Bible Commentaries
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
1 Samuel 13
The history of the reign of Saul commences with this chapter;
(Note: The connection of 1 Samuel 13:8-11 of this chapter with 1 Samuel 10:8 isadduced in support of the hypothesis that 1 Samuel 13 forms a directcontinuation of the account that was broken off in 1 Samuel 10:16. Thisconnection must be admitted; but it by no means follows that in thesource from which the books before us were derived, 1 Samuel 13 wasdirectly attached to 1 Samuel 8:16, and that Samuel intended tointroduce Saul publicly as king here in Gilgal immediately before theattack upon the Philistines, to consecrate him by the solemnpresentation of sacrifices, and to connect with this the religiousconsecration of the approaching campaign. For there is not a wordabout any such intention in the chapter before us or in 1 Samuel 10:8,nor even the slightest hint at it. Thenius has founded this view of hisupon his erroneous interpretation of ירדתּ in 1 Samuel 10:8 as an imperative, as if Samuel intended to command Saul to go toGilgal immediately after the occurrence of the signs mentioned in 1 Samuel 10:2.: a view which is at variance with the instructions given tohim, to do what his hand should find after the occurrence of thosesigns. To this we may also add the following objections: How is it conceivable that Saul, who concealed his anointing even from his own family after his return from Samuel to Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:16), should have immediately after chosen 3000 men of Israel to begin the war against the Philistines? How did Saul attain to any such distinction, that at his summons all Israel gathered round him as their king, even before he had been publicly proclaimed king in the presence of the people, and before he had secured the confidence of the people by any kingly heroic deed? The fact of his having met with a band of prophets, and even prophesied in his native town of Gibeah after his departure from Samuel, and that this had become a proverb, is by no means enough to explain the enterprises described in 1 Samuel 8:1-7, which so absolutely demand the incidents that occurred in the meantime as recorded in 1 Samuel 10:17-12:25 even to make them intelligible, that any writing in which 1 Samuel 13:2. following directly upon 1 Samuel 10:16 would necessarily be regarded as utterly faulty. This fact, which I have already adduced in my examination of the hypothesis defended by Thenius in my Introduction to the Old Testament (p. 168), retains its force undiminished, even though, after a renewed investigation of the question, I have given up the supposed connection between 1 Samuel 10:8 and the proclamation mentioned in 1 Samuel 11:14., which I defended there.)
and according to the standing custom in the history ofthe kings, it opens with a statement of the age of the king when he beganto reign, and the number of years that his reign lasted. If, for example, wecompare the form and contents of this verse with 2 Samuel 2:10; 2 Samuel 5:4; 1 Kings 14:21; 1 Kings 22:42; 2 Kings 8:26, and other passages, where the age is given atwhich Ishbosheth, David, and many of the kings of Judah began to reign,and also the number of years that their reign lasted, there can be no doubtthat our verse was also intended to give the same account concerning Saul,and therefore that every attempt to connect this verse with the one whichfollows is opposed to the uniform historical usage. Moreover, even if, as a matter of necessity, the second clause of _1 Samuel 13:1 couldbe combined with 1 Samuel 13:2 in the following manner: He was two years kingover Israel, then Saul chose 3000 men, etc.; the first half of the versewould give no reasonable sense, according to the Masoretic text that hascome down to us. בּמלכו שׁאוּל בּן־שׁנה cannot possibly berendered “jam per annum regnaverat Saul,” “Saul had been king for a year,”or “Saul reigned one year,” but can only mean “Saul was a year old whenhe became king.” This is the way in which the words have been correctlyrendered by the Sept. and Jerome; and so also in the Chaldee paraphrase(“Saul was an innocent child when he began to reign”) this is the way inwhich the text has been understood.
