Bible Commentaries
Keil & Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament
1 Samuel 28
David in the Army of the Philistines. Attack upon Israel. Saul and the Witch of Endor - 1 Samuel 28
The danger into which David had plunged through his flight into the landof the Philistines, and still more through the artifice with which he haddeceived the king Achish as to his real feelings, was to be very soon madeapparent to him. For example, when the Philistines went to war again withIsrael, Achish summoned him to go with his men in the army of thePhilistines to the war against his own people and land, and David couldnot disregard the summons. But even if he had not brought himself intothis danger without some fault of his own, he had at any rate only takenrefuge with the Philistines in the greatest extremity; and what further hehad done, was only done to save his own life. The faithful covenant Godhelped him therefore out of this trouble, and very soon afterwards put anend to his persecution by the fact that Saul lost his life in the war.
“In those days,” i.e., whilst David was living in the land of thePhilistines, it came to pass that the Philistines gathered their armiestogether for a campaign against Israel. And Achish sent word to David thathe was to go with him in his army along with his men; and David answered(1 Samuel 28:2), “Thereby (on this occasion) thou shalt learn what thy servant willdo.” This reply was ambiguous. The words “what thy servant will do”contained no distinct promise of faithful assistance in the war with theIsraelites, as the expression “thy servant” is only the ordinary periphrasisfor “I” in conversation with a superior. And there is just as little groundfor inferring from 1 Samuel 29:8 that David was disposed to help thePhilistines against Saul and the Israelites; for, as Calovius has observed,even there he gives no such promise, but “merely asks for information,that he may discover the king's intentions and feelings concerning him: hesimply protests that he has done nothing to prevent his placing confidencein him, or to cause him to shut him out of the battle.”Judging from his previous acts, it would necessarily have been against hisconscience to fight against his own people. Nevertheless, in the situationin which he was placed he did not venture to give a distinct refusal to thesummons of the king. He therefore gave an ambiguous answer, in the hopethat God would show him a way out of this conflict between his inmostconviction and his duty to obey the Philistian king. He had no doubtprayed earnestly for this in his heart. And the faithful God helped Hisservant: first of all by the fact that Achish accepted his indefinitedeclaration as a promise of unconditional fidelity, as his answer “so(לכן, itaque, i.e., that being the case, if thy conduct answers tothy promise) “I will make thee the keeper of my head” (i.e., of my person)implies; and still more fully by the fact that the princes of the Philistinesoverturned the decision of their king (1 Samuel 29:3.).
Saul with the witch at Endor. - The invasion of Israel by the Philistines,which brought David into so difficult a situation, drove king Saul todespair, so that in utter helplessness he had recourse to ungodly means ofinquiring into the future, which he himself had formerly prohibited, and tohis horror had to hear the sentence of his own death. This account isintroduced with the remark in 1 Samuel 28:3 that Samuel was dead and had beenburied at Ramah (cf. 1 Samuel 25:1; וּבעירו, with an explanatoryvav, and indeed in his own city), and that Saul had expelled “those that hadfamiliar spirits and the wizards out of the land” (on the terms employed,oboth and yiddonim, see at Leviticus 19:31). He had done this in accordancewith the law in Leviticus 19:31; Leviticus 20:27, and Deuteronomy 18:10.
1 Samuel 28:4-5
When the Philistines advanced and encamped at Shunem, Saulbrought all Israel together and encamped at Gilboa, i.e., upon the mountainof that name on the north-eastern edge of the plain of Jezreel, whichslopes off from a height of about 1250 feet into the valley of the Jordan,and is not far from Beisan. On the north of the western extremity of thismountain was Shunem, the present Sulem or Solam (see at Joshua 19:18); itwas hardly two hours distant, so that the camp of the Philistines might beseen from Gilboa. When Saul saw this, he was thrown into such alarm thathis heart greatly trembled. As Saul had been more than once victorious inhis conflicts with the Philistines, his great fear at the sight of the Philistianarmy can hardly be attributed to any other cause than the feeling that Godhad forsaken him, by which he was suddenly overwhelmed.
