Text -- 1 Samuel 14:44 (NET)

14:44 Saul said, “God will punish me severely if Jonathan doesn’t die!”

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per phrase)

Wesley: 1Sa 14:44

We have no proof, that Saul did not act in this whole affair from a real fear of God.

Clarke: 1Sa 14:44

And Saul answered - thou shalt surely die, Jonathan - To save thy rash oath! So must John Baptist’ s head be taken off at the desire of an impure woman, because a Herod had sworn to give her whatever she might request! Unfeeling brute! However, the king was Judge. But what said the people, who were the Jury?

TSK: 1Sa 14:44

God : 1Sa 25:22; Rth 1:17; 2Sa 3:9, 2Sa 19:13

thou shalt : 1Sa 14:39; Gen 38:24; 2Sa 12:5, 2Sa 12:31; Pro 25:16

Commentary -- Word/Phrase Notes (per Verse)

Poole: 1Sa 14:44

From this and other like expressions of Saul’ s, some gather that he was exceeding prone to the vice of swearing and cursing.

Thou shalt surely die: strange perverseness! He who was so indulgent as to spare wicked Agag, 1Sa 15 , is now so severe as to destroy his own worthy son: he that could easily dispense with God’ s righteous and reasonable command, will not bear the violation of his own rash and foolish command; because his own authority and power is concerned in this, and only God’ s in the other.

Haydock: 1Sa 14:44

Die. We may here admire the respect which the ancients had for an oath, without seeking for any modification; and the blindness of Saul, who condemns his son with as much haste as he had pronounced the curse, thinking thus to honour God. The thing surely required some deliberation, and he ought to have consulted the Lord about it. The action of Jonathan was not criminal, and the former silence of God did not prove that he deserved death. (Calmet) ---

If it had, the people would never have been able to have rescued him, no more than the unhappy Achan, Josue vii. (Haydock) ---

If Saul had been more enlightened, and more humble, he would have concluded that God was displeased at him, and not at Jonathan. (Calmet) ---

Yet Cajetan and Serarius find fault with the latter. (Menochius)

Gill: 1Sa 14:44

And Saul answered, God do so and more also,.... A form of an oath imprecating evils upon him more and greater than he chose to mention, see the like form in Rth 1:17, though Abarbinel thinks this is not the form of an oath, but an asseveration of a curse that would befall him; as that God would not answer him when he inquired of him, and that he would add to do so again and again, if he died not:

for thou shall surely die, Jonathan; such words from a father must be very striking to a son, and argue a want of paternal affection in Saul, that could call his son by his name, and deliver such a speech unto him in so strong a manner.

Commentary -- Verse Notes / Footnotes

NET Notes: 1Sa 14:44

¹ tn Heb “So God will do and so he will add, surely you will certainly die, Jonathan.”

Commentary -- Verse Range Notes

TSK Synopsis: 1Sa 14:1-52

1 Jonathan goes and miraculously smites the Philistine's garrison.

15 A divine terror makes them beat themselves.

17 Saul, not staying the priest's answer, sets on them.

21 The captivated Hebrews, and the hidden Israelites, join against them.

24 Saul's unadvised adjuration hinders the victory.

31 He restrains the people from eating blood.

35 He builds an altar.

37 Jonathan, taken by lot, is save by the people.

47 Saul's victories, strength, and family.

MHCC: 1Sa 14:36-46

If God turns away our prayer, we have reason to suspect it is for some sin harboured in our hearts, which we should find out, that we may put it away, and put it to death. We should always first suspect and examine ourselves; but an unhumbled heart suspects every other person, and looks every where but at home for the sinful cause of calamity. Jonathan was discovered to be the offender. Those most indulgent to their own sins are most severe upon others; those who most disregard God's authority, are most impatient when their own commands are slighted. Such as cast abroad curses, endanger themselves and their families. What do we observe in the whole of Saul's behaviour on this occasion, but an impetuous, proud, malignant, impious disposition? And do we not in every instance perceive that man, left to himself, betrays the depravity of his nature, and is enslaved to the basest tempers.

Matthew Henry: 1Sa 14:36-46

Here is, I. Saul's boasting against the Philistines. He proposed, as soon as his soldiers had got their suppers, to pursue them all night, and not leave a man of them, 1Sa 14:36. Here he showed much zeal, but little discretion; for his army, thus fatigued, could as ill spare a night's sleep as a meal's meat. But it is common for rash and foolish men to consider nobody but themselves, and, so that they might but have their humour, not to care what hardships they put upon those that are under them. However, the people were so obsequious to their king that they would by no means oppose the motion, but resolved to make the best of it, and, if he will go on, they will follow him: Do whatsoever seemeth good to thee. Only the priest thought it convenient to go on with the devotions that were broken off abruptly (1Sa 14:19), and to consult the oracle: Let us draw near hither unto God. Princes and great men have need of such about them as will thus be their remembrancers, wherever they go, to take God along with them. And, when the priest proposed it, Saul could not for shame reject the proposal, but asked counsel of God (1Sa 14:37): " Shall I go down after the Philistines? And shall I speed?"

II. His falling foul on his son Jonathan: and the rest of this paragraph is wholly concerning him: for, while he is prosecuted, the Philistines make their escape. We know not what mischief may ensue upon on rash resolve.

1. God, by giving an intimation of his displeasure, put Saul upon searching for an accursed thing. When, by the priest, he consulted the oracle, God answered him not, 1Sa 14:37. Note, When God denies our prayers it concerns us to enquire what the sin is that has provoked him to do so. Let us see where the sin is, 1Sa 14:38. For God's ear is not heavy that it cannot hear, but it is sin that separates between us and him. If God turns away our prayer, we have reason to suspect it is for some iniquity regarding our hearts, which we are concerned to find out, that we may put it away, may mortify it, and put it to death. Saul swears by his Maker that whoever was the Achan that troubled the camp, by eating the forbidden fruit, should certainly die, though it were Jonathan himself, that is, though ever so dear to himself and the people, little thinking that Jonathan was the man (1Sa 14:39): He shall surely die, the curse shall be executed upon him. But none of the people answered him, that is, none of those who knew Jonathan had broken the order would inform against him.

2. Jonathan was discovered by lot to be the offender. Saul would have lots cast between himself and Jonathan on the one side, and the people on the other, perhaps because he was as confident of Jonathan's innocency in this matter as of his own, 1Sa 14:40. The people, seeing him in a heat, durst not gainsay any thing he proposed, but acquiesced: Do as seemeth good unto thee. Before he cast lots, he prayed that God would give a perfect lot (1Sa 14:41), that is, make a full discovery of this matter, or, as it is in the margin, that he would show the innocent. This was with an air of impartial justice. Judges should desire that truth may come out, whoever may suffer by it. Lots should be cast with prayer, because they are a solemn appeal to Providence, and by them we beg of God to direct and determine us (Act 1:24), for which reason some have condemned games that depend purely upon lot or chance as making too bold with a sacred thing. Jonathan at length was taken (1Sa 14:42), Providence designing hereby to countenance and support a lawful authority, and to put an honour upon the administration of public justice in general, reserving another way to bring off one that had done nothing worthy of death.

3. Jonathan ingenuously confesses the fact, and Saul, with an angry curse, passes sentence upon him. Jonathan denies not the truth, nor goes about to conceal it, only he thinks it hard that he must die for it, 1Sa 14:43. He might very fairly have pleaded his invincible ignorance of the law, or have insisted upon his merit, but he submitted to the necessity with a great and generous mind: "God's and my father's will be done:"thus he showed as much valour in receiving the messengers of death himself as in sending them among the Philistines. It is as brave to yield in some cases as it is in other cases to fight. Saul is not mollified by his filial submission nor the hardness of his case; but as one that affected to be thought firm to his word, and much more to his oath; even when it bound him hardest, with another imprecation he gives judgment upon Jonathan (1Sa 14:44): " God do so and more also to me if I do not execute the law upon thee, for thou shalt surely die, Jonathan. "(1.) He passed this sentence too hastily, without consulting the oracle. Jonathan had a very good plea in arrest of the judgment. What he had done was not malum in se - bad in itself; and, as for the prohibition of it, he was ignorant of that, so that he could not be charged with rebellion or disobedience. (2.) He did it in fury. Had Jonathan been worthy to die, yet it would have become a judge, much more a father, to pass sentence with tenderness and compassion, and not with such an air of triumph, like a man perfectly divested of all humanity and natural affection. Justice is debased when it is administered with wrath and bitterness. (3.) He backed it with a curse upon himself if he did not see the sentence executed; and this curse did return upon his own head. Jonathan escaped, but God did so to Saul, and more also; for he was rejected of God and made anathema. Let none upon any occasion dare to use such imprecations as these, lest God say Amen to them, and make their own tongues to fall upon them, Psa 64:8. This stone will return upon him that rolleth it. Yet we have reason to think that Saul's bowels yearned toward Jonathan, so that he really punished himself, and very justly, when he seemed so severe upon Jonathan. God made him feel the smart of his own rash edict, which might make him fear being again guilty of the like. By all these vexatious accidents God did likewise correct him for his presumption in offering sacrifice without Samuel. An expedition so ill begun could not end without some rebukes.

4. The people rescued Jonathan out of his father's hands, v. 45. Hitherto they had expressed themselves very observant of Saul. What seemed good to him they acquiesced in, v. 36, 40. But, when Jonathan is in danger, Saul's word is no longer a law to them, but with the utmost zeal they oppose the execution of his sentence: " Shall Jonathan die - that blessing, that darling, of his country? Shall that life be sacrificed to a punctilio of law and honour which was so bravely exposed for the public service, and to which we owe our lives and triumphs? No, we will never stand by and see him thus treated whom God delights to honour."It is good to see Israelites zealous for the protection of those whom God has made instruments of public good. Saul had sworn that Jonathan should die, but they oppose their oath to his, and swear he shall not die: " As the Lord liveth there shall not only not his head, but not a hair of his head fall to the ground; "they did not rescue him by violence, but by reason and resolution; and Josephus says they made their prayer to God that he might be loosed from the curse. They pleaded for him that he has wrought with God this day; that is, "he has owned God's cause, and God has owned his endeavours, and therefore his life is too precious to be thrown away upon a nicety."We may suppose Saul had not so perfectly forgotten the relation of a father but that he was willing enough to have Jonathan rescued, and well pleased to have that done which yet he would not do himself: and he that knows the heart of a father knows not how to blame him.

5. The design against the Philistines is quashed by this incident (v. 46): Saul went up from following them, and so an opportunity was lost of completing the victory. When Israel's shields are clashing with one another the public safety and service suffer by it.

Keil-Delitzsch: 1Sa 14:31-46

Result of the battle, and consequences of Saul's rashness . - 1Sa 14:31. "On thatday they smote the Philistines from Michmash to Ajalon," which has beenpreserved in the village of Yâlo (see at Jos 19:42), and was about threegeographical miles to the south-west of Michmash; "and the people werevery faint," because Saul had forbidden them to eat before the evening (1Sa 14:24).

1Sa 14:32

They therefore " fell voraciously upon the booty "- (the Chethibh ויּעשׂ is no doubt merely an error in writing for ויּעט , imperf . Kal of עיט with Dagesh forte implic . instead of ויּעט , as we may see from 1Sa 15:19, since the meaning required bythe context, viz., to fall upon a thing, cannot be established in the case of עשׂה with על . On the other hand, there does not appear tobe any necessity to supply the article before שׁלל , and this Keri seems only to have been taken from the parallel passage in 1Sa 15:19), - " and took sheep, and oxen, and calves, and slew them on the ground ( ארצה , lit . to the earth, so that when they were slaughtered theanimal fell upon the ground, and remained lying in its blood, and was cut inpieces), and ate upon the blood "( הדּם על , with which הדּם אל ,"lying to the blood," is interchanged in 1Sa 14:34),i.e., the flesh along with the blood which adhered to it, by doing whichthey sinned against the law in Lev 19:26. This sin had been occasioned bySaul himself through the prohibition which he issued.

1Sa 14:33-34

When this was told to Saul, he said, " Ye act faithlesslytowards Jehovah "by transgressing the laws of the covenant; " roll me now (lit. this day) a large stone. Scatter yourselves among the people, and sayto them, Let every one bring his ox and his sheep to me, and slay here "(upon the stone that has been rolled up), viz., so that the blood could runoff properly upon the ground, and the flesh be separated from the blood. This the people also did.

1Sa 14:35

As a thanksgiving for this victory, Saul built an altar to the Lord. לבנות החל אתו , "he began to build it," i.e., hebuilt this altar at the beginning, or as the first altar. This altar wasprobably not intended to serve as a place of sacrifice, but simply to be amemorial of the presence of God, or the revelation of God which Saul hadreceived in the marvellous victory.

1Sa 14:36

After the people had strengthened themselves in the eveningwith food, Saul wanted to pursue the Philistines still farther during thenight, and to plunder among them until the light (i.e., till break of day), andutterly destroy them. The people assented to this proposal, but the priest(Ahiah) wished first of all to obtain the decision of God upon the matter. " We will draw near to God here "(before the altar which has just beenbuilt).

1Sa 14:37

But when Saul inquired of God (through the Urim andThummim of the high priest), " Shall I go down after the Philistines? wiltThou deliver them into the hand of Israel? "God did not answer him. Saulwas to perceive from this, that the guilt of some sin was resting upon thepeople, on account of which the Lord had turned away His countenance,and was withdrawing His help.

1Sa 14:38-39

When Saul perceived, this, he directed all the heads of thepeople ( pinnoth , as in Jdg 20:2) to draw near to learn whereby (wherein)the sin had occurred that day, and declared, "As truly as Jehovah liveth,who has brought salvation to Israel, even if it were upon Jonathan my son,he shall die." The first כּי in 1Sa 14:39 is explanatory; the second andthird serve to introduce the words, like ὅτι , quod ; and the repetitionserves to give emphasis, lit., "that even if it were upon my son, that heshall die." "And of all the people no one answered him," from terror at theking's word.

1Sa 14:40-41

In order to find out the guilt, or rather the culprit, Saulproceeded to the lot; and for this purpose he made all the people stand onone side, whilst he and his son Jonathan went to the other, and thensolemnly addressed Jehovah thus: " God of Israel, give innocence (of mind,i.e., truth). And the lot fell upon Saul and Jonathan ( ילּכד , as in1Sa 10:20-21); and the people went out ,"sc., without the lot fallingupon them, i.e., they went out free.

1Sa 14:42

When they proceeded still further to cast lots between Saul andhis son ( הפּילוּ , sc., גּורל ; cf. 1Ch 26:14; Neh 11:11, etc.), Jonathan was taken .