It is true that this statement as to his age is obviously false; but all thatfollows from that is, that there is an error in the text, namely, that betweenבּן and שׁנה the age has fallen out, - a thing which couldeasily take place, as there are many traces to show that originally thenumbers were not written in words, but only in letters that were used asnumerals. This gap in the text is older than the Septuagint version, as ourpresent text is given there. There is, it is true, an anonymus in the hexapla,in which we find the reading υἱὸς τριάκοντα ἐτῶν Σαούλ ; but this is certainly not according to ancient MSS, but simplyaccording to a private conjecture, and that an incorrect one. For since Saulalready had a son, Jonathan, who commanded a division of the army in thevery first years of his reign, and therefore must have been at least twentyyears of age, if not older, Saul himself cannot have been less than fortyyears old when he began to reign. Moreover, in the second half of the verse also, the number given isevidently a wrong one, and the text therefore equally corrupt; for therendering “when he had reigned two years over Israel” is opposed both bythe parallel passages already quoted, and also by the introduction of thename Saul as the subject in 1 Samuel 13:2 , which shows very clearly that 1 Samuel 13:2 commences a fresh sentence, and is not merely the apodosis to 1 Samuel 13:1 . ButSaul's reign must have lasted longer than two years, even if, in oppositionto all analogies to be found elsewhere, we should understand the two yearsas merely denoting the length of his reign up to the time of his rejection(1 Samuel 15), and not till the time of his death. Even then he reigned longer thanthat; for he could not possibly have carried on all the wars mentioned in 1 Samuel 14:47, with Moab, Ammon, Edom, the kings of Zobah and thePhilistines, in the space of two years. Consequently a numeral, say כ, twenty, must also have dropped out before שׁנים שׁתּי (two years); since there are cogent reasons for assuming that hisreign lasted as long as twenty or twenty-two years, reckoning to the timeof his death. We have given the reasons themselves in connection with thechronology of the period of the judges (pp. 206f.).
(Note: The traditional account that Saul reigned forty years (Acts 13:24, and Josephus, Ant. vi. 14, 9) is supposed to have arisen,according to the conjecture of Thenius (on 2 Samuel 2:10), from thefact that his son Ishbosheth was forty years old when he began toreign, and the notion that as he is not mentioned among the sons ofSaul in 1 Samuel 14:49, he must have been born after thecommencement of Saul's own reign. This conjecture is certainly aprobable one; but it is much more natural to assume that as David andSolomon reigned forty years, it arose from the desire to make Saul'sreign equal to theirs.)
The war with the Philistines (1 Samuel 13-14) certainly falls, at least so far asthe commencement is concerned, in the very earliest part of Saul's reign. This we must infer partly from the fact, that at the very time when Saulwas seeking for his father's asses, there was a military post of thePhilistines at Gibeah (1 Samuel 10:5), and therefore the Philistines hadalready occupied certain places in the land; and partly also from the fact,that according to this chapter Saul selected an army of 3000 men out of thewhole nation, took up his post at Michmash with 2000 of them, placingthe other thousand at Gibeah under his son Jonathan, and sent the rest ofthe people home (1 Samuel 13:2), because his first intention was simply to check thefurther advance of the Philistines. The dismission of the rest of the peopleto their own homes presupposes that the whole of the fighting men of thenation were assembled together. But as no other summoning together of the people has been mentionedbefore, except to the war upon the Ammonites at Jabesh (1 Samuel 11:6-7),where all Israel gathered together, and at the close of which Samuel hadcalled the people and their king to Gilgal (1 Samuel 11:14), the assumption isa very probable one, that it was there at Gilgal, after the renewal of themonarchy, that Saul formed the resolution at once to make war upon thePhilistines, and selected 3000 fighting men for the purpose out of thewhole number that were collected together, and then dismissed theremainder to their homes. In all probability Saul did not consider thateither he or the Israelites were sufficiently prepared as yet to undertake awar upon the Philistines generally, and therefore resolved, in the firstplace, only to attack the outpost of the Philistines, which was advanced asfar as Gibeah, with a small number of picked soldiers. According to thissimple view of affairs, the war here described took place at the verycommencement of Saul's reign; and the chapter before us is closelyconnected with the preceding one.
1 Samuel 13:2
Saul posted himself at Michmash and on the mount of Bethelwith his two thousand men. Michmash, the present Mukhmas, a village inruins upon the northern ridge of the Wady Suweinit, according to theOnom. (s. v. Machmas), was only nine Roman miles to the north ofJerusalem, whereas it took Robinson three hours and a half to go from oneto the other (Pal. ii. p. 117). Bethel (Beitin; see at Joshua 7:2) is to the north-west of this, at a distance of two hours' journey, if you take the road pastDeir-Diwan. The mountain (הר) of Bethel cannot be preciselydetermined. Bethel itself was situated upon very high ground; and theruins of Beitin are completely surrounded by heights (Rob. ii. p. 126; andv. Raumer, Pal. pp. 178-9). Jonathan stationed himself with his thousandmen at (by) Gibeah of Benjamin, the native place and capital of Saul,which was situated upon Tell el Phul (see at Joshua 18:28), about an hourand a half form Michmas.
