Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - 1 Samuel 10:1 - 10:27
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Saul’s Introduction into the Royal Office
1Sa_10:1-27
I. Saul anointed by samuel. 1Sa_10:1
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.
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].
II. 1Sa_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 (1Sa_10:2; 1 Samuel 3, 4; 1 Samuel 5, 6).
The first sign, 1Sa_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 Jer_31:15 : “a voice is heard in Ramah,—Rachel weeping for her children.” The declaration in Mat_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 Gen_35:16-20; Gen_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. 1Sa_17:12; Mic_5:2); but these indefinite expressions (kibrah is merely tract, see 2Ki_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 2Ch_13:19 (Qeri òֶôְøַéִï Ephrain, Kethib òֶôְøåֹï Ephron) and Jos. B. J. 4, 9. 9, and mentioned in Joh_11:54, according to Jerome twenty Roman miles (Onom. s. v. Ephron) north of Jerusalem (comp. Jos_15:9), named Ephron, according to von Raumer’s conjecture (p. 216 A. 235 e) identical with Ophrah (comp. 1Sa_13:17). On this supposition the grave of Rachel was, according to Graf, “very near Rama (1Sa_10:2), at the intersection of the road from Bethel to the neighboring Ephrah (2Sa_13:23; 2Ch_13:19; see Then, and Bertheau in loco, Gen_35:16 sq.; Gen_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.: ἁíäñáò ἁëëïìÝíïõò ìåãÜëá , 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” ( áְּ , áְּöֵìָòָä with ä local); Zela was the place of the sepulchre of Saul’s father (2Sa_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).
1Sa_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 Gen_35:8 as to the oak ( àַìּåֹï , Allon) near which, “beneath Bethel,” Deborah, the nurse of Rebekah, was buried, and with the statement in Jdg_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, Jdg_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, Gen_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 Gen_12:8; Gen_13:3-4, as to the latter Gen_28:18; Gen_19:35; Gen_6:7; Gen_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 (1Sa_17:22; 2Ki_10:13; Exo_18:7; Jdg_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]).
1Sa_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 (1Sa_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 (1Sa_11:4; 1Sa_15:34; 2Sa_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 ðְöִáֵé ô× [“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 1Sa_7:14). For a similar procedure see 2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14. The substitution of the Sing. ( ðְöִéá ) 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 1Sa_13:3-4, this Sing. denotes a pillar set up by the Philistines as a sign of their authority (Then, and Böttcher). 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 1Sa_13:3-4, and as in 2Sa_8:6; 2Sa_8:14, as a military colony stationed there.—A company of prophets ( çֶáֶì “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. 1Sa_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 ( ðֶáֶì , nebel) is a cithernlike stringed instrument, which, according to Jerome, Isidorus and Cassiodorus, had the form of an inverted Delta, and, according to Psa_33:2; Psa_144:9, had ten strings (Jos. Ant. 7, 10 says twelve strings), called by the Greeks íÜâëá , nablium, psalterium; it was commonly used, as here, in sacred songs of praise (1Ki_10:12; 1Ch_15:16), but also on secular festive occasions (2Ch_20:28). The kinnor ( ëִּðåֹø [Eng. A. V. harp]) was another stringed instrument, apparently different from our harp (Luther), since it was played on in walking (comp. 2Sa_6:5), rather a sort of guitar, and with the nebel indicates complete string music (Psa_71:22; Psa_58:3 [2]; 1Sa_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 (1Sa_16:23; 1Sa_18:10; 1Sa_21:9) with the hand. The tabret ( úּå÷ , toph) is the hand-drum, the tambourine; used by Miriam, Exo_15:20. The fourth instrument is the flute ( çָìִéì ), 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. Müller, Dorier I., 346 [Dorians]). There was a similar outflow of religious inspiration to the praise of God in the case of the seventy elders, Num_11:25.
1Sa_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 äִúְðַáִּéúָ 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.
1Sa_10:7. The general significance of the occurrence of these signs. When these signs come to thee (read úְּáֹàֶéðָä , Psa_45:16, “when all this happens to thee”), do what thy hand findeth—the same formula in 1Sa_25:8 and Jdg_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.
1Sa_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 1Sa_10:8 and its relation to 1Sa_8:8, the Introduction, pp. 11,12.
1Sa_10:9-12. The occurrence of the signs announced to Saul. 1Sa_10:9 refers to the fulfilment of the last, most important element of the third prophecy (1Sa_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 (1Sa_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 1Sa_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” ( êáὶ ἔñ÷åôáé ἐêåῖèåí ), 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 ùָׁí 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.
1Sa_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 1Sa_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”).
1Sa_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.”
1Sa_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 (Münster). 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.
1Sa_10:13-16. A family-scene: Saul and his uncle. 1Sa_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 ( áîä ), Then. (so Ew.) reads after the Sept. “to Gibeah” ( åἰò ôὸí âïõíüí , áְּâִáְòָä ). 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 1Sa_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.
1Sa_10:14. The uncle of Saul, here spoken of, was Ner (1Sa_14:51), who, like Kish (1Sa_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, 1Sa_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 (1Sa_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. 1Sa_10:17-21
1Sa_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 1Sa_7:5), solemnly to confirm and ratify the divine choice of Saul to be king of Israel, and to consecrate him to this office. Nägelsbach (Herz. R.-E., XIII. 401), referring to 1Sa_10:8, objects that the next meeting was not in Gilgal, but in Mizpah, and that, according to 1Sa_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 1Sa_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 (1Sa_10:24; 1Sa_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 (1Sa_10:7 : “whatever thy hand findeth”).
1Sa_10:18-19. Samuel’s introductory discourse. The “thus saith the Lord,” answers to the “to the Lord” of 1Sa_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 (1Sa_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.
1Sa_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 [1Sa_10:19] answers to the “I” at the beginning of the first part [1Sa_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 1Sa_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, 1Sa_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 (1Sa_7:9). hey were to appear by tribes and thousands, the latter here meaning the same thing as families ( îִùְׁôָּçåֹú ). To facilitate legal transactions Moses had divided the people into thousands, hundreds, etc., and appointed captains over all these divisions (Exo_18:25). This division probably followed as closely as possible the natural one, and so the designation thousands was used as synonymous with families (Num_1:16; Num_10:4; Jos_22:14, etc.), because the number of heads of houses in the several families of a tribe might easily reach a thousand (comp. 1Sa_10:21).
1Sa_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 (Jos_18:6; Jos_18:8; Jon_1:7; Eze_24:7), but sometimes by drawing from a vessel (Num_33:54; Lev_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).
1Sa_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 ( áָּúִּéí ) were next called (Jos_7:14), then from the patrœce or father-house ( áֵּéúÎàָá ) thus chosen the individual heads of families ( âְּáָøִéí ) 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 Jos_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. Nägelsbach 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. 1Sa_10:22-27.
1Sa_10:22. Inquiry of the Lord and divine answer in respect to the failure to find Saul. To inquire of the Lord (1Sa_22:10; 1Sa_23:9 sq.; 1Sa_28:6; 1Sa_30:7 sq.; 2Sa_2:1; Num_27:21; Jdg_1:1; Jdg_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 Gen_25:22—Tr.]. Though the latter is not here expressly mentioned, its presence must be assumed according to Exo_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” ( äåּà ) 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” ( óêåýç , 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 1Sa_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 (1Sa_9:2), as outward-physical qualification for the kingdom, very imposing to the people, is here again expressly mentioned ( åἶäïò ἄîéïí ôõñáííßäïò , 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 (1Sa_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.
1Sa_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” (1Sa_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 Deu_17:14-20, especially 1Sa_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 Sa