1 Samuel 28:6
In his anxiety he inquired of the Lord; but the Lord neitheranswered him by dreams, nor by Urim, nor by prophets, that is to say,not by any of the three media by which He was accustomed to makeknown His will to Israel. בּיהוה שׁאל is the termusually employed to signify inquiring the will and counsel of God throughthe Urim and Thummim of the high priest (see at Judges 1:1); and this is thecase here, with the simple difference that here the other means of inquiringthe counsel of God are also included. On dreams, see at Numbers 12:6. According to Numbers 27:21, Urim denotes divine revelation through the highpriest by means of the ephod. But the high priest Abiathar had been withthe ephod in David's camp ever since the murder of the priests at Nob (1 Samuel 22:20., 1 Samuel 23:6; 1 Samuel 30:7). How then could Saul inquire of God through theUrim? This question, which was very copiously discussed by the earliercommentators, and handled in different ways, may be decided very simplyon the supposition, that after the death of Ahimelech and the flight of hisson, another high priest had been appointed at the tabernacle, and anotherephod made for him, with the choshen or breastplate, and the Urim andThummim. It is no proof to the contrary that there is nothing said aboutthis. We have no continuous history of the worship at the tabernacle, but onlyoccasional notices. And from these it is perfectly clear that the publicworship at the tabernacle was not suspended on the murder of the priests,but was continued still. For in the first years of David's reign we find thetabernacle at Gibeon, and Zadok the son of Ahitub, of the line of Eleazar,officiating there as high priest (1 Chronicles 16:39, compared with 1 Chronicles 6:8 and 1 Chronicles 6:53); from which it follows with certainty, that after the destructionof Nob by Saul the tabernacle was removed to Gibeon, and the worship ofthe congregation continued there. From this we may also explain in a verysimple manner the repeated allusions to two high priests in David's time (2 Samuel 18:17; 2 Samuel 15:24, 2 Samuel 15:29, 2 Samuel 15:35; 1 Chronicles 15:11; 1 Chronicles 18:16). The reason why the Lorddid not answer Saul is to be sought for in the wickedness of Saul, whichrendered him utterly unworthy to find favour with God.
1 Samuel 28:7-14
Instead of recognising this, however, and searching his ownheart, Saul attempted to obtain a revelation of the future in ungodly ways. He commanded his servants (1 Samuel 28:7) to seek for a woman that had a familiarspirit. Baalath-ob: the mistress (or possessor) of a conjuring spirit, i.e., ofa spirit with which the dead were conjured up, for the purpose of makinginquiry concerning the future (see at Leviticus 19:31). There was a woman ofthis kind at Endor, which still exists as a village under the old name uponthe northern shoulder of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see at Joshua 17:11),and therefore only two German (ten English) miles from the Israelitishcamp at Gilboa.
1 Samuel 28:8
Saul went to this person by night and in disguise, that he mightnot be recognised, accompanied by two men; and said to her, “Divine tome through necromancy, and bring me up whomsoever I tell thee.” Thewords “bring me up,” etc., are an explanation or more precise definition of“divine unto me,” etc. Prophesying by the Ob was probably performed bycalling up a departed spirit from Sheol, and obtaining prophecies, i.e.,disclosures concerning one's own fate, through the medium of such a spirit. On the form קסומי (Chethibh), see at Judges 9:8.
1 Samuel 28:9
Such a demand placed the woman in difficulty. As Saul had driventhe necromantists out of the land, she was afraid that the unknown visitor(for it is evident from 1 Samuel 28:12 that she did not recognise Saul at first) mightbe laying a snare for her soul with his request, to put her to death, i.e.,might have come to her merely for the purpose of spying her out as aconjurer of the dead, and then inflicting capital punishment upon heraccording to the law (Leviticus 20:27).
1 Samuel 28:10-11
But when Saul swore to her that no punishment should fallupon her on that account (יקּרך אם, “shall assuredly notfall upon thee”), an oath which showed how utterly hardened Saul was,she asked him, “Whom shall I bring up to thee?” and Saul replied, “Bringme up Samuel,” sc., from the region of the dead, or Sheol, which wasthought to be under the ground. This idea arose from the fact that the deadwere buried in the earth, and was connected with the thought of heaven asbeing above the earth. Just as heaven, regarded as the abode of God and theholy angels and blessed spirits, is above the earth; so, on the other hand,the region of death and the dead is beneath the ground. And with ourmodes of thought, which are so bound up with time and space, it isimpossible to represent to ourselves in any other way the difference andcontrast between blessedness with God and the shade-life in death.
