1 Samuel

Although in our Bibles 1–2 Samuel are presented as individual books, they clearly form one continuous narrative and should therefore be conceived not as two books but as one book in two volumes. Their division likely dates to their original form, probably having been written on two scrolls due to their length, much like Genesis to Numbers, 1–2 Kings, and 1–2 Chronicles.

Although 1–2 Samuel carry Samuel’s name (probably because of his prominent role in the establishment of kingship in Israel through anointing Saul and David as Israel’s first two kings), he could not have been the author of the book as it has come down to us. We know this because his death occurred during the lifetime of Saul and is reported in 1 Samuel 25:1. This, however, does not necessarily mean that the book contains no material from Samuel’s hand. First Chronicles 29:29 says, “Now the acts of King David, from first to last, are written in the Chronicles of Samuel the seer, and in the Chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the Chronicles of Gad the seer.” The evidence within the book itself that seems to indicate authorship dated to the period of the monarchy (i.e., pre-exilic; see discussion of date below), together with the fact that the Hebrew of the text as we have it probably dates to a much later period (i.e., post-exilic), suggests that multiple inspired authors and/or editors have had a hand in the composition of this book. Whoever the anonymous author(s) and editor(s) of 1–2 Samuel were, they must have used whatever sources were available to them to describe the more than 130-year period of Israel’s history recounted in the book. These sources may have included the “records of Samuel the seer” (1Chr 29:29).

In today’s academic context the date and authorship of 1–2 Samuel are quickly entangled with other complex theories surrounding the writing of the historical books of the Old Testament (OT). Source-critical theories such as Documentary Hypothesis, the assumptions of a Deuteronomistic History, and the Succession Narrative theory tend to dominate discussions of authorship and dating, but we do not have space to engage in these discussions extensively. Although there is no specific information in the book clearly identifying the author, the realism of the description of David’s reign in 2 Samuel 10–20 implies that the author may have been a contemporary, or near contemporary, of the events that are described. References to “Israel and Judah” (1Sam 11:8; 17:52; 18:16; 2Sam 5:5; 24:1–9) as well as the reference to “kings of Judah” in 1 Samuel 27:6 suggest that the author (or an editor) may have lived sometime after Solomon’s death and the division of the kingdom in 931 BC. On the other hand, the final form of the Hebrew text as we have it reflects a form of the language and writing that probably dates to the post-exilic period, suggesting that the “final form” (i.e., the Masoretic Text) of this canonical book was not completed until this period.

Since the discovery of a few Samuel fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, it has been observed that at some places the Samuel text of the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the Greek Septuagint text while differing from the Hebrew Masoretic Text (MT). This agreement has led some scholars to conclude that the Septuagint readings should have more priority in places where they differ from the Hebrew MT reading. Although there are places where the combined Septuagint/Dead Sea Scroll reading seems to be superior to a problematic reading of the Hebrew MT, these places are limited and should not lead to the conclusion that the Septuagint is to be preferred in all places where it differs from the Hebrew MT. Scholars will continue to debate the best approach for dealing with the textual problems of 1–2 Samuel, but these questions do not affect in any substantial way our understanding of either the main ideas, message, or events about which the Samuel narratives speak. The Hebrew MT retains its considerable warrant for priority in places where it provides an acceptable meaning.

First and Second Samuel answer the question, “Who will be the true King of Israel?”

Canonically this question arises in light of the book’s historical and literary predecessor, Judges. The period of the Judges, the end of which is covered in the first section of 1–2 Samuel (chs. 1–8; see, e.g., 1Sam 4:18; 7:15), was marked as days when “there was no king in Israel” and “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25). Of course, the absence of a human king in Israel was due to the Lord’s theocratic claim of divine authority as King of Israel, graciously exercised through the judges he would regularly raise up in response to his people’s repentance and prayers for help (Judg 2:11–3:6). Nonetheless, the perennial problem with these judges was that their influence would fade as they passed away (Judg 2:19). Thus, despite God’s gracious provision of probably the most faithful judge of Israel in Samuel (1Sam 7:3–17), as he neared death and Israel faced the prospect of his faithless sons judging in his place (8:1–3), the people demanded a “king to judge us like all the nations” (8:5).

