in 1 Samuel 27:6 it is expressly said that Achish gave it him for a possession. David’s alleged reason for the request is that it was not suitable for him, Achish’s servant and subject to remain in the capital city with his large retinue. The words do not support the explanation (Then.): “it is not fitting that I, who am as thou, a prince, should reside here with thee.” The idea “to burden thee” (Buns.) is not contained in the expression “with thee,” but is involved in the situation. [David subtly suggests the expensiveness of his presence in Gath; his real motive was to be out of the way of observation, so as to play the part of Saul’s enemy without acting against him (Bib. Com.).—Tr.] 1 Samuel 27:6. Ziklag pertained first to Judah (Joshua 15:31), then to Simeon (Joshua 19:5), was afterwards taken by the Philistines, and perhaps remained uninhabited (Keil); according to 1 Samuel 30:1 it lay far south near the Amalekite border. Its position in the Negeb (South country) has not yet been determined. According to Ritter (Erdk. XVI. 133) it was perhaps the present Tel el Hasy north-east of Gaza, “whence one enjoys a wide view, westward to the sea, eastward to the mountains of Hebron, northward to the mountains of Ephraim, and southward to the plains of Egypt.” Comp. Raumer, §225. Knobel conjectures that it was south-west of Milh, in Gasluj [Asluj], on the way to Abdeh (Rob. III. 154, 862 [Am. ed. II. 201]). This would put it much farther south. [See “Ziklag” in Smith’s Bible Dictionary. Mr. Grove does not favor this identification.—Tr.] The remark that it consequently became the property of the kings of Judah confirms the view that the words and he gave him mean that the city was a present from Achish to David. Though the distinction between Judah and Israel appears already in the time of Saul and David (1 Samuel 11:8; 1 Samuel 17:52; 1 Samuel 18:16; 2 Samuel 2:9 sq.; 1 Samuel 3:10; 1 Samuel 5:1-5; 1 Samuel 19:41 sq.; 1 Samuel 20:24), yet the phrase “kings of Judah” indicates that the narrative supposes the division of Israel into two kingdoms and the existence of the kingdom of Judah [so that this Book was composed between Solomon and the Babylonian exile.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 27:7. A year and four months. The first expression (ιָ ?ξִ ?ιν) = “some time, a considerable time,” Gen. 4:40; 1 Samuel 29:3, then = “a year,” Leviticus 25:29; Judges 17:10; 1 Samuel 1:3; 1 Samuel 2:19, etc. This exact statement of time attests the historical value of the narrative (Then., Keil). 1 Samuel 27:8-12. David makes incursions from Ziklag into the territory of the neighboring tribes on the south border of Palestine, returns with rich booty, and has the confidence of king Achish. 1 Samuel 27:8. And he went up, not “he went out” (De W., Keil); the tribes dwelt on higher ground than Ziklag, probably on the mountain-plateau of the northern portion of the wilderness of Paran. “Invaded” (τָּ ?ωַׁ ?θ), literally “spread themselves out;” the word is used especially of a hostile army (1 Chronicles 14:9; 1 Chronicles 14:13), and so means to attack a city or land. (Here with ΰֵ ?μ, as 1 Samuel 30:1; Judges 20:37,=“to attack towards,” with ςַ ?μit=“fall on,” as 1 Samuel 23:27; Judges 9:33; Judges 9:44.)—The district of the Geshurites (to be distinguished from the little Aramζan kingdom of Geshur, 2 Samuel 15:8; comp. 2 Samuel 3:3; 2 Samuel 13:37; 2 Samuel 14:23, and from the northern Geshurites near Hermon on the border of Bashan (Gilead), Deuteronomy 3:14; Joshua 12:5; Joshua 13:13) lay south of Philistia near the district of the Amalekites, along with which it is here named.—[Comp. Joshua 13:2-3.—Tr.]—The Gezrites (Qeri) or Girzites (Kethib), a tribe not elsewhere mentioned, who, since the scene of David’s incursions was the south of Philistia and Palestine, must not be identified (Grot., Ew.) with the inhabitants of Gezer (Joshua 10:33) in the west of Ephraim. Nor can we think of the Gerrenni (2Ma 13:24), inhabitants of the city Gerra between Rhinocoloura and Pelusium (Cler.), since this would carry us beyond the Arabian desert, in which the Gezrites at any rate dwelt.—[In Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. “Gerzites,” Mr. Grove, following Gesenius, Fόrst, Stanley, suggests a connection between this people and the tribe which was connected with Mount Gerizim in central Palestine. This is an ingenious, though as yet unestablished conjecture.—Tr.]—Here, after Saul’s war of extermination against them (1 Samuel 15:7), the Amalekites had collected their scattered remnant and established themselves.—The safest rendering of the following (very difficult) clause seems to be: “David … invaded. … the Amalekites (for these were inhabitants of the land, who inhabited it of old) as far as Shur and Egypt.” The second verb “inhabited” is naturally to be supplied from the preceding participle [“inhabitants”]. David carried his incursions as far as Shur and the Egyptian border. That the Amalekites as nomads held this district is involved in 1 Samuel 15:7, where Saul is said to have smitten them “up to Shur, which is on the border of Egypt.” Their old seats in the south of Palestine stretched into Arabia Petrζa (Exodus 17:8 sq.; comp. Numbers 13:29). The narrator here, in accordance with 1 Samuel 15:7, assumes this in the remark that David extended his incursions to Shur and Egypt. Perhaps he describes them as the original inhabitants of these regions with reference to their opposition to Israel in the Exodus (Exodus 17:8 sq.), and to their defeat by Saul (1 Samuel 15:7), which, however, did not prevent their re-collection and settlement here. “To make military expeditions from Ziklag, at the best mere incursions for booty, was at that time a necessity for David and his men” (Ew.).1 Samuel 27:9. As nomads these tribes had large herds.—He left neither man nor woman alive; the reason for this is given in 1 Samuel 27:11. He needed the rich booty partly for the support of himself and his men, partly to retain and increase the king’s favor. It was for this latter reason that, after his return from his expeditions, he went to Gath, instead of going immediately to Ziklag, in order to make report of his movements to Achish and deliver him a part of the spoil. 1 Samuel 27:10. The verb “said,” like the “went up” in 1 Samuel 27:8, here expresses customary, repeated acting. The meaning is: Achish used to say: “Against whom have ye made an incursion this time?” David’s answer: Against the south of Judah and against the south of the Jerahmeelites, comp. 1 Samuel 30:29, the posterity of Jerahmeel, the first-born of Hezron (2 Chronicles 2:9, 25), and so “one of the three great families of Judah descended from Hezron who probably dwelt on the southernmost border of the Tribe of Judah” (Keil), and against the south of the Kenites,—who were under the protection of Judah (comp. 1 Samuel 15:5-6; Judges 1:16), mentioned along with Amalek in Numbers 24:21, where it is said of them: “in rocks thou hast put thy rest,” referring to their dwellings in the rocks and caves south of Palestine, to which also their name points.—All the tribes mentioned here and in 1 Samuel 27:8 dwelt near one another in the district bordering on the Negeb (south country) of Judah, and stretching between the hill country of Judah and the Arabian desert (see Joshua 15:21). David’s expeditions were really against the tribes named in 1 Samuel 27:8, who extended close into the south of Judah. It was his interest, however, to make Achish believe that he had made an expedition against Saul, and consequently against the men of Judah. He therefore says nothing of his incursion against the tribes named in 1 Samuel 27:8, which were on friendly terms with Achish (1 Samuel 27:11), but declares that he has marched against the south of Judah, that is against the Israelites there and the tribes under their protection. This deception was made possible only by the fact that those tribes dwelt so near together that “that when the march began, no one could tell its destination” (Then.). 1 Samuel 27:11. Confirmation of David’s endeavor to deceive Achish as to the object of his attack. He spared neither man nor woman to bring them to Gath, though he was accustomed to carry thither the richest booty. The narrator thus resumes the statement in 1 Samuel 27:9 in order to add the explanation: “he did not, as was the custom in war, carry them to Gath, but slew them, that he might not be betrayed by them to Achish.” Contrary to the Masoretic accentuation a stronger punctuation mark is to be put after the words: saying, lest they tell on us, saying, So did David (Sept. Vulg., Maur., Then., Keil), since the following words: And so was his manner all the while he dwelt in the land of the Philistines, are naturally not a part of the preceding speech, but are the continuation of the narrator. ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τָּ ?θ = his constant, habitual conduct, as in 1 Samuel 27:8-9. 1 Samuel 27:12 refers back to 1 Samuel 27:10; David’s deception succeeded completely with Achish. From David’s reports (which he received for pure coin), Achish drew two favorable considerations: 1) To preserve my favor and friendship, he has made himself thoroughly hateful to his people, or better (from the literal meaning of the Heb. “stench,”) made himself “a loathing” (comp. 1 Samuel 13:12), and 2) completely alienated from his people, as their enemy, he will now be my servant forever. The word “forever” (ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν) refers to the present, when David already stood in the relation of vassal and dependent to Achish, who is now sure that he will always be subject to him. AND 1. David’s removal to Philistia, regarded in the light of his previous divine guidance, was a self-willed act, which had its ground in little faith, and produced one sin after another. Though a prophet, David had received the divine command to take up his abode not in a foreign land, but at home, in the land of Judah (1 Samuel 22:5). He disobeyed this command under the conviction that there was no escape for him from Saul but in Philistia. Hitherto in important undertakings and difficult positions he had repeatedly sought the divine counsel and will through God’s word and through prayer to God. Here he proceeds in his own strength, and nothing is said of his inquiring of the Lord. He was certain of his divine calling as the Anointed of the Lord; he knew the divine promises, which could not lie; he had had most excellent experiences of the divine deliverance (1 Samuel 17:37) and the saving power of the Lord; and yet in the difficult position produced by Saul’s persistent hate, he becomes timid and faint-hearted; in littleness and weakness of faith he goes his own way. 2. But, along with God’s people’s experiences of His goodness and faithfulness, there are manifestations of His punitive, chastening righteousness, as a witness against the unbelief and disobedience (and the connected unfaithfulness) which are concealed behind their littleness and weakness of faith. David was to feel painfully removal from association with God’s people (1 Samuel 26:19); as “Anointed of the Lord” he was to feel in his conscience the punishment of dependence on a heathen king, which he had himself assumed, and which was only externally somewhat softened by the somewhat freer position which his residence in Ziklag gave him; yet he found himself obliged in order to preserve the king’s favor, to take a stand and maintain a conduct towards not only Saul but also his people, whereby he would appear to the heathen to be their enemy. Further, he saw himself forced into paths of untruthfulness and prevarication, and with king Achish to have recourse to trickery and lies.—F. W. Krummacher: “Was not David again guilty of open lying and denial of his people? In the eyes of God—undoubtedly. To himself David may indeed have attempted to justify himself by saying that his ambiguous language was only an allowable stratagem of war, and that it was a heathen to whom he veiled the truth. … But he will soon find out that God weighs those who will belong to Him in the scales of the Sanctuary, in which there is, among others, as weight-stone, the indestructible word: Thou shalt not bear false witness.” AND [1 Samuel 27:1. Hall: The over-long continuance of a temptation may easily weary the best patience, and may attain that by protraction which it could never do by violence. David himself at last begins to bend under this trial. … The greatest saints upon earth are not always upon the same pitch of spiritual strength: he that some time said, “I will not be afraid of ten thousands,” now says, “I shall perish one day by the hand of Saul.”—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 27:1 sq. Schlier: We suppose that when one has attained to faith, then everything must go on straight and smooth, that there must always be progress from faith to faith; and if it turns out otherwise, we suppose the whole has been only an appearance. He who so thinks knows neither the human heart nor human life.—Starke: Even the heroic power of faith in the servants of God alternates with human weaknesses.—Hedinger [from Hall]: “The best faith is but like the twilight, mixed with some degrees of darkness and infidelity. 1 Samuel 27:5 sq. Schlier: We suppose that when one comes to be of little faith, and in weakness enters upon wrong ways, now God’s judgments would of necessity follow immediately, that now the Lord’s chastening hand will take hold and by punishments re-establish the old faith. And it is true that in a case of unbelief things often happen so. But little-faith is not unbelief; the Lord helps the little-faith of His people in other ways. … The Lord goes after His children with love alone; and when one becomes weak in faith He first heaps up benefits upon him, and when one loses heart, He lets him find out what a faithful and thoroughly kind God he has. 1 Samuel 27:10 sq. Hedinger [from Hall]: The infirmities of God’s children never appear but in their extremities. [Hall: It is hard for the best man to say, how far he will be tempted. If a man will put himself among Philistines, he cannot promise to come forth innocent.—Tr.].—Berl. B.: So one sin rises out of another; out of mistrust towards God comes fear of man, dissimulation and lying. [Taylor: Mark the prolific progeny that sprang from the one parent sin of unbelief in this dark chapter of David’s life; prayerlessness; desertion of the sphere of duty; theft; murder; falsehood. All these have germinated from the one innocent-looking seed, loss of confidence in God.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:1. A good man in a season of dejection. He forgets past blessings and promises, ignores present mercies, exaggerates coming evils, forms unwise plans without consultation or prayer, and often involves himself in great difficulties, from which only some special providence can deliver.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 27:1. So the Vulg.; Chald. and Syr. have: “there is nothing good for me, but I will escape,” which is the rendering adopted by Erdmann. Very near this is the Sept. ἐὰνμή. It is more literally exact, but Eng. A. V. gives the sense.—It is not necessary to read λִּ ?ιΰִ ?ν instead of λִּ ?ι.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:1. Or, “desist from me.” The idea of the word is “to give a thing up as impossible or useless.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:2. The Art. is properly inserted as in Sept.; it is required by the connection and permitted by the Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:2. The origin and meaning of these names are uncertain; conjectures may be found in the lexicons of Gesenius and Fόrst. Hitzig’s comparison of the Sept. form Ἀκχοῦς with Ἀγχἰσης is groundless.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:3. Sept. has “wife of Nabal the Carmelite,” and so Arab.; Syr., Vulg., and Chald., are ambiguous. The Greek text is supported by 1 Samuel 30:5, and 2 Samuel 2:2, and is probably to be preferred here.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:8. So the Qeri; Kethib is “Girzites,” both unknown names. Sept. has merely “Gesirites and Amalekites,” whence Wellhausen supposes the Heb. “Geshurites” and “Gezrites” to be a duplet or double reading (by clerical error) of the same name, of which there are many examples in the Sept., but very few in the Heb. As the Sept. might easily have omitted one name accidentally or from not understanding it, and as the other VSS. all give three names (Syr. and Arab. putting “Gedola” for the second) it is bettor to retain the Heb. text.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:8. On this difficult clause see Erdmann in the Exposition. Instead of “as thou goest to,” we may render “unto,” “unto Shur and Egypt.” On the text (which the VSS. treat variously) it may be remarked 1) that the ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ refers to the δָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ, and Erdmann’s translation “the land which they of old inhabited” is so far correct; 2) the sentence requires a name of a place instead of ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν, a terminus a quo to correspond to the terminus ad quem, and the parenthetic rendering of Erdmann “and David invaded … the Amalekites—for these were the inhabitants of the land, which (they inhabited) of old—as far as Shur and Egypt” is against the connection of the words, while the insertion of “they inhabited” after “which” is violent, and here not permissible.—If we provisionally read θֶ ?μֶ ?ν (as some Grk. MSS. read and the Vat. MS. suggests), we may render: “David invaded … the Amalekites, for those inhabited the land which reached from Telem to Shur and to Egypt” (so Thenius and Wellhausen). By omitting ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ we get a simple sense: “for these inhabited the land of old, etc.” (so Syr. and Vulg., followed by Eng. A. V.); but, as Then. remarks, what is the propriety of referring here to the antiquity of these tribes?—Sept. (Vat.) hero has a duplet.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:9. The Articles are here proper, because the Heb., though without the Art., supposes that all the animals and clothing were carried off.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:10. Instead of ΰַ ?μ several MSS. of De Rossi read ΰָ ?ο, which is safer (so Eng. A. V.). The MSS. and Edd. in the succeeding words waver between ςַ ?μ and ΰֵ ?μ (as in 1 Samuel 27:8).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 27:11. Syr., Chald., Arab., and some MSS., regard this clause as the word of the narrator, not of the informers, and this is better, since the informers would not express an opinion as to David’s future conduct. Put a full stop after David, and render: “And this was his custom all the while he dwelt, etc.”—Tr.] [The reason why David goes to Philistia rather than to friendly Moab is perhaps partly because he would be more secure with this strong military nation (being no longer able with his large band, in which were many women and children, to hide or subsist in mountain-caves), and partly because he wished to be near his country, to help his people, or to take advantage of whatever might happen.—Tr.] [Rashi and others, on the assumed ground that Saul reigned only two years, render “some days” (Philippson).—Tr.] [In the Germ. this paragraph follows the text-criticism below.—Tr.] Text-criticism of latter half of verse 8.—ιωְׁ ?αεֹ ?ϊλִּ ?ιδֵ ?πָּ ?δ is as to its gender (fem.) const. ad sensum, as if ξִ ?ωְׁ ?τְ ?ηεֹ ?ϊ, gentes, famili�, preceded. Expositors have dealt variously with the words ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ, etc. (which are attached to δָ ?ΰָ ?ψֶ ?υ), on account of the difficulties in them which centre in ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ. Thenius regards the ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ in the present text as inexplicable, since it is without connections, and thinks it strange that no term. a quo accompanies the term. ad quem, as is usual (Genesis 10:19; Genesis 10:30; Numbers 13:21; Numbers 34:8; Judges 11:33), and, supposing the error to be in ξֵ ?ςεֹ ?μν, he reads ξִ ?θֶּ ?μֶ ?ν after the Sept. ἀπὸΓελὰμ, the latter word being taken as miswritten for Τελάμ. This reading would certainly give a simple and natural explanation, as Telem = Telaim (1 Samuel 15:4) was on the south border of Palestine (Joshua 15:24; 1 Samuel 15:4 sq.), not far from the Amalekite territory, which Saul thence invaded. But to read Telem we must suppose a clerical error in the Sept.; and then all the other VSS. presuppose our Hebrew text. Perhaps the Sept. read wrongly ξֵ ?ςֵ ?ιμָ ?ν, and rendered it ἀπὸΓελάμ, though elsewhere, as Thenius rightly objects, this word “Elam” is rendered by them ’Ελάμ or Αἰλάμ. For the rest we find αּ ?εֹ ?ΰֲ ?κָ without term. a quo in Genesis 13:10 [where, however, a term. a quo is implied in the “garden of Egypt.”—Tr.] Resort has been had to the omission of ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ; so the ancient VSS. [and Eng. A. V.] and Bunsen, who translates: “for these were of old the inhabitants of this land as far as,” etc. But it is found in all codices, and its great difficulty makes a clerical error improbable. The example of the ancient VSS. is not authority for omitting it, since they often smooth down or go around difficulties. Seb. Schmid takes ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψξֵ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν as parenthesis: “they dwelt in the land, which was of old, as thou goest.” But there was no need to state the antiquity of the land in itself. Keil takes ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ as adverb and αּ ?εֹ ?ΰֲ ?κָ as Inf., so that the literal rendering would be: “where of old thy coming is to Shur;” that is, where of old one travels to Shur up to Egypt. But αּ ?εֹ ?ΰֲ ?κָ in such geographical and local statements is always used in the sense of “as far as.” Moreover, one does not see the reason for such a local statement here. If it means that of old the road to Shur or Egypt passed through this land, then the term. a quo, namely, Palestine, may easily be supplied from the context; but why this remark, when there was no other road to Egypt? And the suffix does not fit in with the “of old,” because it would necessarily refer to present going. It seems safest with Ewald to regard the words from λִּ ?ι to ξֵ ?ςεֹ ?μָ ?ν as parenthesis—and to take the following as stating how far southward David pushed his incursions. [On this reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] Text-criticism.—The ΰַ ?μ is difficult. To take it as particle of subjective negation, like μή =“ye went not out [seid nicht ausgezogen) to-day” (Gesenius, Keil), is unsatisfactory, since it cannot be supposed that Achish expected a negative answer (Then.). [Gesen. and Keil both take it as interrogative.—Tr.] De Wette’s rendering; “did ye not make an incursion to-day?” = Aben Ezra’s nonne irruistis? requires μֹ ?ΰ or δֲ ?μֹ ?ΰ, for which ΰַ ?μ is never used. Maurer explains: nihil hodie invasistis? sc. nullam in regionem hodie invasistis! referring to 1 Samuel 30:14, where also the verb is construed first with the Acc., and then with ςַ ?μ. But to connect such an accusatival relation with ΰַ ?