1 Samuel 28:12
The woman then commenced her conjuring arts. This must besupplied from the context, as 1 Samuel 28:12 merely states what immediatelyensued. “When the woman saw Samuel, she cried aloud,” sc., at the formwhich appeared to her so unexpectedly. These words imply mostunquestionably that the woman saw an apparition which she did notanticipate, and therefore that she was not really able to conjure updeparted spirits or persons who had died, but that she either merelypretended to do so, or if her witchcraft was not mere trickery anddelusion, but had a certain demoniacal background, that the appearance ofSamuel differed essentially from everything she had experienced andeffected before, and therefore filled her with alarm and horror. The veryfact, whoever, that she recognised Saul as soon as Samuel appeared,precludes us from declaring her art to have been nothing more than juggleryand deception; for she said to him, “Why hast thou cheated me, as thou artcertainly Saul?” i.e., why hast thou deceived me as to thy person? whydidst thou not tell me that thou wast king Saul? Her recognition of Saulwhen Samuel appeared may be easily explained, if we assume that thewoman had fallen into a state of clairvoyance, in which she recognisedpersons who, like Saul in his disguise, were unknown to her by face.
1 Samuel 28:13
The king quieted her fear, and then asked her what she had seen;whereupon she gave him a fuller description of the apparition: “I saw acelestial being come up from the earth.” Elohim does not signify gods here,nor yet God; still less an angel or a ghost, or even a person of superiorrank, but a celestial (super-terrestrial), heavenly, or spiritual being.
1 Samuel 28:14
Upon Saul's further inquiry as to his form, she replied, “An oldman is ascending, and he is wrapped in a mantle.” Meïl is the prophet'smantle, such as Samuel was accustomed to wear when he was alive (see 1 Samuel 15:27). Saul recognised from this that the person who had been calledup was Samuel, and he fell upon his face to the ground, to give expressionto his reverence. Saul does not appear to have seen the apparition itself. But it does not follow from this that there was no such apparition at all,and the whole was an invention on the part of the witch. It needs anopened eye, such as all do not possess, to see a departed spirit or celestialbeing. The eyes of the body are not enough for this.
1 Samuel 28:15-17
Then Samuel said, “Why hast thou disturbed me (sc., frommy rest in Hades; cf. Isaiah 14:9), to bring me up?” It follows, no doubt, fromthis that Samuel had been disturbed from his rest by Saul; but whether thishad been effected by the conjuring arts of the witch, or by a miracle ofGod himself, is left undecided. Saul replied, “I am sore oppressed, for thePhilistines fight against me, and God has departed from me, and answersme no more, either by prophets or by dreams; then I had thee called (onthe intensified form ואקראה, vid., Ewald, §228, c.), to makeknown to me what I am to do.” The omission of any reference to the Urimis probably to be interpreted very simply from the brevity of the account,and not from the fact that Saul shrank from speaking about the oracle ofthe high priest, on account of the massacre of the priests which had takenplace by his command. There is a contradiction, however, in Saul's reply: for if God had forsakenhim, he could not expect any answer from Him; and if God did not replyto his inquiry through the regularly appointed media of His revelation,how could he hope to obtain any divine revelation through the help of awitch? “When living prophets gave no answer, he thought that a dead onemight be called up, as if a dead one were less dependent upon God thanthe living, or that, even in opposition to the will of God, he might replythrough the arts of a conjuring woman. Truly, if he perceived that Godwas hostile to him, he ought to have been all the more afraid, lest Hisenmity should be increased by his breach of His laws. But fear andsuperstition never reason” (Clericus). Samuel points out this contradiction(1 Samuel 28:16): “Why dost thou ask me, since Jehovah hath departed from thee,and is become thine enemy?” The meaning is: How canst thou expect ananswer under these circumstances from me, the prophet of Jehovah?ערך, from ער, signifies an enemy here (from עיר, fervour); and this meaning is confirmed by Psalm 139:20 and Daniel 4:16 (Chald.). There is all the less ground for any critical objection to thereading, as the Chaldee and Vulgate give a periphrastic rendering of“enemy,” whilst the lxx, Syr., and Arab. have merely paraphrasedaccording to conjectures. Samuel then announced his fate (1 Samuel 28:17-19): “Jehovah hath performed forhimself, as He spake by me (לו, for himself, which the lxx andVulg. have arbitrarily altered into לך, σοί , tibi (to thee), iscorrectly explained by Seb. Schmidt, 'according to His grace, or to fulfiland prove His truth'); and Jehovah hath rent the kingdom out of thy hand,and given it to thy neighbour David.” The perfects express the purpose ofGod, which had already been formed, and was now about to be fulfilled.
