Bible Commentaries

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.”

---

---

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first!

Add Comment

* Required information

Comment

Name

Email

Website

Notify me of new comments via email

Remember my form inputs on this computer

Powered by Commentics

x

Insert Bullet List

Please enter at least one item.

Item:

Item:

Item:

Item:

Item:

x

Insert Numeric List

Please enter at least one item.

Item:

Item:

Item:

Item:

Item:

x

Insert Link

Please enter the link of the website

Optionally you can add display text

x

Insert Email

Please enter the email address

Optionally add any display text

x

Insert Image

Please enter the link of the image

x

Insert YouTube Video

Please enter the link of the video

x