μ is unsafe, and the difficulty from the constant meaning of the latter remains. The reading ΰָ ?κ, whither, has therefore been adopted by some (Chald., Syr., Arab., R. Jesh., Rashi, D. Kimchi, Bunsen, et al.). But if a text-error must be assumed, it is better (following the Sept. ἐπὶτίνα, Vulg. im quem) to suppose that ξִ ?ι has fallen out, and instead of ΰַ ?μ to read ΰֶ ?μ (as in 1 Samuel 27:8), or ςַ ?μ, which latter is preferable because of the ςַ ?μ in David’s answer (Then.) = ςַ ?μΞξִ ?ι, “against whom?” So also R. Jonah and R. Levi. [The name, of uncertain origin, is surmised by Gesen. to mean “smith.”—Tr.] FOURTH SECTIONSaul’s Downfall in War with the Philistines1 Samuel 28-31I. David in the Philistine Expedition against Israel. Saul’s Visit to the Witch of Endor1 Samuel 28:1-251 And it came to pass in those days that the Philistines gathered their armies together for warfare, to fight with Israel. And Achish said unto David, Know thou assuredly that thou shalt go out with me to battle [in the army],1 thou and 2thy men. And David said to Achish, Surely [Therefore] thou shalt know what thy servant can [will] do. And Achish said to David, Therefore will I make thee keeper of mine head for ever. 3Now [And] Samuel was dead, and all Israel had lamented him and buried him in Ramah, even in his own city. And Saul had put away those that had familiar 4spirits and the wizards out of the land. And the Philistines gathered themselves together, and came and pitched in Shunem; and Saul gathered all Israel together, 5and they pitched in Gilboa. And when Saul saw the host of the Philistines, Hebrews 6 was afraid and his heart greatly trembled. And when [om. when] Saul inquired of the Lord [Jehovah], [ins. and] the Lord [Jehovah] answered him not, neither by dreams, nor by Urim nor by prophets. 7Then said Saul [And Saul said] unto his servants, Seek me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I may go to her and inquire of her. And his servants said 8unto him, Behold, there is a woman that hath a familiar spirit at Endor. And Saul disguised himself, and put on other raiment, and he [om. he] went, and two men with him, and they came to the woman by night; and he said, I pray thee, divine unto me by the familiar spirit, and bring me him [him] up whom I shall 9name unto thee. And the woman said unto him, Behold, thou knowest what Saul hath done, how he hath cut off those that have familiar spirits and the wizards out of the land; wherefore, then, layest thou a snare for my life, to cause me to die. 10And Saul sware to her by the Lord [Jehovah], saying, As the Lord [Jehovah] 11liveth, there shall no punishment happen to thee for this thing. Then said the woman [And the woman said], Whom shall I bring up unto thee? And he said, Bring me up Samuel. 12And when [om. when] the woman saw Samuel, [ins. and] she cried with a loud voice, and the woman spake [said] to Saul, saying, Why hast thou deceived me? 13for thou art Saul. And the king said unto her, Be not afraid; for [om. for] what [ins. then] sawest [seest] thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods 14[see a god] ascending out of the earth. And he said unto her, What form is he of [is his form]? And she said, An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle. And Saul perceived that it was Samuel, and he stooped with his face to the ground, and bowed himself. 15And Samuel said to Saul, Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up? And Saul answered [said], I am sore distressed; for the Philistines make war against me, and God is departed from me, and answereth me no more, neither by prophets nor by dreams, therefore [and] I have called thee that thou mayest make known 16unto me what I shall do. Then said Samuel [And Samuel said], Wherefore, then, dost thou ask of me, seeing the Lord [Jehovah] is departed from thee, and is become 17thine enemy? And the Lord [Jehovah] hath done to him [for himself] as he spake by me, for [and] the Lord [Jehovah] hath rent the kingdom out of 18thine hand and given it to thy neighbor, even to David. Because thou obeyedst not the voice of the Lord [Jehovah], nor executedst his fierce wrath upon Amalek, 19therefore hath the Lord [Jehovah] done this thing unto thee this day. Moreover [And] the Lord [Jehovah] will also [om. also] deliver Israel [ins. also] with thee into the hand of the Philistines, and to-morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me; the Lord [Jehovah] also [om. also] shall [will] deliver the host [camp]1 of Israel 20[ins. also] into the hand of the Philistines. Then [And] Saul fell straightway all along [his full length] on the earth, and was sore afraid because of the words of Samuel; and there was no strength in him, for he had eaten no bread all the 21day nor all the night. And the woman came unto Saul, and saw that he was sore troubled, and said unto him, Behold, thine handmaid hath obeyed thy voice, and I have put my life in my hand, and have hearkened unto thy words which thou 22spakest unto me. Now therefore [And now], I pray thee, hearken thou also unto the voice of thine handmaid, and let me set a morsel of bread before thee, and eat, that thou mayest have strength when thou goest on thy way. But [And] he refused, 23and said, I will not eat. But [And] his servants, together with the woman, compelled him [his servants compelled him, and the woman also], and he hearkened unto their voice; so [and] he arose from the earth and sat upon the bed 24[bench]. And the woman had a fat [fatted] calf in the house; and she hasted and killed it, and took flour, and kneaded it, and did bake unleavened bread 25thereof; And she brought it before Saul and before his servants, and they did eat. Then [And] they rose up, and went away that night. AND 1 Samuel 28:1-2. A new war of the Philistines against the Israelites. David is required by Achish to join the Philistine army with his band and take part in this war against his own people.—His indefinite and evasive answer.—In those days, namely, during David’s stay in Philistia; giving the chronological connection with the preceding, in order to continue the narrative of chap. 27.—The Philistines gathered their army, a general summons throughout Philistia to the extreme north, where a battle was afterwards fought in the region of Jezreel,—“a general war of all the Philistine princes against Israel, in which David, as Philistine vassal-prince, was obliged to take part” (Ewald). “In the army” (αַּ ?ξַּ ?ηֲ ?πֶ ?δ), not “into the camp” (S. Schmid, de W.), [Eng. A. V. freely “to battle”]. In David’s answer the “thou shalt know” answers to Achish’s formal “know thou” [same word in Heb.]. Thus is explained the [emphatic] “thou” (ΰַ ?ϊָּ ?δ), for which there is no need to read with Sept. and Vulg. “now” (ςַ ?ϊָּ ?δ, Then.). μָ ?λֵ ?ο is not profecto (Cler.), [so Eng. A. V. “surely”], but = “accordingly, therefore,” “cum ita sit s. ita videbis” (Maur.). David gives not a definite, but an evasive answer, comp. 1 Samuel 29:8. By Achish’s demand, made in good faith, that he should go to battle against his people, David must have been thrown into a struggle of conscience, of which Achish had no suspicion. The latter therefore takes David’s ambiguous answer, which seemed to promise the action which he required, as a definite declaration, and accordingly names him confidingly “keeper of his head,” captain of his body-guard (Ew.). Here, as above, μָ ?λֵ ?ο =“under such circumstances, therefore.” The rendering “I would name thee” (Cler., Dathe) is untenable by reason of the context, especially the “for ever.” That David actually went out with the Philistine army appears from 1 Samuel 29:2 sq. The narrative in 1 Samuel 29:1 sq. is the continuation of 1 Samuel 28:2. All between from 1 Samuel 28:3 is an episode, which (as appears especially from a comparison of 1 Samuel 28:4 with 1 Samuel 29:1) is an insertion from a separate source, and therefore is an independent narrative, which is not in necessary connection with the preceding and succeeding context. 1 Samuel 28:3. Introductory statement 1) of Samuel’s death, not from a second source, but here inserted by the redactor from 1 Samuel 25:1 to introduce what follows. The verbs are pluperfect in sense. And they had buried him at Ramah, namely or, that is, in his city. The ε [= and, namely] is explicative, as in 2 Samuel 13:20; Amos 3:11; Amos 4:10 (Ges. § 155, 1 a). Its omission in Sept., Vulg., Syr., is explained by the difficulty that it occasioned the translators. 2) Of Saul’s expulsion of the witches and soothsayers (long before this). Saul had put away, expelled the necromancers (δָ ?ΰεֹ ?αεֹ ?ϊ) and the wise men (δַ ?ιִּ ?γְּ ?ςπִֹ ?ιν) [wizards], the soothsayers. On the various meanings of the word Ob [Eng. A. V. familiar spirit] see Bφttcher, de inferis, I., pp. 101–108. Most moderns connect it with ob (ΰεֹ ?π), “leather bag,” which is found in the Plural in Job 32:19. We cannot, however, thence render the word with the Sept. “ventriloquist” (ἐγγαστρίμυθος), because, as Diestel (Herz., XVII., 482) remarks, the representation of soothsaying or sorcery as ventriloquism would destroy the appearance of the supernatural, and it cannot be shown that ventriloquists as such were accounted sorcerers. As the word in Isaiah 8:19; Isaiah 29:4 expresses a dull, hollow, groaning sound, “it is best to suppose a stem ΰεּ ?α, the softened form of the Arab. [βּ ?εּ ?σ] = “to be hollow,” and Ob is then the “hollow thing” (bag), and so “one who speaks hollow” (Diestel ubi sup.). In conjurations of the dead it is the dull, hollow, mysterious tone of the voice, which was personified and represented as a mysterious being, whether as the spirit of the departed speaking from the depth of the earth (Isaiah 29:9), or as the spirit dwelling in the conjuror, man or woman (Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:6; Leviticus 20:27), and, finally, the necromancers or speaking soothsayers themselves were so called, as here and 2 Kings 23:24. The “wise people” [wizards] (ιִ ?γְּ ?ςπִֹ ?ιν), always connected with the Oboth or necromancers, are those that deal in necromancy through sorcery and soothsaying; the simple expression in our [German] popular language, “wise woman” [so Eng. wizard—Tr.] rests on the same idea of a knowledge of what is concealed and future by mysterious means. In his passionate zeal for the Law, urged on by an unquiet conscience, Saul had driven the necromancers and soothsayers out of the land (Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:27, comp. Deuteronomy 18:10 sq.), that he might thus show himself a zealous theocratic king and win God’s favor. This statement is appended to that of Samuel’s death as a superscription, as it were, to bring out the sharp contrast of the following narrative of Saul’s conduct. 1 Samuel 28:4-25. Saul and the witch of Endor. 1 Samuel 28:4. The camp of the Philistines was in Shunem, Joshua 19:18, which signifies, according to Ges., “two resting-places” (= ωׁ ?εּ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν); according to Eusebius it was also called Shulem, which is confirmed by the present name, for it is the same place that is now called Solam or Sulem (Rob., III., 402 [Am. ed., ii., 324]), on the western declivity of little Hermon [Jebel Duhy], the home of Abishag (1 Kings 1:3), and of the woman that often entertained Elisha, whose son he restored to life (2 Kings 4:8-37; 2 Kings 8:1; 2 Kings 8:6). [Bib.-Com.: The Philistines either advanced along the seacoast, and then entered the valley of Jezreel from the west—the same route, only in the opposite direction, as that taken by the Midianites, who, coming to the valley of Jezreel from the Jordan, penetrated as far as Gaza (Judges 6:4; Judges 6:33)—or else they came by the present road right through Samaria, starting from Aphek.—Tr.] Only about four miles thence Saul had gathered the host of Israel, which was encamped on Gilboa, that is, the mountain range in the territory of Issachar, which traverses the south-eastern part of the plain of Jezreel from Zerin to the Jordan-valley, into which it sinks precipitously at Bethsan. There is now there a village called Jelbon (Rob. III. 404 [Am. ed., 2:316]). The two armies were therefore encamped on the two groups of mountains that enclosed the broad plain of Jezreel toward the east, or, more precisely, the south-east, between which stretched a valley-plain. From an elevation of about twelve hundred feet Saul could see the Philistine camp, which was only four miles distant.1 Samuel 28:5. The sight fills him with fear and great dread, because he had a bad conscience towards the Lord, and therefore could not be sure of His help, not merely because he saw that the Philistine army was so unexpectedly numerous (Cler.). 1 Samuel 28:6. Yet in his anxiety he had recourse to “inquiring of the Lord;” he wished thereby to learn what he was to do, and also the fate of himself and his army. But the Lord answered him not, the reason for which see in 1 Samuel 15:26, comp. 1 Samuel 14:37.—The threefold βַּ ?ν [also] puts in one line the three means of inquiry of the Lord (on the repetition of βַּ ?ν to connect things related or similar, “both … and” in pos. sentences, “neither … nor” in neg., see Ew., § 359): Dreams, Urim (and Thummim) and Prophets. The phrase “inquire in” (ωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μαַּ ?ιֹ ?Χ) is commonly used of inquiry by Urim and Thummim, with which the two other modes are here connected. The “dreams,” the first means of the revelation of the divine will, are not dreams by incubations at a holy place (Ew.), “to which nothing here or elsewhere points” (Then.), nor the dreams of those that receive the revelation, but the dreams of mediating persons, through whom the Lord was inquired of; these might be and were sometimes prophets, comp. Numbers 12:6 with Jeremiah 23:25; Jeremiah 23:32, and Deuteronomy 13:2 sq., where the false prophets with their lying dreams are opposed to the true—but might also be unprophetic persons, as in Joe 3:1. Here in our passage the persons who have revelations in dreams are distinguished from the “prophets.” In the order of arrangements of these three vehicles of revelation there is a progression from the less to the greater, since in the Old Testament a subordinate position is certainly assigned to the dream as the medium of divine influence on the inner life, which in sleep loses the power of self-manifestation and sinks into a state of the extremest passivity.—Urim is the abbreviation of Urim and Thummim (Exodus 28:30; Numbers 27:21), which, as the high-priestly medium of inquiring the divine will, stands between the revealing-dreams and the prophetic testimony. But since the murder of the priests in Nob the external apparatus, the Ephod with the Urim and Thummim had been in David’s camp, 1 Samuel 22:20 sq., 1 Samuel 23:6, 1 Samuel 30:7; and nothing is anywhere said of another high-priest than Abiathar, who had fled to David. Thenius thence concludes that this section contradicts the narrative of chap. 23, since Saul could have gotten no answer at all through Urim and Thummim, because these could have been only in one place. But this is not certain; after the catastrophe at Nob Saul may well have had a new Ephod with Choshen [Breastplate] and Urim and Thummim prepared (Keil), and this is the more natural from Saul’s independent mode of procedure in matters of religious service, and the probability that in his heated theocratic zeal he did not suffer the public service at the tabernacle to cease after the murder of the priests. (It is possible also that a copy of the Ephod with the Urim and Thummim had been left behind when Abiathar fled.) As to the high-priest, apart from the possibility of inquiring by Urim and Thummim without him (it is done apparently without a priest by Saul, 1 Samuel 14:37, and David, 1 Samuel 23:9-12), it is to be observed that in the first years of David’s government the tabernacle is at Gibeon with Zadok, son of Ahitub of the line of Eleazar, as high-priest, which can be explained only by supposing that Saul had removed the tabernacle and the national worship thither from Nob, and that there were two high-priests, who, indeed, are frequently mentioned, 2 Samuel 8:17; 2 Samuel 15:24; 2 Samuel 15:29; 2 Samuel 15:35; 1 Chronicles 15:11; 1 Chronicles 18:16. We may thence conclude that Saul chose a high-priest from the high-priestly race of the line of Eleazar. It is further to be remarked that in Saul’s own words, 1 Samuel 28:15, this inquiry by Urim is not mentioned. In 1 Chronicles 10:14 it is said that he was slain by the Lord because he did not inquire of the Lord. The contradiction is only apparent; he gave over the true, right inquiry, in that, his first questioning, which was not with upright, humble heart, having been unanswered, he betook himself to a necromancer, instead of penitently applying to God.—By the prophets. Intercourse between Saul and the prophets had doubtless been broken off since the beginning of Saul’s persecution of David (19), while it had continued between David and the prophets, as far as circumstances permitted (1 Samuel 22:5 sq.). But in his anxiety and despair Saul had now again turned to them for aid. Proof that application was made to prophets not only in great theocratical matters, but also in personal affairs, is found in 1 Samuel 9:6 sq.; 1 Kings 14:1 sq.; 2 Kings 1:3.—Saul received from God no answer more, except for judgment. 1 Samuel 28:7. Instead of humbling himself before God, he turns with hardened heart and bad conscience to the superstitious means, that the law of God had forbidden (Leviticus 19:31). Making accomplices of his servants, he gets information through them of a necromancer. (ΰֵ ?ωֶׁ ?ϊ, appositional construct. without Genitive relation, Ges. § 116, 5, see Joshua 37:22; Jeremiah 14:17.) “A woman mistress of Ob,” = “a woman who is in possession of an Ob,” that is, of a spirit (comp. Leviticus 20:27) by which the dead are conjured up, in order that they may disclose the present and the future. They inform him of such a one who dwells at Endor. Endor was on the northern declivity of Little Hermon, four and three-fourths Eng. miles south of Tabor, nine and a half miles south-east of Nazareth, about twelve miles north of Gilboa, so that Little Hermon lay between; there is still a place of the same name on the declivity of the mountain, Jebel Duhy. Rob. III. 1, 486 [Am. ed. ii. 360].—[Endor, = “fountain of the dwelling,” is still marked by a spring and numerous caves fit for the abode of witches (Thomson). For descriptions of the circumstances of this incident see Stanley’s Hist. of the Jewish Church, II. 30 sq., Sinai and Pal. p. 328–334 (Eng. ed.). Porter in Murray’s Handbook for Syria and Pal. ii. 355 sq., Thomson’s “Land and Book,” 2:161.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 28:8. Saul disguised himself, namely, by putting on other clothes so as not to be recognized by his royal dress and insignia, especially as he was treading a path forbidden by himself. At night he went thither, in order to escape the notice of his own people and of the enemy’s posts, which were not far off; he was accompanied by two men to show him the way and act as guard. A dreadful journey, a terrible night, both symbols of Saul’s condition, lost on the way of inner self-hardening and thorough self-darkening.—Saul’s request: Divine for me by necromancy [properly: “by the Ob, the spirit,” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.]. The word “divine” (χָ ?ρַ ?ν) commonly occurs in a bad sense of the predictions of false prophets, comp. Deuteronomy 18:10; Deuteronomy 18:14; 2 Kings 7:17; 1 Samuel 6:2 (in a good sense in Isaiah 3:2; Isaiah 28 Proverbs 16:10 [the subst.]). On its meaning see Hengst., Bileam, p. 9 sq. Anm.1 Samuel 28:9. The woman does not recognize Saul, as is plain from 1 Samuel 28:12. Her words show that Saul’s order for the extirpation of this superstition had been vigorously carried out. (Thenius: δַ ?ιִ ?γְּ ?ςπִ ?ι may be Sing. Col. (Bφttch.), but all the VSS. and twenty-three MSS. supply the Plu. ιִ ?ν, which may easily have fallen out through the following ξִ ?ο.)—Necromancy was forbidden on pain of death (Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:27; Deuteronomy 18:10-11). The woman supposes that the stranger is putting her to the test, in order to kill her according to the king’s law and command; and this indicates that it was in this way that the law of extermination of witches was carried out. In the earliest period of the monarchy, as fruit of Samuel’s labors, we see a worship purified from all idolatry, and an energetic zeal against everything connected with idolatry, including this sort of superstition.—[This statement is too broad; idolatry probably existed all along in Israel. Comp. Judges 18:30-31; 1 Samuel 19:13.—Tr.] So much the more despicable is Saul’s present action. 1 Samuel 28:10 sq. Saul swears to her that no harm shall thereby come to her: “by the Lord;” “an oath which shows how completely hardened Saul was” (Keil). Not till he has given this oath does the woman ask: Whom shall I bring up to thee? which is in two respects significant: 1) in that the witch thereby claims to have sovereignty, as it were, over the whole realm of the dead, and 2) in that these words indicate the business-like routine of the witch in her soothsaying and conjuration, and have precisely the tone of the modern small dealer: “what do you wish? and how can I serve you?”—Thenius supposes that the woman thus obtained from Saul the promise that she should not be punished for what he (already recognized by her as the king) should hear from her; but this view rests on the unfounded assumption that the woman had certainly known beforehand from the servants (who had directed Saul to her) of this visit, and must have recognized the visitor, if not by his attendants, yet by his extraordinary bodily size. From the narrator’s account we cannot doubt that his view was that Saul came as an unknown person to the woman. And the woman’s whole conduct, 1 Samuel 28:12, permits no other opinion. His height need not have betrayed him to her; it was night, and he was disguised; his anxiety, his age and his disguise all permit us to suppose that he was somewhat bowed and bent.—Saul’s demand: Bring me up Samuel (and go the woman’s question) supposes (the word “up” involves it) that the dead dwelt not in the grave, in the pit, but (as buried) dwelt under the earth in Sheol, that is, a large, broad space which received and claimed (from ωָׁ ?ΰַ ?μ, comp. Proverbs 27:20; Psalms 6:6 [5]) all the dead without distinction, godly and ungodly—dwelt in a realm of the dead. The contrast to this realm of the dead beneath the earth is heaven above the earth, where dwells the Lord with the host of angels. The superstition in question consisted in the fact that it was believed that by conjuration the dead were compelled to rise from the depth of Sheol to the surface of the earth, and answer questions put to them. It seems from Exodus 22:18; Leviticus 20:27, that women often practiced this necromancy, to which fact Winer conjectures the Fem. Plu. form Oboth to refer (W.