(Note: In the Alex. version, vv. 41 and 42 are lengthened out withlong paraphrases upon the course pursued in casting the lots: καὶ εἶπε Σαούλ, Κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραήλ τί ὅτι οὐκ ἀπεκρίθης τῷ δούλῳ σου σήμερον; ει ̓ ἐν ἐμοὶ ἢ ἐν Ἰωνάθαν τῷ υἱῷ μου ἡ ἀδικία; κύριε ὁ θεὸς Ἰσραήλ δὸς δήλους· καὶ ἐἀν τάδε εἴπῃ δὸς δὴ τῷ λαῷ σου Ἰσραήλ, δός δὴ ὁσιότηατ, καὶ κληροῦται Ἰωνάθαν καὶ Σαούλ καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἐξῆλθε . V. 42: Καὶ εἶπε Σαοὑλ, βάλλετε ἀνὰ μέσον ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον Ἰωνάθαν τοῦ υἱοῦ μου· ὃν ἂν κατακληρώσηται Κύριος ἀποθανέτω. Καὶ εἶπεν ὁ λαὸς πρὸς Σαούλ, οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ῥῆμα τοῦτο. Καὶ κατεκράτησε Σαοὺλ τοῦ λαοῦ, καὶ βάλλουσιν ἀνὰ μέσον αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνὰ μέσον Ἰωνάθαν τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, καὶ κατακληροῦται Ἰωναθαν . One portion of these additions is also found in the text of our presentVulgate, and reads as follows: Et dixit Saul ad Dominum Deum Israel: Domine Deus Israel, da indicium! quid est quod non responderis servo tuo hodie? Si in me aut in Jonathan filio meo est iniquitas, da ostensionem; aut si haec iniquitas est in populo tuo, da sanctitatem. Et deprehensus est Jonathas et Saul, populus autem exivit. Thebeginning and end of this verse, as well as v. 42, agree here mostaccurately with the Hebrew text. But the words from quid est quod to da sanctitatem are interpolated, so that תמים הבה are translated twice; first in the words da indicium , and then inthe interpolation da ostensionem . This repetition of the same words,and that in different renderings, when taken in connection with theagreement of the Vulgate with the Hebrew text at the beginning andend of the verse, shows clearly enough, that the interpolated clausesdid not originate with Jerome , but are simply inserted in histranslation from the Itala. The additions of the lxx, in which τάδε εἶπῃ is evidently only a distortion of ἡ ἀδικία , are regarded by Ewald ( Gesch. iii. p. 48) and Thenius as anoriginal portion of the text which has dropped out from theMasoretic text. They therefore infer, that instead of תמים we ought to read תּמּים ( Thummim ), and that we have here the full formulaused in connection with the use of the Urim and Thummim, fromwhich it may be seen, that this mode of divine revelation consistedsimply in a sacred lot, or in the use of two dice, the one of which wasfixed upon at the outset as meaning no , and the other as meaning yes . So much at any rate is indisputable, that the Septuagint translatortook תמים in the sense of thummim , and so assumed that Saulhad the guilty person discovered by resorting to the Urim andThummim. But this assumption is also decidedly erroneous, togetherwith all the inferences based upon it. For, in the first place, the verbs הפּיל and ילּכד can be proved to be never usedthroughout the whole of the Old Testament to signify the use of theUrim and Thummim, and to be nothing more than technicalexpressions used to denote the casting of a simple lot (see thepassages cited above in the text). Moreover, such passages as 1Sa 10:22, and 1Sa 2:5, 1Sa 2:23, show most unmistakeably that the divine oracle ofthe Urim and Thummim did not consist merely in a sacred lot withyes and no, but that God gave such answers through it as could neverhave been given through the lots. The Septuagint expansions of thetext are nothing more, therefore, than a subjective and reallyerroneous interpretation on the part of the translators, which arosesimply from the mistaken idea that תמים was thummim , andwhich is therefore utterly worthless.)

1Sa 14:43-44

When Saul asked him what he had done, Jonathan confessedthat he had tasted a little honey (see 1Sa 14:27), and resigned himself to thepunishment suspended over him, saying, "Behold, I shall die;" and Saulpronounced sentence of death upon him, accompanying it with an oath("God do so," etc.: vid., Rth 1:17).

1Sa 14:45

But the people interposed, " Shall Jonathan die, who hasachieved this great salvation (victory) in Israel? God forbid! As truly asJehovah liveth, not a hair shall fall from his head upon the ground; for hehath wrought (the victory) with God to-day ."Thus the people deliveredJonathan from death. The objection raised by the people was soconclusive, that Saul was obliged to yield.

What Jonathan had done was not wrong in itself, but became so simply onaccount of the oath with which Saul had forbidden it. But Jonathan did nothear the oath, and therefore had not even consciously transgressed. Nevertheless a curse lay upon Israel, which was to be brought to light as awarning for the culprit. Therefore Jehovah had given no reply to Saul. Butwhen the lot, which had the force of a divine verdict, fell upon Jonathan,sentence of death was not thereby pronounced upon him by God; but iswas simply made manifest, that through his transgression of his father'soath, with which he was not acquainted, guilt had been brought uponIsrael. The breach of a command issued with a solemn oath, even when ittook place unconsciously, excited the wrath of God, as being a profanationof the divine name. But such a sin could only rest as guilt upon the manwho had committed, or the man who occasioned it. Now where the command in question was one of God himself, there couldbe no question, that even in the case of unconscious transgression the sinfell upon the transgressor, and it was necessary that it should either beexpiated by him or forgiven him. But where the command of a man hadbeen unconsciously transgressed, the guilt might also fall upon the manwho issued the command, that is to say, if he did it without beingauthorized or empowered by God. In the present instance, Saul had issuedthe prohibition without divine authority, and had made it obligatory uponthe people by a solemn oath. The people had conscientiously obeyed thecommand, but Jonathan had transgressed it without being aware of it. Forthis Saul was about to punish him with death, in order to keep his oath. But the people opposed it. They not only pronounced Jonathan innocent,because he had broken the king's command unconsciously, but they alsoexclaimed that he had gained the victory for Israel "with God." In this fact(Jonathan's victory) there was a divine verdict. And Saul could not fail torecognise now, that it was not Jonathan, but he himself, who had sinned,and through his arbitrary and despotic command had brought guilt uponIsrael, on account of which God had given him no reply.

1Sa 14:46

With the feeling of this guilt, Saul gave up any further pursuit ofthe Philistines: he " went up "(sc., to Gibeah) "from behind thePhilistines," i.e., desisting from any further pursuit. But the Philistineswent to their place, i.e., back into their own land.

Constable: 1Sa 13:1--15:35

C. Kingship Removed from Saul chs. 13-15

This section documents Saul's disobedience to the revealed will of God that resulted in his disqualification as Israel's king. Saul's failure proved to be God's instrument of discipline on the people as a whole for their demand for a king. Failure followed disregard for God's Word.

Baldwin expressed well the situation Saul faced as he began to reign.

"In relation to Samuel, it is obvious that Saul had a problem. On the one hand he owed his appointment to Samuel, but on the other hand he was taking over Samuel's position as Israel's leader. Samuel spoke frequently of the wickedness of the people in requesting a king, apparently implying that he, Saul, should not really be in office. Yet Saul had not sought to be king, and would have preferred, at least at first, to have been left in obscurity, but he had not been offered any option. Too many signs had been given that he was the person of God's appointment, and prayers for deliverance from the Ammonites had been marvelously answered. He was king by divine anointing, by God's overruling of the sacred lot, and by united popular demand. He had caught the imagination of the people, who wanted a hero, and against all odds he was expected to pass muster.

"Had he realized it, Saul could have gained much by the presence of a seasoned prophet like Samuel alongside him, ready to give guidance, instruction and, if necessary, rebuke. Above all, Samuel was an intercessor who knew the Lord's mind, and saw prayer answered. Samuel would indicate the right way, and all Saul had to do was follow. He could have leant [sic] hard on Samuel and he would have found reassurance. In the event, this was exactly what Saul could not bring himself to do."¹³¹

Saul's improper response to his predecessor, Samuel, should be a warning to all ministers whose predecessors remain on the scene after they replace them.

Constable: 1Sa 14:24-46

3. Saul's cursing of Jonathan 14:24-46

Jonathan, a man of faith, initiated a great victory, but in this section we see that Saul, a man of pride, limited the extent of that victory while trying to extend it. Saul's failure to submit to Yahweh's authority resulted in his behaving foolishly more than wickedly.

Constable: 1Sa 14:36-46

Saul's blindness to his guilt 14:36-46

Evidently Saul would not have inquired of God if Ahijah (cf. v. 18) had not suggested he do so (v. 36). Probably God did not answer his prayer immediately because Saul wanted this information to vindicate himself rather than God (v. 37). Saul thought God did not answer him because someone had violated his rule (v. 24), which he confused with God's law calling violation of it sin (v. 38; cf. Josh. 7:14). Really God did not answer him because Saul was disloyal to Yahweh. The king boldly vowed that anyone who had sinned, which was only breaking his rule, even Jonathan, would die (v. 39). God identified Jonathan rather than Saul as the guilty party. Jonathan had violated the king's command though he had not violated God's command. Really Jonathan was executing God's will.

Jonathan would have had to die if he had broken Yahweh's command, as Achan did. However, Saul's oath was not on that high a level of authority though Saul thought it was as is clear from his insistence that Jonathan die. The soldiers who had gone along with Saul's requests thus far (vv. 36, 40) refused to follow his orders when he called for Jonathan's execution (v. 45). They recognized that Saul's rule about abstaining from eating (v. 24) was not divine law. They correctly saw that even though Jonathan had violated Saul's rule he had obeyed God's order to drive Israel's enemies out of the land. Saul's failure to see his role under God and the difference between the Word of God and his own commands resulted in confusion and disunity. Saul's preoccupation with Jonathan's eating against his wishes cost him a great victory over the Philistines.

The writer pointed out the reason for Saul's ultimate failure as Israel's king and the reason for his own personal destruction in this section (13:1-14:46). Essentially Saul refused to put the will of God above his own personal desires. Careful attention to the text shows that Saul showed great concern about the observance of religious rituals, but he failed to appreciate the indispensable importance of submitting his will to Yahweh. He sought to use God rather than allowing God to use him. He thought he was above the Mosaic Law rather than under it. He put himself in the position that God alone rightfully occupied.

To illustrate the seriousness of Saul's sin, suppose two parents have two children. The first child has a real heart for what pleases his parents. Whenever this child rarely disobeys his parents, his conscience bothers him, he confesses his offense to his parents, and he tries to be obedient from then on. This was how David responded to God. Even though David sinned greatly by committing adultery and murder, these sins broke his heart, he confessed them to God, and he returned to following God faithfully. His heart was one with God's. He wanted to please God and honor God even though he failed miserably occasionally.

The second child in the family in this illustration really wants to run his own life. He submits to parental authority when it seems to him to be to his advantage to do so, but his heart is really not with his parents. He wants to control his own life and believes he can do a better job of it on his own than by following his parents' instructions. This was Saul's attitude. Saul never submitted to divine authority unless he felt it was to his advantage to do so. He always wanted to maintain control over his own life.

Which of these two children has the more serious problem of disobedience? The second child does. Saul's sin was worse than David's. Even though David committed a few great sins, God did not cut off his dynasty or his rule prematurely since he really wanted to glorify God. However, David suffered severe consequences for his sins even though God forgave him. God did cut off Saul's dynasty and his rule prematurely because Saul would not yield to Yahweh's control, which was crucial for Israel's king. Failure to yield control to God is extremely important, even more important than individual acts of disobedience.

Saul's pride led him to make foolish decisions that limited his effectiveness. Many believers experience unnecessary confusion and complications in their lives because they will not relinquish control to God (cf. Rom. 6:13; 12:1-2).

Guzik: 1Sa 14:1-52

1 Samuel 14 - Victory Over the Philistines

A. Jonathan's adventure in faith.

1. (1-3) Jonathan's proposal.

Now it happened one day that Jonathan the son of Saul said to the young man who bore his armor, "Come, let us go over to the Philistines' garrison that is on the other side." But he did not tell his father. And Saul was sitting in the outskirts of Gibeah under a pomegranate tree which is in Migron. The people who were with him were about six hundred men. Ahijah the son of Ahitub, Ichabod's brother, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli, the Lord's priest in Shiloh, was wearing an ephod. But the people did not know that Jonathan had gone.

a. It happened one day: At the beginning, there was nothing in this day that indicated it would be a remarkable day. But it would! On this day, God would win a great victory through the bold trust of Jonathan.

i. "God is ever on the outlook for believing souls, who will receive his power and grace on the one hand, and transmit them on the other. He chooses them, that by them he should make his mighty power known." (Meyer <Expanded/Meyer.htm>)

b. Said to the young man who bore his armor: Every "officer" in the Israelite army had an "assistant" known as an armor bearer. The armor bearer would help the officer in fighting and administration of the army. They would often simply carry the armor and weapons of the officer, so they were known as armor bearers.

i. "Armor-bearers in ancient times had to be unusually brave and loyal, since the lives of their masters often depended on them." (Youngblood <Expanded/ebc.htm>) Later, God would raise up a special armor bearer for King Saul: a young man named David.

c. Come, let us go over to the Philistines garrison: The Israelites were in a military conflict were victory, from all outward appearance, was impossible. They were vastly outnumbered, and were greatly surpassed in military technology. Yet Jonathan is bold enough to go over to the Philistine garrison just to see what the LORD might want to do.

i. Jonathan probably was awake at night, offended and outraged at the way these godless Philistines were oppressing the Israelites. He was mad at the way it seemed so hopeless and how the people were just waiting around, discouraged. As he lay awake that night, perhaps a thought suddenly came into his mind: "Shamgar!" Shamgar? Jonathan probably remember him from his Bible. After all, Judges 3:31 describes how Shamgar killed 600 Philistines with a sharp stick. Jonathan probably thought, "Well, if God could do it through Shamgar, He could do it through me!"

ii. As Jonathan thought about it more, he considered there was no way the LORD had forsaken Israel. Sure, the odds were great against them. But God was greater than the odds. God had promised to do great things for Israel. He promised that Five of you shall chase a hundred, and a hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight; your enemies shall fall by the sword before you. (Leviticus 26:8) He had won great victories against great odds before, as in the days of Gideon or Samson. God gave this land to Israel, not to the Philistines. God could do it! Why not now? Why not today? Why not through me?

iii. "This was a rash and foolish attempt, if it be examined by common rules; but not so, if we consider the singular promises made to the Israelites, that one should chase a thousand, [and so forth], and especially the heroical and extraordinary motions which were then frequently put into the minds of gallant men by God's Spirit, whereby they undertook and accomplished noble and wonderful things; as did Samson, and David, and his worthies." (Poole <Expanded/biblio.htm>)

d. He did not tell his father: Why not? It may have been just an oversight, or something easily and properly explained. Or, it may have been that Jonathan deliberately did not tell his father, because he believed his father would have simply said "no."

e. Saul was sitting: What a contrast! The bold, brave, king is simply sitting . . . under a pomegranate tree while his son boldly goes over to the Philistine garrison. Saul is there, the priest with the ephod is there (as sort of an "army chaplain"). They sit back while Jonathan bravely trusts God.

f. The mention of Ichabod seems almost unnecessary. Why would we need to know that the priest with Saul, Ahijah, was the nephew of Ichabod? Probably, God wants us to associate the meaning of Ichabod's name with where Saul is at spiritually. Saul's royal glory is almost gone, and it is appropriate that he associates with a relative of "The Glory Has Departed."

g. The people did not know that Jonathan was gone: This indicates that Jonathan did not go over to the Philistine garrison out of a desire for personal glory. If that was his motivation, he would have told at least a few people that he had gone over.

2. (4-5) Jonathan finds a strategic position.