1 Samuel 13:3-4
“And Jonathan smote the garrison of the Philistines that was atGeba,” probably the military post mentioned in 1 Samuel 10:5, which hadbeen advanced in the meantime as far as Geba. For Geba is not to beconfounded with Gibeah, from which it is clearly distinguished in 1 Samuel 13:16 ascompared with 1 Samuel 13:15, but is the modern Jeba, between the Wady Suweinitand Wady Fara, to the north-west of Ramah (er-Râm; see at Joshua 18:24). “The Philistines heard this. And Saul had the trumpet blown throughoutthe whole land, and proclamation made: let the Hebrews hear it.” לאמר after בּשּׁופר תּקע points out the proclamationthat was made after the alarm given by the (shophar) (see 2 Samuel 20:1; 1 Kings 1:34, 1 Kings 1:39, etc.). The object to “let them hear” may be easily suppliedfrom the context, viz., Jonathan's feat of arms. Saul had this trumpeted inthe whole land, not only as a joyful message for the Hebrews, but also asan indirect summons to the whole nation to rise and make war upon thePhilistines. In the word שׁמע (hear), there is often involved theidea of observing, laying to heart that which is heard. If we understand ישׁמעוּ in this sense here, and the next versedecidedly hints at it, there is no ground whatever for the objection whichThenius, who follows the lxx, has raised to העברים ישׁמעוּ. He proposes this emendation, העברים ישׁמעוּ,“let the Hebrews fall away,” according to the Alex. text ἠθετήκασιν οἱ δοῦλοι , without reflecting that the very expression οἱδοῦλοι is sufficientto render the Alex. reading suspicious, and that Saul could not havesummoned the people in all the land to fall away from the Philistines,since they had not yet conquered and taken possession of the whole. Moreover, the correctness of ישׁמעוּ is confirmed byישׁמעוּ ישׂראל וכל in 1 Samuel 13:4. “All Israel heard,” not the call to fallaway, but the news, “Saul has smitten a garrison of the Philistines, andIsrael has also made itself stinking with the Philistines,” i.e., hated inconsequence of the bold and successful attack made by Jonathan, whichproved that the Israelites would no longer allow themselves to beoppressed by the Philistines. “And the people let themselves be calledtogether after Saul to Gilgal.” הצּעק, to permit to summon to war (asin Judges 7:23-24). The words are incorrectly rendered by the Vulgate,“clamavit ergo populus post Saul,” and by Luther, “Then the people criedafter Saul to Gilgal.” Saul drew back to Gilgal, when the Philistinesadvanced with a large army, to make preparations for the further conflict(see at 1 Samuel 13:13).
1 Samuel 13:5
The Philistines also did not delay to avenge the defeat at Geba. They collected an innumerable army: 30,000 chariots, 6000 horsemen, andpeople, i.e., foot-soldiers, without number (as the sand by the sea-shore;cf. Judges 7:12; Joshua 11:4, etc.). רכב by the side of פּרשׁים can only mean war chariots. 30,000 war chariots, however, bear noproportion whatever to 6000 horsemen, not only because the number ofwar chariots is invariably smaller than that of the horsemen (cf. 2 Samuel 10:18; 1 Kings 10:26; 2 Chronicles 12:3), but also, as Bochart observes in hisHieroz. p. i. lib. ii. c. 9, because such a number of war chariots is never metwith either in sacred or profane history, not even in the case of nationsthat were much more powerful than the Philistines. The number istherefore certainly corrupt, and we must either read 3000 (אל שׁלשׁת instead of אל שׁלשׁים), according to the Syriac and Arabic,or else simply 1000; and in the latter case the origin of the number thirtymust be attributed to the fact, that through the oversight of a copyist the ל of the word ישׂראל was written twice, and consequently thesecond ל was taken for the numeral thirty. This army was encamped “atMichmash, before (i.e., in the front, or on the western side of) Bethaven:”for, according to Joshua 7:2, Bethaven was to the east of Michmash; andקדמת when it occurs in geographical accounts, does not “alwaysmean to the east,” as Thenius erroneously maintains, but invariably meanssimply “in front” (see at Genesis 2:14).