-B. II. 626, A. 4). The usual operations or formulas of conjuration, which the woman no doubt employed after the above business-conversation, are not specially mentioned by the narrator, being irrelevant and of purely technical significance, but belong between 1 Samuel 28:11-12. Bφttcher conjectures, but unnecessarily and without ground, that a verse has here fallen out, which mentioned the necromantic apparatus, and stated that the woman went out into a court or garden. Such a supplement is not at all needed for the understanding of the affair. In support of this view Bφttcher adduces the words: “and the woman came” of 1 Samuel 28:21, and the necessity of a large space for the exhibition of a gigantic figure; to which Thenius rightly replies that we need not regard the figure indicated by the “Elohim” [God, 1 Samuel 28:13] as a gigantic one, and that nothing is said in the account of exhibiting it. 1 Samuel 28:12. “She saw” (εַ ?ϊֵּ ?ψֶ ?ΰ), not: “she acted as if she saw” (Then.). Render: When the woman saw Samuel, she cried with a loud voice.—According to this the cause of her outcry was the sight of the apparition of Samuel. The following words: And the woman said to Saul, Why hast thou deceived me, for thou art Saul? indicate that the woman at the same time recognized Saul in the Unknown; this discovery naturally reminded her of her danger as violator of the king’s prohibition. She thinks herself deceived, tricked and given over to death. There is hardly any doubt, therefore, that this sudden perception of her danger, together with Samuel’s apparition, was the cause of the terror which was expressed in her outcry. How she came to recognize the king in the Unknown, is not indicated in the words. Thenius, assuming that she already knew with whom she was dealing, supposes that, as she simulated fear at the alleged apparition, she now pretended that her sudden recognition of Saul came through supernatural influence, through Samuel indeed. But the text gives no support to the assumption on which this explanation rests. Ewald supposes that she burst out into a loud cry on seeing Samuel’s shade, because it ascended with such frightfully threatening gestures as it could have used only against its deadly enemy, that is, Saul, and she thence saw that the questioner must be Saul. But the words give no reason at all to suppose that this was the view of the narrator. Keil holds that the woman had fallen into a state of clairvoyance, in which she could recognize persons who, like Saul, were unknown to her by face. Is there not, however, a simpler explanation, partly psychological, partly suggested by the context, both of her seeing Samuel’s form and recognizing Saul? As to the former, so much is clear from the connection, that only the woman, not Saul, saw Samuel; this appears from Saul’s question, 1 Samuel 28:13-14 : “What seest thou? what is his form?” She then describes the apparition, in order to leave to Saul its identification with Samuel (1 Samuel 28:14 b). That the woman went out of the room in which she was at first with Saul, into another, is not said, and is not to be inferred from the words: “she came to Saul.” Therefore in the same room she sees Samuel’s apparition, and Saul does not see it. This can be explained psychologically only as by an inner vision, the occasion for which was given by Saul’s request to bring up Samuel, and the psychological foundation of which was her inward excitement, in connection with her lively recollection of Samuel’s form, which was well known to her from his earthly life, and stood before her mind in vividest distinctness. So Tanchum explains it: “She saw Samuel not with the eyes, but with the aid of the imagination, inwardly, in his well-known form.” And her recognition of Saul just at this moment would be psychologically explained as the product of her inward perception of Samuel (occasioned by Saul’s request), and of her recollection of the relation in which she knew Saul had stood to Samuel and of the prophetic sentence of punishment which Samuel had pronounced against Saul. When now, at this moment, so full of danger for all Israel, she saw before her the mysterious Unknown, who was come through her to question Samuel concerning the impending battle, and who on a nearer view, despite his disguise, made on her by the mysterious character of his personality, the impression of an extraordinary person, she could, by her intensified power of perception, straightway recognize him as Saul, and must needs then be seized with the terror of which the account tells. 1 Samuel 28:13. Saul calms her deadly fear.—Fear not, that is, concerning thy life.—The question: What seest thou? supposes 1) that he did not see what she saw; 2) that she was with him in the same room in which the foregoing conversation had occurred, and 3) that on account of the manipulations usual in such conjurations, she was yet necessarily at some distance from him. She answers: I see Elohim ascending out of the earth.—The word “Elohim” signifies here not a plurality of appearances (Gods, Sept., Vulg., Syr., Arab.—or spiritual beings, ghosts, Tremell.—or several devils, one of whom took the form of Samuel, S. Schmid—or angels, Chald., Theod.), but, despite the [Heb.] Plu. predicate (ςֹ ?μִ ?ιν, “ascending,” by attraction from the Plu. subst.), a single appearance, as is evident from the Sing. pronoun, “his form,” a spiritual appearance belonging to the region of the super-terrestrial, the superhuman, a fear- and terror-producing spiritual appearance. The word is here employed in a sense “for which the idea of divinity is too restricted, the general, vague idea of the not-earthly not-human” (Hengst., Beit. II. 255). But Thenius also rightly connects with it the idea of the terror-inspiring from the fact that the simple Heb. sounds alah (ΰָ ?μַ ?δּ), from which the word is made, are the involuntary sounds of astonishment and fear, referring to Genesis 31:42, where the “fear of Isaac” stands along with the “God of Abraham.”1 Samuel 28:14. Saul’s second question : What is his appearance, his form? The woman’s answer gives an exacter description of the spiritual appearance which she saw in her visionary state: An old man cometh up, and he is covered with a mantle.—The meil (ξְ ?ςִ ?ιμ) is the talar-shaped garment [reaching to the ankles.—Tr.], the prophet’s mantle, which Samuel wore in his life-time (1 Samuel 15:27), and in which the woman and Saul would necessarily remember him. Still we have no hint that Saul saw the appearance that was visible to the woman. It is said of him only that “from this description he recognized the form seen by the woman to be Samuel, and to do him reverence bowed down to the ground.” 1 Samuel 28:15-20. Conversation of Samuel and Saul. 1 Samuel 28:15. And Samuel said, that is, the woman (Tanchum) spoke from the place where she was standing in hollow, dull tones, which Saul supposed to be Samuel’s, perhaps in the manner of ventriloquists, the natural result of her excited visionary state, in which she identified herself with Samuel.—Why dost thou disquiet me, disturb me (comp. Isaiah 14:9), to bring me up? These words prove that the narrator assumes the previous employment of arts of conjuration, and exclude the supposition (left undecided by Keil, adopted by other expositors) that Samuel’s ascent is represented as produced by miraculous power of God. They also refute the opinion of these expositors, that Samuel’s apparition rose before the woman had employed her art, and that therefore there is no employment of magic means between 1 Samuel 28:11-12. Rather the view that there was such magic art in this place (between 1 Samuel 28:11-12) is confirmed by these words of Samuel: “why dost thou disquiet me ?” namely, by the woman’s conjurations. Saul’s answer gives his reason for this disturbance of the dead as follows: 1) I am in great straits from the Philistines, who are warring against me; 2) God has left me, and answers me no more; 3) I wish to know what to do, I am at a loss and uncertain about the future. So I have had thee called to tell me what I shall do.—According to the preceding words: “God has left me and answers me no more,” Saul cannot regard the answer which he asks from Samuel as God’s revelation and declaration; in fact there is in his words a contrasting, or at least a distinction between the divine revelation no longer granted him and the supernatural magic-gotten answer which he expects from Samuel. And yet Samuel was the prophet of the Lord and His organ. This is the contradiction to which Samuel’s answer, 1 Samuel 28:16, refers. The contradiction is not that Saul asks from Samuel a divine announcement, while he yet says there is no longer any such answer for him (Keil). 1 Samuel 28:16. Samuel’s answer: Why dost thou ask me, since the Lord has left thee and become thy enemy? That is: if the Lord has left thee, why dost thou apply to me, the Lord’s instrument?1 Samuel 28:17-19 contain the confirmation of Saul’s previous sentence of rejection and the announcement of his impending fate. 1 Samuel 28:17. The declaration of the fact that the Lord, according to His counsel and determination (ςָ ?ωָׁ ?δμεֹ, “hath done for Himself” [Eng. A. V.: wrongly “to him”]), has taken the kingdom from him and given it to David. The Lord hath done for himself.—Pleonastic Dative, not unmeaning = has done according to His will, or to carry out His purpose, “to show His truth” (Berl. Bib.). The reading “to thee” (μְ ?κָ) in Sept., Vulg. and some MSS. cited by Thenius (Cod. Kenn. 155, 246; De Rossi 305, 679, 716 [orig.]) is suspicious from its allusion to 1 Samuel 15:26; 1 Samuel 15:28, and because it seems to be an attempt to interpret and smoothen the text, though an original κ [thee] might easily be copied as ε [him], and the latter so come into the traditional text. As he spake by me.—Comp. 1 Samuel 15:23. It is remarkable that while in that passage Saul’s obstinate rebellion, through which he loses the kingdom, is equalled with the gross sin of sorcery, here in the act of committing this superstitious sin (against which he had shown such bloody zeal), the judgment of inward self-hardening being then finished, he again hears the sentence, and learns with terror that the complete realization and definite fulfilment of the divine decree of rejection is now at hand. The whole declaration of 1 Samuel 28:17 is the factual explanation and confirmation of the words of 1 Samuel 28:16 : “The Lord is departed from thee and is become thy enemy, thy oppressor.” 1 Samuel 28:18. The reason is stated, namely, Saul’s disobedience (as in 1 Samuel 15:23). “This thing” is this strait or distress. Comp. “I am sore distressed,” 1 Samuel 28:15. The Perf. ςָ ?ωָׂ ?δ [hath done] is to be understood, like the preceding Perfects, of what has happened, and is settled. This Philistine distress, with its immediate results, is God’s act in complete fulfilment of the judgment against him. 1 Samuel 28:19. Announcement of impending misfortune for himself, his house and his people in battle with the Philistines. And the Lord will deliver Israel also with thee, etc.—“Will deliver” (ιִ ?ϊֵּ ?ο) again indicates the act of God in accord with His holy and righteous will, and is to be taken (with Keil) as voluntative; with the king, on whom the judgment falls by the Philistine, the judgment will reach the people also, on account of the ethical and theocratical solidarity [organic oneness] which exists between him and them; the Lord will subject them to the Philistines. And to-morrow wilt thou and thy sons be with me—dead, with me the dead, in the Underworld; “with me” in the kingdom of the dead, in Sheol. Hence it appears that besides self-consciousness (which indeed was conceived of as sunken into a sleep or dream-like state), that is, besides the continued existence of the personality after death, a union after death in Sheol was believed in; at the same time it hence appears that in the realm of the dead the good and evil were not thought to be separated. Thenius would read with the Sept. “thou and thy sons with thee shall fall,” on the ground that the Heb. text strangely first speaks of the Israelites, then descends to the Underworld, then returns to the camp of the Israelites, while the Sept. text presents a perfectly good order: first the general, the defeat; then the particular, the death of Saul and his sons; and finally the result, the plundering of the camp. But the arrangement is excellent in our text, which says nothing else than what the Sept. periphrastically expresses: “to-morrow thou and thy sons will be dead,” and then the Underworld is by no means put in the same line with the Israelites and their camp, but Israel’s renewed defeat, the death of Saul and his sons, and the complete destruction of the camp of Israel, are mentioned as the three decisive blows in the judgment which should fall on Saul. 1 Samuel 28:20. Up to this point Saul had remained in his reverential posture as stated in 1 Samuel 28:14; now under the powerful impression of these words he falls suddenly to the ground, and lies his full length on the earth. The cause is stated to be: 1) his terror at Samuel’s words, and 2) his weakness, resulting from the fact (of course from inward excitement), that he had taken no food the whole (preceding) day and the whole night. 1 Samuel 28:21-25. Saul’s entertainment by the woman. The words “and the woman came” do not in themselves justify the opinion (Then., Diestel in Herz. XVII. 482, et al.) that the woman had been in another room, nor is there any hint of this elsewhere in the narrative. The words of the woman (1 Samuel 28:21-22) show a talkativeness characteristic of this class of women, and a certain humor, particularly in the contrasting of her obedience to his command and the obedience which she now requires from him for his good, in the introductory words, “and now hearken thou also.” That thou mayest have strength when thou goest on thy way.—These words express neither apprehension, nor the fear that he would die on her hands, and it would then go hard with her, and her prediction would not be fulfilled (Then.); they exhibit merely her natural sympathy with her guest, worn out by excitement and abstinence from food, which prompts her to offer him her hospitality. 1 Samuel 28:23 sq. The further minute description of the proceedings of Saul and his servant and the woman is so domestically and psychologically true to life, that the historical trustworthiness of the narrative is put beyond all doubt. Saul refuses to take food because he is full of fear and terror. The servants and the woman force him—he suffers himself to be persuaded. Till now he has lain on the ground; now he gets up and seats himself on the divan (ξִ ?θָּ ?δ [Eng. A. V. not so well: “bed”—Tr.], “the cushioned bench, which extends along the wall of the room, still found in the East” (Then.). She kills a fatted calf and bakes unleavened cakes. “She kneaded” where we need not supply “it,” since the words describe the operation of kneading. She baked it as unleavened loaves or cakes, because she was obliged to hurry. AND 1. The theocratic and biblical-theological significance of the history of Saul’s visit to the Witch of Endor is to be judged and determined, first in respect to the representation of the condition of departed souls after death, then as to the religious-moral facts which come under consideration from the Old Testament standpoint of revelation and from the theocratic point of view, and finally as regards Saul’s state of heart in respect to God and the people. In respect to the state of departed souls after death we have the representation not merely of their continuance in personal identity, but also of a self-conscious existence, which is conceived of as a condition of slumber-like rest, from which there may be a rousing and raising; yet such a disturbance is regarded as a disquieting. The abode of the departed, in contrast with heaven as the throne of God and the dwelling of the heavenly powers, is thought to be a wide space deep under the earth (comp. Deuteronomy 32:22; Psalms 86:13; Psalms 63:10 (9); Ezekiel 26:20), not the narrow grave; for Samuel’s grave was at Ramah. The differencing of the realm of the dead from the grave, in which the body is laid, attests the continuance of the soul when separated from the body. Sheol, the Underworld, the Realm of the Dead, receives all the dead without distinction; there is no separation there between Righteous and Unrighteous (1 Samuel 28:19); the divine law of requital does not reach the Beyond. Comp. Oehler: Vet. test, de rebus post mortem fut. 1846, and the same writer: Die Lehre des Alt-Test, von der Unsterblichkeit (Herz. 21:413 sq.): Bφttcher: de inferis rebusque post mortem futuris, 1846. H. A. Hahn: de spe immortalitatis sub V. T. gradatim excult�, 1846. H. Schultz: Alttestamentliche Thcologie I. 396 sq. [See also Oehler: Theologie des Alt. Test., 1873, I., § 77 sq. (and Eng. Transl.). Delitzsch: Bibl. Psychologie (and Eng. Transl.). Himpel: Unsterblichkeits lehre des Alten Test., 1857. Hodge’s Theology III. 716 sq. Smith’s Bib. Dict. Arts. “Dead, Hell, Pit.” Fairbairn’s Bib. Dict. “Hades.” Ewald: Lehre der Bibel von Gott, 1873, III., § 345.—Tr.] But while now the condition of departed souls is, as a rule, so conceived and represented, that there is no intercourse between them and the Upperworld, and no return from Sheol (Job 7:9), this narrative of Samuel’s appearance would be the only passage in the Old Testament that teaches the contrary [if it did teach it]. And in fact the narrative means to declare that Samuel really appeared (1 Samuel 28:16; 1 Samuel 28:20); as Vilmer remarks (“Vom Aberglauben und Zauberei,” in the Pastoral-theolog. Blδttern, 1862, p. 201), “unless violence is done to the text, it can be only understood as affirming that the real Samuel ascended from Sheol.” That is the view of the Septuagint also in the addition to 1 Chronicles 10:13 : “Saul inquired of the ventriloquist [witch], and Samuel the prophet answered him,” and of the Son of Sir 46:20 (23); “and after he fell asleep he prophesied and showed the king his end, and out of the ground lifted up his voice in prophecy.” In contradiction with this correct opinion is the view of the church-theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries, derived from the patristic writers, namely, that by divine ordering Saul saw under the form of Samuel a ghost, an illusion produced by demonic, devilish powers. Tertullian (de anima, cap. 57) regards it as a “rivalry of truth by an unclean spirit;” “it was permitted,” says he, “the pythonic spirit to represent the soul of Samuel, when Saul (after he dad inquired of God) inquired of the dead. Far be it from us to believe that the soul of any saint, much less a prophet, can be drawn forth by a demon. We are taught that Satan transfigures himself into an angel of light, but not into a man of light.” So Ephrem Syrus. In agreement with this Luther says that it was “the devil’s ghost,” and Calvin that “it was not the real Samuel, but a spectre.” So Grotius: “It is more credible that it was a deceptive spirit, and so the woman herself seems plainly to indicate when she says that gods were ascending out of the earth, thus terming those spirits, one of whom had assumed Samuel’s form.” Comp. S. Schmid (Comm.); A. Pfeiffer, dubia vex. Cent. II. loc. 77; Sal. Deyling, observ. ss. II. obs. 18; Buddζus, hist. eccles., V. I. II. 243 sq.; J. Gerhard, spectrum Endoreum, Jen. 1663 [Bp. Patrick, Comm. in loco]. But the narrative gives not the slightest support to such a view. Neither the original narrator nor the redactor [editor] had in mind (judging from the narrative itself), an illusion produced by demonic or diabolical power. Theodoret, rejecting the view (suggested by the words of the narrative and frequent with the Talmudists) that Samuel’s spirit was really evoked by the conjurations of the woman—held that, before the woman employed her arts, the appearance of Samuel was produced by God’s power, and that God’s voice itself was heard in those words against Saul. He says: “It is thence clear that the very God of all beings, having fashioned Samuel’s form as He wished, uttered the judgment, the witch not having been able to do this, but God gave the decree even through enemies” [Qu�st. in Lib. Reg. ad 1 Samuel 28.. Appealing, for proof that God speaks through enemies, to the example of Balaam and to Ezekiel 14:4; Ezekiel 14:7 sq. (where it is said of idolators “when they come to the prophet, I will answer them after my manner”), he explicitly affirms that the words ascribed to Samuel were a divine utterance spoken through the mouth of the woman who was acting against God’s command. But against this view (which is held also by Justin, Origen, Ambrose, Augustine, and by some Rabbis, as R. Saadias) it is rightly remarked by D. Kimchi, that we can then see no reason why God should not have answered Saul before by Urim and Thummim, by dreams or by prophets. In fact it is fatal to this view that according to it God is here the answerer, while it is expressly said in 1 Samuel 28:6 that God answered Saul no more, and 1 Samuel 28:7 clearly means that for this reason Saul turned from God to a sorceress. An immediate divine miracle is assumed, which is to be brought into union with the anti-godly attempt of the sorceress and an open act of godlessness or God-forgetfulness on the part of Saul. Support would thus be given to the superstitious opinion that departed spirits may be summoned, while the fundamental view of the Old Testament every where is that a return of the dead to the land of the living is not possible, comp. 2 Samuel 12:23; Job 7:9. The necromantic superstition, on which Saul (who, unworthy of a divine answer, is guilty of disobeying the divine command, for which he had displayed so much zeal) and the woman (who practices this superstition as a trade) are united would, according to the narrative, have been the occasion or the medium of a miraculous divine act. Now it may be said indeed that God is accustomed in the wisdom of His providential government so to use man’s evil purpose as to compel it to minister immediately to the revelation of His power and glory, as is shown in the history of Balaam and in the declaration of Eze 14:4; Ezekiel 14:7 sq. But in such cases express reference is made also to the divine control, comp. Genesis 15:20; Exodus 10:27. But here there is not the slightest allusion to an immediate interference of God. On the contrary, we plainly read between the lines of this narrative that here a sin is committed; there is no trace of divine action. We cannot therefore accept this view, which is wholly without support, from a religious-ethical as well as from a theocratic-historical standpoint, however thorough and earnest a defence it may have found, as from Dachsel, Bibl. hebr. accentuata, Lips, 1729, p. 430 sq.; Berl. Bib.; O. v. Gerlach; Delitzsch, Bibl. Psychol., 2 ed., p. 428sq.; Strφbel, Luth. Zeitschr., 1867, p. 781 sq.: V. Rudoff, Die Lehre vom Menschen, 2 ed., 1863, II. 365; Hengstenberg, Abhandl. zu den Psalm. IV., p. 324 sq.; Zeitschrift fόr Protest. u. Kirche, 1851, p. 138 sq., Abhandl. “Die Geschichte der Zauberin zu Endor.” Comp. Oehler in Herzog XXI. 414 sq.; Dδchsel, Bibelwerk; Keil, Komm. The last named remarks: “This apparition was externally indeed spiritual, since Samuel was visible only to the woman, not to Saul, but still only an apparition of Samuel’s soul in Hades in the investiture of the earthly body and clothing of the prophet in order to become visible.” Keil himself remarks that this apparition of Samuel divinely summoned from