1 Samuel 28:18-19
The reason for Saul's rejection is then given, as in 1 Samuel 15:23: “Because (כּאשׁר, according as) thou … hast not executed thefierceness of His anger upon Amalek, therefore hath Jehovah done thisthing to thee this day.” “This thing” is the distress of which Saul hadcomplained, with its consequences. ויתּן, that Jehovah maygive (= for He will give) Israel also with thee into the hand of thePhilistines. “To-morrow wilt thou and thy sons be with me (i.e. in Sheol,with the dead); also the camp of Israel will Jehovah give into the hand ofthe Philistines,” i.e., give up to them to plunder. The overthrow of thepeople was to heighten Saul's misery, when he saw the people plungedwith him into ruin through his sin (O. v. Gerlach). Thus was the last hopetaken from Saul. His day of grace was gone, and judgment was now toburst upon him without delay.
1 Samuel 28:20
These words so alarmed him, that he fell his whole length uponthe ground; for he had been kneeling hitherto (1 Samuel 28:14). He “fell straightway(lit. he hastened and fell) upon the ground. For he was greatly terrified atthe words of Samuel: there was also no strength in him, because he hadeaten no food the whole day and the whole night,” sc., from mentalperturbation or inward excitement. Terror and bodily exhaustion causedhim to fall powerless to the ground.
1 Samuel 28:21-22
The woman then came to him and persuaded him tostrengthen himself with food for the journey which he had to take. It byno means follows from the expression “came unto Saul,” that the womanwas in an adjoining room during the presence of the apparition, and whilstSamuel was speaking, but only that she was standing at some distance off,and came up to him to speak to him when he had fallen fainting to theground. As she had fulfilled his wish at the risk of her own life, sheentreated him now to gratify her wish, and let her set a morsel of breadbefore him and eat. “That strength may be in thee when thou goest thyway” (i.e., when thou returnest).
This narrative, when read without prejudice, makes at once and throughoutthe impression conveyed by the Septuagint at 1 Chronicles 10:13: ἐπηρώτησε Σαοὺλ ἐν τῷ ἐγγαστριμύθῳ τοῦ ζητῆσαι, καὶ ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ Σαμουὴλ ὁ προφήτης; and still more clearly at Ecclus. 46:20,where it is said of Samuel: “And after his death he prophesied, and showedthe king his end, and lifted up his voice from the earth in prophecy, to blotout the wickedness of the people.” Nevertheless the fathers, reformers,and earlier Christian theologians, with very few exceptions, assumed thatthere was not a real appearance of Samuel, but only an imaginary one. According to the explanation given by Ephraem Syrus, an apparent imageof Samuel was presented to the eye of Saul through demoniacal arts. Luther and Calvin adopted the same view, and the earlier Protestanttheologians followed them in regarding the apparition as nothing but adiabolical spectre, a phantasm, or diabolical spectre in the form of Samuel,and Samuel's announcement as nothing but a diabolical revelation made bydivine permission, in which truth is mixed with falsehood.
(Note: Thus Luther says (in his work upon the abuses of the Mass,1522): “The raising of Samuel by a soothsayer or witch, in 1 Samuel 28:11-12, was certainly merely a spectre of the devil; not onlybecause the Scriptures state that it was effected by a woman who wasfull of devils (for who could believe that the souls of believers, whoare in the hand of God, Ecclus. 3:1, and in the bosom of Abraham,Luke 16:31, were under the power of the devil, and of simple men?),but also because it was evidently in opposition to the command ofGod that Saul and the woman inquired of the dead. The Holy Ghostcannot do anything against this himself, nor can He help those whoact in opposition to it.” Calvin also regards the apparition as only aspectre (Hom. 100 in 1 Samuel.): “It is certain,” he says, “that it was notreally Samuel, for God would never have allowed His prophets to besubjected to such diabolical conjuring. For here is a sorceress calling upthe dead from the grave. Does any one imagine that God wished Hisprophet to be exposed to such ignominy; as if the devil had powerover the bodies and souls of the saints which are in His keeping? Thesouls of the saints are said to rest and live in God, waiting for theirhappy resurrection. Besides, are we to believe that Samuel took hiscloak with him into the grave? For all these reasons, it appearsevident that the apparition was nothing more than a spectre, and thatthe senses of the woman herself were so deceived, that she thoughtshe saw Samuel, whereas it really was not he.” The earlier orthodoxtheologians also disputed the reality of the appearance of thedeparted Samuel on just the same grounds; e.g., Seb. Schmidt(Comm.); Aug. Pfeiffer; Sal. Deyling; and Buddeus, Hist. Eccl. V. t. ii. p. 243, and many more.)