Between the passes, by which Jonathan sought to go over to the Philistines' garrison, there was a sharp rock on one side and a sharp rock on the other side. And the name of one was Bozez, and the name of the other Seneh. The front of one faced northward opposite Michmash, and the other southward opposite Gibeah.

a. Between the passes . . . there was a sharp rock on one side and a sharp rock on the other side: On his way to the Philistine garrison, Jonathan sees something that any military man would notice. He sees a strategic position - a narrow path through a pass, with large, sharp rocks on either side. A few men could easily fight against a much larger number at this strategic place.

b. If Jonathan would have never decided, Come, let us go over to the Philistines' garrison that is on the other side (1 Samuel 14:1) he would have never found this strategic place. God guided Jonathan as Jonathan was boldly trusting God, and acting on that bold trust.

3. (6-7) Jonathan's bold proposal.

Then Jonathan said to the young man who bore his armor, "Come, let us go over to the garrison of these uncircumcised; it may be that the LORD will work for us. For nothing restrains the LORD from saving by many or by few." So his armorbearer said to him, "Do all that is in your heart. Go then; here I am with you, according to your heart."

a. It may be that the LORD will work for us: For Jonathan, this was more than a reconnaissance expedition. He wanted to see what God could do through two men who would trust him and step out boldly.

i. Jonathan knew the need was great. Israel was already hopelessly outnumbered and demoralized.

ii. Jonathan knew God wanted to use someone. His father, King Saul, just wanted to sit under a pomegranate tree. Something had to be done, and Jonathan was willing to be used by God to do it.

iii. Jonathan knew God wanted to work with someone. Jonathan could have just prayed that God would rain down fire from heaven on the Philistines. But Jonathan knew that God uses the bold action and fighting spirit of His people. "It was not Jonathan that was to work with some help from God; it was the Lord that was to work by Jonathan." (Blaikie <Expanded/biblio.htm>)

b. For nothing restrains the LORD from saving by many or by few: What wise courage in God! Many in Israel probably believed this as a theological truth. But few believed it enough to do something. Jonathan's faith was demonstrated by his works.

i. Nothing restrains the LORD! Do we really believe it? Or does the title of J.B. Phillips' book describe us: Your God is Too Small. We often feel that God is restrained in one way or another. In reality, the only thing that could be said to restrain God is our unbelief. In Matthew 13:58, it says of one time in Jesus' ministry, He did not do many mighty works there because of their unbelief. God's power is never restrained, but His will may be restrained by our unbelief. He may choose not to act until we partner with Him in trust. God had a trusting partner in Jonathan!

ii. By many or few: What did it matter? Who cares about the odds or the point spread when God is on your side? The odds were already against Israel. Did it matter if it was a million-to-one or a thousand-to-one? Numbers or odds did not restrain God, but unbelief could. Jonathan never read the New Testament, but he had a Romans 8:31 heart: If God be for us, who can be against us?

iii. Notice where Jonathan had the emphasis. He had little faith in himself, but great faith in God. It wasn't "I can win a great victory with God's help." It was "God can win a great victory through even me." As Meyer says, "He had the smallest possible faith in himself, and the greatest faith in God. His soul waited for the Lord; in Him was centred all his hope, and from his gracious help he expected great things. All he aspired to was to be humble vehicle through which the delivering grace of God might work."

c. Go then; here I am with you: These words from Jonathan's armor bearer must have cheered Jonathan greatly. When we step out in faith, encouragement can make all the difference for good. And discouragement can make all the difference for evil!

i. God was going to use Jonathan, but He wasn't going to use Jonathan alone. Almost always, when God uses a man, he calls others around that man to support and help him. They are just as important in getting God's work done as the man God uses. So, if you can't be a Jonathan, then find a Jonathan - and attach yourself to him as like Jonathan's armor bearer.

4. (8-10) Jonathan proposes a test.

Then Jonathan said, "Very well, let us cross over to these men, and we will show ourselves to them. If they say thus to us, 'Wait until we come to you,' then we will stand still in our place and not go up to them. But if they say thus, 'Come up to us,' then we will go up. For the LORD has delivered them into our hand, and this will be a sign to us."

a. Very well: This indicates that Jonathan took the support of his armor bearer as confirmation.

b. This will be a sign to us: In his step of faith, Jonathan wants to know he is really being led by God. So he proposes a test: they will show themselves to the Philistine guards. If they respond one way ("Come up to us") Jonathan will know God wants them to fight and win the battle. If the guards respond another way ("Wait until we come to you") Jonathan will know God does not want them to fight this day.

c. Jonathan is showing wisdom, not unbelief. To this point, he is not acting on a specific, confirmed word from God. Instead, he is following the bold hope and impression of his heart. He is humble enough to know his heart might be wrong on this day, so Jonathan asks God to guide him.

i. This is not the same as Gideon's setting of a fleece (Judges 6:36-40). Gideon had a confirmed word of God to guide him, and he doubted God's word. Jonathan was not doubting God's word, he was doubting his own heart and mind.

ii. Jonathan is prompted by faith. Significantly, he does not demand to know the whole battle plan from God in advance. He is willing to take it one step at a time, and let God plan it out. Faith is willing to let God know the whole plan and know our part one step at a time.

5. (11-14) Jonathan and his armor bearer attack the Philistines.

So both of them showed themselves to the garrison of the Philistines. And the Philistines said, "Look, the Hebrews are coming out of the holes where they have hidden." Then the men of the garrison called to Jonathan and his armorbearer, and said, "Come up to us, and we will show you something." Jonathan said to his armorbearer, "Come up after me, for the LORD has delivered them into the hand of Israel." And Jonathan climbed up on his hands and knees with his armorbearer after him; and they fell before Jonathan. And as he came after him, his armorbearer killed them. That first slaughter which Jonathan and his armorbearer made was about twenty men within about half an acre of land.

a. Look, the Hebrews are coming out of the holes where they have hidden: At this time of crisis, the Israelites were hiding anywhere they could (1 Samuel 13:6). It was reasonable for the Philistines to think these were Hebrew deserters surrendering to the Philistines because they thought it was better than hiding in a hole!

b. Jonathan said to his armorbearer, "Come up after me, for the LORD had delivered them into the hand of Israel." What an exciting moment this must have been for Jonathan! His bold trust in God had been confirmed by a sign, and now he knew God was going to do something great.

c. Jonathan climbed up on his hands and knees with his armorbearer after him: This was a difficult climb. Jonathan was not the kind to say, "Well, it would be nice to do this. But the rocks are steep and there are a lot of Philistines up there. Let's just pray instead." No; he got down on his hands and knees and climbed! If we only want victory, or want to be used by God when it is easy, we won't see much victory and we won't be used very much.

d. And they fell before Jonathan: Jonathan knew that the battle was the LORD's, yet he knew God would use him to fight. When Jonathan saw God's confirming sign, he didn't lay down his sword and start praying that God would strike them all down. He prayed, made sure his sword was sharp, and trusted that God would use him to strike them all down!

e. And as he came after him, his armorbearer killed them: "Jonathan knocked them down, and the armour-bearer despatched them." (Clarke <Expanded/Clarke.htm>)

6. (15) God attacks the Philistines.

And there was trembling in the camp, in the field, and among all the people. The garrison and the raiders also trembled; and the earth quaked, so that it was a very great trembling.

a. There was trembling in the camp, in the field, and among all the people: It seems that the Philistines, under a divine confusion, instantly awoke that early morning with the thought "We are attacked by enemies in our midst!" Then rushing about, they thought their fellow Philistines might be the enemy, so they began to fight one another, and kill one another!

i. It didn't matter if the Philistines greatly outnumbered the Israelites, and had far better weapons. God was more than able to set the Philistines against each other. If the Israelites had no swords, the LORD would use the swords of the Philistines against the Philistines!

ii. "It is not strange if the Philistines were both astonished and intimidated; God also struck them with a panic terror; and withal, infatuated their minds, and possibly put an evil spirit among them, which in this universal confusion made them conceive that there was treachery amongst themselves, and therefore caused them to sheath their swords in one another's bowels, as appears from verses 16 and 20." (Poole <Expanded/biblio.htm>)

iii. "Possibly God blinded their eyes or their minds, that they could not distinguish friends from foes. Compare Judges 7:22; 2 Kings 6:18; 2 Chronicles 20:23." (Poole <Expanded/biblio.htm>) "But God, where he pleaseth, can easily trouble the fantasy, and make men to mistake; as we see daily in melancholy persons, who looking through a black cloud, as it were, see all things black, dark, cross and hurtful." (Trapp <Expanded/Trapp.htm>)

iv. Trapp's comment on this section seems good, if I could only understand it: "As anyone was in their way, they knocked him down: being smitten with such a scotama or acrisis, a giddiness of the brain, or blindness of judgment, that they knew not their friends from their foes in that distemper and hurrycomb." What on earth is a hurrycomb?

b. The earth quaked, so that it was a very great trembling: Jonathan and his armor bearer had done their part. Now God was doing his part. Jonathan could use his heart and his sword, and he did. But what Jonathan could not do - send a great earthquake to terrify the Philistines - God did. Often we wait around for God to do what we can do. But God will often do miracles - what He alone can do - if we will do what we can do.

c. The very great trembling must have terrified the Philistines. But it would have comforted Jonathan and his armor bearer. They would have been confirmed in their confidence in such a great God.

7. (16-19) Saul learns of the battle.

Now the watchmen of Saul in Gibeah of Benjamin looked, and there was the multitude, melting away; and they went here and there. Then Saul said to the people who were with him, "Now call the roll and see who has gone from us." And when they had called the roll, surprisingly, Jonathan and his armorbearer were not there. And Saul said to Ahijah, "Bring the ark of God here" (for at that time the ark of God was with the children of Israel). Now it happened, while Saul talked to the priest, that the noise which was in the camp of the Philistines continued to increase; so Saul said to the priest, "Withdraw your hand."

a. There was the multitude, melting away: Imagine how this must have looked to the watchmen of Israel! They were keeping an eye on the huge army of the Philistines, and the army starts to melt away before their eyes.

b. Call the roll: Why? Did it matter? What Saul should have done was go and fight the Philistines at this strategic moment. Instead, he was probably worried about who was leading the battle, and who would get the credit.

c. Bring the ark of God here: Why? What for? Saul is probably trying to look spiritual here, but what did he need to seek God about? There is a time to go aside and pray, and there is a time to get your sword out and fight. Saul didn't know what time it was!

d. While Saul talked to the priest . . . the noise which was in the camp of the Philistines continued to increase; so Saul said to the priest, "Withdraw your hand." It is strange that at this moment, Saul would not know what to do. His insecurity and fear and self-focus have paralyzed him. It was time to fight. But eventually, the noise of God and Jonathan fighting against the Philistines becomes so loud, that Saul knows he has to fight to. So, he tells the priest "Withdraw your hand." This means, "Stop seeking and answer from God with the urim and thummin," which were held in a pouch in the priest's breastplate.

i. Trapp calls Saul's words here "Words of profane impiety . . . it is now no time to consult with God, for we know well enough what we have to do, and will take our opportunity."

8. (20-23) Saul fights in the battle and a great victory is won.

Then Saul and all the people who were with him assembled, and they went to the battle; and indeed every man's sword was against his neighbor, and there was very great confusion. Moreover the Hebrews who were with the Philistines before that time, who went up with them into the camp from the surrounding country, they also joined the Israelites who were with Saul and Jonathan. Likewise all the men of Israel who had hidden in the mountains of Ephraim, when they heard that the Philistines fled, they also followed hard after them in the battle. So the LORD saved Israel that day, and the battle shifted to Beth Aven.

a. They went to the battle: It has taken a long time for Saul, the leader of Israel, to start leading. Now he is following God and Jonathan into battle.

i. Why was Saul just sitting . . . under a pomegranate tree when Jonathan was boldly trusting God for the victory? Probably Saul's insecurity had made him so afraid to fail that he didn't want to do anything. Now he will only go into battle because it seems like a "sure thing." We are far from a bold trust in God when we will only do what seems to be a "sure thing." Go out and do something bold. If you fail, and God wasn't really with it the way you thought He would be, then you still have tried. The armchair quarterbacks and back seat drivers have nothing to say to you!

ii. These were the hold-backs, who were out there to fight the Philistines, but didn't enter the battle until the odds were in their favor. Better to come out then than never, but how much better to have the bold trust of a Jonathan!

b. Moreover the Hebrews who were with the Philistines before that time . . . also joined the Israelites: It seems that many in Israel had the insecure heart of Saul. These Hebrew deserters to the Philistines probably hated their masters, but were afraid to stand free in the LORD. They would only come out for Israel when victory was assured.

i. These were the sell-outs, who had forsaken Israel and supported the Philistines when it seemed Israel was a "loser" and the Philistines were the "winners." Better to come out then than never, but how much better to have the bold trust of a Jonathan!

c. Likewise all the men of Israel who had hidden in the mountains of Ephraim . . . they also followed hard after them in the battle: Others in Israel, when the Philistine oppression became severe, simply fled (1 Samuel 13:6-7). They were afraid to come out for Israel when things were bad, but now that victory seems assured they will join in the battle.

i. These were the hide-outs, who had left the scene of battle and stood on the sidelines until it seemed "safe." They would not stand for the LORD until the odds seemed to be in their favor. Better to come out then than never, but how much better to have the bold trust of a Jonathan!

c. So the LORD saved Israel that day: God really used Jonathan, but it wasn't Jonathan's victory. It was the LORD's victory. God was just waiting for someone with the bold trust of Jonathan!

i. Josephus says there were 6,000 Philistines killed in this rout. And all groups of people had a hand in the victory - the hold-backs, the sell-outs, and the hide-outs. But there was no doubt who led the battle: the boldly trusting Jonathan. Which of these groups of people are you most like?

d. God wins the same kind of victories today. In fact, one military man read this account and used Jonathan's exact strategy to win an important battle. Here is the story from Major Vivian Gilbert, a British Army Officer:

In the First World War a brigade major in Allenby's army in Palestine was on one occasion searching his Bible with the light of a candle, looking for a certain name. His brigade had received orders to take a village that stood on a rocky prominence on the other side of a deep valley. It was called Michmash and the name seemed somehow familiar. Eventually he found it in 1 Samuel 13 and read there: "And Saul, and Jonathan his son, and the people that were present with them, abode in Gibeah of Benjamin but the Philistines encamped in Michmash." It then went on to tell how Jonathan and his armour-bearer crossed over during the night "to the Philistines' garrison" on the other side, and how they passed two sharp rocks: "there was a sharp rock on the one side, and a sharp rock on the other side: and the name of the one was Bozez and the name of the other Seneh." They clambered up the cliff and overpowered the garrison, "within as it were a half acre of land, which a yoke of oxen might plough." The main body of the enemy awakened by the melee thought they were surrounded by Saul's troops and "melted away and they went on beating down one another." Thereupon Saul attacked with his whole force and beat the enemy. "So the Lord saved Israel that day."

The brigade major reflected that there must still be this narrow passage through the rocks, between two spurs, and at the end of it the "half acre of land." He woke the commander and there read the passage through together once more. Patrols were sent out. They found the pass, which was thinly held by the Turks, and which led past two jagged rocks - obviously Bozez and Seneh. Up on top, beside Michmash, they could see by the light of the moon a small flat field. The brigadier altered his plan of attack. Instead of deploying the whole brigade he sent one company through the pass under cover of darkness. The few Turks whom they met were overpowered without a sound, the cliffs were scaled, and shortly before daybreak the company had taken up a position on "the half acre of land."