Hades is a different thing from the appearances of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17; Luke 9), because the latter appeared in heavenly refulgence and glory; this phenomenon, therefore, so often cited in support of this view falls away as unanalogous and irrelevant. Still less can we appeal to the angelic appearances in human form in Genesis 18 and Judges 13, because these arc superhuman beings. The contradictions in Keil’s view are insoluble, namely, that Samuel appeared “in the spiritual form of the dwellers in Hades,” and yet at the same time “in the investiture of earthly corporeality and clothing,” that Samuel’s appearance in spiritual Hades-form is set over against the announcement of these angels “in human form which was visible to the ordinary bodily eye,” as if Samuel’s apparition was not visible, though it is said that the sorceress saw it and was terrified. According to this view this would be the only passage in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments in which a departed sinful man is called by divine power from the kingdom of the dead to the Upperworld. But this would stand in contradiction with Luke 16:17 sq., where Abraham refuses the rich man’s request to send Lazarus to his father’s house to preach to his living brethren. If it be urged that the prohibition of sorcery and necromancy (Deuteronomy 18:1; Isaiah 8:19) does not exclude the possibility of God’s permitting Samuel for special reasons to appear, we reply that neither from the connection of the related procedure nor from the words of the relator are there special grounds for supposing such a miracle, which would be sole of its kind. Apart from the fact that Saul had already vainly used all ordained means for learning God’s will, and might thence conclude that his obstinate impenitence had rendered him unworthy of answer, the appearance and word of Samuel under present circumstances (if God had really been willing to permit it) could no longer have any religious-ethical or theocratic end; no religious-ethical end, because the means for rousing Saul to repentance were exhausted, for this recourse to a necromancer showed a mind thoroughly alienated from God and seeking help elsewhere, a disposition in respect to which even such a miraculous appearance of the prophet would be without effect, as in fact in Samuel’s words there is no exhortation to repentance, and there is no trace afterwards of any change for the better in Saul;—no theocratic end, because Saul’s rejection as king had already been repeatedly announced, and the sending of Samuel would have been superfluous for the announcement of Saul’s impending fall, which, without a miracle, might have reached Saul’s ear and made his heart tremble. We must therefore reject both the ancient church-view of an illusory appearance of Samuel produced by the woman’s magic art, as the medium of a divine revelation, and also that of an appearance produced immediately by divine power without the woman’s aid. Over against these views stands that which regards the whole procedure as a mere deception. Balthasar Becker, te betoverde Wereld [The Magic World] III. 6. Anton van Dale, dissert. de divinationibus idololatricis sub V. T. in the Treatise de origine et prog. Idololatri�, p. 620 sq. Schmersahl, Natόrl. Erklδrung der Gesch. Sauls mit d. Betrόgerei zu Endor, Hann., 1751. Kφcher, Versuch einer Erklδrung der Gesch. Sauls und d. Betrόgerin zu Endor, Gera, 1780. Hensler, Erlδuter. des 1 B. Sam., p. 88 sq., Exeget. Handbuch IV. 251 sq. Comp. Bφttcher, de inferis, I. Ill sq., Winer II. 627, Thenius, Diestel in Herz. XVII. 482 sq., Rόtschi, ibid. s. v. Endor, A. Kuhle, Bibl. Eschatologie, 1870. 1 Abth., p. 65 sq. and others [Clericus in loco]. Thenius’ remark that “the deception is everywhere clear in the account” must be admitted except as to the “everywhere,” though his reason drawn from 1 Samuel 28:21 [namely, that the woman had been in another room] is not tenable. The woman’s conduct and words at Saul’s arrival, and at the alleged appearance of Samuel, show that she made necromancy a trade and practiced the deceits usual with such people. The speech of Samuel, a long one under the circumstances, his appearance in the characteristic prophetic dress, and the fact that only she (not Saul) sees the apparition, leave no doubt that technical illusion and magical deception was here employed. But this does not prove that there was absolutely nothing but a refined, conscious deception, proceeding from special motives, as Thenius, for example, supposes that she was impelled by desire of revenge, having perhaps been ill-treated during the expelling of the sorcerers. Against such a merely conjectural pragmatic view, we must distinguish and combine an objective and a subjective element in the explanation of the event; the former a religious-historical, the latter a psychological. The former, which is presupposed in the whole account, consists in the fact that necromancy, according to the passage of the Law in which it is forbidden (Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:5-6; Leviticus 20:26-27; Deuteronomy 18:9-14), was regarded not as a mere deception, but 1) as a heathen superstition, that is, as a wicked dealing with evil powers, which pertain to the domain of heathendom, out of which the Lord has chosen His people to be sanctified to Him; and 2) as an apostasy from the living God and a negation of the covenant-relation between Him and His people as a heathen abomination. That Saul and the woman undertake a wicked ungodly, illegal thing, is the obvious judgment of the narrative; but there also appears here (as in the passage of the Law) the assumption, which was founded on universal belief, that in this magic art, as in the others borrowed from heathendom, there was not a mere deception with magic formulas, but a real contact and co-operation with mysterious ungodly powers, and with a secret, specifically heathenish mode of action—though the opinion of the older orthodox theologians as to the operation of wicked spirits or devils here is excluded by the narrative. Gradually came the perception that, as the idols of the heathen are “naught,” so all heathen existence connected with idolatry is empty and vain. (Comp. Schultz, Alttest. Theol. I. 158 sq.) The second element in our explanation is the psychological in the woman’s state of mind and soul. Proceeding on the supposition of a connection with mysterious powers, and perhaps under the excitation of narcotics, the women especially (as in heathen magic) who made necromancy a trade, might, through a fit psychical-somatical character, fall into an ecstatic, visionary state (as modern science supposes in somnambulic and magnetic phenomena), in which with superstitious self-deception they had inward perception of the things or persons inquired for (the inquirers of course seeing nothing), and uttered their recollections or anticipations in dull, suppressed tones, so that it seemed as if the utterance came from other voices, particularly as if the professedly summoned person spoke. See Tholuck: Die Proph. und ihre Weissagung, § 1, “Die Mantik und die dort angefόhrten Thatsachen nebst literarischen Nachweisungen.” The seeing and speaking of the woman of Endor must be though of in accordance with the nature and characteristic phenomena of ancient and modern mantic (magic), and like the visional-somnambulic states of which there are so many examples in our time, especially among women. What the woman in this condition (in which she identified herself with Samuel) said of Saul in the name of Samuel was partly nothing but what Samuel had repeatedly said, partly nothing beyond the reach of natural conjecture and inference; for after the universally known divine rejection of Saul, after the sad line of experiences which showed that God had forsaken him (he having forsaken God), and especially after the fact, which the woman learned from Saul herself [v. 15], that in the presence of the Philistine army he had inquired of the Lord in vain, the fatal issue of this war could not be doubtful. Calvin has touched the correct view of the woman’s condition when he says that “her senses were deceived, so that she wrongly supposed that she saw Samuel,” though he errs in ascribing this effect to devilish powers. Along with the deceit which was necessarily connected with this necromantic trade, we must suppose a psychological fact (attested by the history of mantic [magic] and by modern science), which raises that part of the procedure that relates to Samuel’s apparition and words out of the sphere of conscious deception and illusive magic. It is only in this way that we can explain the fact that the narrator, according to whom the essential point is that only the woman, not Saul, sees the apparition of Samuel, represents it as if Samuel really appeared and spoke. The significance of this event for Saul is to be seen not merely from the announcement of his fall in battle, as the completion of the divine judgment, but also from the attitude towards the living God into which he has brought himself by his impenitence and self-hardening. Winer (s. v. Saul) takes a simple and correct view of the case when he says: “It is a shame that the king, who had expelled all sorcerers, etc. (1 Samuel 28:3; 1 Samuel 28:9), must himself at last fall into the hands of a sorceress.” Saul’s rejection as king was not his definite banishment from the presence of God. Even if the theocratic kingship to which he had been called had become impossible for him and his house in consequence of his disobedience against God, the king of his people, yet he individually might be saved. But he persisted in his self-blinding, and the sentence was complete in his personal rejection. A tool of heathenish superstition, which he as king ought to have punished, must serve as a means of announcing to him his sentence of death as the conclusion of the divine judicial process, the Lord having preserved silence, and thus already passed sentence on him. The heathen Philistine nation, the hereditary enemy of God’s people, constant war against whom was to be a holy state-affair for the theocratic king, becomes the executor of the divine decree, and carries out against him and his house the sentence of death announced by the necromantic impostor. Calvin: “Saul called not on God with humility, prostrate mind and penitent, believing heart, and therefore God rightly rejected him, and the divine threatening was verified in him (Ye shall call on me, but shall not be heard). He himself shows plainly that he approached God as one in despair, because he had no root of true faith in his heart.” In his life-course up to this time Saul had descended step by step deeper into the abyss of unbelief; he stands now on the last step, about to plunge irretrievably into the depths of endless destruction. 2. There is a silence of God that is the dumb reply to perverse invocation of His name, wherein man seeks to make the divine will subservient to his own, instead of humbly bowing under the will of God. Such a persistent silence on God’s part is the result of persistent opposition of the heart to Him, and of the thence resulting hardening. When man makes his own sinful will his god that he worships and his lord that he serves, he shows the religious perversity of his soul when, like Saul, he nevertheless calls on God and inquires His will, in order to make this will subservient to his selfish desire. Thus from unbelief follows necessarily superstition [Germ.: aus unglauben folgt aberglaube.—Tr.] [Of the three schemes of explanation of this difficult passage now held—namely, that which regards the affair as a mere deception (Chandler, Thenius), that which supposes a sort of mesmeric clairvoyance in the woman (Keil, Erdmann), and that which sees here a real appearance of Samuel by divine power, the last has found most favor among English orthodox expositors. In many cases the exegesis is determined by dogmatic considerations, as that such a real appearance of a dead person is impossible, or not in keeping with Scripture, or that the summoning of Samuel by a witch is contrary to the holiness of God. Such considerations must, however, be put aside when our object is to discover simply what the narrator affirms. It is clear that the writer says that Samuel appeared and spoke (so Ewald, Erdmann). How are we to accept this? The writer, says one class of critics, shared the superstitions of his day, and believed that the conjurations of the witch really had power over the dead. Erdmann, however, is not satisfied with this explanation, and accounts for the narrator’s affirmation that Samuel really appeared on the ground that besides the element of trickery in the woman’s procedure, there was a real psychological identifying of herself with the deceased prophet, so that the narrator might represent her personation of him as his personal appearance. But certainly this explanation is hardly satisfactory, and it is not easy to see how we can avoid finding in the narration a distinct declaration that Samuel actually appeared and spoke. The only thing in the account itself that opposes this view is the fact that the woman only and not Saul saw the apparition. But it is quite possible that the apparition may have been in a different room from that in which Saul found himself—though this is not mentioned. Such seems to be the plain statement of the text. The dogmatic and other difficulties are discussed by Erdmann. Chandler, in his Life of David, gives a full and forcible presentation of the grounds for supposing the whole affair to be an imposture by the woman.—Tr.] AND Starke: 1 Samuel 28:1. Pious men are walls and pillars of cities and lands, Ezekiel 22:30; therefore if such men have to start away, all misfortune starts forth too. (Genesis 7:7 sq.). 1 Samuel 28:2. Virtue and bravery deserve to be rewarded; but the world is wont to promise believers reward, in order to draw them off from the right way (Matthew 4:9).—[1 Samuel 28:3 : Scott: Hypocrites are frequently very zealous against those crimes to which they are not tempted at the time, or from which they may suffer detriment; and apostates frequently commit those sins, which they once were most earnest in opposing.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 28:4-5. J. Lange: So it goes with the ungodly, that here already they feel in themselves a hell, when their evil conscience awakes in them.—Schlier: Saul fears before men, because he no longer feared God; if we see things rightly, all fear has no other ground than lack of the fear of God.—The fear of man has its ground in unbelief; true fear of God makes one strong and courageous. 1 Samuel 28:6. Starke: To go to God when in distress is good and necessary; but it must be done without hypocrisy, with true repentance and from the heart (Isaiah 26:16).—If we do not hear God’s voice when it goes well with us, God can and will refuse to hear our voice also, when it goes ill with us (Proverbs 1:24 sq.). S. Schmid: Ungodly men and hypocrites care little for God and His service in good days: but when misfortune comes, then they wish to become pious also, and seek God’s counsel and help in every way.—Schlier: The Lord gave Saul no answer. To turn to the Lord Saul has not wished; had he wished that, he would also have found the Lord’s grace. But Saul had no concern about that; he wished to use the Lord for his own ends, he needed a disclosure about his situation, and such a disclosure he wished to force for himself without returning to the Lord.—Calvin: By this example we should learn to draw near to God with all humility when we wish to ask His counsel in prayer, far from all obstinate self-will and passion; for His arm is not shortened that He cannot help those who take refuge in Him. This entry is longer than a Bible module can hold. The rest is at https://www.sermonindex.net/commentary/lange/ II. David’s Dismissal from the Philistine Army 1 Samuel 29:1-111 Now [And] the Philistines gathered together all their armies to Aphek; and 2the Israelites pitched by a [the] fountain which is in Jezreel. And the lords of the Philistines passed on by hundreds and by thousands, but [and] David and his 3men passed on in the rearward [rear] with Achish. Then said the princes of the Philistines, What do these Hebrews here? And Achish said unto the princes of the Philistines, Is not this David, the servant of Saul the [om. the] king of Israel, which [who] hath been with me these days or these years, and I have found no 4fault in him since he fell unto me unto this day? And the princes of the Philistines were wroth with him; and the princes of the Philistines said unto him, Make this fellow [the man] return, that he may go again to his place which thou hast appointed him, and let him not go down with us to battle, lest in the battle he be an adversary to us; for wherewith should he reconcile himself [make himself accept 5able] unto his master? should it not be with the heads of these men? Is not this David, of whom they sang one to another in dances, saying, Saul slew his thousands, and David his ten thousands? 6Then Achish called David, and said unto him, Surely [om. surely], as the Lord [As Jehovah] liveth, thou hast been [art] upright, and thy going out and thy coming in with me in the host is good in my sight; for I have not found evil in thee since the day of thy coming unto me unto this day; nevertheless the lords favour thee 7not [but in the eyes of the lords thou art not good]. Wherefore [And] now return, 8and go in peace, that thou displease not the lords of the Philistines. And David said unto Achish, But what have I done? and what hast thou found in thy servant so long as I have been with thee [from the day when I was in thy presence] unto this day, that I may not go fight against the enemies of my lord the king? 9And Achish answered and said unto David, I know that thou art good in my sight as an angel of God; notwithstanding [but] the princes of the Philistines have said, 10He shall not go up with us to the battle. Wherefore [And] now, rise up early in the morning with thy master’s servants that are come with thee; and as soon as 11ye be up early in the morning, and have light, depart. So David and his men rose up early to depart in the morning, to return into the land of the Philistines. And the Philistines went up to Jezreel. AND 1 Samuel 29:1. Resumption of the narrative of the war between the Philistines and Israelites, 1 Samuel 28:1-4, with an exacter description of the positions of the two armies. Aphek—to be distinguished from the places of the same name in Asher (Joshua 19:30; Judges 1:31), in Judah on the mountain (Joshua 15:53), and near Ebenezer (1 Samuel 4:1)—belonged to Issachar, and is probably the same with the present el Afuleh near Solam=Sunem (v. d. Velde, Mem., p. 286; Ew., Gesch., III., 142, A. 2). Southeast of this Philistine rendezvous the Israelites were encamped “at the spring near Jezreel,” the present Zerin (Rob., III., i. 395) [Am. ed., ii. 319–323, where Robinson explains the identity of the names Jezreel and Zerin, the Heb. el often becoming in in Arabic, as Beitin = Bethel; so Zerel=Zerin.—Tr.] Ain [= “spring”] is not = Endor, as the Sept. wrongly gives it, whence it is adopted by Euseb. in the Onomasticon, but the present Ain Jalud, a very bold spring on the northwest declivity of Gilboa, whence flows a brook through the Wady Jalud into the Jordan. There the Israelitish army encamped opposite the Phlistine in a well-watered spot near Jezreel. “Elsewhere also a spring gives name to a stopping-place or border line, 2 Samuel 17:17; Numbers 34:11” (Bφttch.). 1 Samuel 29:2. Vivid description of the array of the Philistine army, not at the mustering (Bunsen), but in their movement to Aphek. In divisions of hundreds and thousands, at the head of their divisions the “Princes [lords] of the Philistines” marched on, properly “marched over,” that is, over the plain of Esdraelon to Jezreel (comp. 1 Samuel 29:4). Here in the north they advanced with their whole force, in order to bring about a decisive battle in the plain with the Israelites, not being able to maintain themselves permanently in the mountains. Their advance to Jezreel forced Saul to lead his whole army thither. There is no ground or necessity for supposing that they had occupied or ravaged the middle portion of the country where Saul’s royal residence, Gibeah lay, in order then to carry the war into the extremely fruitful northern district, and thus soon conquer all Israel (Ew., Gesch., III., 142), “for towards the end of his reign Saul’s military strength was probably not so great that he could have divided it” (Then). The Philistines having begun their march, Achish found himself with David in the rearguard. 1 Samuel 29:3. The other leaders object to the presence of David and his men: What do these Hebrews here? As it is said in 1 Samuel 29:11 that David returned to the land of the Philistines, and according to 1 Samuel 30:1 they reached Ziklag after a three days march, the objection of the Philistine princes must have been made on Israelitish soil, or near the Palestinian border, but not at the commencement of the march. From Achish’s reply it appears that the princes distrusted David, suspecting that he would go over to his own people and fight against the Philistines. Achish observes 1) that David is servant of Saul, king of Israel, thus alluding to his enmity with Saul, 2) that he has already been allied with him a long time against Saul, “these days or these years” = “a year and a day,” indefinite statement of the time mentioned in 1 Samuel 27:7 : “a year and four months,”—and 3) that in all this time he has seen nothing in him to awaken suspicions of treachery. From the day of his falling (πָ ?τְ ?μεֹ, instead of [rather, used alongside of—Tr.] πִ ?τְ ?μεֹ, see Ew., § 255, d). The vss. add “to me,” according to the usual construction of the verb, though we need not therefore insert “to me” (ΰֵ ?μַ ?ι) in the text (Then.), “since it is understood from the context” (Keil). On these grounds Achish thought himself quite sure of David, comp. 1 Samuel 27:12. 1 Samuel 29:4. The twofold designation of the Philistine leaders, here “chiefs” [Eng. A. V. “princes”], in 1 Samuel 29:2, “princes” [Eng. A. V. “lords”] comes from the circumstantial character of the narration, not from oversight (Then.), though the Sept. and Vulg. omit the second name. The chiefs of the Philistines did not accept Achish’s explanation, but were angry with him, and demanded of him that he send David back to his place, which he (Achish) had appointed him, that is, to Ziklag. They said: He shall not go down with us into the battle. “Go down” (ιֵ ?ψֵ ?γ) is a regular technical military expression, derived from the necessity in that mountainous country of descending into the plain to fight, comp. 1 Samuel 26:10; 1 Samuel 30:24. To Achish’s defence of David they reply: 1) he might become an adversary to them in battle, though he had hitherto been an ally; 2) he might wish to recommend himself to his lord, though he had up to this time opposed him,—with the heads of these men. The Hithpael of the verb (ψφδ) indicates zealous self-activity, “earnestly to commend one’s self,” or, “to seek to make one’s self acceptable” (Ew., § 124 a). “These,” they say, pointing to the Philistine troops. By defeating a part of our force, said they, he would try to regain Saul’s favor. Herein is a recognition of David’s bravery and military ability, which they would be the less disposed to doubt when they recollected the defeat he had formerly inflicted on Goliath and the Palestine army. For they say 3) Is this not David, of whom they sang in dances? &c. Comp. 1 Samuel 18:7 with 1 Samuel 16:11. It is the same argument that Achish’s servants used against him on his first visit to Achish’s court. The Philistines’ recollection of that achievement is here to be the means of rescuing David from the painful necessity of going into battle with the Philistines against his own people. 