(Note: Consequently there is no ground whatever for altering the textaccording to the confused rendering of the lxx, ἐν Μαχμὰς ἐξ ἐναντὶας Βαιθωρὼν κατὰ νότου , for the purpose of substituting forthe correct statement in the text a description which would begeographically wrong, viz., to the south-east of Beth-horon, sinceMichmash was neither to the south nor to the south-east, but to theeast of Beth-horon.)
1 Samuel 13:6-7
When the Israelites saw that they had come into a strait (צר־לו), for the people were oppressed (by the Philistines), they hidthemselves in the caves, thorn-bushes, rocks (i.e., clefts of the rocks),fortresses (צרחים: see at Judges 9:46), and pits (which were to be foundin the land); and Hebrews also went over the Jordan into the land of Gadand Gilead, whilst Saul was still at Gilgal; and all the people (the people ofwar who had been called together, v. 4) trembled behind him, i.e., weregathered together in his train, or assembled round him as leader, tremblingor in despair.
The Gilgal mentioned here cannot be Jiljilia, which is situated upon thehigh ground, as assumed in the Comm. on Joshua, pp. 68f., but must bethe Gilgal in the valley of the Jordan. This is not only favoured by theexpression ירדוּ (the Philistines will come down fromMichmash to Gilgal, 1 Samuel 13:12), but also by ויּעל (Samuel went upfrom Gilgal to Gibeah, 1 Samuel 13:15), and by the general attitude of Saul and hisarmy towards the Philistines. As the Philistines advanced with a powerfularmy, after Jonathan's victory over their garrison at Geba (to the south ofMichmash), and encamped at Michmash (1 Samuel 13:5); and Saul, afterwithdrawing from Gilgal, where he had gathered the Israelites together (1 Samuel 13:4, 1 Samuel 13:8, 1 Samuel 13:12), with Jonathan and the six hundred men who were with him whenthe muster took place, took up his position at Geba (1 Samuel 13:15, 1 Samuel 13:16), fromwhich point Jonathan attacked the Philistine post in the pass ofMichmash (1 Samuel 13:23, and 1 Samuel 14:1.): Saul must have drawn back from theadvancing army of the Philistines to the Gilgal in the Jordan valley, tomake ready for the battle by collecting soldiers and presenting sacrifices,and then, after this had been done, must have advanced once more toGibeah and Geba to commence the war with the army of the Philistinesthat was encamped at Michmash. If, on the other hand, he had gonenorthwards to Jiljilia from Michmash, where he was first stationed, toescape the advancing army of the Philistines; he would have had to attackthe Philistines from the north when they were encamped at Michmash,and could not possibly have returned to Geba without coming into conflictwith the Philistines, since Michmash was situated between Jiljilia andGeba.
Saul's untimely sacrifice. - 1 Samuel 13:8, 1 Samuel 13:9. Saul waited seven days for Samuel'scoming, according to the time appointed by Samuel (see at 1 Samuel 10:8),before proceeding to offer the sacrifices through which the help of theLord was to be secured for the approaching campaign (see 1 Samuel 13:12); and asSamuel did not come, the people began to disperse and leave him. TheKethib וייחל is either the Niphal ויּיּחל, as in Genesis 8:12, or Piel וייחל; and the Keri ויּוחל (Hiphil) isunnecessary. The verb יעד may easily be supplied to שׁמוּאל אשׁר from the word למּועד (see Ges. Lehrgeb. p. 851).
1 Samuel 13:9
Saul then resolved, in his anxiety lest the people should lose allheart and forsake him altogether if there were any further delay, that hewould offer the sacrifice without Samuel. העולה ויּעל does not imply that Saul offered the sacrifice with his own hand,i.e., that he performed the priestly function upon this occasion. The co-operation of the priests in performing the duties belonging to them on suchan occasion is taken for granted, just as in the case of the sacrifices offeredby David and Solomon (2 Samuel 24:25; 1 Kings 3:4; 1 Kings 8:63).
1 Samuel 13:10-12
The offering of the sacrifice was hardly finished when Samuelcame and said to Saul, as he came to meet him and salute him, “What hastthou done?” Saul replied, “When I saw that the people were scatteredaway from me, and thou camest not at the time appointed, and thePhilistines were assembled at Michmash, I thought the Philistines willcome down to me to Gilgal now (to attack me), before I have entreated theface of Jehovah; and I overcame myself, and offered the burnt-offering.”יי פּני חלּה: see Exodus 32:11.