The Turks woke up and took to their heels in disorder since they thought they were being surrounded by Allenby's army. They were all killed or taken prisoner. And so, after thousands of years British troops successfully copied the tactics of Saul and Jonathan. (Keller, The Bible As History, pages 179-180)

B. Saul's foolish oath and its consequences.

1. (24) Saul compels the army of Israel under an oath.

And the men of Israel were distressed that day, for Saul had placed the people under oath, saying, "Cursed is the man who eats any food until evening, before I have taken vengeance on my enemies." So none of the people tasted food.

a. Saul had placed the people under an oath: Jonathan, in his bold trust in the LORD, had just struck a mighty blow against the Philistines. God had totally routed and confused the Philistine army. Now it was the job of the army of Israel, under King Saul, to finish the job by striking down the fleeing Philistine army. And on this day of battle against the Philistines, Saul declared a curse. "Cursed is the man who eats any food until evening, before I have taken vengeance on my enemies."

i. On the surface, this sounds so spiritual. "Let's set today aside as a special day of fasting unto the LORD. We want God to do a great work, so we should fast today. And I should enforce this among the whole army with a curse." What could be wrong with that?

b. It was wrong because Saul's focus was wrong. Notice his focus: before I have taken vengeance on my enemies. Saul, don't put the army of Israel under an oath so that you can take vengeance on your enemies. If that is how you regard this battle, then just fast yourself! Saul shows that even in the midst of doing something spiritual like fasting, his focus is on himself, not the LORD.

i. Saul's desire is not the glory of God. It is the glory of Saul. He was not the first one, nor the last one, to command "religious" or "spiritual" acts for his own glory, not the glory of God. The focus here is not on the LORD, or on the LORD's victory, but on Saul's commanded fast.

c. It was wrong because Saul's motive was wrong. It is possible that Saul genuinely did something he thought would please God, but this is unlikely. It is more probable to see two darker motives behind Saul's curse.

i. He may have been acting out of a false spirituality. Before, when he first learned that the Philistine army was melting away, he "acted spiritual" by calling for the priest to bring the Ark of the Covenant and inquiring of God through the priest (1 Samuel 14:16-19).

ii. Or, Saul may have been acting out of insecurity, doing this to draw the focus on himself. Saul had been concerned with just who it was leading this attack (1 Samuel 14:17), because he knew the army and the nation would cherish this person as a hero. Now, through this curse, he puts the focus back on himself. That day, no one would be thinking much about Jonathan, because their hunger would always remind them of Saul's curse.

d. It was wrong because Saul's sense of authority was wrong. Cursed is the man. Says who, Saul? Since when did you have the authority to proclaim such a curse? Are you now the spiritual leader of the nation? If any such fast was to be declared, and curse attached to it, the prophet Samuel had the spiritual authority to do it, not king Saul.

e. It was wrong because Saul's promised punishment was wrong. Cursed is the man. That's a little heavy handed, don't you think? If Saul wanted to call for a voluntary fast, that was one thing. He might have said, "I'm fasting today before the LORD. I will not eat any food until evening, before I have taken vengeance on my enemies. If anyone wants to join me, they are welcome." But instead of leading by example and inviting the army of Israel to follow, he placed the people under an oath.

i. This in itself has a bad taste to it. We can imagine Saul standing before the whole army of Israel, and saying, "All right everyone. Raise your right hand and swear an oath before God" and then leading them in this forced, manipulated promise. Saul had probably left that assembly of the army thinking he had really done something ("What a great promise they all made!"). He had really done something all right; he had done something really bad. It is always wrong to place someone else under a promise or under an oath. If it isn't on their heart to put themselves under the oath, it doesn't do any good to force them under it.

f. It was wrong because Saul's timing was wrong. The day of decisive battle is not the day to command the troops that they do not eat. They need the energy, and they need the focus on the job at hand. They don't need the discouragement and the distraction of a forced fast. It was more important to achieve a complete victory over the Philistines that day. It's not that there was anything wrong with fasting itself, but that it wasn't the right time. It was Saul's day to fast, not the LORD's day to fast.

g. It was wrong because the result among the army of Israel was wrong. No matter what Saul's motive was, it was a foolish thing to do. On this day of battle when the morale of Israel should have been the highest, and when the physical energy of Israel should have the strongest, instead the men of Israel were distressed that day. Because none of the people tasted food, the army was weak and discouraged on a day when they should have been strong and excited.

2. (25-30) Jonathan unknowingly breaks the oath and is told of his offense.

Now all the people of the land came to a forest; and there was honey on the ground. And when the people had come into the woods, there was the honey, dripping; but no one put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath. But Jonathan had not heard his father charge the people with the oath; therefore he stretched out the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in a honeycomb, and put his hand to his mouth; and his countenance brightened. Then one of the people said, "Your father strictly charged the people with an oath, saying, 'Cursed is the man who eats food this day.' " And the people were faint. But Jonathan said, "My father has troubled the land. Look now, how my countenance has brightened because I tasted a little of this honey. How much better if the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies which they found! For now would there not have been a much greater slaughter among the Philistines?"

a. There was honey on the ground: This was provision from God! The Israeli army was hot on the pursuit of the fleeing Philistines. They were all tired and hungry. They needed energy to continue the pursuit and finish the battle. And here is honey on the ground!

i. "There were many wild bees in that country, and Judea is expressly said to be a land flowing with milk and honey." (Clarke <Expanded/Clarke.htm>)

ii. They really did need the energy. "The mopping-up operations after a rout were all-important if the maximum benefit from the victory was to be reaped, but pursuit of the enemy involved an exhausting, unremitting journey over steep hills for hours on end." (Baldwin <Expanded/Baldwin.htm>)

iii. A taste of that honey would have given the soldiers the kind of sugar-rush energy they needed to carry on the battle.

b. No one put his hand to his mouth, for the people feared the oath: This group of soldiers all saw the honey. It was dripping, right in front of their eyes. Yet Saul's foolish oath prevented them from receiving what God had put right in front of them!

i. This must have been torture for the soldiers. And there was the honey, dripping. Right in front of their eyes! They want the honey. They need the honey. God provided the honey. But a foolish, legalistic command from Saul kept it from them. How this must have discouraged and embittered the soldiers!

c. But Jonathan had not heard his father charge the people with the oath: Jonathan ate some of that honey! Immediately, it did the weary soldier well: his countenance brightened. He needed the energy to fight, and here it was, provided by God.

i. We may wonder at what exactly is meant by Jonathan had not heard his father charge the people with the oath. Did this mean that Jonathan did not know of the oath? Or, did he hear of the oath from others, but say to himself, "Well, since I wasn't there, my father never charged me with this oath. I never heard him say any such thing."

d. My father has troubled the land: Perhaps Jonathan should not have said this. There was a sense in which he was undercutting his father's authority before the troops here. If there were anything to say, it would have been best to say it to his father directly. However, despite all that, Jonathan was exactly right!

i. King Saul had indeed troubled the land with his pseudo-spiritual command to fast. Because of his command, the people were faint on a day when they should have been strong. They were weak and distracted. The victory could have been greater if the people could have eaten!

ii. You really can't say it better than Jonathan did: How much better if the people had eaten freely today of the spoil of their enemies which they found! For now would there not have been a much greater slaughter among the Philistines? (1 Samuel 14:30)

3. (31-35) The soldiers of Israel sin because of Saul's foolish command.

Now they had driven back the Philistines that day from Michmash to Aijalon. So the people were very faint. And the people rushed on the spoil, and took sheep, oxen, and calves, and slaughtered them on the ground; and the people ate them with the blood. Then they told Saul, saying, "Look, the people are sinning against the LORD by eating with the blood!" So he said, "You have dealt treacherously; roll a large stone to me this day." And Saul said, "Disperse yourselves among the people, and say to them, 'Bring me here every man's ox and every man's sheep, slaughter them here, and eat; and do not sin against the LORD by eating with the blood.'" So every one of the people brought his ox with him that night, and slaughtered it there. Then Saul built an altar to the LORD. This was the first altar that he built to the LORD.

a. The people rushed on the spoil . . . and the people ate them with the blood. God specifically commanded Israel that they should always properly drain the blood from an animal before they butchered it.

i. Deuteronomy 12:23-25 is one place where God commanded this: Only be sure that you do not eat the blood, for the blood is the life; you may not eat the life with the meat. You shall not eat it; you shall pour it on the earth like water. You shall not eat it, that it may go well with you and your children after you, when you do what is right in the sight of the LORD. Since the blood was the picture of life in any animal or man (for the blood is the life), God would not allow Israel to eat meat that had not been properly bled. Instead, it was to be given to God by pouring it out on the earth. Life belongs to God, not man, and this was a way to declare that.

b. On this day of battle, because of Saul's foolish command, the people were so hungry they broke this command. Their obedience to Saul's foolish command led them to disobey God's clearly declared command. This is always the result of legalism!

i. Jesus said it plainly to the legalists of His day: For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men . . . All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. (Mark 7:8)

ii. We often think that legalistic rules will keep people from sin. Actually, the opposite is true. Legalistic rules lead us into sin, because they either provoke our rebellion, or they lead us into legalistic pride.

iii. Paul said it powerfully in Colossians 2:23: These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh.

c. You have dealt treacherously: Saul is blaming the people for what is really his own fault. He should have never made such a foolish commandment, and his commandment provoked the people into sin. But in his pride, insecurity, and foolishness, Saul set the people up to sin.

i. Of course, this does not excuse the sin of the people. They are accountable for their own sin before God. Yet Saul is also accountable. Jesus referred to this principle when He said, For offenses must come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comes! (Matthew 18:7)

d. Slaughter them here, and eat; and do not sin against the LORD by eating with the blood: Saul set up a stone to properly butcher the animals, and also built an altar to the LORD. At least Saul is doing some of what is right after he had done what was wrong.

4. (36-39) In response to God's silence, Saul makes another foolish oath.

Now Saul said, "Let us go down after the Philistines by night, and plunder them until the morning light; and let us not leave a man of them." And they said, "Do whatever seems good to you." Then the priest said, "Let us draw near to God here." So Saul asked counsel of God, "Shall I go down after the Philistines? Will You deliver them into the hand of Israel?" But He did not answer him that day. And Saul said, "Come over here, all you chiefs of the people, and know and see what this sin was today. For as the LORD lives, who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die." But not a man among all the people answered him.

a. So Saul asked counsel of God: This was good. Saul should have sought the counsel of God. We shouldn't think that everything Saul did was bad before the LORD.

b. He did not answer him that day: Saul inquired of the LORD through the priest. It is likely that the priest used the Urim and Thummim to inquire of the LORD.

i. The use of the discerning tools of Urim and Thummim is described on a few occasions (Exodus 28:30, Numbers 27:21, 1 Samuel 28:6; Ezra 2:63, Nehemiah 7:65) and their use may be implied in other passages (Judges 1:1; 20:18, 23).

ii. The names Urim and Thummim mean "Lights and Perfections." We aren't sure what they were or how they were used. Most think they were a pair of stones, one light and another dark, and each stone indicated a "yes" or "no" from God. The High Priest would ask God a question, reach into the breastplate, and pull our either a "yes" or a "no."

iii. On this occasion, the priest would probably start inquiring of the LORD with this question: "LORD, do you want to speak to us today?" Because we are told He did not answer him that day, probably when this question was asked, the stone that indicated "no" kept being drawn out.

iv. Many would consider the Urim and Thummim as crude tools of discernment. In fact, they are better than the tools many Christians use today. It would be better to use the Urim and Thummim than rely on feelings, or outward appearances, or to simply use no discernment!

c. Why did the LORD not answer him that day? Saul was convinced the problem was that some violated his commanded oath. When he said, know and see what this sin was today, he was convinced the sin was among the people instead of in himself.

d. Saul was so sure of being right he pronounced another oath: For as the LORD lives, who saves Israel, though it be in Jonathan my son, he shall surely die.

i. Of course, if Saul knew that it was Jonathan who had violated his oath, he would never had said this. But he was so caught up in being right, that he adds this foolish vow to his previous foolish commandment.

ii. Saul was very good at making religious oaths and promises. But that didn't mean very much, because he was not good at having a heart after God, and he was not good at keeping the oaths he made.

iii. "Strange perverseness! He who was so indulgent as to spare wicked Agag, chapter 15, is now so severe as to destroy his own worthy son: he that could easily dispense with God's righteous and reasonable command, will not bear the violation of his own rash and foolish command; because his own authority and power is concerned in this, and only God's in the other." (Poole <Expanded/biblio.htm>)

e. Not a man among all the people answered him: The people knew that Jonathan had eaten of the honey, and Saul's sentence of death on anyone who had eaten must have sent a chill up their back. All the people loved and respected Jonathan, and they knew that Saul was in the wrong. But no one wanted to answer Saul!

5. (40-44) Jonathan is implicated by the casting of lots.

Then he said to all Israel, "You be on one side, and my son Jonathan and I will be on the other side." And the people said to Saul, "Do what seems good to you." Therefore Saul said to the LORD God of Israel, "Give a perfect lot." So Saul and Jonathan were taken, but the people escaped. And Saul said, "Cast lots between my son Jonathan and me." So Jonathan was taken. Then Saul said to Jonathan, "Tell me what you have done." And Jonathan told him, and said, "I only tasted a little honey with the end of the rod that was in my hand. So now I must die!" And Saul answered, "God do so and more also; for you shall surely die, Jonathan."

a. Saul and Jonathan were taken, but the people escaped: Saul wanted to find the wrong doer by the casting of lots. They would separate people into two groups, then select one group by a "low" or "high" roll of something like dice. You would continue to narrow the selected group until you found your man. First, Saul wants everyone to know that he and his son Jonathan are innocent, so that is the first division. Imagine Saul's shock when the lot indicates that he and Jonathan are the guilty group!

b. So Jonathan was taken: This must have shaken Saul. He had pronounced a death sentence on whoever ate in violation of his forced vow. And Saul, instead of admitting that his commandment and his death sentence were foolish, hardens in his foolishness, and declares "God do so and more also; for you shall surely die, Jonathan."

i. Saul was willing to kill his son rather than to humbly admit that he is really at fault. Saul started out as a humble man (1 Samuel 10:21), but his once impressive humility is being overtaken by pride. "But he that maketh so much ado about eating with the blood, makes nothing of spilling the blood of innocent Jonathan, and of swearing bloody oaths at the same time . . . Saul seemeth to have been a very great swearer, rapping out oath upon oath, which belike he thought he might do by authority." (Trapp <Expanded/Trapp.htm>)

c. Why did God allow the lot to pick out Jonathan? "Not in answer to Saul's prayers, which God valued not. But, (1.) To show that he is the dispenser of lots; (2.) To humble Jonathan, who was in danger of being puffed up too much with the joy of his victory; (3.) To discover Saul's hypocrisy." (Trapp <Expanded/Trapp.htm>)

i. "The holy oracle told the truth, but neither that oracle nor the God who gave it fixed any blame upon Jonathan, and his own conscience acquits him. He seeks not pardon from God, because he is conscious he had not transgressed." (Clarke <Expanded/Clarke.htm>)

ii. Perfect lot in the Hebrew is very close to the word for Thummim. They no doubt used the Urim and Thummim as the way to cast the lot.

