Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.comKeil and Delitzsch Commentary - 1 Samuel 10:17 - 10:17
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Saul's Election by Lot. - After Samuel had secretly anointed Saul king by the command of God, it was his duty to make provision for a recognition of the man whom God had chosen on the part of the people also. To this end he summoned the people to Mizpeh, and there instructed the tribes to choose a king by lot. As the result of the lot was regarded as a divine decision, not only was Saul to be accredited by this act in the sight of the whole nation as the king appointed by the Lord, but he himself was also to be more fully assured of the certainty of his own election on the part of God. -
(Note: Thenius follows De Wette, and adduces the incompatibility of 1 Samuel 8 and 1Sa 10:17-27 with 1Sa 9:1-10, 1Sa 9:16, as a proof that in 1Sa 10:17-27 we have a different account of the manner in which Saul became king from that given in 1Sa 9:1-10, 1Sa 9:16, and one which continues the account in 1Sa 8:22. “It is thoroughly inconceivable,” he says, “that Samuel should have first of all anointed Saul king by the instigation of God, and then have caused the lot to be cast, as it were, for the sake of further confirmation; for in that case either the prophet would have tempted God, or he would have made Him chargeable before the nation with an unworthy act of jugglery.” Such an argument as this could only be used by critics who deny not only the inspiration of the prophets, but all influence on the part of the living God upon the free action of men, and cannot therefore render the truth of the biblical history at all doubtful. Even Ewald sees no discrepancy here, and observes in his history (Gesch. iii. p. 32): “If we bear in mind the ordinary use made of the sacred lot at that time, we shall find that there is nothing but the simple truth in the whole course of the narrative. The secret meeting of the seer with Saul was not sufficient to secure a complete and satisfactory recognition of him as king; it was also necessary that the Spirit of Jehovah should single him out publicly in a solemn assembly of the nation, and point him out as the man of Jehovah.”)
1Sa 10:17
הָעָם is the nation in its heads and representatives. Samuel selected Mizpeh for this purpose, because it was there that he had once before obtained for the people, by prayer, a great victory over the Philistines (1Sa 7:5.).
1Sa 10:18-19
“But before proceeding to the election itself, Samuel once more charged the people with their sin in rejecting God, who had brought them out of Egypt, and delivered them out of the hand of all their oppressors, by their demand for a king, that he might show them how dangerous was the way which they were taking now, and how bitterly they would perhaps repent of what they had now desired” (O. v. Gerlach; see the commentary on 1 Samuel 8). The masculine הַלֹּחֲצִים is construed ad sensum with הַמַּמְלָכֹות. In לֹו וַתֹּאמְרוּ the early translators have taken לֹו for לֹא, which is the actual reading in some of the Codices. But although this reading is decidedly favoured by the parallel passages, 1Sa 8:19; 1Sa 12:12, it is not necessary; since כִּי is used to introduce a direct statement, even in a declaration of the opposite, in the sense of our “no but” (e.g., in Rth 1:10, where לָהּ precedes). There is, therefore, no reason for exchanging לֹו for לֹא.
1Sa 10:20-21
After this warning, Samuel directed the assembled Israelites to come before Jehovah (i.e., before the altar of Jehovah which stood at Mizpeh, according to 1Sa 7:9) according to their tribes and families (alaphim: see at Num 1:16); “and there was taken (by lot) the tribe of Benjamin.” הִלָּכֵד, lit. to be snatched out by Jehovah, namely, through the lot (see Jos 7:14, Jos 7:16). He then directed the tribe of Benjamin to draw near according to its families, i.e., he directed the heads of the families of this tribe to come before the altar of the Lord and draw lots; and the family of Matri was taken. Lastly, when the heads of the households in this family came, and after that the different individuals in the household which had been taken, the lot fell upon Saul the son of Kish. In the words, “Saul the son of Kish was taken,” the historian proceeds at once to the final result of the casting of the lots, without describing the intermediate steps any further.
(Note: It is true the Septuagint introduces the words καὶ προσάγουσι τὴν φυλὴν Ματταρὶ εἰς ἄνδρας before וַיִּלָּכֵד, and this clause is also found in a very recent Hebrew MS (viz., 451 in Kennicott's dissert. gener. p. 491). But it is very evident that these words did not form an integral part of the original text, as Thenius supposes, but were nothing more than an interpolation of the Sept. translators, from the simple fact that they do not fill up the supposed gap at all completely, but only in a very partial and in fact a very mistaken manner; for the family of Matri could not come to the lot εἰς ἄνδρας (man by man), but only κατ ̓ οἴκους (by households: Jos 7:14). Before the household (beth-aboth, father's house) of Saul could be taken, it was necessary that the גְּבָרִים (ἄνδρες), i.e., the different heads of households, should be brought; and it was not till then that Kish, or his son Saul, could be singled out as the appointed of the Lord. Neither the author of the gloss in the lxx, nor the modern defender of the gloss, has thought of this.)