1 Samuel 13:13-14
Samuel replied, “Thou hast acted foolishly, (and) not keptthe commandment of Jehovah thy God, which He commanded thee: fornow (sc., if thou hadst obeyed His commandment) Jehovah would haveestablished thy sovereignty over Israel for ever; but now (sc., since thouhast acted thus) thy sovereignty shall not continue.” The antithesis ofהכין עתּה and תקוּם לא ועתּה requires that we should understand these two clauses conditionally. The conditional clauses are omitted, simply because they are at oncesuggested by the tenor of the address (see Ewald, §358, a.). The כּי (for) assigns the reason, and refers to נסכּלתּ (“thou hast donefoolishly”), the וגו שׁמרתּ לא being merely added asexplanatory. The non-continuance of the sovereignty is not to be regardedas a rejection, or as signifying that Saul had actually lost the throne so faras he himself was concerned; but תקוּם לא (shall notcontinue) forms the antithesis to עד־עולם הכין (established forever), and refers to the fact that it was not established in perpetuity bybeing transmitted to his descendants. It was not till his second transgression that Saul was rejected, or declaredunworthy of being king over the people of God (1 Samuel 15). We are notcompelled to assume an immediate rejection of Saul even by the furtherannouncement made by Samuel, “Jehovah hath sought him a man after hisown heart; him hath Jehovah appointed prince over His people;” for thesewords merely announce the purpose of God, without defining the time ofits actual realization. Whether it would take place during Saul's reign, ornot till after his death, was known only to God, and was made contingentupon Saul's further behaviour. But if Saul's sin did not consist, as we haveobserved above, in his having interfered with the prerogatives of thepriests by offering the sacrifice himself, but simply in the fact that he hadtransgressed the commandment of God as revealed to him by Samuel, topostpone the sacrifice until Samuel arrived, the punishment which theprophet announced that God would inflict upon him in consequenceappears a very severe one, since Saul had not come to the resolution eitherfrivolously or presumptuously, but had been impelled and almost forcedto act as he did by the difficulties in which he was placed in consequenceof the prophet delaying his coming. But wherever, as in the present instance, there is a definite command givenby the Lord, a man has no right to allow himself to be induced totransgress it, by fixing his attention upon the earthly circumstances inwhich he is placed. As Samuel had instructed Saul, as a direct commandfrom Jehovah, to wait for his arrival before offering sacrifice, Saul mighthave trusted in the Lord that he would send His prophet at the right timeand cause His command to be fulfilled, and ought not to have allowed hisconfidence to be shaken by the pressing danger of delay. The interval ofseven days and the delay in Samuel's arrival were intended as a test of hisfaith, which he ought not to have lightly disregarded. Moreover, the matterin hand was the commencement of the war against the principal enemies ofIsrael, and Samuel was to tell him what he was to do (1 Samuel 10:8). So thatwhen Saul proceeded with the consecrating sacrifice for that very conflict,without the presence of Samuel, he showed clearly enough that he thoughthe could make war upon the enemies of his kingdom without the counseland assistance of God. This was an act of rebellion against the sovereigntyof Jehovah, for which the punishment announced was by no means toosevere.
1 Samuel 13:15
After this occurrence Samuel went up to Gibeah, and Saulmustered the people who were with him, about six hundred men. Consequently Saul had not even accomplished the object of hisunseasonable sacrifice, namely, to prevent the dispersion of the people. With this remark the account of the occurrence that decided the fate ofSaul's monarchy is brought to a close.
Disarming of Israel by the Philistines. - The following account is no doubtconnected with the foregoing, so far as the facts are concerned, inasmuchas Jonathan's brave heroic deed, which brought the Israelites a splendidvictory over the Philistines, terminated the war for which Saul hadentreated the help of God by his sacrifice at Gilgal; but it is not formallyconnected with it, so as to form a compact and complete account of thesuccessive stages of the war. On the contrary, the 16th verse, where wehave an account of the Israelitish warriors and their enemies, commences anew section of the history, in which the devastating march of thePhilistines through the land, and the disarming of the Israelites by thesetheir enemies, are first of all depicted (1 Samuel 13:17-23); and then the victory ofthe Israelites through Jonathan's daring and heroic courage,notwithstanding their utter prostration, is recorded (1 Samuel 14:1-46), forthe purpose of showing how the Lord had miraculously helped Hispeople.