6. (45-46) The people rescue Jonathan from execution.

But the people said to Saul, "Shall Jonathan die, who has accomplished this great deliverance in Israel? Certainly not! As the LORD lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day." So the people rescued Jonathan, and he did not die. Then Saul returned from pursuing the Philistines, and the Philistines went to their own place.

a. Certainly not! As the LORD lives, not one hair of his head shall fall to the ground, for he has worked with God this day: Happily, the people finally stand up to Saul's foolishness. They simply will not allow Jonathan to be executed. They knew that Jonathan was working for the LORD that day, not against the LORD.

b. Was this right? Should Jonathan have been executed? No; he should not have been executed for three reasons. First, the oath itself and the pronouncement of the death penalty on the oath breaker were simply bad and foolish laws, and should not have been enforced. Second, Jonathan broke the oath in ignorance. Finally, God's approval was evident from His great blessing upon Jonathan (he has worked with God today).

i. Which had more to do with the victory won that day? Was it Saul's foolish regulation or Jonathan's bold faith in God?

c. And the Philistines went to their own place: The implication in this phrase is that the victory might have been much greater if not for Saul's foolish oath.

7. (47-52) Saul's many wars and his family.

So Saul established his sovereignty over Israel, and fought against all his enemies on every side, against Moab, against the people of Ammon, against Edom, against the kings of Zobah, and against the Philistines. Wherever he turned, he harassed them. And he gathered an army and attacked the Amalekites, and delivered Israel from the hands of those who plundered them. The sons of Saul were Jonathan, Jishui and Malchishua. And the names of his two daughters were these: the name of the firstborn Merab, and the name of the younger Michal. The name of Saul's wife was Ahinoam the daughter of Ahimaaz. And the name of the commander of his army was Abner the son of Ner, Saul's uncle. Kish was the father of Saul, and Ner the father of Abner was the son of Abiel. Now there was fierce war with the Philistines all the days of Saul. And when Saul saw any strong man or any valiant man, he took him for himself.

<Expanded/14_47.bmp>

a. So Saul established his sovereignty over Israel: This last passage in the chapter is all about Saul's strength. And Saul was strong. He established his sovereignty over Israel. He fought many successful wars. He had a large and influential family. And the strength of his army grew (when Saul saw any strong man or any valiant man, he took him for himself). Saul's strength was broad over many areas.

i. "Ishbosheth, Saul's other son, is here omitted, because he intended to mention only those of his sons who went with him into the battles here mentioned, and who were afterwards slain with him." (Poole <Expanded/biblio.htm>)

b. Yet, if his strength was broad, it was shallow. Because Saul was not a man after God's own heart, because his own relationship with God was more about image than substance, his kingdom cannot last. The weakness of Saul has been seen here and there; but in the next chapter it will be fully exposed.

i. "Saul alone was to blame. He had not only missed the greatest opportunity of his life, but he was already enwrapping himself in the unbelief, the jealousy, and moroseness of temper in which his sun was to be enshrouded while it was yet day." (Meyer <Expanded/Meyer.htm>)

© 2006 David Guzik - No distribution beyond personal use without permission

Introduction / Outline

JFB: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST AND SECOND BOOKS OF SAMUEL. The two were, by the ancient Jews, conjoined so as to make one book, and in that form could be called the Book of Samuel with more propriety than now, the second being wholly occupied with the relation of transactions that did not take place till after the death of that eminent judge. Accordingly, in the Septuagint and the Vulgate, it is called the First and Second Books of Kings. The early portion of the First Book, down to the end of the twenty-fourth chapter, was probably written by Samuel; while the rest of it and the whole of the Second, are commonly ascribed to Nathan and Gad, founding the opinion on 1Ch 29:29. Commentators, however, are divided about this, some supposing that the statements in 1Sa 2:26; 1Sa 3:1, indicate the hand of the judge himself, or a contemporary; while some think, from 1Sa 6:18; 1Sa 12:5; 1Sa 27:6, that its composition must be referred to a later age. It is probable, however, that these supposed marks of an after-period were interpolations of Ezra. This uncertainty, however, as to the authorship does not affect the inspired authority of the book, which is indisputable, being quoted in the New Testament (1Sa 13:14 in Act 13:22, and 2Sa 7:14 in Heb 1:5), as well as in many of the Psalms.

JFB: 1 Samuel (Outline)

• OF ELKANAH AND HIS TWO WIVES. (1Sa 1:1-8)
• HANNAH'S PRAYER. (1Sa 1:9-18)
• SAMUEL BORN. (1Sa 1:20)
• HANNAH'S SONG IN THANKFULNESS TO GOD. (1Sa 2:1-11)
• THE SIN OF ELI'S SONS. (1Sa 2:12-17)
• SAMUEL'S MINISTRY. (1Sa 2:18-26)
• A PROPHECY AGAINST ELI'S HOUSE. (1Sa 2:27-35)
• THE LORD APPEARS TO SAMUEL IN A VISION. (1Sa 3:1-10)
• ISRAEL OVERCOME BY THE PHILISTINES. (1Sa 4:1-11)
• ELI HEARING THE TIDINGS. (1Sa 4:12-22)
• THE PHILISTINES BRING THE ARK INTO THE HOUSE OF DAGON. (1Sa 5:1-2)
• DAGON FALLS DOWN. (1Sa 5:3-5)
• THE PHILISTINES ARE SMITTEN WITH EMERODS. (1Sa 5:6-12)
• THE PHILISTINES COUNSEL HOW TO SEND BACK THE ARK. (1Sa 6:1-9)
• THE ARK AT KIRJATH-JEARIM. (1Sa 7:1-2)
• THE ISRAELITES, THROUGH SAMUEL'S INFLUENCE, SOLEMNLY REPENT AT MIZPEH. (1Sa 7:3-6)
• WHILE SAMUEL PRAYS, THE PHILISTINES ARE DISCOMFITED. (1Sa 7:7-14)
• OCCASIONED BY THE ILL-GOVERNMENT OF SAMUEL'S SONS, THE ISRAELITES ASK A KING. (1Sa. 8:1-18)
• SAUL, DESPAIRING TO FIND HIS FATHER'S ASSES, COMES TO SAMUEL. (1Sa 9:1-14)
• GOD REVEALS TO SAMUEL SAUL'S COMING, AND HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE KINGDOM. (1Sa 9:15-27)
• SAMUEL ANOINTS SAUL, AND CONFIRMS HIM BY THE PREDICTION OF THREE SIGNS. (1Sa. 10:1-27)
• NAHASH OFFERS THEM OF JABESH-GILEAD A REPROACHFUL CONDITION. (1Sa 11:1-4)
• THEY SEND TO SAUL, AND ARE DELIVERED. (1Sa 11:5-11)
• SAUL CONFIRMED KING. (1Sa 11:12-15)
• SAMUEL TESTIFIES HIS INTEGRITY. (1Sa 12:1-5)
• HE TERRIFIES THEM WITH THUNDER IN HARVEST-TIME. (1Sa 12:17-25)
• SAUL'S SELECTED BAND. (1Sa 13:1-2)
• HE CALLS THE HEBREWS TO GILGAL AGAINST THE PHILISTINES. (1Sa 13:3-4)
• THE PHILISTINES' GREAT HOST. (1Sa 13:5)
• THE ISRAELITES' DISTRESS. (1Sa 13:6-8)
• SAUL, WEARY OF WAITING FOR SAMUEL, SACRIFICES. (1Sa 13:9-16)
• JONATHAN MIRACULOUSLY SMITES THE PHILISTINES' GARRISON. (1Sa 14:1-14)
• SAUL SENT TO DESTROY AMALEK. (1Sa 15:1-6)
• HE SPARES AGAG AND THE BEST OF THE SPOIL. (1Sa 15:7-9)
• GOD REJECTS HIS FOR DISOBEDIENCE. (1Sa 15:10-11)
• SAMUEL SENT BY GOD TO BETHLEHEM. (1Sa 16:1-10)
• HE ANOINTS DAVID. (1Sa 16:11-14)
• THE ISRAELITES AND PHILISTINES BEING READY TO BATTLE. (1Sa 17:1-3)
• GOLIATH CHALLENGES A COMBAT. (1Sa 17:4-11)
• DAVID ACCEPTS THE CHALLENGE, AND SLAYS HIM. (1Sa. 17:12-58)
• JONATHAN LOVES DAVID. (1Sa 18:1-4)
• SAUL ENVIES HIS PRAISE. (1Sa 18:5-9)
• SEEKS TO KILL HIM. (1Sa 18:10-12)
• FEARS HIM FOR HIS GOOD SUCCESS. (1Sa 18:13-16)
• HE OFFERS HIM HIS DAUGHTER FOR A SNARE. (1Sa 18:17-21)
• JONATHAN DISCLOSES HIS FATHER'S PURPOSE TO KILL DAVID. (1Sa 19:1-7)
• SAUL'S MALICIOUS RAGE BREAKS OUT AGAINST DAVID. (1Sa 19:8-17)
• DAVID FLEES TO SAMUEL. (1Sa 19:18-23)
• SAUL PROPHESIES. (1Sa 19:24)
• DAVID CONSULTS WITH JONATHAN FOR HIS SAFETY. (1Sa 20:1-10)
• THEIR COVENANT RENEWED BY OATH. (1Sa 20:11-23)
• SAUL, MISSING DAVID, SEEKS TO KILL JONAHAN. (1Sa. 20:24-40)
• JONATHAN AND DAVID LOVINGLY PART. (1Sa 20:41-42)
• DAVID, AT NOB, OBTAINS OF AHIMELECH HALLOWED BREAD. (1Sa 21:1-7)
• HE TAKES GOLIATH'S SWORD. (1Sa 21:9)
• AT GATH HE FEIGNS HIMSELF MAD. (1Sa 21:10-15)
• DAVID'S KINDRED AND OTHERS RESORT TO HIM AT ADULLAM. (1Sa 22:1-8)
• DOEG ACCUSES AHIMELECH. (1Sa 22:9-16)
• SAUL COMMANDS TO KILL THE PRIESTS. (1Sa 22:17-19)
• ABIATHAR ESCAPES AND FLEES AFTER DAVID. (1Sa 22:20-23)
• DAVID RESCUES KEILAH. (1Sa 23:1-6)
• SAUL'S COMING, AND TREACHERY OF THE KEILITES. (1Sa 23:7-13)
• DAVID ESCAPES TO ZIPH. (1Sa 23:14-18)
• SAUL PURSUES HIM. (1Sa 23:19-29)
• DAVID IN A CAVE AT ENGEDI CUTS OFF SAUL'S SKIRT, BUT SPARES HIS LIFE. (1Sa 24:1-7)
• HE URGES THEREBY HIS INNOCENCY. (1Sa 24:8-15)
• SAMUEL DIES. (1Sa 25:1-9)
• THE CHURLISH ANSWER PROVOKES HIM. (1Sa 25:10-13)
• ABIGAIL PACIFIES HIM. (1Sa. 25:14-35)
• NABAL'S DEATH. (1Sa 25:36-44)
• SAUL COMES TO THE HILL OF HACHILAH AGAINST DAVID. (1Sa 26:1-4)
• DAVID STAYS ABISHAI FROM KILLING SAUL, BUT TAKES HIS SPEAR AND CRUSE. (1Sa. 26:5-25)
• SAUL HEARING THAT DAVID WAS FLED TO GATH, SEEKS NO MORE FOR HIM. (1Sa 27:1-4)
• DAVID BEGS ZIKLAG OF ACHISH. (1Sa 27:5-12)
• ACHISH'S CONFIDENCE IN DAVID. (1Sa 28:1-6)
• SAUL SEEKS A WITCH, WHO, BEING ENCOURAGED BY HIM, RAISES UP SAMUEL. (1Sa. 28:7-25)
• DAVID MARCHING WITH THE PHILISTINES TO FIGHT WITH ISRAEL. (1Sa 29:1-5)
• THE AMALEKITES SPOIL ZIKLAG. (1Sa 30:1-5)
• BUT DAVID, ENCOURAGED BY GOD, PURSUES THEM. (1Sa 30:6-15)
• AND RECOVERS HIS TWO WIVES AND ALL THE SPOIL. (1Sa. 30:16-31)
• SAUL HAVING LOST HIS ARMY AT GILBOA, AND HIS SONS BEING SLAIN, HE AND HIS ARMOR-BEARER KILL THEMSELVES. (1Sa 31:1-7)
• THE PHILISTINES TRIUMPH OVER THEIR DEAD BODIES. (1Sa 31:8-10)
• THE MEN OF JABESH-GILEAD RECOVER THE BODIES AND BURY THEM AT JABESH. (1Sa 31:11-13)

TSK: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

The First Book of SAMUEL, otherwise called " The First Book of the KINGS."

TSK: 1 Samuel 14 (Chapter Introduction)

Overview

1Sa 14:1, Jonathan goes and miraculously smites the Philistine’s garrison; 1Sa 14:15, A divine terror makes them beat themselves; 1Sa 14:17, Saul, not staying the priest’s answer, sets on them; 1Sa 14:21, The captivated Hebrews, and the hidden Israelites, join against them; 1Sa 14:24, Saul’s unadvised adjuration hinders the victory; 1Sa 14:31, He restrains the people from eating blood; 1Sa 14:35, He builds an altar; 1Sa 14:37, Jonathan, taken by lot, is save by the people; 1Sa 14:47, Saul’s victories, strength, and family.

Poole: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL OTHERWISE CALLED

THE FIRST BOOK OF THE KINGS.

THE ARGUMENT.

IT is not certainly known who was the penman of this Book, or whether it was written by one or more hands; nor is it or any great importance; for since there are sufficient evidences that God was the chief author of it, it matters not who was the instrument. As when it appears that such a thing was really an act of parliament, or of the council-table, it is not considerable who was the clerk or which was the pen that wrote it. And this is the less material in such historical hooks, wherein there is but little which concerns the foundation of faith and good life, and therefore it was not necessary to name the writer of them. It may abundantly suffice that there were in these times divers prophets and holy men of God; as Samuel, and Nathan, and Gad, and David himself, who might each of them write some part of this and the following book. But if any man will out of perverseness doubt or deny that these wrote it, yet this I suppose no discreet and impartial man will deny, that it is wholly incredible that such books should be written in their times, and recommended to the church as a part of the Holy Scriptures, and so received by the succeeding generation, without their approbation, who had so great a power and authority in the church and commonwealth of Israel.

Poole: 1 Samuel 14 (Chapter Introduction)

SAMUEL CHAPTER 14

Jonathan and his armour-bearer secretly smite the Philistines’ army; they slay one another, 1Sa 14:1-15 ; which being perceived, 1Sa 14:16,17 , Saul pursueth the Philistines, the captivated and hidden Israelites join in the pursuit, 1Sa 14:18-23 . Saul adjureth the people not to eat any thing till evening. Jonathan eateth honey: the Philistines are smitten, 1Sa 14:24-31 . The people eat flesh with the blood: Saul restraineth them, and buildeth an altar, 1Sa 14:32-35 . Design to pursue the Philistines by night, he consults God, who answers not: he casts a lot to find out the cause: Jonathan is taken: Saul dooms him to die: the people rescue him, 1Sa 14:36-45 . Saul’ s wars, sons, daughters, wife, 1Sa 14:46-52 .