1 Samuel 29:6. Achish is obliged to yield to the decided demand of his comrades. He assures David that his confidence in him is unshaken, that he regards him as an honorable and faithful man. Achish’s oath “by the life of Jehovah” is to be explained not by the fact that a Hebrew is here the narrator (Then.), or that Achish had learned from David to know and honor the God of Israel (S. Schmid), but by his desire to attest more strongly the truth of his words by invoking the God whom David worshipped. Achish, however, does not say that he had been pleased with David in former wars (Tremell. Vatablus), but his words refer to this campaign, he assuring him of his confidence in contrast with the distrust of the princes. He means to say: To me thou art the object of undoubting trust, but the princes do not wish thee to take part in the campaign. Thus he excuses himself, as it were, to David for the fact that he must now (1 Samuel 29:7) bid him return, that he may do nothing evil in the eyes of the princes of the Philistines. 1 Samuel 29:8. As Achish remains true in word and deed to his honorable confidence in David, so David remains true to his rτle (27) of dishonorable prevarication to Achish; for, when he says: that I should not go and fight against the enemies of my lord, the king—this “my lord, the king,” may refer as well to Achish as to Saul; and, for the rest, he could not have been in earnest in saying that he would fight, for he certainly would not have fought against his own countrymen (Then.). 1 Samuel 29:9. Achish trustingly accepts David’s words as referring to himself, and renews the assurance of confidence in his honor. The I know is the reply to David’s assertion of his faithfulness in the question: “What have I done?” etc. [Translate: “I know it, for thou art good,” etc.—Tr.] Achish’s testimony to David’s fidelity and honor (on the words: “yea, thou art in my eyes,” etc. comp. Genesis 48:19) rises to the point of comparing him with an “angel (= messenger) of God,” see 2 Samuel 14:17; 2 Samuel 19:27. I esteem thee as highly, he would say, as if thou wert sent to me from God—but the princes say: “he shall not go up with us to the war.” The word “go up” refers to the progress of the march from the south upwards towards the north. 1 Samuel 29:10. With the servants of thy lord, that is, of Saul; whose subjects they were. [On the text see “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] 1 Samuel 29:11. David returns to Philistia, to Ziklag (1 Samuel 30:1).—That David, in order to avoid a sad alternative, himself artfully roused the opposition of the Philistine princes to his participation in the campaign (as Thenius thinks not impossible), is, even if possible, too bold a conjecture; the narrative gives no ground for it. AND 1. God’s patience is such that the sins of the members of His kingdom are not visited with expulsion from communion with Him, so long as they, like David, direct their inner life to Him in faith, and are willing to be guided by Him. But such sins as we here see in David—fear of man, unfaith, having recourse to heathen protection, deceitful behaviour towards the kind and honorable king Achish—God does not pass by, on the one hand, without the exhibition of His punitive righteousness, partly punishing sin with sin, as we here see in David from a fundamental sin (doubt and little faith) all other sins issuing, these again coming one from another, partly inflicting internal anguish and external perplexities and painful experiences; but, on the other hand, he restrains evil consequences, and brings into play former exhibitions of His helping might (as here in the Philistines’ recollection of David’s victory over Goliath and the army), so to order all things according to His mercy and wisdom that the blameworthy evil does not lead to destruction, and subserves the ends of His providential government of the world. 2. Certainly David’s untruthfulness is not to be measured by Christian morality (Then.), for the mingling of the standpoints of the Old and New Testaments by introducing the latter into the former, both as respects moral knowledge and biblical ethics, and as respects religious truth and biblical dogmatics, is set aside by the difference of the two Testaments in the development of the history of revelation and the kingdom of God. Especially in judging of individual, concrete, ethical phenomena in the relation between man and man, where the principle of love is limited by national relations, we must take into consideration the limitation of the theocratic principle of life to the sphere of the national life in respect to those peoples that were outside of the theocracy. Nevertheless all ethical phenomena in the life of the Old-Testamental bearers of the divine revelation and the theocratic principle must be looked at from the highest point of view, which is given in God’s holy will itself, and judged as to their ethical character and value by the absolute standard. The God of absolute truth (Numbers 23:19; 2 Samuel 15:29) demands truth from his “saints” (comp. Exodus 20:6 with 1 Samuel 19:6 and Proverbs 6:16-19; Deuteronomy 19:11). To the God of truth and faithfulness (Psalms 40:10-12 [9–11]) the lips must not speak falsehood (Psalms 34:15 [13]), as David himself declares. Apart, however, from the stand-point of revelation, David’s conduct to Achish is condemned from the stand-point of natural-human morality by the unsuspecting faithfulness and honor of the heathen king. AND 1 Samuel 29:1-2. S. Schmid: The sins of the princes of the people put weapons into the hands of the enemies of God and the Church. 1 Samuel 29:3 sq. [Scott: While presumptuous sinners are given up to the effects of their own counsels and driven headlong to destruction, the sins of the upright are repented of and pardoned; and the Lord takes care both of their peace and reputation.—Tr.]—Hedinger (from Hall): O the wisdom and goodness of our God, that can raise up an adversary to deliver us out of those evils which our friends cannot!—Schlier: When the Lord thinks on us, He comes at the right time with His blessing also. He has ways, even where we know no further expedient, and can give counsel and help where we might already despair. 1 Samuel 29:4. Schlier: God’s children are not people that have no failings and weaknesses any more. But on account of such failings God does not yet cast off His children. Even if we sin, He does not yet at once give us up; He chastens us, but He does not cast us off.—[1 Samuel 29:6. Scott: When worldly people have no evil thing to say of us, but will bear testimony to our uprightness, we need desire no more from them: and this we should aim to acquire by prudence, meekness and a blameless life. But their flattering commendations are almost always purchased by improper compliances, or some measure of deception, and commonly may cover us with confusion.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 29:7. Cramer: God guides His saints wonderfully (Psalms 4:4 [3]), and holds them back from sins which if they were given up to themselves, they would commit, acting against their own conscience, and rescues them from great peril also, into which they would otherwise have fallen through their thoughtless projects.—Hedinger [from Hall]: One degree of dissimulation draws on another; those which have once given way to a faulty course cannot easily either stop or turn back.—[Henry: No one knows how strong the temptation is to compliment and dissemble, which they are in that attend great men, and how hard it is to avoid it.—Tr.]—What wholesome effects are produced under God’s guidance by that intercourse which in the world is indispensably necessary between those who have part in God’s kingdom and those who stand aloof from it? 1) For those who stand aloof from the kingdom of God: a) that they involuntarily give honor to the living God; b) that they recognize in those who belong to His kingdom the power of a higher divine character, and are compelled to bow before that power (1 Samuel 29:9); c) that in themselves the remains of the divine image again come forward, and they find pleasure in that which is ethically good and beautiful. 2) for those who have part in God’s kingdom themselves: a) the consoling perception that even they who stand aloof from God’s kingdom have to serve as instruments for the fulfilment of the divine purposes and designs of salvation (Proverbs 16:7); b) the wonderful confirmation of the truth that all things must work together for good to them that love God (Romans 8:27), and c) humbling self-knowledge in respect to their own sins and faults, in view of the morally noble behaviour of those who stand aloof from the kingdom of God, while they themselves are wanting therein. Footnotes: [1 Samuel 29:1. Lit. “camps.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:1. Sept. Endor, Arab. “near the city (ςιψ) Jezreel,” Syr. apparently “in In” as proper name. Eng. A. V. is correct.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:2. νֶ ?ψֶ ?ο seren (rendered “lord” in Eng. A. V. throughout this chapter), a word of doubtful origin, supposed by some to be connected with the similar Aramaic subst. which means “axle,” magistrates being considered supports on which the state revolves. On the relations between the Aramaic and the Ph�nician-Canaanitish dialects see Schrφder, Phφnizische Sprache, Einl. § 11.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:3. The ordinary word ωָׂ ?ψ, which Eng. A. V. renders “princes” throughout this chapter.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:3. An indefinite phrase, but not therefore suspicious. The versions have dealt variously with it. Chald. and Vulg. follow the Heb. literally (as Eng. A. V.), except that Vulg. has “multis diebus.” Syr. has “this time and time and months,” which is understood by some to mean “these two years and some months,” but it is more probably a reproduction of the phrase in 1 Samuel 27:7, and = “a year and some months” (so Arab.). The Sept. ἡμέραςτοῦτοδεύτερονἔτος perhaps contains a duplet, as Wellh. suggests, and the text of Stier and Theile (eclectic) gives δεύτερονἔτοςσήμερον “two years to-day.” Sept. probably read ωְׁ ?πָ ?ϊַ ?ιִ ?ν “two years,” not, however, ζֶ ?διָ ?ξִ ?ινωְׁ ?πַ ?ιִ ?ν (suggested by Wellh. as basis of the Heb. and Greek texts) which would not be rendered “two years” but “two days.” It seems better, on the whole, to retain the present Heb. text, and regard Sept. and Syr. as free renderings.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:4. Heb. ωָׂ ?θָ ?ο satan, used in the general sense of “adversary” in the earlier books of the Bible, and with the Art. as ft proper name in Job and Zechariah, and without the Art. in 1 Chronicles 21:1. The verb. ωׂ ?θο “to hate, be hostile to,” is used only in the general sense. Fόrst refers to the curious view of Justin Martyr (Dial. cum Tryph. 103) that Σατανᾶς = πηωׁ νθΰ “the apostate serpent.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:8. λִּ ?ι is here a cohortative and illative particle, and might be rendered “then” (so Erdmann), but, as it is also adversative, the translation of Eng. A. V. is better.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:8. ξִ ?ιּ ?εֹ ?ν. Wellhausen: Either omit ΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ or write the Art. before ιεֹ ?ν—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:9. Perhaps better with Thenius and Philippson: “I know it, for (or, yea) thou art, etc.” This avoids the redundancy of the translation of Eng. A. V. and Erdmann: “I know … in my eyes.” The quia of the Vulgate = “quod.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:9. Erdmann: “Messenger,” not so well. Sept. omits, perhaps because the phrase was considered unsuitable in the mouth of a heathen. For the significance of its use see the Exposition and Translator’s note.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:10. Here the Sept. inserts: “and go ye to the place where I have appointed you, and set thou nothing evil in thy heart, for thou art good in my sight.” Thenius and Wellhausen favor this insertion on the ground that after the “rise early” follows usually the mention of the thing done, while the Heb. text has the unnecessary repetition “rise early … and rise early” (the “as soon as” of Eng. A. V. is not expressed in the Heb.). On the other hand, we cannot well account for the omission of this clause, if it formed apart of the original text, while the insertion might have been made by a copyist (or the phrase added on the margin) to soften the repetition. We may suppose the verb here repeated because of the intervening clause, which called for a change in the Number of the Verb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 29:11. Some MSS. contain the preposition, which is here obviously involved in the construction. Sept., Vat.: “went up to fight against Jezreel,” but Alex. has “against Israel,” which is adopted by Thenius, on which Wellh. says: “Thenius is misled by Eusebius into putting Aphek in the vicinity of Endor (Lagarde, Onomast. 216, 28); in that case, of course, the expression ‘the Philistines went up to Jezreel’ would be meaningless, since they were already there. But Aphek is the same in 1 Samuel 29:1 as in 1 Samuel 4:1, near Mizpeh and Ebenezer.” Yet, from Aphek near Mizpeh to Jezreel would be going down, not up. From some lower place (as near Shunem) they would naturally advance to seize the hill Jezreel, which lay between their camp and Saul’s. The fountain in Jezreel (1 Samuel 29:1) is perhaps the grand spring at the foot of Gilboa, regarded as being in the district of Jezreel.—Tr.] [That is, “spring of Goliath,” according to a tradition that here David killed Goliath; or “spring of Gilead” as the ancient name of Gilboa (A. P. Stanley in Smith’s Dict. of the Bible, Art. Jezreel).—Tr.] [This is a sufficient reply to Wellhausen’s remark that “the narrator here forgets that he is dealing with a Philistine, who [as dwelling in a plain] would probably use the opposite expression [go up].”—Tr.] [This word is probably to be taken here in a supernatural sense. We need not suppose this a Hebrew idea put into the mouth of the Philistine; the conception of superhuman messengers of God (= our “angels”) is so general and natural that there is no difficulty in supposing it to be known and used among the Philistines.—Tr.] III. David’s Victory over the Amalekites who destroyed Ziklag 1 Samuel 30:1-311 And it came to pass, when David and his men were come to Ziklag on the third day, that the Amalekites had invaded the south and Ziklag, and smitten Ziklag 2and burned it with fire; And had taken the women captives [captive the women] that were therein [ins. both small and great]; they slew not any either great or small [om. either great or small], but carried them away [off] and went on their 3way. So [And] David and his men came to the city, and behold, it was burned with fire, and their wives and their sons and their daughters were taken captives. 4Then [And] David and the people that were with him lifted up their voice and 5wept, until they had no more power to weep. And David’s two wives were taken captives, Ahinoam the Jezreelitess, and Abigail the wife of Nabal the Carmelite. 6And David was greatly distressed [was in a great strait], for the people spake of stoning him, because the soul of all the people was grieved [bitter], every man for his sons and his daughters; but David encouraged [strengthened] himself in the Lord [Jehovah] his God. 7And David said to Abiathar the priest, Ahimelech’s son, I pray thee, bring me hither [om. hither] the ephod. And Abiathar brought thither [om. thither] the 8ephod to David. And David inquired at the Lord [of Jehovah], saying, Shall I pursue after this troop? shall I overtake them? And he answered him, Pursue! for thou shalt surely overtake them and without fail recover all [for thou shalt 9overtake and deliver]. So [And] David went, he and the six hundred men that were with him, and came to the brook Besor, where those that were left behind 10stayed. But [And] David pursued, he and four hundred men; for [and] two hundred abode behind, which were so faint that they could not go over the brook Besor.11And they found an Egyptian in the field, and brought him to David, and gave 12him bread, and he did eat, and they made him drink water. And they gave him a piece of a cake of figs, and two clusters [cakes] of raisins; and when he had eaten, his spirit came again to him; for he had eaten no bread, nor drunk any 13water, three days and three nights. And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? and whence art thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me because three days agone I fell sick. 14We made an invasion upon the south of the Cherethites, and upon the coast [on the region] which belongeth to Judah, and upon the south of Caleb, and we burned 15Ziklag with fire. And David said to him, Canst [Wilt] thou bring me down to this company [troop]? And he said, Swear unto me by God that thou wilt neither kill me nor deliver me into the hands of my master and I will bring thee down 16to this company [troop]. And when he had [And he] brought him down, [ins. and] behold, they were spread abroad upon all the earth [over the whole land], eating and drinking and dancing [revelling], because of all the great spoil which they had taken out of the land of the Philistines and out of the land of Judah. 17And David smote them from the twilight even [om. even] unto the evening of the next day, and there escaped not a man of them, save four hundred young men, 18which rode upon camels and fled. And David recovered [rescued] all that the 19Amalekites had carried away; and David rescued his two wives. And there was nothing lacking to them, neither small nor great, neither sons nor daughters, neither [nor] spoil, nor anything that they had taken to them; David recovered all. 20And David took all the flocks and herds, [;] which they drove before those other cattle [they drove before him this flock], and said, This is David’s spoil. 21And David came to the two hundred men, which were so faint that they could not follow David, whom they had made also [om. also] to abide at the brook Besor. And they went forth to meet David and to meet the people that were with 22him; and when David came near to the people, he saluted them. Then answered all the wicked men and men of Belial [all the wicked and worthless men], of those that went with David, and said, Because they went not with us, we will not give them ought [aught] of the spoil that we have recovered, save to every man his 23wife and his children, that they may lead them away and depart. Then said David [And David said], Ye shall not do so, my brethren, with that which the Lord [Jehovah] hath given us, who hath preserved us, and delivered the company 24[troop] that came against us into our hand. For [And] who will hearken unto you in this matter? but [for] as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall 25his part be that tarrieth by the stuff; they shall part alike. And it was so [it came to pass] from that day forward, that he made it a statute and an ordinance 26for Israel unto this day. And when [om. when] David came to Ziklag, he [and] sent of the spoil unto the elders of Judah, even to [om. even to] his friends, saying, 27Behold a present for you of the spoil of the enemies of the Lord [Jehovah]: To them which were in Bethel, and to them which were in south Ramoth [in Ramothnegeb], 28and to them which were in Jattir, And to them which were in Aroer, and 29to them which were in Siphmoth, and to them which were in Eshtemoa, And to them which were in Rachal, and to them which were in the cities of the Jerahmeelites, 30and to them which were in the cities of the Kenites, And to them which were in Hormah, and to them which were in Chor -ashan, and to them which were 31in Athach, And to them which were in Hebron, and to all the places where David himself and his men were wont to haunt [which David frequented, he and his men]. AND 1 Samuel 30:1-6. Description, of the calamity inflicted by the Amalekites, who plundered and burned Ziklag, the grief of David and his men at their loss, the danger to which he was exposed from the exasperated people who threw the blame on him, and his strengthening in the Lord.—The construction of the four first verses is as follows: the protasis extends through the three first verses, but with two parentheses, the first extending from “and the Amalekite,” in 1 Samuel 30:1 to the end of 1 Samuel 30:2, the second including all of 1 Samuel 30:3 after the word “behold;” the apodosis Isaiah 1 Samuel 30:4.—On the third day, namely, after his departure from Achish. The Amalekites had used David’s absence and the defenceless condition of Ziklag to revenge themselves for his invasion of their territory (1 Samuel 27:8). The south and Ziklag, the general term preceding the particular. The Negeb is the south-country, so called by the Israelites as being the southern part of Palestine or Judah, while it was north of the Amalekite territory. According to 1 Samuel 30:13 they had plundered Ziklag three days before David’s return. In verse 2 only the women are said to have been carried away; the children, mentioned in 1 Samuel 30:3; 1 Samuel 30:6, are omitted here for brevity’s sake. The Sept.’s addition to the text of the words “and all” is unnecessary (against Thenius). So the words “nor woman” after “man” are an explanatory insertion of the Sept. It is expressly remarked that the women were not slain, because they intended to make slaves of them and the children [in contrast with David’s conduct, 1 Samuel 27:11.—Tr.]. The two wives of David, Ahinoam and Abigail, are especially named, 1 Samuel 25:42 sq., 1 Samuel 27:3. The great sorrow that they all, David and his men, expressed with tears and cries, corresponds with the great peril that threatened David, the people charging their misfortune on him and thinking of stoning him.—The soul of all the people was bitter, they were deeply agitated. But he strengthened himself in the Lord his God, he had recourse to Him in order (1 Samuel 30:7 sq.) to inquire of him by the ephod, as he had done, 1 Samuel 23:9. His strengthening in the Lord consisted in the fact that, being assured through his inquiry of the Lord’s assistance, he straightway set out with his embittered men to recover the spoil from the Amalekites. 