(Note: From this arrangement of the history, according to which theonly two points that are minutely described in connection with thewar with the Philistines are those which bring out the attitude of theking, whom the nation had desired to deliver it from its foes, towardsJehovah, and the way in which Jehovah acted towards His people,whilst all the rest is passed over, we may explain the absence of anycloser connection between 1 Samuel 13:15 and 1 Samuel 13:16, and not from a gap in thetext. The lxx, however, adopted the latter supposition, andaccording to the usual fashion filled up the gap by expanding 1 Samuel 13:15 inthe following thoughtless manner: καὶ ἀνέστη Σαμουὴλ καὶ ἀπῆλθεν ἐκ Γαλγάλων· καὶ τὸ κατάλειμμα τοῦ λαοῦ ἀνεβη ὀπίσω Σαοὺλ εἰς ἀπάντησιν ὀπίσω τοῦ λαοῦ τοῦ πολεμιστοῦ· αὐτῶν παραγενομένων ἐκ Γαλγάλων εἰς Γαβαὰ Βενιαμὶν καὶ ἐπεσκέψατο Σαοὺλ, κ.τ.λ. For there is no sense in εἰς ἀπάντησιν ὀπίσω ,and the whole thought, that the people who were left went upafter Saul to meet the people of war, is unintelligible, since it is notstated whence the people of war had come, who are said to have metwith those who had remained behind with Saul, and to have gone upwith him from Gilgal to Gibeah. If, however, we overlook this, andassume that when Saul returned from Gilgal to Gibeah a furthernumber of fighting men came to him from different parts of the land,how does this assumption agree with the account which follows, viz.,that when Saul mustered the people he found only six hundred men, - astatement which is repeated again in 1 Samuel 14:2 ?The discrepancy remains even if we adopt Ewald's conjecture (Gesch. iii. 43), that εἰς ἀπάντησιν is a false rendering of לקּרב, “to the conflict.” Moreover, even with the Alexandrian fillingup, no natural connection is secured between 1 Samuel 13:15 and 1 Samuel 13:16, unless weidentify Geba of Benjamin with Gibeah, as the Septuagint and its latestdefenders have done, and not only change the participle ישׁבים (1 Samuel 13:16) into the aorist ἐκάθισαν , but interpolate καὶ ἔκλαιον after “at Geba of Benjamin;” whereas the statement ofthe text “at Geba in Benjamin” is proved to be correct by the simplefact that Jonathan could only attempt or carry out the heroic deedrecorded in 1 Samuel 14 from Geba and not from Gibeah; and the alterationof the participle into the aorist is just as arbitrary as the interpolationof καὶ ἔκλαιον . From all this it follows that the Septuagint version has not preservedthe original reading, as Ewald and Thenius suppose, but containsnothing more than a mistaken attempt to restore the missing link. Itis true the Vulgate contains the same filling up as the Septuagint, butwith one alteration, which upsets the assertion made by Thenius, thatthe repetition of the expression הגּלגּל מן, ἐκ Γαλγάλων , caused the reading contained in the Septuagint to bedropped out of the Hebrew text. For the text of the Vulgate runs asfollows: Surrexit autem Samuêl et ascendit de Galgalis in Gabaa Benjamin. Et reliqui populi ascenderunt post Saul obviam populo, qui expugnabant eos venientes de Galgala in Gabaa in colle Benjamin. Et recensuit Saul, etc.Jerome has therefore rendered the first two clausesof 1 Samuel 13:15 in perfect accordance with the Hebrew text; and the additionwhich follows is nothing more than a gloss that has found its way intohis translation from the Itala, and in which de Galgala in colle Benjaminis still retained, whereas Jerome himself rendered הגּלגּל מן de Galgalis
1 Samuel 13:16
The two clauses of this verse are circumstantial clauses: “ButSaul, and Jonathan his son, and the people that were with him, weresitting, i.e., tarrying, in Geba of Benjamin (the present Jeba; see at 1 Samuel 13:3);and the Philistines had encamped at Michmash.” Just as in 1 Samuel 13:2-4 it is notstated when or why Saul went from Michmash or Geba to Gilgal, but thischange in his position is merely hinted at indirectly at the close of 1 Samuel 13:4; sohere Saul's return from Gilgal to Geba with the fighting men who remainedwith him is not distinctly mentioned, but simply taken for granted ashaving already occurred.