This was a rash and foolish attempt, if it be examined by common rules; but not so, if we consider the singular promises made to the Israelites, that one should chase a thousand , &c., and especially the heroical and extraordinary motions which were then frequently put into the minds of gallant men by God’ s Spirit, whereby they undertook and accomplished noble and wonderful things; as did Samson, and David, and his worthies.

MHCC: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

In this book we have an account of Eli, and the wickedness of his sons; also of Samuel, his character and actions. Then of the advancement of Saul to be the king of Israel, and his ill behaviour, until his death made way for David's succession to the throne, who was an eminent type of Christ. David's patience, modesty, constancy, persecution by open enemies and feigned friends, are a pattern and example to the church, and to every member of it. Many things in this book encourage the faith, hope, and patience of the suffering believer. It contains also many useful cautions and awful warnings.

MHCC: 1 Samuel 14 (Chapter Introduction)

(1Sa 14:1-15) Jonathan smites the Philistines.

(1Sa 14:16-23) Their defeat.

(1Sa 14:24-35) Saul forbids the people to eat till evening.

(1Sa 14:36-46) Jonathan pointed out by lot.

(1Sa 14:47-52) Saul's family.

Matthew Henry: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

An Exposition, with Practical Observations, of The First Book of Samuel

This book, and that which follows it, bear the name of Samuel in the title, not because he was the penman of them (except of so much of them as fell within his own time, to the twenty-fifth chapter of the first book, in which we have an account of his death), but because the first book begins with a large account of him, his birth and childhood, his life and government; and the rest of these two volumes that are denominated from him contains the history of the reigns of Saul and David, who were both anointed by him. And, because the history of these two kings takes up the greatest part of these books, the Vulgar latin calls them the First and Second Books of the Kings, and the two that follow the Third and Fourth, which the titles in our English Bibles take notice of with an alias: otherwise called the First Book of the Kings, etc. The Septuagint calls them the first and second Book of the Kingdoms. It is needless to contend about it, but there is no occasion to vary from the Hebrew verity. These two books contain the history of the last two of the judges, Eli and Samuel, who were not, as the rest, men of war, but priests (and so much of them is an appendix to the book of Judges), and of the first two of the kings, Saul and David, and so much of them is an entrance upon the history of the kings. They contain a considerable part of the sacred history, are sometimes referred to in the New Testament, and often in the titles of David's Psalms, which, if placed in their order, would fall in these books. It is uncertain who was the penman of them; it is probable that Samuel wrote the history of his own time, and that, after him, some of the prophets that were with David (Nathan as likely as any) continued it. This first book gives us a full account of Eli's fall and Samuel's rise and good government, ch. 1-8. Of Samuel's resignation of the government and Saul's advancement and mal-administration, ch. 9-15. The choice of David, his struggles with Saul, Saul's ruin at last, and the opening of the way for David to the throne, ch. 16-31. And these things are written for our learning.

Matthew Henry: 1 Samuel 14 (Chapter Introduction)

We left the host of Israel in a very ill posture, in the close of the foregoing chapter; we saw in them no wisdom, nor strength, nor goodness, to give us ground to expect any other than that they should all be cut off by the army of the Philistines; yet here we find that infinite power which works without means, and that infinite goodness which gives without merit, glorified in a happy turn to their affairs, that still Samuel's words may be made good: " The Lord will not forsake his people, for his great name's sake," (1Sa 12:22). In this chapter we have, I. The host of the Philistines trampled upon, and triumphed over, by the faith and courage of Jonathan, who unknown to his father (1Sa 14:1-3), with his armour-bearer only, made a brave attack upon them, encouraging himself in the Lord his God (1Sa 14:4-7). He challenged them (1Sa 14:8-12), and, upon their acceptance of the challenge, charged them with such fury, or rather such faith, that he put them to flight, and set them one against another (1Sa 14:13-15), which gave opportunity to Saul and his forces, with other Israelites, to follow the blow, and gain a victory (1Sa 14:16-23). II. The host of Israel troubled and perplexed by the rashness and folly of Saul, who adjured the people to eat no food till night, which 1. Brought Jonathan to a praemunire (1Sa 14:24-30). 2. Was a temptation to the people, when the time of their fast had expired, to eat with the blood, (1Sa 14:31-35). Jonathan's error, through ignorance, had like to have been his death, but the people rescued him (1Sa 14:36-46). III. In the close we have a general account of Saul's exploits (1Sa 14:47, 1Sa 14:48) and of his family (1Sa 14:49-52).

Constable: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

Introduction

Title

First and Second Samuel were originally one book called the Book of Samuel in the Hebrew Bible. The Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament (made ca. 250 B.C.) was the first to divide it into two books. The Septuagint translators titled these books 1 and 2 Kingdoms. That division has persisted ever since and has even been incorporated into subsequent editions of the Hebrew Bible (since A.D. 1517). The title "Samuel" was given by Jerome in his Latin translation, the Vulgate (ca. A.D. 400).

The Jews gave the name "Samuel" to it because Samuel is the first major character in the book. Samuel anointed both Saul and David, so in this respect he was superior to them both.

Date and Writer

Statements in the Book of Samuel imply that someone who had witnessed at least some of the events recorded wrote it. However the original writer must have written most of it after Samuel's death (i.e., -1 Sam. 25-2 Sam. 24) and some of it even after the division of the kingdom following Solomon's death (e.g., 1 Sam. 27:6). These features have made it difficult to date the book.

"Our guess is that the author was a high state official in frequent attendance at the court, enjoying the full confidence of David and his household, who served David throughout his reign in Jerusalem and also Solomon during the early years of his reign, and whose duties may have been connected with literary work."¹

Most conservative scholars prefer the view that Samuel may have written or been responsible for noting the record of earlier events in the book (chs. 1-24). Then some unidentifiable writer put it in its final form later, perhaps soon after Solomon's death.

Rationalistic critics of the book tend to believe it was the result of much more piecing together, and some of them date its final form as late as 500 B.C.²

Scope

The Book of Samuel covers the period of Israel's history bracketed by Samuel's conception and the end of David's reign. David turned the kingdom over to Solomon in 971 B.C.³ David reigned for 40 and one-half years (2 Sam. 2:11; 5:5). This means he came to power in 1011 B.C. Saul also reigned for 40 years (Acts 13:21) so he became king in 1051 B.C. We can estimate the date of Samuel's birth fairly certainly on the basis of chronological references in the text to have been about 1121 B.C.⁴ Thus the Book of Samuel covers about 1121-971 B.C., or about 150 years of history.

We should note that the first part of 1 Samuel overlaps historically with the end of the judges period that we find in the Book of Judges. Apparently Samson was born just a few years before Samuel. Samson's 20-year judgeship evidently began shortly before the battle of Aphek (1104 B.C.) at which time Eli died (1 Sam. 4:18). It ended not many years before the battle of Mizpah (1084 B.C.) when the Philistine domination of Israel ceased temporarily (1 Sam. 7:13). Samuel's ministry therefore probably ran concurrent with that of Samson until Samson died. Saul began to reign about 35 years after Samson died (i.e., 1051 B.C.). Samuel evidently lived about 30 years after that.⁵

Old Testament History
Events	Biblical References
Creation to Israel's move to Egypt	Genesis 1-50
The Exodus	Exodus 1-18
Israel at Mt. Sinai	Exodus 19--Numbers 10
The Wilderness Wanderings	Numbers 11-21
Israel on the Plains of Moab	Numbers 22--Joshua 2
The Conquest and Division of Canaan	Joshua 3-24
The Amphictyony	-Judges 1-1 Samuel 7
The Reign of Saul	1 Samuel 8-31; 1 Chronicles 10
The Reign of David	2 Samuel 1-24; 1 Chronicles 11-29
The Reign of Solomon	1 Kings 1-11; 2 Chronicles 1-9
The Divided Monarchy	-1 Kings 12-2 Kings 17; 2 Chronicles 10-31
The Surviving Kingdom of Judah	2 Kings 18-25; 2 Chronicles 32-36
The Return under Zerubbabel	Ezra 1-6
The Return under Ezra	Ezra 7-10
The Return under Nehemiah	Nehemiah 1-13

Message⁶

First and 2 Samuel are really one story. The translators divided them into two books for convenience, not because of subject matter.

First Samuel records Israel's transition from amphictyony to monarchy.

The key passage that explains this transition is 8:4-7. Two statements from this passage are especially significant.

The human desire that produced the transition expressed itself in verse 5: "Now appoint a king for us to judge us like all the nations." God had brought Israel into existence as a nation to be unlike all the nations (Exod. 19:5-6). The essence of its uniqueness was Yahweh's rule over it as King. God wanted Israel to be a demonstration for all the world to see how glorious it can be to live under the authority of God.

The real meaning of the people's request comes out in verse 7: ". . . they have rejected me from being king over them." During the period of the judges, religious apostasy spread and characterized Israel. The people refused to obey their King. It is this attitude that finds expression in verse 5. The people wanted to substitute the false for the true. This is the essence of sin, and it results in idolatry. Every idol is a witness to man's need of God. When people reject the true God they must put something in His place to meet that need. Human beings must have a god.

Israel turned from God as her King in 1 Samuel. She desired a king like the other nations. This book shows the immediate effects of that desire.

One of the great revelations of 1 Samuel is how from the human viewpoint God adapts to continue His reign.

This statement appears to contradict 8:7, but it does not. The people rejected Yahweh, but they did not dethrone Him. The first act is possible, the second is not. This is a major lesson of 1 Samuel. The great revelation of this book is not primarily its three central figures: Samuel, Saul, and David. It is Yahweh reigning by adapting to human situations and moving surely and steadily toward the fulfillment of His purposes. In spite of disobedience or obedience, failure or success, rebellious or loyal people, the reign of God moves on. We see this great lesson in the history of 1 Samuel's three central figures: Samuel, Saul, and David.

The writer introduced Samuel's story with his mother Hannah's experience with God. Hannah was a great woman of faith who lived in the judges period. Her faith became God's foothold for advance. Her song reveals a profound appreciation for Yahweh as the God who reigns over all (2:6-8, 10). The similarities between this prayer and Mary's Magnificat in Luke 1 are interesting and noteworthy.

Samuel was a prophet. In one sense he was the first of the prophets (Acts 3:24). Of course, Moses was a prophet and so was Abraham, but Samuel was the first of the order of prophets who mediated between God and the Israelites during the monarchy. The kings of Israel and Judah were never mediators between God and the people in the sense of speaking for God to the people. When the Israelites rejected Yahweh as their king, He withdrew from close communion and intimate fellowship with them. He never recognized their kings as standing between Himself and them to mediate His Word to the people. He chose their kings for them. He allowed their desire for a human king to work itself out in ultimate disaster through the centuries that followed. Yet He never spoke to the people through the king. He always spoke to them through the prophets. Samuel was the first of these. David, of course, was a king and a prophet. The role of the kings was to govern the people. The role of the prophets was to reveal God's will to them.

With Samuel the office of prophet in Israel emerges as that of Yahweh's authoritative representative to His people. Samuel became the king-maker finding and anointing both Saul and David. >From now on when God had a message for the people it normally did not come directly to the king but to the king and the people through the prophet. The prophet's office was always superior to that of Israel's kings. (You have the privilege of speaking for God to your generation. You have a high calling similar to that of Israel's prophets.) When Israel rejected Yahweh as her king, God chose Samuel, the child of a woman's simple faith, trained him in the tabernacle, and called him when he was only a boy. Then He gave him a message to deliver and sent him to anoint Saul as the king after the people's own heart, and David as the king after God's own heart. The prophets became God's mediators, His messengers, and the interpreters of His law. Thus Yahweh reigned though He adapted His methods of ruling by raising up the prophets. He called Samuel as the first of these mediators. During the monarchy God provided guidance through two offices rather than through one as He had done previously. The kings provided political leadership, and the prophets gave the people spiritual leadership. God had previously provided both types of leadership through single individuals namely Moses, Joshua, and the judges.

Saul's story is one of the most tragic in Scripture. It is unusually fascinating and has tremendous power in its appeal to our lives. When God placed Saul on Israel's throne He answered the prayer of His rebellious people in 8:5. God "gave them their request, but sent a wasting disease among them" (Ps. 106:15; NASB).

Saul was a revelation to the Israelites of what the possession of "a king like the nations" really meant. He had unusual physical strength, but he was fitful and he failed the people. He had mental acumen, but he was moody and eventually turned into a madman. He was sluggish and dull spiritually lacking in spiritual insight and power, and eventually he abandoned Yahweh for a witch.

His reign was also a disaster. At the beginning of his reign, Israel was virtually without a leader. At its end it was under the control of an enemy neighbor. Saul was never able to expand the borders of Israel because he never was strong enough to dominate his enemy neighbors. David on the other hand did both of these things. At the end of Saul's reign, Israel had almost destroyed itself through its wars with the Philistines.

David's story is one of the most glorious in Scripture. After Saul, God gave His people another king, but this time he was a man after God's own heart.

God prepared David for the throne by putting him through training as a shepherd in the fields, a courtier in the palace, and an "outlaw" in exile. (By "outlaw" I do not mean David was lawless but that he lived outside Saul's control.) His shepherd training prepared him to care for and protect the Israelites under his charge. His courtier experience prepared him to deal with high governmental leaders. His "outlaw" years perfected the disciplines that enabled him to become a strong ruler. These disciplines included relying on God in every situation, practicing self-restraint, and leading his people.

In all David's training God was reigning, moving forward to the fulfillment of His plans and purposes. God had previously done this by making the child of faith, Samuel, His prophet. He had also done this by making outwardly promising Saul a revelation to the nation of her sins in turning away from God.

The second great revelation of this book is that people cooperate with God by either being loyal or by being disloyal to Him.

In Samuel's case he had opportunity to glorify God because of his parentage, his call by God, and his appointment as God's prophet. He responded obediently, with loyalty to God. Consequently God's messages got delivered, and God's work moved ahead. Samuel was an instrument of blessing.

In Saul's case he had opportunity to glorify God too. His opportunity came in his call by God, his anointing by Samuel, his friendship with Samuel, his popularity with the people, and his personal abilities. He responded disobediently, with disloyalty to God as seen in his vacillating and self-will. Consequently he failed as a king, and he died under the judgment of God. His life was a failure.

In David's case his opportunities were his call, his anointing, his waiting, and his suffering. He responded obediently, with loyalty to God. Consequently he became God's instrument of progress and blessing. He was a success.

Each man had his opportunity, made his response, and experienced the consequences of his response. Two obeyed, one disobeyed. All cooperated with God in fulfilling His ultimate purposes either to his own blessing or to his own blasting.

As a result of these two major revelations I would summarize the message of 1 Samuel as follows. God will accomplish His purposes regardless of man's personal response to Him. However man's response to God's revealed will determines a person's own success or failure in life.

First Samuel teaches us the methods of the sovereign God. All territory is within God's jurisdiction, every person is under His control, and all events are in His hands. All of God's plans and purposes are moving toward accomplishment. He makes use of all antagonistic facts and forces as well as all positive facts and forces. He also makes use of all the agents He has chosen to use regardless of their responses. Paul's comments in 2 Tim. 2:20-21 are very much to the point here.