In response, God does provide a king, though he rebukes Israel for demanding a king “like all the nations.” As the story unfolds and God establishes kingship in Israel, we are also taught about God’s ultimate kingship over his creation, as 1–2 Samuel clearly teach that God is sovereign over human history and is the only one who can establish good kingship in Israel. These two themes are highlighted in the three poetic accounts that frame the book (“The Song of Hannah,” 1Sam 2:1–10; “David’s Song in Praise of God’s Reign,” 2Sam 22; and “David’s Last Words about His Reign,” 2Sam 23:1–7).

1. God is sovereign over human history.

Certainly, the paramount theme of 1–2 Samuel is the affirmation of divine sovereignty over human history, because this theme incorporates the theme of the establishment of kingship in Israel. The thematic resourcefulness of the three poems at the beginning and the end of the book relates to their literary style. Theological assertions are more fitting in the poetic genre than the historical, and most of the content of 1–2 Samuel is historical narrative. So, although the narratives of 1–2 Samuel embody and reflect the idea that God governs all the affairs of every individual life as well those of the nation, this truth is usually expressed in implicit rather than explicit ways. A few exceptions exist where the author makes a theological comment in connection with an event he is describing (1Sam 1:5; 2:25; 10:9; 26:12; 2Sam 8:6; 17:14; 24:1), as well as a few places where theological assertions are made by individuals who are portrayed in the narratives (1Sam 12:22 [Samuel]; 24:10 [David]; 25:26 [Abigail]; 2Sam 12:7, 8 [Nathan]; 15:25, 26 [David]).

2. God established kingship in Israel.

The establishment of kingship in Israel is the most important historical event described in the narratives of 1–2 Samuel because it enabled God to make a covenant with David affirming that his royal house would endure forever. It would be from the house of David that—in God’s good time—Jesus, the Messiah, would be born. When, just prior to the crucifixion of Jesus, Pilate asked him if he was the king of the Jews, Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world . . .” (John 18:36). But when Pilate went on to say “You are a king, then!” Jesus replied, “You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth” (John 18:37, emphasis added). When Jesus returns at his second advent as the rider on the white horse described in Revelation 19:11–16, we are told that “on his robe and on his thigh he has a name written: King of kings and Lord of lords.” The foundation for the eventual coming of this King of kings into the world was God’s promise to David that “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (2Sam 7:16).

3. The character of God’s desired king for his people

Throughout these books we see the leaders of Israel, and especially her first two kings, engaged in seeking to lead, guide, protect, and bless the nation. A prominent theme throughout, therefore, has to do with the character of the Lord’s “anointed” (mashiakh) leader(s). Ultimately, through the characterization of Samuel, Saul, and David we begin to get a sense of what the king whom the Lord desires to provide for his people should be like. He should be like David at his best, a humble and faithful shepherd, a mighty and merciful warrior, and a just and wise king who can protect, serve, and bring blessing on the people in God’s kingdom. Yet despite the glimpses of the “ideal” king we have in David, in the end his story is a mixture of both success and sin, gore and glory, faith and failure. So while he is ultimately the model of the Lord’s king presented in 1–2 Samuel, it becomes clear that he is not the ultimate King whom the Lord plans to give his people. Thus, the Book of 1–2 Samuel cultivates an expectation and longing for the coming Son of David who would establish his throne forever and usher in the eternal kingdom of peace and glory (2Sam 7:12–16), an expectation that finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Son of David (Matt 1:1).

To show who the true Shepherd-King of Israel must be: the Son of David and a man “after the Lord’s own heart” (1Sam 13:14).

“The Lord has sought out a man after his own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be prince over his people.”