1 Samuel 13:17-18
Then the spoiler went out of the camp of the Philistines inthree companies. ראשׁים שׁלשׁה is made subject to theverb to define the mode of action (see Ewald, §279, c.); and (rashim) is usedhere, as in 1 Samuel 11:11. המּשׁחית, according to the context, is ahostile band that went out to devastate the land. The definite article pointsit out as well known. One company took the road to Ophrah into the landof Shual, i.e., went in a north-easterly direction, as, according to theOnom., Ophrah of Benjamin was five Roman miles to the east of Bethel(see at Joshua 18:23). Robinson supposes it to have been on the site ofTayibeh. The land of Shual (fox-land) is unknown; it may possibly havebeen identical with the land of Saalim (1 Samuel 9:5). The other companyturned on the road to Beth-horon (Beit-ur: see at Joshua 10:11), that is tosay, towards the west; the third, “the way to the territory that rises abovethe valley of Zeboim towards the desert.” These descriptions are obscure;and the valley of Zeboim altogether unknown. There is a town of thisname (צבעים, different from צביים, Deuteronomy 29:22; Genesis 14:2, Genesis 14:8; or צבאים, Hosea 11:8, in the vale of Siddim) mentioned inNehemiah 11:34, which was inhabited by Benjaminites, and was apparentlysituated in the south-eastern portion of the land of Benjamin, to the north-east of Jerusalem, from which it follows that the third company pursuedits devastating course in a south-easterly direction from Michmashtowards Jericho. “The wilderness” is probably the desert of Judah. Theintention of the Philistines in carrying out these devastating expeditions,was no doubt to entice the men who were gathered round Saul andJonathan out of their secure positions at Gibeah and Geba, and force themto fight.
1 Samuel 13:19-21
The Israelites could not offer a successful resistance to thesedevastating raids, as there was no smith to be found in the whole land:“For the Philistines thought the Hebrews might make themselves sword orspear” (אמר followed by פּן, “to say, or think, that not,”equivalent to being unwilling that it should be done). Consequently (as thewords clearly imply) when they proceeded to occupy the land of Israel asdescribed in 1 Samuel 13:5, they disarmed the people throughout, i.e., as far as theypenetrated, and carried off the smiths, who might have been able to forgeweapons; so that, as is still further related in 1 Samuel 13:20, all Israel was obliged togo to the Philistines, every one to sharpen his edge-tool, and hisploughshare, and his axe, and his chopper. According to Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3,and Joel 3:10, את is an iron instrument used in agriculture; themajority of the ancient versions render it ploughshare. The wordמחרשׁתו is striking after the previous מחרשׁתּו (from מחרשׁת); and the meaning of both words is uncertain. According to the etymology, מחרשׁת might denote any kind of edge-tool, even the ploughshare. The second מחרשׁתו isrendered τὸ δρέπανον αὐτοῦ (his sickle) by the lxx, andsarculum by Jerome, a small garden hoe for loosening and weeding the soil. The fact that the word is connected with קרדּם, the axe orhatchet, favours the idea that it signifies a hoe or spade rather than a sickle. Some of the words in 1 Samuel 13:21 are still more obscure. והיתה,which is the reading adopted by all the earlier translators, indicates that theresult is about to be given of the facts mentioned before: “And there cameto pass,” i.e., so that there came to pass (or arose), פּים הפּצירה, “a blunting of the edges.” פּצירה, bluntness,from פּצר, to tear, hence to make blunt, is confirmed by theArabic (futâr), gladius fissuras habens, obtusus ensis, whereas the meaningto hammer, i.e., to sharpen by hammering, cannot be established. The insertion of the article before פּצירה is as striking as theomission of it before פּים; also the stat. abs. instead of theconstruct פּצירת. These anomalies render it a very probable conjecturethat the reading may have been הפּים הפציר (inf. Hiph. nomin.). Accordingly the rendering would be, “so that bluntness of the edgesoccurred in the edge-tools, and the ploughshares, and the trident, and theaxes, and the setting of the goad.” קלּשׁון שׁלשׁ is to beregarded as a nom. comp. like our trident, denoting an instrument withthree prongs, according to the Chaldee and the Rabbins (see Ges. Thes. p. 1219). דּרבן, stimulus, is probably a pointed instrumentgenerally, since the meaning goad is fully established in the case ofדּרבון in Ecclesiastes 12:11.