First Samuel also teaches us that God's ultimate victory is independent of the attitudes and actions of individuals and groups of people (e.g., Israel) toward Him. Nevertheless the ultimate destiny of individuals and groups of people depends on their attitudes and actions toward Him.

Samuel was obedient, was God's instrument, and experienced deliverance. Saul was disobedient, was God's instrument, and experienced destruction. David was obedient, was God's instrument, and experienced deliverance. My attitudes and actions do not determine God's ultimate victory, but they do determine my ultimate destiny. Everything depends on my choices and me regarding my earthly destiny. Nothing depends on me regarding God's ultimate victory. God uses all people, loyal and rebellious, to produce His ultimate purposes. However we determine the outcome of our lives by our attitudes and responses to Him. We see these principles working themselves out around us all the time. Dr. Walvoord is an example of a Samuel or a David in our day. The DTS graduates in prison are examples of the Sauls of our day.

Constable: 1 Samuel (Outline)

Outline

I. Eli and Samuel chs. 1-3

A. The change from barrenness to fertility 1:1-2:10

1. Hannah's condition 1:1-8

2. Hannah's vow 1:9-18

3. Hannah's obedience 1:19-28

4. Hannah's song 2:1-10

B. The contrast between Samuel and Eli's sons 2:11-36

1. Eli's sons' wickedness 2:11-17

2. Hannah's godly influence on Samuel and its effect 2:18-21

3. Eli's lack of influence on his sons and its effect 2:22-26

4. The oracle against Eli's house 2:27-36

C. God's first revelation to Samuel ch. 3

1. Samuel's call 3:1-18

2. Samuel's ministry 3:19-4:1a

II. The history of the ark of the covenant 4:1b-7:1

A. The capture of the ark 4:1b-22

1. The battle of Aphek 4:1b-11

2. The response of Eli 4:12-18

3. The response of Phinehas' wife 4:19-22

B. Pagan fertility foiled by God ch. 5

C. The ark returned to Israel by God 6:1-7:1

1. The plan to terminate God's judgment 6:1-9

2. The return of the ark to Bethshemesh 6:10-18

3. The removal of the ark to Kiriath-jearim 6:19-7:1

III. Samuel and Saul 7:2-15:35

A. Samuel's ministry as Israel's judge 7:2-17

1. Samuel's spiritual leadership 7:2-4

2. National repentance and deliverance 7:5-14

3. Samuel's regular ministry 7:15-17

B. Kingship given to Saul chs. 8-12

1. The demand for a king ch. 8

2. The anointing of Saul 9:1-10:16

3. The choice of Saul by lot 10:17-27

4. Saul's effective leadership in battle 11:1-11

5. The confirmation of Saul as king 11:12-12:25

C. Kingship removed from Saul chs. 13-15

1. Saul's disobedience at Gilgal 13:1-15

2. Saul's struggle against the Philistines 13:16-14:23

3. Saul's cursing of Jonathan 14:24-46

4. Saul's limited effectiveness in battle 14:47-52

5. Yahweh's final rejection of Saul ch. 15

IV. Saul and David 1 Sam. 16-31

A. David's rise as the new anointed 16:1-18:5

1. God's selection of David for kingship ch. 16

2. The reason for God's selection of David ch. 17

3. The results of God's selection of David ch. 18:1-19:17

B. David driven out by Saul 19:18-20:42

1. God's deliverance in Ramah 19:18-24

2. Jonathan's advocacy for David ch. 20

C. David in exile chs. 21-31

1. David's initial movements chs. 21-22

2. Saul's pursuit of David ch. 23

3. David's goodness to two fools ch. 24-26

4. The end of Saul's reign 27-31

(Continued in notes on 2 Samuel)

Constable: 1 Samuel

1 Samuel

Bibliography

Ackroyd, Peter R. The First Book of Samuel. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible series. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1971.

_____. "The Verb Love--'Aheb in the David-Jonathan Narratives--A Footnote." Vetus Testamentum 25:2 (April 1975):213-14.

Aharoni, Yohanan, and Michael Avi-Yonah. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. Revised ed., New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977.

Ahlstrom, G. W. "I Samuel 1, 15." Biblica 60:2 (1979):254.

_____. "The Travels of the Ark: A Religio-Political Composition." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 43 (1984):141-49.

Albright, William F. The Archaeology of Palestine. 1949. Revised ed. Pelican Archaeology series. Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Eng.: Penguin Books, 1956.

_____. "What Were the Cherubim?" Biblical Archaeologist 1:1 (1938):1-3.

"Annotated Bibliography on I Samuel." Biblical Viewpoint 14:2 (November 1980):144-49.

Ap-Thomas, D. R. "Saul's Uncle.'" Vetus Testamentum 11 (1961):241-45.

Archer, Gleason L, Jr. Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Regency Reference Library series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1982.

_____. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Revised ed. Chicago: Moody Press, 1974.

Baldwin, Joyce G. 1 & 2 Samuel. Tyndale Old Testament commentaries series. Leicester, Eng., and Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1988.

Baltzer, Klaus. The Covenant Formulary. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1971.

Barker, Kenneth L. "The Antiquity and Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives." In A Tribute to Gleason Archer, pp.131-39. Edited by Walter C. Kaiser Jr. and Ronald F. Youngblood. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Baxter, J. Sidlow. Explore the Book. 6 vols. London: Marshall, Morgan, and Scott, 1965.

Bentzen, Aage. "The Cultic Use of the Story of the Ark in Samuel." Journal of Biblical Literature 67 (1948):37-53.

Berghuis, Kent D. "A Biblical Perspective on Fasting." Bibliotheca Sacra 158:629 (January-March 2001):86-103.

Berlin, Adele. "Characterization in Biblical Narrative: David's Wives." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 23 (July 1982):69-85.

Beuken, W. A. M. "1 Samuel 28: The Prophet as Hammer of Witches.'" Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (1978):3-17.

Birch, Bruce C. "The Choosing of Saul at Mizpah." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 37:4 (1975):447-54.

Blaikie, William G. The First Book of Samuel. 1887; reprint ed. Minneapolis: Klock and Klock, 1978.

Blenkinsopp, Joseph. "Kiriath-jearim and the Ark." Journal of Biblical Literature 88 (1969):143-56.

Block, Daniel Isaac. The Gods of the Nations: Studies in Ancient Near Eastern National Theology. Jackson: Evangelical Theological Society, 1988.

Boogaart, T. A. "History and Drama in the Story of David and Goliath." Reformed Review 38:3 (1985):204-14.

Brauner, Ronald A. "To Grasp the Hem' and 1 Samuel 15:27." Journal of Near Eastern Studies 6 (1974):135-38.

Bright, John A. A History of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Bruce, F. F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1983.

Brueggemann, Walter. "I Samuel 1: A Sense of a Beginning," Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 102:1 (1990):33-48.

_____. First and Second Samuel. Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching series. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990.

Bury, J. B.; S. A. Cook; and F. E. Adcock, eds. The Cambridge Ancient History. 12 vols. 2nd ed. reprinted. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1928.

Campbell, Antony F. The Ark Narrative [1 Sam 4-6; 2 Sam 6]: A Form-Critical and Traditio-Historical Study. Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975.

_____. "Yahweh and the Ark: A Case Study in Narrative." Journal of Biblical Literature 98:1 (1979):31-43.

Carter, Leslie. Warring Faith. London: Victory Press, 1961.

Chafin, Kenneth L. 1, 2 Samuel. The Communicator's Commentary series. Dallas: Word Books, 1989.

Chaney, Marvin L. "Systemic Study of the Israelite Monarchy." Semeia 37 (1986):53-76.

Chisholm, Robert B., Jr. "Does God Change His Mind'?" Bibliotheca Sacra 152:608 (October-December 1995):387-99.

_____. "Does God Deceive?" Bibliotheca Sacra 155:617 (January-March 1998):11-28.

_____. "The Polemic against Baalism in Israel's Early History and Literature." Bibliotheca Sacra 151:603 (July-September 1994):267-83.

Claassen, W. T. "1 Sam. 3:19 - A Case of Context and Semantics." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 8 (1980):1-9.

Clark, R. E. D. "The Large Numbers of the Old Testament." Journal of Transactions of the Victoria Institute 87 (1955):82-92.

Constable, Thomas L. "Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament." Paper submitted for course 685 Analysis of Bible Books--Old Testament. Dallas Theological Seminary, January 1967.

_____. "What Prayer Will and Will Not Change." In Essays in Honor of J. Dwight Pentecost, pp. 99-113. Edited by Stanley D. Toussaint and Charles H. Dyer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1986.

Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1978.

Crockett, William Day. A Harmony of the Books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973.

Darby, John Nelson. Synopsis of the Books of the Bible. 5 vols. Revised ed. New York: Loizeaux Brothers Publishers, 1942.

"David Won Against Goliath Because of Giant's Eyesight?" Albuquerque, N.Mex., newspaper, May 1974.

Davies, P. R. "The History of the Ark in the Books of Samuel." Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages 5 (1977):9-18.

Davis, John J. Biblical Numerology. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968.

Davis, John J. and John C. Whitcomb. A History of Israel. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980.

Deem, Ariella. "And the Stone Sank Into His Forehead': A Note on 1 Samuel xvii 49." Vetus Testamentum 28:3 (1978):349-51.

de Vaux, Roland. Ancient Israel: Its Life and Institutions. Translated by John McHugh. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

_____. The Bible and the Ancient Near East. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1967.

Demsky, Aaron. "Geba, Gibeah, and Gibeon--An Historico-Geographic Riddle." Bulletin of the American School of Oriental Research 212 (December 1973):26-31.

Dothan, Trude. "Ekron of the Philistines. Part I: Where They Came From, How They Settled Down, and the Place They Worshiped In." Biblical Archaelolgy Review 16:1 (1990):26-36.

_____. The Philistines and Their Material Culture. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982.

Driver, S. R. Notes on the Hebrew Text and the Topography of the Books of Samuel. 1913; 2nd ed. revised, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966.

Dumbrell, William J. Covenant and Creation. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1984.

Duplaix, Nicole. "Fleas: The Lethal Leapers." National Geographic 173:5 (May 1988):672-94.

Eastwood, John H. "Hannah, the Woman Who Prayed." Presbyterian Journal, 9 February 1983, pp. 11, 18.

Edelmann, Diane. "Saul's Battle Against Amaleq (1 Sam. 15)." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 35 (June 1986):71-84.

_____. "Saul's Rescue of Jabesh-Gilead (I Sam 11:1-11): Sorting Story from History." Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 96:2 (1984):195-209.

Edwards, Gene. A Tale of Three Kings: A Study in Brokenness. Auburn, Maine: Christian Books, 1980.

Eichrodt, Walther. Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. Translated by J. A. Baker. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1961.

Eslinger, Lyle. Kingship of God in Crisis: A Close Reading of 1 Samuel 1-12. Bible and Literature monograph 10. Sheffield, Eng.: Almond, 1985.

_____. "Viewpoints and Point of View in 1 Samuel 8-12." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):61-76.

Eves, Terry L. "One Ammonite Invasion or Two? 1 Sam 10:27-11:2 in the Light of 4QSama." Westminster Theological Journal 44:2 (Fall 1982):308-26.

Fensham, F. Charles. "Did a Treaty Between the Israelites and the Kenites Exist?" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 175 (October 1964):51-54.

Finkelstein, Emunah. "An Ignored Haplography in Samuel." Journal of Semitic Studies 4:4 (October 1959):356-57.

Fretheim,Terence E. "Divine Foreknowledge, Divine Constancy, and the Rejection of Saul's Kingship." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 47:4 (October 1985):595-602.

Gaebelein, Arno C. The Annotated Bible. 4 vols. Reprint ed. Chicago: Moody Press, and New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1970.

Gehrke, R. O. I and II Samuel. St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1968.

Geyer, John B. "Mice and Rites in 1 Samuel V-VI." Vetus Testamentum 31:3 (July 1981):293-304.

Gnuse, Robert Karl. The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1984.

Goldman, S. Samuel. London: Soncino Press, 1951.

Gordon, Robert P. I & II Samuel: A Commentary. Library of Biblical Interpretation series. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, Regency Reference Library, 1986.

_____. "David's Rise and Saul's Demise: Narrative Analogy in 1 Samuel 24-26." Tyndale Bulletin 31 (1980):37-64.

_____. "Saul's Meningitis According to Targum 1 Samuel XIX 24" Vetus Testamentum 37:1 (January 1987):39-49.

_____. 1 & 2 Samuel, A Commentary. Exeter, England: Paternoster Press, 1986.

Gottwald, Norman K. The Tribes of Yahweh, A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B. C. E. London: S C M Press, 1980.

Graesser, Carl F. "Standing Stones in Ancient Palestine." Biblical Archaeologist 35:2 (1972):34-63.

Greenhow, Peter N. "Did Samuel Sin?" Grace Journal 11:2 (1970):34-40.

Greenstein, Edward L. "To Grasp the Hem' in Ugaritic Literature." Vetus Testamentum 32:2 (April 1982):217-18.

Gunn, David M. The Fate of King Saul: An Interpretation of a Biblical Story. Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement 14. Sheffield, Eng.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1980.

_____. "Narrative Patterns and Oral Tradition in Judges and Samuel." Vetus Testamentum 24:3 (July 1974):286-317.

_____. "Traditional composition in the Succession Narrative.'" Vetus Testamentum 26:2 (1976):214-29.

Haley, John W. An Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible. Reprint ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958.

Harris, Scott L. "1 Samuel VIII 7-8." Vetus Testamentum 31:1 (January 1981):79-80.

Harton, George M., "Fulfillment of Deuteronomy 28-30 in History and in Eschatology." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1981.

Heater, Homer, Jr. "A Theology of Samuel and Kings." In A Biblical Theology of the Old Testament, pp. 115-55. Edited by Roy B. Zuck. Chicago: Moody Press, 1991.

_____ "Young David and the Practice of Wisdom." In Integrity of Heart, Skillfulness of Hands, pp. 50-61. Edited by Charles H. Dyer and Roy B. Zuck. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1994.

Hertzberg, Hans Wilhelm. I and II Samuel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1976.

Hindson, Edward E. The Philistines and the Old Testament. Baker Studies in Biblical Archaeology series. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1971.

Hodges, Zane C. "The Salvation of Samuel." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:3 (May-June 1994):1, 3-4.

_____. "The Salvation of Saul." Grace Evangelical Society News 9:4 (July-August 1994):1, 3.

Hoffner, Harry A., Jr. "A Hittite Analogue to the David and Goliath Contest of Champions?" Catholic Biblical Quarterly 30 (1968):220-25.

Horner, Tom. Jonathan Loved David: Homosexuality in Biblical Times. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1978.

Howard, David M., Jr. "The Transfer of Power From Saul to David in 1 Sam 16:13-14." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 32:4 (1989):473-83.

Humphreys, W. Lee. "From Tragic Hero to Villain: A Study of the Figure of Saul and the Development of 1 Samuel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 22 (February 1982):95-117.

_____. "The Rise and Fall of King Saul: A Study of an Ancient Narrative Stratum in 1 Samuel." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 18 (October 1980):74-90.

_____. "The Tragedy of King Saul: A Study of the Structure of 1 Samuel 9-31." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 6 (February 1978):18-27.

Janzen, J. Gerald. "Samuel Opened the Doors of the House of Yahweh' (I Samuel 3.15)." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 26 (June 1983):89-96.