— 1 Samuel 13:14a ESV

I. Kingship Demanded / Denial of the Covenant (1Sam 1–8)

A. Samuel’s Birth (1Sam 1:1–2:11)

B. Eli’s Line Rejected (1Sam 2:12–36)

C. Samuel’s Call (1Sam 3)

D. The Ark’s Exile and Return (1Sam 4:1–7:2)

E. Israel Demands King Instead of Judge (1Sam 7:2–8:22)

II. Kingship “Like the Nations” Delivered / Covenant Failure (1Sam 9–15)

A. Kingship Offered to Saul (1Sam 9–12)

i. Royal Commission (LORD’s – 9; People’s – 10)

ii. Royal Confirmation (People’s – 11:1–11)

iii. Royal Coronation (People’s – 11:12–12:25)

B. Kingship Lost by Saul (1Sam 13–15)

i. Confirmation Failure (13–14)

What Does It Mean for a King to be “After the LORD’s Own Heart?

ii. Coronation Rejection (15)

III. Kingship “After God’s Heart” Demonstrated / Covenant Kingship (1Sam 16–2Sam 24)

A. True Kingship in Exodus / Covenant Contrast (1Sam 16–31)

i. Royal Commission (LORD’s – 1Sam 16)

ii. Royal Confirmation (LORD’s – 1Sam 17–19:10)

iii. Tested and Confirmed through Wilderness Exodus (1Sam 19:11–31:13)

iv. Three Wilderness Temptations to Take Shortcut to Throne (1Sam 24–26)

v. David’s Philistine Sojourn and Saul’s Final Battle (1Sam 27–31)

[Continued in 2 Samuel]

These opening chapters set up the “problem” that 1–2 Samuel will show God “solving,” namely a lack of spiritual leadership that leaves his people to wallow in their sin and suffering. We also begin to see God at work through a faithful remnant whose prayers and pleas for mercy are heard (shmʿ) by the Lord.

1:1–3 All the significant characters for the narratives in chapters 1–8 are introduced here, including Elkanah and Hannah (who will bear Samuel), as well as Eli and his sons. Elkanah being “of the hill country of Ephraim” (1Sam 1:1) places him in what will later become the Northern Kingdom. It may also function literarily to indicate that this is the period of the judges, since many of the events recounted in Judges take place in and around Ephraim (Judg 1:29; 3:27; 4:5; 7:24; 8:1–2; 10:1–9; 12:1–15; 17:1–19:21). Elkanah’s characterization is favorable, highlighting his devotion in going up “year by year . . . to worship and to sacrifice to the Lord of hosts at Shiloh.” Eli and his sons are simply introduced here (1 Sam 1:3) without indication of their faithlessness that will later come to light (2:12–36). The brief descriptions of Elkanah’s wives, Peninnah and Hannah, as having and not having children, respectively, sets up the “conflict” that will drive the narrative toward its “resolution” in the birth of Samuel (1:20) and his dedication (1:28; 2:11). The annual occasion for the pilgrimage to Shiloh is not specified (Feast of Passover? Unleavened Bread? Weeks? Booths? Exod 23:14; Deut 16:16), though the location was according to God’s Law, since the tabernacle was located there at this time (Josh 18:1).

1:4–7 These verses recount the events that would regularly occur when Elkanah’s family made their annual pilgrimage (1:4). The Hebrew describing Elkanah’s special treatment of Hannah in 1:5 is difficult (“double portion” in the ESV, NASB, NIV, NRSV vs. “only one portion” in the NJPS, RSV and “only one choice portion” in the NLT). Context indicates that Elkanah’s action shows favoritism for Hannah, since his motive is given (“because he loved her”) and it appears to result in jealous abuse from her rival wife (1:6–7). Hannah’s belovedness and barrenness, and the related rivalry between her and Peninnah, are reminiscent of other wives among God’s covenant people, including Samson’s mother (Judg 13), Leah and Rachel (Gen 29–30), and Sarah and Hagar (Gen 16, 21). While the experience of barrenness in marriage is a human hardship especially felt by women who endure it in every age, in this stage of redemptive history it represents deeper theological realities. Since the people of God at this stage were awaiting the promised “Seed of the Woman” who would overcome the curse of sin (Gen 3:15), barrenness represented a threat to the promises of God and the coming of the Savior. Thus, Hannah’s sadness (1:8) should not be seen merely as self-pity but also as indicative of her faith and longing for the coming Messiah, whose coming may be being thwarted by her infertility.