When the lot fell upon Saul, they sought him, and he could not be found.
1Sa 10:22
Then they inquired of Jehovah, “Is any one else come hither?” and Jehovah replied, “Behold, he (whom ye are seeking) is hidden among the things.” The inquiry was made through the high priest, by means of the Urim and Thummim, for which בַּיהֹוָה שָׁאַל was the technical expression, according to Num 27:21 (see Jdg 20:27-28; Jdg 1:1, etc.). There can be no doubt, that in a gathering of the people for so important a purpose as the election of a king, the high priest would also be present, even though this is not expressly stated. Samuel presided over the meeting as the prophet of the Lord. The answer given by God, “Behold, he is hidden,” etc., appears to have no relation to the question, “Is any one else come?” The Sept. and Vulg. have therefore altered the question into ει ̓ ἔτι ἔρχεται ὁ ἀνήρ, utrumnam venturus esset; and Thenius would adopt this as an emendation. But he is wrong in doing so; for there was no necessity to ask whether Saul would still come: they might at once have sent to fetch him. What they asked was rather, whether any one else had come besides those who were present, as Saul was not to be found among them, that they might know where they were to look for Saul, whether at home or anywhere else. And to this question God gave the answer, “He is present, only hidden among the things.” By כֵּלִים (the things or vessels, Eng. ver. the stuff) we are to understand the travelling baggage of the people who had assembled at Mizpeh. Saul could neither have wished to avoid accepting the monarchy, nor have imagined that the lot would not fall upon him if he hid himself. For he knew that God had chosen him; and Samuel had anointed him already. He did it therefore simply from humility and modesty. “In order that he might not appear to have either the hope or desire for anything of the kind, he preferred to be absent when the lots were cast” (Seb. Schmidt).
1Sa 10:23-25
He was speedily fetched, and brought into the midst of the (assembled) people; and when he came, he was a head taller than all the people (see 1Sa 9:2). And Samuel said to all the people, “Behold ye whom the Lord hath chosen! for there is none like him in all the nation.” Then all the people shouted aloud, and cried, “Let the king live!” Saul's bodily stature won the favour of the people (see the remarks on 1Sa 9:2).
Samuel then communicated to the people the right of the monarchy, and laid it down before Jehovah. “The right of the monarchy” (meluchah) is not to be identified with the right of the king (melech), which is described in 1Sa 8:11 and sets forth the right or prerogative which a despotic king would assume over the people; but it is the right which regulated the attitude of the earthly monarchy in the theocracy, and determined the duties and rights of the human king in relation to Jehovah the divine King on the one hand, and to the nation on the other. This right could only be laid down by a prophet like Samuel, to raise a wholesome barrier at the very outset against all excesses on the part of the king. Samuel therefore wrote it in a document which was laid down before Jehovah, i.e., in the sanctuary of Jehovah; though certainly not in the sanctuary at Bamah in Gibeah, as Thenius supposes, for nothing is known respecting any such sanctuary. It was no doubt placed in the tabernacle, where the law of Moses was also deposited, by the side of the fundamental law of the divine state in Israel. When the business was all completed, Samuel sent the people away to their own home.
1Sa 10:26
Saul also returned to his house at Gibeah, and there went with him the crowd of the men whose hearts God had touched, sc., to give him a royal escort, and show their readiness to serve him. הַחַיִל is not to be altered into הַחַיִל בְּנֵי, according to the free rendering of the lxx, but is used as in Exo 14:28; with this difference, however, that here it does not signify a large military force, but a crowd of brave men, who formed Saul's escort of honour.
1Sa 10:27
But as it generally happens that, where a person is suddenly lifted up to exalted honours or office, there are sure to be envious people found, so was it here: there were בְלִיַּעַל בְּנֵי, worthless people, even among the assembled Israelites, who spoke disparagingly of Saul, saying, “How will this man help us?” and who brought him no present. Minchah: the present which from time immemorial every one has been expected to bring when entering the presence of the king; so that the refusal to bring a present was almost equivalent to rebellion. But Saul was “as being deaf,” i.e., he acted as if he had not heard. The objection which Thenius brings against this view, viz., that in that case it would read כְם הָיָה וְהוּא, exhibits a want of acquaintance with the Hebrew construction of a sentence. There is no more reason for touching וַיְהִי than וַיֵּלְכוּ in 1Sa 10:26. In both cases the apodosis is attached to the protasis, which precedes it in the form of a circumstantial clause, by the imperfect, with vav consec. According to the genius of our language, these protases would be expressed by the conjunction when, viz.: “when Saul also went home, ... there went with him,” etc.; and “when loose (or idle) people said, etc., he was as deaf.”