1 Samuel 30:7-10. David’s arrangements to secure his end: 1) the religious preparation, verses 7, 8; he first assured himself of the Lord’s will that he should pursue the enemy, and of His promise that he should be successful,—on the words “bring me the ephod,” which indicate that the ephod was exclusively the property of the high-priest, comp. Hengst, Beit. [Contributions, etc.] 3, 67 sq.,—2) his military disposition of his men, 1 Samuel 30:9-10. The six hundred men appear here as before. They are divided into two parts, four hundred pursue the enemy, two hundred remain behind, when they have reached the brook Besor. [But this arrangement was not at first intended by David; it was a necessity forced on him by the exhaustion of the two hundred.—Tr.]. The brook Besor is probably the present Wady el Sheria, which begins in the hill-country of Judah and flows in a south-westerly direction south of Gaza into the sea. See Raumer, Pal. p. 52. [Rob. thought it the Wady Ar arah, and Grove and Porter think it yet unidentified.—Tr.].—At this brook and in its valley—both must be considered here, because the staying behind of some of David’s men, afterwards referred to their exhaustion, supposes an insurmountable difficulty in the ground—“the rest” (δַ ?πεֹ ?ϊָ ?ψִ ?ιν= 1 Samuel 30:9) remained in a position adapted to the protection of the baggage which was left here (see 1 Samuel 30:24). The narrator here anticipates what is told in 1 Samuel 30:10; it is a proleptical expression, arising from the vivacious description of David’s rapid march with four hundred men, and there is no need to change the text into the Vulg. lassi “wearied” (= δַ ?τְּ ?βεּ ?ψִ ?ιν), as Then. proposes, especially as the ancient VSS. had it and explained it by periphrases (Keil). The verb (τָּ ?βַ ?ψ) = “to be weary” in Syr., occurs only here and in 1 Samuel 30:21. Weariness was the reason of their remaining behind. At the same time they served to guard the baggage (1 Samuel 30:24). 1 Samuel 30:11-16 a. David gets information of the Amalekites from an Egyptian straggler. 1 Samuel 30:11. And they found an Egyptian; from the proximity of Egypt the Amalekites had Egyptians as slaves (comp. 1 Samuel 30:13). And they took, that is, brought him to David, a pregnant expression in keeping with the rapidity of the action. The insertion of the Sept. “and they brought him,” is clearly an explanatory reading (against Then.). “Bread” (μֶ ?ηֶ ?ν) = food; they gave him to eat and to drink;” the general statement stands first. 1 Samuel 30:12. The sort of food which they gave him. On the “fig-cakes” see on 1 Samuel 25:18. His spirit returned to him, he revived; having been left behind sick, and having been three days and three nights without food, he had lain exhausted on the field.1 Samuel 30:13 sq. The Egyptian’s answer. To whom belongest thou? that is, as slave, for as such he was recognized by his exterior. “Whence art thou?” (ΰֵ ?ιξִ ?ζֶּ ?δ, the ΰֵ ?ι remains unchanged, the ξִ ?ζֶּ ?δ changes according to the relations of the sentence. Ew. § 326 a).—“We invaded;” the verb here only stands with the Accus., usually with a Prep. (ςַ ?μ ,ΰֵ ?μ ,αְּ, see 1 Samuel 30:16).—The first geographical statement [1 Samuel 30:14]: On the south of the Cherethites. a Philistine tribe dwelling in the south and on the sea (see 1 Samuel 30:16), which came originally, as the name indicates, from the island of Crete. See in Steph. Byzant. s.v. Gaza, the tradition that the Cretans under Minos made an expedition against the neighboring coast of Gaza. Reasons for the view that Caphtor, the home of the Philistines (who were not indigenous to Canaan, but immigrants, Deuteronomy 2:23; Amos 9:7), is identical with Crete, may be seen in Bertheau zur Gesch. d. Israel., p. 186–200. Comp. Ewald Gesch. [Hist, of Israel] I. 336. Against this view see Starke’s Gaza, p. 66 sq., 99 sq., Dunker’s Gesch. d. Alterthums I., 339 A. [See also Vaihinger’s Article “Philister,” and Mόller’s Art. “Kanaan” in Herzog’s R.-E., and Mόller’s more recent book “Die Semiten,” in which he wrongly makes the Philistines Japhethites. The whole question is obscure, but there is some ground for holding that the Philistines first passed from the neighborhood of the Persian Gulf into Lower Egypt (Genesis 10:14, “whence came the Philistines”), thence through Crete to Canaan, to which country they have given the name Palestine. This would explain the Ph�nician-Canaanitish type of their language.—Tr.].—The second statement: On what pertained to Judah, the southern regions of Judah, forming the eastern portion of the Negeb or Southland, which stretched across from the Mediterranean to the Dead Sea. The third statement: On the south of Caleb.—Caleb, one of the twelve spies, as reward for his faithfulness and believing courage, he alone with Joshua, daring, and advising the people, to enter the land (Numbers 13:6; Numbers 13:30; Numbers 14:6 sq.), was, with Joshua, alone considered worthy to tread the land of promise; the city of Hebron and its environs was given to him and his posterity as a lasting possession. When the city of Hebron was afterwards assigned to the priests, the race of Caleb yet retained all the adjacent fields and villages (Joshua 21:11 sq.). Though it belonged to the tribe-territory of Judah, the district of Caleb is regarded as a distinct region; it formed the eastern part of the Negeb as far as the Dead Sea, comp. 1 Samuel 25:3. The three regions, which the Amalekites invaded, are named from West to East. We hence see that the plundering expedition of the Amalekites extended over the whole South-country, and was not intended for Ziklag alone. 1 Samuel 30:15. David’s question: Wilt thou bring me down to this troop? supposes the Amalekites had marched southward, and dwelt there south of Judah and Philistia. The Egyptian assures himself by an oath (by “Elohim,” not by “Jehovah”), from David that he will not kill him, “because informers and guides, after having been used, were often so disposed of” (Thenius), and that he would not deliver him up to his master, because the latter would have killed him for his service to David. 1 Samuel 30:16 a assumes that David gave him the oath. He brought him down.—It is unnecessary (with Sept. and Then.) to insert “thither.” Though the slave was left behind sick, he yet knew the direction which “this troop” had taken. 1 Samuel 30:16 b–20. David surprises the Amalekites and recovers the booty. 1 Samuel 30:16 b. After “behold” we ought perhaps to suppose “they” (δֵ ?ξָ ?δ) fallen out (so Then. after Sept.). The narrative gives a lively description of the Amalekite troop, scattered over the ground (so David found them), revelling after their successful foray, and “celebrating a feast because of all the great spoil.” 1 Samuel 30:17. Thus abandoned to jollity David surprises them. The statement: from the twilight to the evening is understood by some to mean from the morning-twilight, by others to mean from the evening-twilight, the Heb. word (πֶ ?ωֶׁ ?σ) being used in both senses, for example, in the former in Job 7:4. In favor of the morning-twilight Isaiah 1) that David could only have surprised the revelling Amalekites by a night-march; and 2) the counter-limit: “to the evening.” Luther: “from morning to evening.” The succeeding word (μְֽ ?ξָ ?ηֳ ?ψָ ?ϊָ ?ν) means not “on the following day,” but (because of the Prep.) “towards the next day” (Luth.) According to the former rendering the fight would have lasted two whole days, which is improbable. According to the latter it lasted (as agrees with the circumstances) only one day, from morning to evening, when according to Heb. reckoning the following day began. The suffix (ָ ?ν-), which the ancient VSS., except Syr. and Arab., do not express, is perhaps an adverbial ending (Maurer, Ges., Then., Keil). That David had to fight the Amalekites a whole day shows that after the first surprise in the twilight they made obstinate resistance. [Instead of “the next day,” Bib.-Com. proposes to read “to wipe them out” (μξηεϊν), and similarly Wellhausen. The present text is difficult. The addition “towards the morrow” (Erdmann) is unnecessary, and the phrase itself is strange, though sustained by the ancient versions. No explanation yet proposed is satisfactory.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 30:18 sq. Statement of David’s complete success; he recovered all the goods and persons that the Amalekites had carried away. 1 Samuel 30:20. All the sheep and oxen David took away, namely, from the Amalekites, not merely what they had taken from him, but other rich booty in cattle. “That flock” (δַ ?ξִּ ?χְ ?πֶ ?δδַ ?δεּ ?ΰ) [Eng. A. V. wrongly “those other cattle”] is not the flock that belonged to David, and was now recovered by him from the Amalekites. So some expositors take it, explaining it that David caused the flocks captured from the Amalekites to be driven before the rest which belonged to him, with the cry: “this is the spoil of David;” but there is no previous special mention of stolen cattle which would justify such a retrospective designation: “before that (David’s) flock.” “That flock,” in such a demonstrative or retrospective sense, can only be the previously-mentioned cattle captured from the enemy [1 Samuel 30:19]. Nor can we render with De Wette “they marched,” properly “they led,” that is, led the train of women and children; for the verb (πָ ?δַ ?β), as Thenius properly remarks in opposition, “never (even Genesis 31:18; Exodus 3:1; Isaiah 11:16; Psalms 80:2 (1) Son 8:2) means lead except in so far as the leader is at the same time the driver (so 1 Samuel 30:2; 1 Samuel 30:22; 2 Samuel 6:3), and never means draw forward, lead on.” Taking the verb in the sense of “driving,” there is, however, no object to the verb in the Heb. text (μִ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι); the “women and children” cannot be the object, since only cattle has been spoken of. We must therefore (with Then. after Vulg.) make a slight change in the text (read μְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ιε) and render: “they (the drivers) drove (or, one drove) before him,” that is, before David (who stood of course at the head of the troop) this flock, namely, that which had been captured from the Amalekites, to which the outcry “this is David’s spoil” answers very well.1 Samuel 30:21-25. David’s return with the recovered property and the booty to the two hundred men who were left behind, and the adjustment of a strife which was made by some wicked men of his band in regard to the division of the booty with them. 1 Samuel 30:21. Follow David, more precise statement of what is said in 1 Samuel 30:10, that they could not go over the brook Besor for weariness. The Sing. “he made to abide” (found in all ancient VSS. except Chald., and in 5 MSS. of De Rossi) instead of the Plu. is preferable (Then.), not only because it pertained to David to permit them to stay behind, but also because he is mentioned immediately before and after. David, who had left the tired two hundred to guard the baggage, now gives them friendly greeting as they come joyfully to meet him. On the phrase “he saluted them,” lit., “asked after their peace,” see 1 Samuel 25:5; Judges 18:15. 1 Samuel 30:22. But in this joyful meeting a discordant note was introduced by certain “wicked and worthless persons” of the band, who had marched with David against the enemy and fought them. The translation of the Sept. “the men of war” is obviously an explanation, and does not require (Then.) a corresponding change in the Heb. text (ΰַ ?πְ ?ωֵׁ ?ιδַ ?ξִּ ?μְ ?ηָ ?ξָ ?δ). The Sing. “with me” refers to the individual man who speaks in the name of the rest [Eng. A. V., ad sensum “with us.”—Tr.]. Because they went not, because they did not share the danger, they shall not share the spoil, but each one must content himself with his wife and children. The “every one” (ΰִ ?ιωׁ) is not dependent on “we will give” [as Eng. A. V. has it], so as to read, “we will give them nothing, except to every man his wife, etc.”, but the proper translation is (Thenius): “but every one his wife and children, these let them lead away, etc.”, because the “every one” (ΰִ ?ιωׁ) is too far from the “to them” (μָ ?δֶ ?ν) to be governed by the preposition “to.” 1 Samuel 30:23. In a gentle and friendly way David repels their demand. By the address “my brethren” he speaks to their hearts, and at the same time alludes to the fraternal association in which they all stand with one another, so that they that remained behind must receive their share by fraternal division. Do not so, my brethren, by that which the Lord has given us.—ΰֵ ?ϊ is not Prep. = “with that which” (De Wette), but the sign of the Acc. [= “in respect to that which” freely rendered “with” as in Eng. A. V.—Tr.]. Ewald, taking it as Acc., renders the phrase as an ejaculatory oath “by that which…!” (Gr., § 329 a), and so as an exclamation: “think on that which.” In favor of this translation, instead of the usual, “in respect to that which” is partly the interpunction (a strong pause at the word “my brethren,” ΰֶ ?ηָ ?ι֑), as even Then. admits, partly the excited feeling with which David speaks notwithstanding his friendly and gentle tone, so that this rendering cannot be rejected (Then.) as “less natural.” Translate “for he has guarded us, etc.” (the ε in εַ ?ιִ ?ωְׁ ?ξֹ ?ψ as causal). 1 Samuel 30:24. And who will hearken to you in this word; we must here beyond doubt render “word” (γָּ ?αָ ?ψ) and not “thing” [as in Eng. A. V.] because of the reference to the “word” so emphatically spoken by the men. “For” [λִּ ?ι Eng. A. V. “but”] refers to the negation involved in the question, the reason for which is given in the following words; according to the sense, therefore, it = “but” or “rather.” The Sept. inserts by way of explanation the words: “they are not inferior to us, wherefore,” but there is no ground for inserting this into the Heb. text (against Then.). As is the part… so be the part… These words are explained by the brief declaration: together shall they share, which ordains the procedure corresponding to that rule.—David repels the opposition with two arguments, 1) a divine, drawn from the so manifestly experienced goodness of the Lord, pointing a) to the gift bestowed on them in this booty; b) to the protection vouchsafed them; c) to the victory granted them; 2) a purely human, in which a) he affirms that no one will support them in their demand, since they were “wicked and worthless people,” b) in proof of this he points out the equality of soldiers in position and merit, in whether they take part in battle, or act as guards of baggage in reserve, and thence c) declares the demand of human justice “every one his own,” every one shall share in that which has fallen to so all together. An admirable speech, which set forth most fitly everything essential, and completely settled the dispute. [See in Patrick’s Comm. in loco. a citation from Polybius on the ancient rule of partition in war, and the procedure of Publius Scipio, like David’s, given in Polyb. X., XVI. 5 (Bib. Comm.).—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 30:25. So it was from that day forward.—David’s decision ruled from thenceforth. “He made it,” the Subj. is David, not indefinite “one made it” (Sept., Vulg., Chald.). [A similar law in Numbers 31:27, only there the division is between the soldiery and those that stayed at home, the former having the advantage. David’s rule was perhaps a special application of the general principle; it was in force in the time of the Maccabees (2Ma 8:28; 2Ma 8:30). See Bp. Patrick’s further illustrations.—The translation “upwards,” referring back to Abraham, Genesis 14:23-24 (Rashi cited by Gill), is plainly wrong.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 30:26-31. The dividing out of the booty 1 Samuel 30:26. David retained enough of the booty in the division among his own men, to send considerable presents to the elders of Judah, his friends.—The territory of the tribe of Judah had been the scene of his wanderings during his persecution by Saul; see the express reference to this in 1 Samuel 30:31. Here only his kingdom could and was to come to historical realization through the adhesion to him of the elders of Judah and through them of the whole people. Because they were his “friends,” therefore he sent them presents from the spoil taken from Judah’s old hereditary enemies; he did not send them gifts to make them his friends. [Probably for both reasons.—Tr.]. It is besides probable that many localities in Judah had been plundered by the Amalekites in this foray. F. W. Krummacher: “This was already a royal act in vivid anticipation of his impending accession to the throne. Already the crown of Israel was unmistakably though dimly visible above his head.” David’s point of view in sending these gifts is declared expressly to be the religious-theocratic in his accompanying words: Behold a gift of blessing for you of the spoil of the enemies of the Lord.—“Blessing” (αְּ ?ψָ ?λָ ?δ) = “gift” which comes from God (see 1 Samuel 25:27). The enemies, from whom the booty was taken, he calls enemies of Jehovah, because they were enemies of God’s people and so of God’s cause and kingdom in Israel, yea, of God Himself, who as covenant-God identified Himself with His people. Israel’s conflict against its enemies was a “conflict of the Lord,” see on 1 Samuel 17:47. The booty taken in battle from the Amalekites by the Lord’s help was therefore a gift of God and thus a “blessing,” in which all Judah, where was the factual foundation for David’s kingdom, was to share through its elders and in all its separate localities. It must, therefore, have been a very rich booty, as we might also infer from the long duration of the battle.—The term Judah embraces all the territory of that tribe, together with certain after-mentioned cities of Simeon scattered on the south border of Judah, as in Joshua 15:21 sq. some cities of Simeon are mentioned among the cities of Judah. 1 Samuel 30:27. Bethel cannot (according to 1 Samuel 30:31) be the city in Benjamin (now Beitin); the Sept. Vat. Baithsour, which Then. would adopt into the text as Beth-zur, the name of a city in the hill-country of Judah between Jerusalem and Hebron (Joshua 15:58; 2 Chronicles 11:7), which, however, is undesirable from the great difference between the syllables el and zur. It is probably the same place which is called Kesil in Joshua 15:30, identical with the Simeonite town called in Joshua 19:4 Bethul and mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4:30 between Tolad and Hormah under the name Bethuel; according to Knobel = Elusa or el Khalasa, now a large ruin about twelve miles south of Beersheba, comp. Rob. I. 333 sq. [Am. Ed. I. 201, 202], Fay [in Lange’s Biblework] and Keil on Joshua 15:30, V. Raumer, 180.—Ramoth-Negeb, so called, in distinction from other cities of the same name, as lying in the “south-country” belonging to Simeon, Joshua 19:8. [“Shimei the Ramathite (1 Chronicles 27:27), who was over David’s vineyards, was evidently a native of this Ramah” (Bib. Comm.).—Tr.].—Jattir, probably the present Attir, Rob. II. 422 [Am. Ed. I. 494, II. 204], a priestly city, Joshua 15:48; Joshua 21:14; 1 Chronicles 6:42, in the southern part of the hill-country of Judah, in Eusebius’ time (Onom. s. v. Jether) a large place inhabited by Christians, twenty Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, called in Seetzen, R. III., S. VI Ater. 1 Samuel 30:28. Aroer, 1 Chronicles 11:44, in Judah, now a city with colossal ruins of foundation-walls in Wady Ar’ara, about six miles south-east of Beersheba and eight miles south of Hebron, Rob. III. 180 [Am. Ed. II. 199].—Siphmoth, not identified, not = Shepham on the north-border of Canaan, Numbers 34:10-11, the places here mentioned being all in the south (see 1 Samuel 30:31), according to Keil, “perhaps found in Zebdi the Siphmite in 1 Chronicles 27:27.” [Bib. Comm. in loco. remarks on the number of cases in which David’s officials are the companions of his youth.—Tr.].—Eshtemoa, now the large village Semua, according to Schubert 2225 feet above the level of the sea, on the south-western part of the hill-country of Judah, Rob. II. 422, III. 191 [Am. Ed. I. 494, I. 204, 205], with numerous remains of walls, once a priestly city (Joshua 15:50; Joshua 21:14). 1 Samuel 30:29. Rachal, unknown. Instead of this the Sept. has five different names: Ged, Kimath, Saphek, Themath, Karmel, which Thenius would insert in the text, supposing that they might easily have fallen out through the repetition of the phrase “to them which” (εְ ?μַ ?ΰֲ ?ωֶׂ ?ψ). But only two of these names (Gad and Karmel) are found elsewhere, and Then. is obliged therefore to suppose changes in the original Greek forms in order to get known names. But besides the complicated character of these changes, the conjecture is opposed by the fact that Gath, as a Philistine city, cannot according to 1 Samuel 30:26 come into consideration here. And so the conjecture that Rachal is a corruption of Karmel is untenable.—The cities of the Jerahmeelites and the Kenites were in the south of Judah (1 Samuel 27:10). 1 Samuel 30:30. Hormah, in Judah, also in the Negeb or south-country (Joshua 15:30), assigned to the Simeonites according to Joshua 19:4, called by the Canaanites Zephath (Judges 1:17), situated on the southern declivity of the mountains of the Amalekites or the Amorites, now called Sepata [the pass es-Sufa, Rob. ii. 181,—Tr.], a ruin on the western declivity of the elevated plateau Rakhma, five miles south of Khalasa (Elusa), see Ritter 14, 1085 [Smith’s Bib. Dict., Art. Hormah; see Joshua 12:14.—Tr.]. Comp. Numbers 14:45; Numbers 21:3, the latter as to the meaning of the name: banning, banplace.—Chor-ashan probably = Ashan (Joshua 15:42), according to Joshua 19:7 a city of Simeon (1 Chronicles 4:32).—Athach, only here, otherwise unknown; Then. conjectures the reading to be Ether (ςֶ ?ϊֶ ?ψ), a Simeonite city (Joshua 19:7; Joshua 15:43), which is possible from the similarity of the third letters [ψ ,κ]. In 1 Samuel 30:30 the Sept. has Jarmuth for Hormah, and inserts two additional names, Beer-sheba (Joshua 15:28; Joshua 19:2) and Nombe, for which Then. refers to the Nuba visited by Tobler. 1 Samuel 30:31. Hebron, fourteen miles south of Jerusalem, a primeval city (Genesis 23:17; Numbers 13:22), in a deep and narrow valley in the hill-country of Judah, now el Khalil, that is, Friend of God, so called with reference to Abraham’s residence there.—And to all places, etc.