(Note: 1 Samuel 13:21 runs very differently in the lxx, namely, καὶ ἦν ὁ τρυγητὸς ἕτοιμος τοῦ θερίζειν, τὰ δὲ σκεύη ἦν τρεῖς σίκλοι εἰς τὸν ὀδόντα, καὶ τῇ ἀξίνῃ καὶ τῷ δρεπάνῳ ὑτόστασις ἦν ἡ αὐτή; and Thenius and Böttcher propose an emendation of theHebrew text accordingly, so as to obtain the following meaning: “Andthe sharpening of the edges in the case of the spades and ploughshareswas done at three shekels a tooth (i.e., three shekels each), and forthe axe and sickle it was the same” (Thenius); or, “and the same forthe sickles, and for the axes, and for setting the prong” (Böttcher). But here also it is easy enough to discover that the lxx had notanother text before them that was different from the Masoretic text,but merely confounded הפציר with הבציר, τρυγητός , and tookקלּשׁון שׁלשׁ, which was unintelligible to them, e conjecturafor השּׁן שׁק שׁלשׁ, altogether regardless of the senseor nonsense of their own translation. The latest supporters of thissenseless rendering, however, have neither undertaken to prove thepossibility of translating ὀδόντα ( ὀδούς ), “each singlepiece” (i.e., each), or inquired into the value of money at that time,so as to see whether three shekels would be an unexampled charge forthe sharpening of an axe or sickle.)
1 Samuel 13:22
On the day of battle, therefore, the people with Saul andJonathan were without either sword or spear; Saul and Jonathan were theonly persons provided with them. The account of the expedition of theIsraelites, and their victory over the Ammonites, given in 1 Samuel 13:11, isapparently at variance with this description of the situation of theIsraelites, since the war in question not only presupposes the possessionof weapons by the Israelites, but must also have resulted in their capturinga considerable quantity. The discrepancy is very easily removed, however,when we look carefully at all the circumstances. For instance, we canhardly picture the Israelites to ourselves as amply provided with ordinaryweapons in this expedition against the Ammonites. Moreover, thedisarming of the Israelites by the Philistines took place for the most part ifnot entirely after this expedition, viz., at the time when the Philistinesswept over the land with an innumerable army after Jonathan had smittentheir garrison at Geba (1 Samuel 13:3, 1 Samuel 13:5), so that the fighting men who gatheredround Saul and Jonathan after that could hardly bring many arms withthem. Lastly, the words “there was neither sword nor spear found in thehands of all the people with Saul and Jonathan” must not be too closelypressed, but simply affirm that the 600 fighting men of Saul and Jonathanwere not provided with the necessary arms, because the Philistines hadprevented the possibility of their arming themselves in the ordinary wayby depriving the people of all their smiths.
1 Samuel 13:23
1 Samuel 13:23 forms the transition to the heroic act of Jonathan described in 1 Samuel 14.: “An outpost of the Philistines went out to the pass of Michmash;”i.e., the Philistines pushed forward a company of soldiers to the pass(מעבר, the crossing place) of Michmash, to prevent an attackbeing made by the Israelites upon their camp. Between Geba andMichmash there runs the great deep Wady es Suweinit, which goes downfrom Beitin and Bireh (Bethel and Beeroth) to the valley of the Jordan, andintersects the ridge upon which the two places are situated, so that thesides of the wady form very precipitous walls. When Robinson wastravelling from Jeba to Mukhmas he had to go down a very steep andrugged path into this deep wady (Pal. ii. p. 116). “The way,” he says inhis Biblical Researches, p. 289, “was so steep, and the rocky steps sohigh, that we were compelled to dismount; while the baggage mules gotalong with great difficulty. Here, where we crossed, several short sidewadys came in from the south-west and north-west. The ridges betweenthese terminate in elevating points projecting into the great wady; and themost easterly of these bluffs on each side were probably the outposts ofthe two garrisons of Israel and the Philistines. The road passes around theeastern side of the southern hill, the post of Israel, and then strikes upover the western part of the northern one, the post of the Philistines, andthe scene of Jonathan's adventure.”
Add Comment
Comments