Jobling, David. "Saul's Fall and Jonathan's Rise: Tradition and Redaction in 1 Sam 14:1-46." Journal of Biblical Literature 95:3 (1976):367-76.

Johnson, John E. "The Old Testament Offices as Paradigm for Pastoral Identity." Bibliotheca Sacra 152:606 (April-June 1995):182-200.

Josephus, Flavius. The Works of Flavius Josephus. Translated by William Whiston. Antiquities of the Jews. London: T. Nelson and Sons, 1866.

Kaiser, Walter C., Jr. Toward Old Testament Ethics. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1983.

Keil, C. F. and Franz Delitzsch. Biblical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. Translated by James Martin. Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1960.

Kessler, Martin. "Narrative Technique in 1 Sm 16, 1-13." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 32:4 (October 1970):543-54.

Kirkpatrick, A. F. The First Book of Samuel. Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges series. Cambridge, Eng.: University Press, 1891.

Kitchen, K. A. The Bible In the World. Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1977.

Klein, Ralph W. I Samuel. Word Biblical Commentary series. Waco: Word Books, 1983.

Kochavi, Moshe, and Aaron Demsky. "An Israelite Village from the Days of the Judges." Biblical Archaelolgy Review 4:3 (1978):19-21.

Kohler, Ludwig. Old Testament Theology. Translated by A. S. Todd. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1957.

Laney, J. Carl. First and Second Samuel. Everyman's Bible Commentary series. Chicago: Moody Press, 1982.

Lange, John Peter, ed. Commentary on the Holy Scriptures. 12 vols. Reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1960. Vol. 3: Samuel-- Kings, by Chr. Fr. David Erdmann and Karl Chr. W. T. Bahr. Translated, enlarged, and edited by C. H. Toy, John A. Broadus, Edwin Harwood, and W. G. Sumner.

Lemche, Niels Peter. "David's Rise." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 10 (November 1978):2-25.

Levenson, Jon D. "1 Samuel 25 as Literature and as History." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 40 (1978):11-28.

Luck, G. Coleman. "The First Glimpse of the First King of Israel." Bibliotheca Sacra 123:489 (January-March 1966):60-66.

_____. "The First Meeting of Saul and Samuel." Bibliotheca Sacra 124:495 (July-September 1967):254-61.

_____. "Israel's Demand for a King." Bibliotheca Sacra 120:477 (January-March 1963):56-64.

Mackie, G. M. Bible Manners and Customs. New York: Fleming H. Revell, 1898.

Martin, John A. "Studies in 1 and 2 Samuel. Bibliotheca Sacra 141:561 (January-March 1984):28-42; 562 (April-June 1984):131-45; 563 (July-September 1984):209-22; 564 (October-December 1984):303-14.

Mathewson, Steven D. "Guidelines for Understanding and Proclaiming Old Testament Narratives." Bibliotheca Sacra 154:616 (October-December 1997):410-35.

Mavrodes, George I. "David, Goliath, and Limited War." Reformed Journal 33:8 (1983):6-8.

Mazar, Benjamin. "The Military elite of King David." Vetus Testamentum 13 (1963):10-20.

McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. I Samuel. Anchor Bible series. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1980.

_____. "The Apology of David." Journal of Biblical Literature 99:4 (1980):489-504.

McKane, William. I and II Samuel. London: SCM Press, 1963.

Mendelsohn, I. "Samuel's Denunciation of Kingship in the Light of the Akkadian Documents from Ugarit." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 143 (October 1956):17-22.

Merrill, Eugene H. "The Book of Ruth: Narration and Shared Themes." Bibliotheca Sacra 142:566 (April-June 1985):130-41.

_____. "1 Samuel." In The Bible Knowledge Commentary: Old Testament, pp. 431-55. Edited by John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1985.

_____. Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987.

_____. "Paul's Use of About 405 Years' in Acts 13:20." Bibliotheca Sacra 138:551 (July-September 1981):246-57.

Meyer, F. B. David: Shepherd and King. Condensed Christian Books series. Westchester, Ill.: Good News Publishers, 1960.

_____. Samuel the Prophet. Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.

Milgrom, Jacob. "Of Hems and Tassels." Biblical Archaeology Review 9:3 (May-June 1983):61-65.

Miller, J. Maxwell. "Saul's Rise to Power: Some Observations Concerning 1 Sam 9:1-10:16; 10:26-11:15 and 13:2-14:46." Catholic Biblical Quarterly 36:2 (1974):157-74.

Miller, Patrick D., Jr. and J. J. M. Roberts. The Hand of the Lord: A Reassessment of the "Ark Narrative" of 1 Samuel. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1977.

Miscall, Peter D. 1 Samuel: A Literary Reading. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1986.

Monson, James M. The Land Between. Jerusalem: By the author, P.O. Box 1276, 1983.

Morgan, G. Campbell. Living Messages of the Books of the Bible. 2 vols. New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1912.

Munn-Rankin, J. M. "Diplomacy in Western Asia in the Early Second Millennium B.C." Iraq 18 (1956):68-110.

New Bible Dictionary, 1962 ed. S.v. "Dagon," by Kenneth A. Kitchen.

Newsome, James D., Jr., ed. A Synoptic Harmony of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986.

Payne, David F. I & II Samuel. Daily Study Bible series. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982.

Payne, J. Barton. "Saul and the Changing Will of God." Bibliotheca Sacra 129:516 (October-December 1972):321-25.

Pell, Peter J., Jr. First Samuel Bible Class Notes. Grand Rapids: Gospel Folio Press, n.d.

Pentecost, J. Dwight. Thy Kingdom Come. Wheaton: Scripture Press Publications, Victor Books, 1990.

Pfeiffer, Charles F., and Howard F. Vos. The Wycliffe Historical Geography of Bible Lands. Chicago: Moody Press, 1967.

Ridout, Samuel. King Saul. Bible Truth Library series. New York: Loizeaux Brothers, n.d.

Roberts, J. J. M. "The Hand of Yahweh." Vetus Testamentum 21:2 (1971):244-51.

Rushing, Ronald Lee. "Phinehas' Covenant of Peace." Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1988.

Sailhamer, John H. The Pentateuch as Narrative. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

Schwantes, Siegfried J. A Short History of the Ancient Near East. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1965.

Segal, M. H. "The Composition of the Books of Samuel." Jewish Quarterly Review 55 (1964-65):318-39; 56 (1965-66):32-50.

Sellers, Ovid R. "Sling Stones in Biblical Times." Biblical Archaeologist 2:4 (1939):41-44.

Sewall, R. B. The Vision of Tragedy. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1962.

Sharpe, Norvelle Wallace. "David, Elhanan, and the Literary Digest." Bibliotheca Sacra 86 (July 1929):319-26.

Shaviv, Shemuel. "Nabi and Nagid in 1 Samuel IX 1 - X 16." Vetus Testamentum 34:1 (January 1984):108-13.

Simon, Uriel. "Samuel's Call To Prophecy: Form Criticism with Close Reading." Prooftexts 1:2 (May 1981):119-32.

Smith, H. P. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Samuel. International Critical Commentary series. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1904.

Smith, J. M. P. "The Character of King David." Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933):1-11.

Smith, Morton. "The So-Called Biography of David' in the Books of Samuel and Kings." Harvard Theological Review 44 (1951):167-69.

Stek, John. The Former Prophets: A Syllabus. Unpublished, 1985.

Student Map Manual. Jerusalem: Pictorial Archive (Near Eastern History) Est., 1979.

Sturdy, John. "The Original Meaning of Is Saul Also Among the Prophets?' (1 Samuel X 11, 12; XIX 24)." Vetus Testamentum 20:2 (April 1970):206-13.

Swindoll, Charles R. David: A Man of Passion and Destiny. Great Lives from God's Word series. Dallas: Word Publishing, 1997.

Talmon, Shemaryahu. King, Cult, and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1986.

Thiele, Edwin R. The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1965.

Thomas, D. Winton. "A Note on noda' in I Samuel XXII. 6." Journal of Theological Studies 21:2 (October 1970):401-2.

Thomson, Clive A. "Samuel, the Ark, and the Priesthood." Bibliotheca Sacra 118:417 (July-September 1961):259-63.

Tidwell, N. L. "The Linen Ephod: 1 Sam. II 18 and 2 Sam. VI 14." Vetus Testamentum 24:4 (October 1974):505-7.

Tsevat, Matitiahu. "Studies in the Book of Samuel." Hebrew Union College Annual 32 (1961):191-216; 33 (1962):107-18; 36 (1965):49-58.

Tucker, Stanley D. "The Theology of the Book of Samuel: A Study of God's Humiliation or Exaltation of Leaders." Biblical Viewpoint 12:2 (1978):152-59.

Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1957 ed. S.v. "Armor."

Walters, S. D. "The Light and the Dark." In Ascribe to the Lord: Biblical and Other Studies in Memory of Peter C. Craigie, pp. 567-89. Edited by Lyle Eslinger and Glen Taylor. Sheffield, Eng.: Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 1988.

Wells, H. G. The History of Mr. Polly. New York: The Press of the Reader's Club, 1941.

Wenham, John W. The Enigma of Evil: Can We Believe in the Goodness of God?. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1985.

_____. "Large Numbers in the Old Testament. Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967):19-53.

West, Stuart A. "The Nuzi Tablets." Bible and Spade 10:3-4 (Summer-Autumn 1981):70.

Whitelam, Keith W. "The Defence of David." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 29 (June 1984):61-87.

Wiebe, Donald W. "The Structure of 1 Sam 3: Another View." Biblische Zeitschrift 30:2 (1986):256-58.

Wiseman, D. J. "Alalakh." In Archaeology and Old Testament Study, pp. 119-35. Edited by D. Winton Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1967.

_____. "Is it peace?'--Covenant and diplomacy." Vetus Testamentum 32:3 (1982):311-26.

Wood, Leon. Israel's United Monarchy. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979.

_____. A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1970.

Woudstra, Marten H. The Ark of the Covenant from the Conquest to Kingship. Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1965.

_____. The Book of Joshua. New International Commentary on the Old Testament series. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1981.

Yamauchi, Edwin M. "Cultural Aspects of Marriage in the Ancient World." Bibliotheca Sacra 135:539 (July-September 1978):241-52.

Young, Fred E. "First and Second Samuel." In The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, pp. 273-305. Edited by Charles F. Pfeiffer and Everett F. Harrison. Chicago: Moody Press, 1962.

Youngblood, Ronald F. "1, 2 Samuel." In Deuteronomy-2 Samuel. Vol. 3 of The Expositor's Bible Commentary. 12 vols. Edited by Frank E. Gaebelein and Richard P. Polcyn. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992.

_____. Faith of Our Fathers. Glendale, Calif.: Regal Books, 1976.

Copyright 2003 by Thomas L. Constable

Haydock: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

THE FIRST BOOK OF SAMUEL;

otherwise called,

THE FIRST BOOK OF KINGS.

INTRODUCTION.

This and the following Book are called by the Hebrews, the Books of Samuel, because they contain the history of Samuel, and of the two kings, Saul and David, whom he anointed. They are more commonly named by the Fathers, the First and Second Book of Kings. As to the writer of them, it is the common opinion that Samuel composed the first book, as far as the twenty-fifth chapter; and that the prophets Nathan and Gad finished the first and wrote the second book. See 1 Paralipomenon, alias 1 Chronicles, xxix. 19. (Challoner) --- The authors of the Third and Fourth Books of Kings were also prophets, but we know not exactly their names. These works have nevertheless been always esteemed authentic (Haydock) and canonical. (Worthington) --- Ven. Bede takes occasion to observe, from the Books of Kings (or as the Septuagint read, "of kingdoms;" Haydock) being placed after that of Judges, that the everlasting kingdom of Christ will succeed the general judgment. The translation of the priesthood and of the regal dignity, recorded in these books, denote also that Christ would united both in his own person; as the two wives of Eleana intimated, that both Jews and Gentiles would acknowledge the same Lord. (St. Jerome; St. Augustine; &c.) --- The transactions of Heli, Samuel and Saul, and the persecutions which David sustained from the latter, form the subject of the first book, (Haydock) during the space of 100 years. All the four books carry down the sacred history near 600 years, from the year of the world 2849 till the transmigration of Juda, in the year 3420. (Calmet) (Usher)

Gill: 1 Samuel (Book Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO 1 SAMUEL

This book, in the Hebrew copies, is commonly called Samuel, or the Book of Samuel; in the Syriac version, the Book of Samuel the Prophet; and in the Arabic version, the Book of Samuel the Prophet, which is the First Book of the Kings; and the Septuagint version, the Book of the Kingdom: it has the name of Samuel, because it contains an history of his life and times; and the Jews say ^a it was written by him; and as it may well enough be thought to be, to the end of the twenty fourth chapter; and the rest might be written by Nathan and Gad, as may he gathered from 1Ch 29:29 as also the following book that bears his name; and both may be called the Books of Kings, because they give an account of the rise of the kings in Israel, and of the two first of them; though some think they were written by Jeremiah, as Abarbinel; and others ascribe them to Ezra: however, there is no doubt to be made of it that this book was written by divine inspiration, when we consider the series of its history, its connection and harmony with other parts of Scripture; the several things borrowed from it, or alluded to in the book of Psalms, particularly what is observed in Psa 113:7, seems to be taken out of 1Sa 2:8, and the sanction which the Lord gives to it, by referring to a fact in it, whereby he stopped the mouths of the Scribes and Pharisees cavilling at his disciples, Mat 12:3, compared with 1Sa 21:3, yea, even, as Huetius ^b observes, some Heathen writers have by their testimonies confirmed some passages in these books, which they seem to have been acquainted with, as Nicolaus of Damascus ^c, and Eupolemus ^d; it contains an history of the government of Eli, and of the birth of Samuel, and his education under him; of the succession of Samuel in it, and the resignation of it to Saul, when he was chosen king; of his administration of his office, and of things done in the time of it, both before and after his rejection, and of the persecution of David by Saul, and is concluded with his death.

Gill: 1 Samuel 14 (Chapter Introduction)

INTRODUCTION TO FIRST SAMUEL 14

This chapter gives an account of an adventure of Jonathan and his armourbearer smiting a garrison of the Philistines, 1Sa 14:1, which with other circumstances struck terror into the whole army; which being observed by Saul's spies, he and his men went out against them, and being joined by others, pursued them, and obtained a complete victory, 1Sa 14:15, but what sullied the glory of the day was a rash oath of Saul's, adjuring the people not to eat any food till evening which Jonathan not hearing of ignorantly broke, 1Sa 14:24 and which long fasting made the people so ravenous, that they slew their cattle, and ate them with the blood, contrary to the law of God, for which they were reproved by Saul, 1Sa 14:32, upon which he built an altar, and inquired of the Lord whether he should pursue the Philistines all that night till morning, but had no answer; which made him conclude sin was committed, and which he inquired after, declaring that if it was his own son Jonathan that had committed it he should surely die, 1Sa 14:35, the people being silent, he cast lots, and the lot fell upon Jonathan; who had it not been for the resolution of the people that rescued him out of his hands, because of the great salvation he had wrought, must have died, 1Sa 14:40 and the chapter is cited with an account of Saul's battles with the neighbouring nations in general, and of his family, 1Sa 14:47.