—David showed himself grateful to all who befriended and adhered to him as a fugitive, and bound them still closer to him. AND 1. It is a wonderful providence of God in the development of the parallel-running fates of Saul and David that, just before the catastrophe which overwhelmed Saul and his house and kingdom, the ways of both men seem to sink into the depths of misfortune, and lose themselves without a trace, Saul’s way in battle with the Philistines, David’s in hostilities with the Amalekites. And so the nation Israel, already divided in fact between Saul and David, seems to be carried along to destruction with its two heads, and given up beyond salvation to its two mightiest hereditary foes. And on both sides God’s punitive justice is seen controlling human sin, for not only Saul, on whose head God’s final judgment of wrath descends, is guilty, David’s strait also is the result of his sin. This consisted 1) in his sinful weakness of faith and despair, which led him to have recourse to Israel’s enemy, instead of remaining trustfully in Judah according to the Lord’s direction (1 Samuel 22:5); 2) in his untruthfulness and prevarication, which led him to join the enemy against his own people, the Amalekites meantime, while he was marching north, plundering his possessions in the south, and 3) in his extremely cruel and bloody foray against the Amalekites (27), for which he had received no commission from the Lord, by which their vengeance was kindled against him. All this teaches us, as we look at David and at Saul, that sin is destruction. And yet, notwithstanding this similarity in suffering, which appears, on the one hand, as a divine punishment, and, on the other hand, in sin as cause of destruction, there is here completed to the eye that can recognize God’s ways, in a summary and epoch-making manner that most important contrast, whose history runs through the whole development of the kingdom of God in the Old Covenant and in the New. Saul’s way vanishes in the darkness of an unfortunate battle with the old enemy of the nation, into whose hand God gives him and the people, and his life ends in despair; the sentence of rejection is executed. David’s way emerges from the gloom, he returns as victor over the foe, dispenses presents with princely munificence, his kingdom flourishes in the south over the whole territory of the mighty tribe of Judah, whose power southward against the tribes of which Amalek was the most dangerous in its enmity, and westward against the powerful Philistines, was the protection and guard of all Israel. While’s Saul’s star sinks in the north, the star of David rises in the south, and there begins the long line of fulfillments of the prophecy concerning the Star that should come out of Jacob (Numbers 24:17). While in the north Israel, involved in Saul’s destruction and the divine judgment passed against him, lies prostrate before the Philistines, David’s victory frees the south from the enemy, and in Judah the foundation of the new kingdom of the future is laid by the heroic achievement of David and his men, and by his noble and winning behaviour. This great contrast in the fates of Saul and David is, however, founded in the contrast in their posture of heart to the Lord: Saul has lost sight of God, hardened himself against Him in pride, self-will and hate to David, lost ethical ability to repent, and in his time of need applied to anti-godly powers and deceitful human counsel. David, on the contrary, shows us his heart, as it bows in sorrow before Him (1 Samuel 30:4) under the painful, but not undeserved strokes of God’s hand (1 Samuel 30:5-6), but in the bitterest experiences, when his own men turn against him, does not yield to despair, but looks to the Lord for strength. And so he receives the consolatory revelation of God’s will and promise of divine help, and experiences the Lord’s saving and blessing power. From these gloomy paths David comes forth as a man after God’s own heart, to whom has come the experience that God gives grace to the humble and causes the upright to succeed. 2. The strengthening of the inner life in the Lord in time of need (as David here found) consists in the undoubtful experience and knowledge of what is well-pleasing to God through enlightenment from above, in fulfilling it with pious confidence and hope in His help through the consolations of His word, and in the permeation of one’s own will by the sanctifying might of the divine will, which lifts up the sunken courage, and makes the crushed or depressed will to mount to bold resolution and energetic action. Such a strengthening attests itself particularly in the casting of all care on Him, and in brave struggle against all the powers of flesh and blood, which oppress and take captive the inner life. The condition of such an inspiriting and strengthening of the inner life of the member of God’s kingdom is his open-heartedness and receptivity for the divine vital powers, which are at the disposal of every one who will appropriate them, and constant intercourse with the Lord in unchangeable association of life with him founded on thorough humble devotion to him, without which neither can man be God’s property, nor God man’s; all this being involved in the words: “David strengthened himself in the Lord his God.” AND 1 Samuel 30:1. Schlier: What else were the Amalekites than the Lord’s rods of chastening, to chasten David for all his improprieties in the land of the Philistines? For whom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and with His children He is always strictest.—Berl. Bib.: God does not leave His people long in sin, but soon raps them over the knuckles when they go off on their own ways, in order that they may come into the track again.—S. Schmid: When we go out of the house we should heartily pray, for we know not in what manner we shall return. 1 Samuel 30:2. Starke: That is God’s custom in dealing with His people; before He exalts them, He humbles them first. Proverbs 15:33; 1 Samuel 2:7.—Cramer: God still cares for His own, and lays on them no more trouble than they can bear (1 Corinthians 10:13), and also restrains their enemies from making their cross heavier by a hair. 1 Samuel 30:3-5. Berl. Bib.: David was guided in a way so universal, that one cannot experience nor even know anything which was not to be found in him. And those who shall read attentively what is said of David, will therein certainly meet with their own condition; and this the more exactly, in proportion as they have gone further and become more conformed to Jesus Christ.—[1 Samuel 30:4. Henry: It is no disparagement to the boldest and bravest spirits to lament the calamities of relations and friends.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 30:6 sqq. Schlier: David was strong in the Lord and in the power of His might, for in prayer he had won over again the Lord his God and gained His gracious promise.—[Taylor: As sometimes the partially intoxicated man will be sobered in a moment by the occurrence of some terrible calamity, so David, who had been living all these months under the narcotic influence of sin, was by the violence of the Amalekites and the threatened mutiny of his own men roused to his nobler self, and he “strengthened himself in the Lord his God.”—Tr.]—Berlenb. Bible: He strengthens himself in God through an increased composure and through the union of his will with the will of God, as himself doing or permitting all this.—Roos: David saw no means before him of recovering his wives, children and property and those of his followers. But he strengthened himself in faith in the omniscience, wisdom and almightiness of God, and obtained through the Light and Right [Urim and Thummim] good instruction from God. Now as David did, so should the believing seed of Abraham in every need. We should not give way to gloomy unbelief, but strengthen ourselves in our God. We should and may do this all the more because the heart of God is in Christ Jesus or revealed to us yet more clearly than to David. 1 Samuel 30:8. Berl. Bible: If it was a duty under the Old Testament, in an enterprise pertaining to war, thus to turn first to God before resolving on anything, that yet the spirit of the Old Testament carried along with it, and did not absolutely forbid, how much more among Christians under the New Testament should nothing of the sort be done without the divine consent, without first duly consulting thereupon with Christ and His Spirit. [Taylor: Very suggestive is this contrast. “David said, I shall one day perish by the hand of Saul; there is nothing better for me than that I should speedily escape to the land of the Philistines.” “David strengthened himself in the Lord his God, and said unto Abiathar, Bring hither the ephod.” On the one hand despair, leading to prayerlessness and self-will; on the other, faith, leading to prayer and eager willinghood to submit to the guidance of Jehovah.—Tr.]. 1 Samuel 30:9-10, Hedinger: He hopes in vain for consolation from God, who will not make use of God’s counsel.—S. Schmid: As man acts towards God so God acts towards man (Leviticus 26:27-28).—Schlier: As David humbled himself before God, God also acknowledged him again and took him up.—We men cannot, enough humble ourselves before the Lord, but neither can we have enough confidence in the Lord. 1 Samuel 30:11. Hedinger [from Hall]: Worldly wisdom teacheth us to sow small courtesies where we may reap large harvests of recompense. Verses 13, 14 [from Hall]: Wonderful is the providence of God, even over those that are not in the nearest bonds His own. 1 Samuel 30:16 [from Hall]: Destruction is never nearer than when security has chased away fear. The world passes away with its lust; well for him who is on his guard and seeks in time what promotes his peace. 1 Samuel 30:17. Cramer: God blesses the possessions of the pious and causes all to go well with them (Psalms 1:3-4). 1 Samuel 30:18-19. God gives more than we could have desired and hoped for from Him.—Schlier: Only for children of God who in trying times seek the Lord does it hold good, that when the need is highest God’s help is also nighest. We will never forget that a few days after David’s own people were about to stone him on the ruins of Ziklag, the royal crown was laid at his feet.—[1 Samuel 30:24. This principle will apply to soldiers and non-combatants, ministers and their wives, missionaries and those at home who sustain them. 1 Samuel 30:26. How delightful when the prompting of gratitude for the past coincides with the dictate of policy for the future.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 30:3-8. Right behaviour before God in need and anguish: 1) These men do not pretend to stoical indifference, but let their grief have free course, as the Lord has brought it on them (1 Samuel 30:4); 2) They bow low in humility under the hand of God, renouncing all self-help, and seeing human support vanish before their eyes (1 Samuel 30:6 a); 3) They lift themselves cheerfully up again in power and strength, procured from the Lord (1 Samuel 30:6 b–8). 1 Samuel 30:6-20. The Lord is His people’s mighty rock of defence against the opposers of his kingdom: 1) He gives them his counsel upon their inquiry when in straits; 2) He fills them with his power for the conflict enjoined upon them; 3) He leads them according to his promises to glorious victory; 4) He causes them to come forth from the conflict with a rich blessing. The Lord’s help in great need: 1) To whom is it given? a) To him who betakes himself to the Lord with prayerful inquiry (1 Samuel 30:7); b) To him who humbly gives himself up to the Lord’s guidance; a) in obedience to His commandment; β) in trust upon His promises (1 Samuel 30:8). 2) How does the Lord render His help? a) Through His word—answering the inquiries addressed to Him in need—putting an end to uncertainty by its decision—banishing all anxiety and despondency from the heart of consoling promises (1 Samuel 30:8); b) Through His deed—in often quite unexpectedly pointing out the right ways and means that lead to the end (1 Samuel 30:11-16)—in often wonderfully rendering his assistance amid threatening perils (1 Samuel 30:17 sq.)—and in causing a rich gain to be obtained from the most trying times of need. The subjects of God’s kingdom in conflict with the world: 1) They enter into the conflict, strengthened in the strength of the Lord; 2) They conquer in the conflict, under the guidance and support of the Lord; 3) They come out of the conflict, crowned with the rich blessing of the Lord. [1 Samuel 30:11. The forsaken slave: 1) Even the meanest may not be neglected with impunity. 2) Even the poorest may richly reward his benefactors. 3) Even the weakest may be the means of accomplishing great results (David’s recovering possessions and family, regaining the devotion of his followers, and reviving the friendship of his tribesmen, thus smoothing his way to the throne). 4) Even the lowliest is cared for by Providence, and his fortunes linked with the highest, in the providential network of society. [1 Samuel 30:1-26. Returning Home—Two Pictures. I. The sorrowful return. 1) He had left home without seeking the Lord’s guidance—apparently to fight against the Lord’s people—uncertain and unhappy. 2) He had returned, because distrusted, and sent away in dishonor. 3) He found his home in ashes, and his family carried captive. 4) His personal wretchedness was enhanced by the natural wrath of his followers. II. The subsequent joyful return. 1) He leaves with explicit Divine direction and promise—to fight national as well as private enemies—hopeful and happy. 2) He returns victorious and honored. 3) He has regained greater wealth than he had lost. 4) His personal joy is increased by the privilege of sending gifts to his friends. And now what unites the two pictures; His sorrowful return led him to deep penitence, revived faith (1 Samuel 30:6) and humble prayer (1 Samuel 30:8); and from these resulted the joyful return. Sore afflictions, when rightly borne, often open the way to life’s sweetest joy.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 30:1. Some MSS. have λְּ ?αֹ ?ΰ, and in the better codices the Inf. is written fully αּ ?εֹ ?ΰ—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:1. Vulg. and Arab. read: “the south of Ziklag,” but negeb is probably here a proper name, the “South-country;” this may account for the absence of the Art.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:2. The order of words in Eng. A. V. here is opposed to the accents and to the syntax. The reading of the Heb. text, however, is harsh; we do not expect the descriptive phrase: “both small and great” to be applied to “women,” and therefore the reading of the Sept.: “the women and all that was in it” (comp. 1 Samuel 30:19) commends itself as better. Dr. Erdmann. however, rejects it.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:2. “And slew no one,” as in Chald., Vulg. and some MSS., is much easier. Syr. and Arab. strangely omit the negative, and read: “they slew the men.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:2. Erdmann writes the passage from “and the Amalekites” in 1 Samuel 30:1 to the end of 1 Samuel 30:2 as a parenthesis, which is allowable, but not necessary.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:5. Some MSS. of Kennicott and De Rossi have “the Carmelitess,” referring to Abigail. See note on 1 Samuel 27:3.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:6. That is, “was in difficulty and danger,” an idea not now so well expressed by the word “distress.” For “grieved” or “bitter” the Bib. Com. suggests “exasperated,” which conveys the sense with precision.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:7. This word is commonly and properly transferred, not translated (so Sept., Vulg., Syr., Chald.); Sym., however, renders it by ἐπωμίς, Aq. by ἐπένδυμα, and Arab. by a descriptive phrase: “the breast-plate by which thou inquirest.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:8. As this is a principal, not a subordinate question, Wellh. would insert the Interrog. δֲ before this verb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:9. It seems impossible to do anything with this phrase. That something stood here in an early form of the text is shown by the Sept. and other VSS.; but these words give no sense: they cannot be proleptical, as Erdmann explains them, for the word πεֹ ?ϊָ ?ψִ ?ιν supposes a division already made. The Syr. abandons the text, and explains: “and David left two hundred men.” The Vulg. reading: “and certain tired ones stayed” (preferred by Then., and rejected by Erdmann), is easy; but the statement is here unnecessary and out of place. It is more satisfactory to suppose that the phrase was early introduced into the text by clerical repetition from the following verse.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:10. Wellh. suggests that the two halves of this verse have changed places; but this is unnecessary, for, though the second half would fit on to 1 Samuel 30:9, the present order is quite in accordance with Heb. form of narration. in which the explanation is often made to follow the principal statement.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:11. Some MSS., and Sept. and Ar. read: “took him and brought him.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:12. ψεּ ?ηַ, not the nephesh, the “breath of life,” but the breath considered as vigorous and truly alive, somewhat as in Eng. the word “spirit” has come to mean “courageous vigor and alertness.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:13. Sept. has against connection and accents: “the young man of Egypt said, I am servant,” etc.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:13. Literally: “to-day three,” that is, as Chald. gives it, “to-day these three days,” and some MSS. have “three days.” Vulg. nudiusertius.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:15. Sept. transfers Γεδδούρ; in other Greek VSS. we find σύστρεμμα and λόχος, and also εὔζωνος (perhaps, as Schleusner suggests, from the Chald. ΰγψ).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:16. Properly “keeping festival.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:17. Erdmann renders: “towards the next day” (after Luther), which is doubtful. Eng. A. V. is supported by Vulg., Chald., Sept. Chald., however, instead of using the same word as the Heb., has “the day which was after it,” and the Syr. has a similar form “in their rear,” as if they read ΰηψ, which does not suggest any good emendation. As the Heb. word stands, the -ָ ?ν may be regarded as pronom. suffix, “to their morrow” (redundant), or as adverbial ending. Wellhausen emends the text and reads μְ ?δַ ?ηֲ ?ψִ ?ξָ ?ν, which would suit the letters of the present word, but does not particularly commend itself.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:20. So Erdmann renders, reading (with Vulg. and Then.) μְ ?τָ ?πָ ?ιε instead of μְ ?τְ ?πֵ ?ι. The sense will be still better if we further read in the beginning of the verse: “And they took,” instead of “And David took.” The taking and driving seem to be the work of the same person (as Wellh. remarks), and it would be appropriate for David’s men rather than for himself to set aside his spoil. This change would require very little alteration of the lettering. As for the words: “this flock,” they seem unnecessary (Wellh. would reject them as clerical explanation), yet do not interfere materially with the sense.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:21. The Sing. “he” is found in some MSS., and in Sept., Syr., Arab., Vulg., Chald., and is better.—At the end of the verse instead of ΰֶ ?ϊΞδָ ?ςָ ?ν, the VSS. and some MSS. have ΰֶ ?μ.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:25. There is a good deal of authority (about forty MSS., several printed Edd., and the Vulg.) for reading “in Israel,” which is better.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 30:30. “Bor” is found in Sept., Syr., Vulg. and a number of Edd. and MSS., and is preferred by De Rossi and Wellhausen.—Tr.] On this reading see “Textual and Grammatical.”—Tr.] [The inquiry was probably conducted by the high-priest., in a way unknown to us, but more probably the answer came through the priest’s mouth.—Tr.] [See “Text, and Gram.—Tr.] [Wordsworth (Comm. in loco.), sees in this a type of Christ’s mercy to the outcast. The two procedures are both examples of kindness, but there is no typical relation between them.—Tr.] λְּ ?ψֵ ?ϊִ ?ιν = δַ ?λְּ ?ψֶ ?ϊִ ?ι, Ezekiel 25:16; Zephaniah 2:6, used as synonymous with the Philistines. [David’s bodyguard (2 Samuel 8:18) was probably composed of Philistines.—Tr.] They, however, read ξֵ ?ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιδֶ ?ν. As in ηִ ?πָּ ?ν ,ιεֹ ?ξָ ?ν. [On this reading see “Text. and Gram.”—Tr.] [This rendering will hardly commend itself. An oath would naturally be by what God “has done for us.” or by His “mercy towards us,” not by what He “has given us.” Sept. has “after (ΰַ ?ηֲ ?ψֵ ?ιΰֲ ?ωֶׁ ?ψ) the Lord has given us,” and Cahen “after what the Eternal has given us.” The ordinary rendering seems most satisfactory.—Tr.] On λְּ ?Ξεּ ?λְ see Ew. § 860, 2 a; the second λְּ ?Ξ is here also more sharply connected by the Waw. Cons., Joshua 14:11; Daniel 11:29.—Instead of K. δεֹ ?ψֵ ?γ we must of course read δַ ?ιּ ?ψֵ ?γ. [The Keth. may be the old form δַ ?εֹּ ?ψֵ ?γ—Tr.] He says: We must very probably read χִ ?ιπָ ?δ (Joshua 15:22) for ΰֲ ?τֵ ?χχִ ?ιξָ ?δ (Joshua 15:53) for νλχ, and perhaps ϊִּ ?ξְ ?πָ ?δ (Joshua 15:57) for ϊιξϊ. So Buns. and Ew., expect that instead of ϊιξַ ?ϊ the latter reads γּ ?εּ ?ξδ Joshua 15:52). [A priestly city, 1 Chronicles 6:44 (Eng. A. V. 1 Samuel 6:59).—Tr.] IV. Death and Burial of Saul and his Sons1 Samuel 31:1-13. [Comp. 1 Chronicles 10] 1Now [And] the Philistines fought against Israel, and the men of Israel fled 2from before the Philistines and fell down slain in mount Gilboa. And the Philistines followed hard upon Saul and upon his sons; and the Philistines slew Jonathan 3and Abinadab and Melchishua, Saul’s sons. And the battle went sore against Saul and the archers hit him, and he was sore wounded [sore afraid] of 4the archers. Then said Saul [And Saul said] unto his armour-bearer, Draw thy sword and thrust me through therewith, lest these uncircumcised come and thrust me through and abuse me. But his armour-bearer would not, for he was sore 5afraid. Therefore [And] Saul took a [the] sword and fell upon it. And when his armour-bearer saw that Saul was dead, he fell likewise [he also fell] upon his 6sword and died with him. So Saul died, and his three sons and his armour-bearer 7and all his men that same day together. And when the men of Israel that were on the other side of [beyond] the valley [plain] and they that were on the other side [beyond] Jordan saw that the men of Israel fled, and that Saul and his sons were dead, they forsook the cities and fled; and the Philistines came and dwelt in them. 8And it came to pass on the morrow, when the Philistines came to strip the slain, 9that they found Saul and his three sons fallen in Mount Gilboa. And they cut off his head and stripped off his armour, and sent into the land of the Philistines round about, to publish it in the house [houses] of their idols and among the people. 10And they put his armour in the house of Ashtaroth, and they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.11And when [om. when] the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead heard of that which the 12Philistines had done to Saul, All [And all] the valiant men arose, and went all night, and took the body of Saul, and the bodies of his sons from the well of Bethshan, 13and came to Jabesh and burnt them there. And they took their bones and buried them under a tree [the tamarisk] at Jabesh, and fasted seven days. AND 1 Samuel 31:1-7. The battle lost. Death of Saul and his sons. 1 Samuel 31:1 is connected with 1 Samuel 29:1 (comp. 1 Samuel 28:1; 1 Samuel 28:4 sq.). The partcp. “were fighting” [so the Heb.] presupposes the account given in 1 Samuel 28:1; 1 Samuel 28:4 and 1 Samuel 29:1 of the preparations for the battle, and thence forms an adjectival sentence, which is to be understood thus: “When now the Philistines,” etc., “the men of Israel fled,” etc. Driven from the place the men of Israel took refuge in mount Gilboa (see 1 Samuel 28:4), and were thither followed by the Philistines and slain. [Or, less probably, the mountain itself may have been the scene of battle.