It was not till the seventeenth century that the opinion was expressed,that the apparition of Samuel was merely a delusion produced by thewitch, without any real background at all. After Reginald Scotus and Balth. Becker had given expression to this opinion, it was more fully elaboratedby Ant. van Dale, in his dissert. de divinationibus idololatricis sub V. T.;and in the so-called age of enlightenment this was the prevailing opinion,so that Thenius still regards it as an established fact, not only that thewoman was an impostor, but that the historian himself regarded the wholething as an imposture. There is no necessity to refute this opinion at thepresent day. Even Fr. Boettcher (de inferis, pp. 111ff.), who looks uponthe thing as an imposture, admits that the first recorder of the occurrence“believed that Samuel appeared and prophesied, contrary to theexpectation of the witch;” and that the author of the books of Samuel wasconvinced that the prophet was raised up and prophesied, so that after hisdeath he was proved to be the true prophet of Jehovah, although throughthe intervention of ungodly arts (cf. Ezekiel 14:7, Ezekiel 14:9). But the view held bythe early church does not do justice to the scriptural narrative; and hencethe more modern orthodox commentators are unanimous in the opinionthat the departed prophet did really appear and announce the destructionof Saul, not, however, in consequence of the magical arts of the witch, butthrough a miracle wrought by the omnipotence of God.
This is most decidedly favoured by the fact, that the prophetic historian speaks throughout of the appearance, not of a ghost, but of Samuel himself. He does this not only in 1 Samuel 28:12, “When the woman saw Samuel she cried aloud,” but also in 1 Samuel 28:14, 1 Samuel 28:15, 1 Samuel 28:16, and 1 Samuel 28:20. It is also sustained by the circumstance, that not only do the words of Samuel to Saul, in 1 Samuel 28:16-19, create the impression that it is Samuel himself who is speaking; but his announcement contains so distinct a prophecy of the death of Saul and his sons, that it is impossible to imagine that it can have proceeded from the mouth of an impostor, or have been an inspiration of Satan. On the other hand, the remark of Calvin, to the effect that “God sometimes give to devils the power of revealing secrets to us, which they have learned from the Lord,” could only be regarded as a valid objection, provided that the narrative gave us some intimation that the apparition and the speaking were nothing but a diabolical delusion. But it does nothing of the kind. It is true, the opinion that the witch conjured up the prophet Samuel was very properly disputed by the early theologians, and rejected by Theodoret as “unholy, and even impious;” and the text of Scripture indicates clearly enough that the very opposite was the case, by the remark that the witch herself was terrified at the appearance of Samuel (1 Samuel 28:12). Shöbel is therefore quite correct in saying: “It was not at the call of the idolatrous king, nor at the command of the witch, - neither of whom had the power to bring him up, or even to make him hear their voice in his rest in the grave, - that Samuel came; nor was it merely by divine 'permission,' which is much too little to say. No, rather it was by the special command of God that he left his grave (?), like a faithful servant whom his master arouses at midnight, to let in an inmate of the house who has wilfully stopped out late, and has been knocking at the door. 'Why do you disturb me out of my sleep?' would always be the question put to the unwelcome comer, although it was not by his noise, but really by his master's command, that he had been aroused. Samuel asked the same question.” The prohibition of witchcraft and necromancy (Deuteronomy 18:11; Isaiah 8:19), which the earlier writers quote against this, does not preclude the possibility of God having, for His own special reasons, caused Samuel to appear. On the contrary, the appearance itself was of such a character, that it could not fail to show to the witch and the king, that God does not allow His prohibitions to be infringed with impunity. The very same thing occurred here, which God threatened to idolaters through the medium of Ezekiel (Ezekiel 14:4, Ezekiel 14:7; Ezekiel 14:8): “If they come to the prophet, I will answer them in my own way.” Still less is there any force in the appeal to Luke 16:27., where Abraham refuses the request of the rich man in Hades, that he would send Lazarus to his father's house to preach repentance to his brethren who were still living, saying, “They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead.” For this does not affirm that the appearance of a dead man is a thing impossible in itself, but only describes it as useless and ineffectual, so far as the conversion of the ungodly is concerned.