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 31:2. Sept. renders: “the Philistines press closely on, come up with (συνάπτουσι);” it does not, however, thence follow that they read Impf. Qal (of γαχ) with μְ, for the Hiph. with Acc. (so 1 Chronicles 10:2 it is used with the Prep. “after,” comp. 1 Samuel 14:22; Judges 20:45), also means “to hang closely at one’s feet, overtake him” (comp. Judges 18:22).—On the three sons of Saul see on 1 Samuel 14:49. 1 Samuel 31:3. “The battle went sore to (ΰֶ ?μ) Saul.” It is unnecessary to read “against” (ςַ ?μ) instead of “to,” since the phrase describes the movement of the battle “towards” Saul; the battle was sore “towards” Saul, after his three sons had fallen. [Vulg.: “the whole weight of the battle turned against [or towards] Saul.”—Tr.] The archers especially harassed him. Men with the bow is in apposition with “shooters” (ξεֹ ?ψִ ?ιν). Render: They hit him (taken absolutely), not “hit him with the bow,” the verb not being elsewhere so used. And he was sore afraid (from ηιμ or ηεμ), not, as Sept. and Vulg., “was sore wounded,” this signification for the verb ημμ (= ημδ) “being not proved” (Keil). [The signification “wounded” would be permissible but for the masoretic pointing and the following Prep.—Tr.] He “trembled, was frightened” at the archers, because, the battle going hard against him, he saw no way of escaping them, or of resisting the enemy’s superior force, especially as, since the death of his sons, he was alone with his armor-bearer. And even if we suppose that it was not despairing fear that he felt (which, however, after the scene at Endor, might well get control of him, notwithstanding his old heroism of character), but only failure of resources (Thenius), yet his fear and trembling at the shame that threatened him (1 Samuel 31:4) may be easily explained. Thenius thinks that his request to his armor-bearer to kill him is intelligible only on the supposition that he was badly wounded, and so unfit for resistance, and properly also for self-destruction. But, as he finally killed himself, he could not have been too badly wounded for this. It is quite in keeping with Saul’s condition of soul (abandoned to despair) that, at the mere possibility of being slain by the Philistines he sought death at the hands of his attendant. Clearly in favor of this view, and against the other, is Saul’s address to his armor-bearer: Draw thy sword and pierce me therewith, lest these un-circumcised come and pierce me and abuse me. Saul had a strong consciousness of the sacredness of his person as the Anointed of the Lord, and must therefore have held it a great shame to be slain by the idolatrous, unclean heathen. The armor-bearer would not, for he was sore afraid; he had, indeed, to defend the king’s life, and was responsible for its preservation. And Saul took the sword and fell on it; that is, having set the hilt on the ground, he threw the weight of his body on the point, and thus killed himself. The scene is clearly and vividly portrayed with a few admirable strokes. [For the meaning of the contrary account 2 Samuel 1:10 see notes on that passage.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 31:5. The armor-bearer’s fear, here again brought forward, was based, no doubt, on the above-named consideration; he was answerable for the king’s person, and might also be apprehensive that he would be regarded as his murderer. He followed his lord’s example, and slew himself. At the same time also all his men were slain. 1 Chronicles 10:6 has “all his house” instead of “all his men.” Certainly Abner, who was no doubt in the battle, had not fallen, 2 Samuel 11:8 (Then.), but that is not inconsistent with the statement, since he, as Saul’s General (1 Samuel 14:50 sq.) belonged, strictly speaking, neither to the “house” nor to the “men,” by which term we must understand the soldiers who were near the king’s person, his body-guard, as it were. 1 Samuel 31:7. A distinction is here made between the “men of Israel” who were non-combatants and dwelt east of the field of battle, and the “men of Israel” who formed the army. The former are described as those who dwelt “on the side of the plain and on the side of the Jordan.” The “plain” is the lowland between mount Gilboa on the south and little Hermon on the north, the continuation of the plain of Jezreel, into which the battle passed, so that the Israelites fled to mount Gilboa and were there slain. The Jordan with its western bank-terrain formed the border. Those who, from the station of the narrator (which we must take with Keil to be the battle-field in the plain of Jezreel) dwelt beyond, that is, opposite him on the mountain-terrain beside the plain and in the Jordan-flats, fled from their abodes when they saw the total defeat of the Israelitish army in the plain. They left the cities; Sept., Vulg., Syr., Chron. read “their cities,” a correct interpretation, but not proof of a different original text here (Then.). And the Philistines came and dwelt in them, not immediately, before the occurrence of what is next related (Then. against Bertheau), but from now on they took possession of the district with all its cities, settled themselves on the whole north and thence seized the rest of the country, so that they held the whole land except Perea on the east [beyond Jordan] and Judah in the south. 1 Samuel 31:8-10. The Philistines’ cruel and abusive treatment of the corpses of Saul and his three sons. 1 Samuel 31:8. After the anticipatory ethnographic statement in 1 Samuel 31:7 the narrative returns to the field of battle. And it came to pass on the morrow.—On the day after the battle, which had therefore probably lasted till evening, the darkness preventing plundering. On mount Gilboa they found Saul and his sons fallen (comp. 1 Samuel 31:1), the Israelitish army, and with it Saul and his sons, having fallen back thither from the plain before the victorious Philistines. 1 Samuel 31:9. Comp. 1 Chronicles 10:9 : “And they stripped him and took his head and his armor and sent …. ” Here it reads: And they cut off his head and stripped off his armor.—The And they sent is not to be connected with the “to publish it” (Then.), as if the Philistines had “beforehand” published the victory around, meantime retaining Saul’s head and armor, in order to carry them in triumph on their return, but according to the contrast we must supply “head and armor,” which they sent around to announce the good news to their idol-temples—that is, to the priests serving in the temples—and to the people.—Saul’s head and armor were the signs of victory for priests and people. Instead of “idol-temples” Chron. and Sept. have “idols” in accordance with the idea that the power of their idols was manifested in this victory. 1 Samuel 31:10. The Ashtaroth-houses are identical with these idol-temples. Instead of “Ashtaroth” Chron. has “their gods” [the general for the particular—Tr.]. And they fastened his body to the wall of Bethshan.—The Chronicler has: “And they fastened his head on the temple of Dagon;” that is, he omits the statement about the corpse and adds this about the head. According to 1 Samuel 31:12 the Philistines act in the same way with the corpses of Saul’s sons. Our narrator, being occupied from this point of view chiefly with Saul’s fate, was concerned to relate first what was done with Saul’s body. As Bethshan (the present Beisan, Rob. III., I., 408 [Am. ed. II. 320, 328, 354; III. 326–332]), according to this, was in the hands] of the Philistines (so 1 Samuel 31:7), they held the country as far as the Jordan [Bethshan is four miles west of the Jordan and twelve miles south of the sea of Galilee—Tr.]. The corpses were fastened on without the heads, the latter, with the armor, being fixed on the temples as trophies of victory. 1 Samuel 31:11-13. The interment of the corpses by the inhabitants of Jabesh-Gilead. 1 Samuel 31:11. When the Jabeshites heard what the Philistines had done to Saul, they thought of what Saul had once done for them (1 Samuel 11.)—[Bib. Com.: a touching and rare example of national gratitude.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 31:12. They went the whole night and took (under cover of darkness) the corpses from the wall and brought them to Jabesh-Gilead and burnt them.—The bodies were burned (a practice peculiar to heathendom, allowed in Israel only in the case of the worst criminals, Leviticus 20) instead of being buried, as was usual, not because the Jabeshites feared further insult to the corpses if the Philistines should take their city (Then. [Philipps.]), but probably because their mutilation rendered them unfit for ordinary burial. The Chaldee, in contradiction with the text, understands the “burning” to refer to the solemn burning of spices, which was afterwards customary at the burial of kings. 1 Samuel 31:13. They took their bones and buried them; only the flesh, therefore, was burned, perhaps because it had already putrefied. They buried the bones under the tamarisk at Jabesh; the Chronicler: “under the oak at Jabesh.” The Art. indicates a well-known tree. The Chronicler, omitting the “night-march,” does not mention the taking of the bodies from the wall, as he had not mentioned their being fastened there, and also omits the burning of the corpses “because it was contrary to the prevailing custom” (Then.), not because he could not reconcile it with the burial of the bones (Keil). With grateful remembrance of Saul’s rescue of Jabesh, a public mourning with a seven days’ fast was made for him. David afterwards caused the bones to be interred in Saul’s family burial place at Zelah in Benjamin (2 Samuel 21:11-14). AND 1. The deepest and the real ground of Saul’s last dark act of self-destruction is not the extremity of the moment nor fear of insult from the enemy (Wuttcke, Eth. II. 171), though his words make this the immediate occasion of his suicide, but the decay of his inner life, which we have traced step by step, through unchecked self-will and unbending pride towards the living God, and through the complete severance of his heart from God. The straitened and disgraceful position to which the Philistines had brought him, whence there was no escape with life, was the result of his persistent, stubborn disobedience to God, and of the inward judicial infliction of self-hardening. As self-willed lord of his life, unbending, haughty controller of his fate over against God, he will put an end to his life; this is the end of the insoluble contradiction in which he had placed himself towards the holy and just God; this is the act of completed despair, in which God’s judgment is exhausted, and he himself must be its instrument. 2. In consequence of Saul’s misgovernment and his last unfortunate war with the Philistines, the kingdom of Israel had become disorganized. The latter part of his reign was a time of disintegration of the people, which had lost its proper unity under the theocratic king, and fallen into a disorganized condition like that of the Period of the Judges. A glimpse into this state of confusion is given us not merely by the indication in the First Book of Samuel of the support that David found during his persecution by Saul, but also by the additional statements in First Chronicles of the adhesion of fighting men to him and his cause. 1) 1 Chronicles 12:8-18 mentions not merely men of Judah, but also Gadites and Benjaminites, who came to him in the wilderness of Judah, comp. 1 Sam. 22:24-2) 1 Chronicles 12:1-7 relates the coming of the brave Benjaminites while David was in Ziklag, 1 Samuel 27:1 to 1 Samuel 7:3) 1 Chronicles 12:19-22 tells of the Manassites who joined him after his return to Ziklag before Saul’s last battle with the Philistines, 1 Samuel 29:3 sq. Thus David had an army in Ziklag (comp. 1 Chronicles 12:21), composed of fighting men from various tribes, who had gradually gathered around him, with which he was able immediately after Saul’s death to establish (first in Judah, in Hebron) the theocratic kingdom that had been delivered to him by divine calling and choice (comp. 2 Samuel 2:1-11).—Ewald: “The city became in fact the foundation of David’s whole kingdom.” AND 1 Samuel 31:1. Osiander: For the sake of an ungodly ruler sometimes a whole people or land is punished.—Starke: They who share the sin are justly made to share the punishment also. Even God’s people do not always carry off the victory, and their sins are commonly to blame for it. 1 Samuel 31:2. Cramer: In common punishments pious people must often suffer along with the ungodly (Ezekiel 21:3; Ecclesiastes 9:2). But let no one take offence at this, let him rather believe that to them that love God, even such things must work together for good (Romans 8:28).—[Henry: Jonathan falls with the rest. 1. God would hereby complete the judgment that was to be executed upon Saul’s house. 2. He would hereby make David’s way to the crown clear and open. Jonathan himself would have cheerfully resigned all his title and interest to him; but his friends would probably have been zealous for the right line of succession. 3. God would hereby show us that the difference between good and bad is to be made in the other world, not in this.—Tr.]—Tueb. Bible: God bears long with sinners, especially the revengeful; but at last His judgments break in so that they can no longer be kept back. 1 Samuel 31:3. Berl. Bib.: Saul’s death is a mournful picture of the dreadful death of a soul that forsakes the tranquillity and the way of God, in which through the goodness of God it had been led, and falls from one sin into another.—From what the Scriptures relate of Saul it can be seen how in souls that have swerved from the right path one sin is wont always to follow upon another. 1 Samuel 31:4. Hedinger [from Hall]: Wicked men care more for the shame of the world than the danger of their souls (Judges 9:54).—Schlier: So ends the man who formerly began well. How frightful it is to die in one’s sins, to depart impenitent, to go uncalled before the judgment-seat of God! How terrible it is to have nothing to show but a wasted time of grace!—[Hall: Evil examples, especially of the great, never escaped imitation; the armor-bearer of Saul follows his master, and dares do that to himself which to his king he durst not.—Tr.] 1 Samuel 31:6. Cramer: When God’s wrath blazes out, there is no ceasing. And it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God (Hebrews 10:31).—S. Schmid: The judgments of God, which befall the pious and the ungodly alike, are rather to be wondered at than curiously investigated.—Schlier: A fearful end is only the conclusion of a foregoing life; sin begins little and invisible, hardening goes on step by step. Sin is a frightful power: first man commits sin, and when he has long continued to commit it, he is at length unable to cease from it, and the end is that he no longer wishes to cease from it. Think of Saul’s end and learn in time to be wise. 1 Samuel 31:7. Berl. Bib.: So finely has Saul presided over the kingdom of Israel through his perverse ways, that even so many cities have been lost. O how there does arise even in temporal things nothing but injury through perverse ways, especially those of the shepherds and leaders of the people!—Starke: When God designs to punish His people, He takes away their courage, so that even at a rustling leaf they fear and flee (Leviticus 26:36).—Cramer: No one sits too high for God; He can easily cast down even the mighty to the ground (Luke 1:52; Ezekiel 21:6; Sir 10:5).—[1 Samuel 31:9-10. Henry: Thus did they ascribe the honor of their victory, not, as they ought to have done, to the real justice of the true God, but to the imaginary power of their false gods; and by this respect paid to pretended deities, shame those who give not the praise of their achievements to the living God.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:4. Suicide, as illustrated by the case of Saul: I. Causes: 1) Not merely accumulated misfortunes, but long-continued wrong-doing; 2) Cowardly fear of suffering (1 Samuel 31:3), even in a man formerly brave; 3) Caring more for disgrace than for sin; 4) Abandonment of trust in God, as to this life and the future life. II. Effects: 1) Others led by the example into the same folly and sin (1 Samuel 31:5); 2) Personal dishonor not really prevented (1 Samuel 31:4; 1 Samuel 31:9-10); 3) A crowning and lasting reproach to the man’s memory. [1 Samuel 31:11-13. The exploit of the men of Jabesh-Gilead: 1) It was a brave deed; 2) A patriotic deed; 3) A grateful deed (chap. 11); 4) But the bravery, patriotism and gratitude had been better shown before Saul’s death by helping him (which they do not appear to have done). Honors after death make poor amends for neglect and unfaithfulness during life; 5) And care of the poor remains could avail little for the man’s reputation in this world, and nothing for his repose in eternity.—Tr.] Footnotes: [1 Samuel 31:1. The Partcp. is found also in the Syr. and Chald. (“the Phil. were breaking out in war”). The parallel passage, 1 Chronicles 10:1, has the Perf., which Wellh. prefers here on the ground that the statement is too important to be made in the form of an adjectival sentence; but the principal thought in the mind of the writer was Saul’s death, not the fact of the battle.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:1. Erdmann: “And there fell down slain men,” which is so far better, as the Eng. A. V. seems to represent all the men of Israel as falling down slain. But this general, indefinite phrase, would not be strange in Heb.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:2. On the form of the verb omission of the i in the Hiph. Impf. see Ew. § 232) c 2. Ges. § 53.3, Rem. 4. Green § 94 c. The other examples of this shortening (which is regular in Aramaic) are 1 Samuel 14:22; Jeremiah 9:2—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:2. Sept. writes these names Aminadab and Melchisa, which are misreadings of the text. The difference of pronunciation in the second name (e instead of our masoretic a) is to be noticed.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:3. Fully: “The archers (or, throwers), men with the bow,” in which the ΰֲ ?πָ ?ωִׁ ?ιν (omitted in 1 Chronicles 10:3) makes a grammatical difficulty. But, as its harshness will account for its omission in Chron., and we could not well account for its presence here by clerical error, it is better to retain it as a phrase explanatory of ξεֹ ?ψιν, which Chron. also explains by the word “bow” = “throwers with the bow.”—Wellh. conjectures that ϊεֹ ?ψֶ ?δ is not connected with ιָ ?ψָ ?δ, but = ξַ ?ςֲ ?ψָ ?δ and means any “caster,” coming to the Hebrews from the Ph�nicians.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:4. The verb. “thrust through” is not found in 1 Chronicles 10:4, and Wellh. proposes to omit it here because Saul could not in any case hope to escape this fate at the hands of the enemy. But Saul asks only that he may not be slain by the enemy. Bertheau’s view that the word is here a copyist’s erroneous repetition of the preceding “thrust through” is replied to by Thenius: if Saul had only feared capture, we should have had in the text besides the “come” some such word as “seize.”—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:6. Instead of βּ ?ν several MSS. and one Targum. MS. (De Rossi) read εְ ?βַ ?ν “and also all his men.” The substitution of “all his house” in 1 Chronicles 10:6, for “all his men” does not warrant us in changing this text. Our phrase is not to be considered as a “slight exaggeration,” nor as foreign to our author (as, namely, a weakening of the tragic impression made by the simple truth), but as a general phrase = his whole army, not unusual among historical writers.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:7. Instead of “on the other side” or “beyond,” Erdmann renders “on the side of,” which conveys the sense here, though it is not a literal rendering. The word ςֵ ?αֶ ?ψ means “beyond” (so Gesen. against Fόrst) and describes either side of a river according to the position of the speaker or writer; thus it may in some instances = the country on the side of a river or plain. As it apparently here describes the western side of the Jordan, it might seem that the narator lived east of the river (Bib. Com.); but this is not necessary, as the phrase may have the general meaning above stated.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:9. Whether they sent messengers (in which case the Qal would be the appropriate form of the verb) or the head and armour (as the Piel of the text would indicate) is doubtful.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:9. There is no reason why we should assimilate the texts of Samuel and Chronicles here, reading ΰֶ ?ϊ (Chr.) for αֵ ?ιϊ (Sam.). Some MSS., however, give the latter reading in 1 Chronicles 10:9, no doubt from the disposition to assimilate.—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:10. The Chald. has “suspended” φψα = Heb. ϊμΰ, which is found in 2 Samuel 21:12; the difference in the wording is not unnatural, and we need not read here δֹ ?χִ ?ςεּ (from ιχς “impale”) instead of ϊָּ ?χְ ?ςεּ (Wellhausen).—Tr.] [1 Samuel 31:10. On the supposition that this verse and 1 Chronicles 10:10 are both parts of a longer statement, various attempts have been made to re-establish the original complete text. Ewald (Gesch. III. 152 Rem.) inserts in our verse after “Ashtaroth” the words: “and his skull in the house of Dagon,” the Chronicler then inserting ϊχςε from the last clause. The difficulty in this attempt is not so much to account for the ϊχςε in Chron. (Wellh.), as to account for the omission of the clause in Sam. Why not state that Saul’s skull was hung up in the temple of Dagon? Wellhausen’s view that the “body” (πְּ ?εִ ?ιָּ ?δ) and “skull” (πֻּ ?μְ ?πּ ?μֶֹ ?ϊ) refer to the same fact is in itself not improbable; one account might use the general word “body,” the other might mention the most striking part, the “skull.” In that case the “Beth-Dagon” must be identified with the “wall of Bethshan” by supposing that the temple of Dagon was in Beth-Shan. This, however, is an improbable supposition, and there remains the view that the two texts were not originally identical, but that the two accounts vary by mentioning different circumstances in the general fact. Wellhausen also holds that the two verses are not constructed from one original text.—Observe that instead of the βְּ ?εִ ?ιַּ ?δ of Samuel, Chron. has βּ ?εּ ?τָ ?δ, perhaps in obedience to a change in good usage.—Tr.] [See “Text. and Grammat.”—Tr.] [See “Text. and Gramm.” where Erdmann’s translation: “on the side of the plain and on the side of Jordan” is accepted as conveying the sense. But the ordinary rendering “beyond Jordan” may be retained (as in Eng. A. V.) by supposing that the panic was so great as to extend to the other side of the river, and that the Philistines temporarily occupied the transjordanic cities. Similarly the people “beyond the plain” were panic-struck and fled.—Tr.] The sing. αιϊ with a plu. subst. in plu. sense as in Exodus 6:14. [This is thought by the Bib. Comm. to be the famous temple of Venus at Askelon.—Tr.] [Other supposed cases of burning of corpses are Amos 6:10; 2 Chronicles 16:14; Jeremiah 34:5, of which the two last, however, refer to spice-burnings, and the first may be rendered “his uncle and his kinsman,” or the cremation may express the extreme suffering and religious declension of the nation.—Tr.]