The reality of the appearance of Samuel from the kingdom of the deadcannot therefore be called in question, especially as it has an analogon inthe appearance of Moses and Elijah at the transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:3; Luke 9:30-31); except that this difference must not be overlooked,namely, that Moses and Elijah appeared “in glory,” i.e., in a glorified form,whereas Samuel appeared in earthly corporeality with the prophet'smantle which he had worn on earth. Just as the transfiguration of Christwas a phenomenal anticipation of His future heavenly glory, into whichHe was to enter after His resurrection and ascension, so may we think ofthe appearance of Moses and Elijah “in glory” upon the mount oftransfiguration as an anticipation of their heavenly transfiguration ineternal life with God. It was different with Samuel, whom God brought upfrom Hades through an act of His omnipotence. This appearance is not to be regarded as the appearance of one who hadrisen in a glorified body; but though somewhat spirit-like in its externalmanifestation, so that it was only to the witch that it was visible, and notto Saul, it was merely an appearance of the soul of Samuel, that had beenat rest in Hades, in the clothing of the earthly corporeality and dress of theprophet, which were assumed for the purpose of rendering it visible. Inthis respect the appearance of Samuel rather resembled the appearances ofincorporeal angels in human form and dress, such as the three angels whocame to Abraham in the grove at Mamre (Gen 18), and the angel whoappeared to Manoah (Judg 13); with this exception, however, that theseangels manifested themselves in a human form, which was visible to theordinary bodily eye, whereas Samuel appeared in the spirit-like form ofthe inhabitants of Hades. In all these cases the bodily form and clothingwere only a dress assumed for the soul or spirit, and intended to facilitateperception, so that such appearances furnish no proof that the souls ofdeparted men possess an immaterial corporeality.
(Note: Delitzsch (bibl Psychol. pp. 427ff.) has very properly rejected,not only the opinion that Samuel and Moses were raised up from thedead for the purpose of a transient appearance, and then died again,but also the idea that they appeared in their material bodies, a notionupon which Calvin rests his argument against the reality of theappearance of Samuel. But when he gives it as his opinion, that theangels who appeared in human form assumed this form by virtue oftheir own power, inasmuch as they can make themselves visible towhomsoever they please, and infers till further from this, “that theoutward form in which Samuel and Moses appeared (whichcorresponded to their form when on this side the grave) was theimmaterial production of their spiritual and psychical nature,” heoverlooks the fact, that not only Samuel, but the angels also, in thecases referred to, appeared in men's clothing, which cannot possiblybe regarded as a production of their spiritual and psychical nature. The earthly dress is not indispensable to a man's existence. Adam andEve had no clothing before the Fall, and there will be no materialclothing in the kingdom of glory; for the “fine linen, pure and white,”with which the bride adorns herself for the marriage supper of theLamb, is “the righteousness of saints” (Revelation 19:8).
1 Samuel 28:23-24
On Saul's refusing to take food, his servants (i.e., his twoattendants) also pressed him, so that he yielded, rose up from the ground,and sat down upon the bed ((Mittah): i.e., a bench by the wall of the roomprovided with pillows); whereupon the woman quickly sacrificed (servedup) a stalled calf, baked unleavened cakes, and set the food she hadprepared before the king and his servants. The woman did all this fromnatural sympathy for the unhappy king, and not, as Thenius supposes, toremove all suspicion of deception from Saul's mind; for she had notdeceived the king at all.
1 Samuel 28:25
When Saul and his servants had eaten, they started upon theirway, and went back that night to Gilboa, which was about ten milesdistant, where the battle occurred the next day, and Saul and his sons fell. “Saul was too hardened in his sin to express any grief or pain, either on hisown account or because of the fate of his sons and his people. In stoliddesperation he went to meet his fate. This was the terrible end of a manwhom the Spirit of God had once taken possession of and turned intoanother man, and whom he had endowed with gifts to be the leader of thepeople of God” (O. v. Gerlach).
Add Comment
Comments