1:8–11 Here, the narrative shifts from the family’s annual custom to the events that occurred on this one momentous pilgrimage. Though probably spoken out of affection and compassion, Elkanah’s attempt to comfort Hannah (1:8) puts him in a long line of husbands who fail to grasp the depth and complexity of their wives” emotions. The love of a husband is no substitute for the natural desire only motherhood can satisfy. And as mentioned above, Hannah’s deep emotion seems to stem not from mere selfish self-pity but from a depth of faith, as will be evidenced in her rich prayers and her vow to give her child to the Lord (1:11). This faith seems evident in her request not merely for child (yeled) or a son (ben), but a “seed” or “offspring of men” (zeraʿ ʾanashim; cf. Gen 3:15). Her vow to devote her child to the Lord along with the description that “no razor shall touch his head,” reminiscent of Samson (Judg 13:5), implies it is the Nazirite vow described in detail in Numbers 6. The Nazirite was to live a life more distinctively “holy” (or “separate”) from outward “uncleanness” for a time as an example for the people of God of the holiness and purity the Lord desires from those who obey and worship him.

1:12–20 Eli’s comedic misunderstanding (1:12–14) begins to suggest a spiritual weakness and failure in this priest, which will become the focus of later narratives (2:12–36). For Hannah, Eli’s rebuke is simply another example of the failure of those who should be her spiritual shepherds and leaders (Elkanah and Eli). But where earthly spiritual leadership fails, the Lord is faithful, moving the feeble priest to finally bless her (1:17) and “remembering her” in granting the request she prayed for (1:19).¹ Notice that this marks the climax in the narrative, as after this Hannah seems consoled and is no longer weeping, and she returns to eat and drink with her family (1:18). It is not her receiving the gift of a son that brings comfort (which does not occur until 1:20) but the sure promise of God from the lips of his priest.²

1:21–28 God having fulfilled his promise through his priest (1:17) in “giving” (ntn) Hannah’s request of a son to reverse her barrenness (1:11a, 20), the question through these verses is whether Hannah will be faithful to her vow (1:11b). At the time of his usual pilgrimage, Elkanah prepares for his usual annual festival trip (1:21; cf. 1:3), though this time he goes not only “to offer his annual sacrifice” but also to offer “his vow.” This would indicate that he has confirmed Hannah’s vow (Num 30:6–15), and his godly devotion is shown in his taking it as his own. Tension rises as Hannah does not go with him, apparently delaying the fulfillment of her vow (1:22; Deut 23:21) until the child is weaned (probably around three years of age). Elkanah’s response further builds the tension, since ”doing what seems best to you” in this redemptive period of the judges does not bode well (note the refrain at the end of that book: “In those days there was no king in Israel—everyone would do what was right in his own eyes”; Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25). Resolution comes as Hannah finally fulfills her vow by taking Samuel up to Shiloh with her (1:24).³ Again, the theme of Samuel being “asked for” from God is especially obvious in the Hebrew of 1:27–28 where Hannah says, “For this boy I prayed, and the Lord has granted me my request (sheʾelati) that I requested (shaʾalti) from him. And indeed I lend him (hishʾilti) to the Lord. As long as he lives, he is lent (shaʾul) to the Lord” (both words for “request” and “lend/lent” are based on the Hebrew root shʾl).

2:1–11 Although technically a “prayer” (2:1), given its Psalm-like character, 2:1–11 can appropriately be characterized as “Hannah’s Song.” Parallels in content and themes are readily made with David’s song of deliverance in 2 Samuel 22 (cf. Ps 18) that, together with Hannah’s song, “bookends” the Book of 1–2 Samuel (cf. “rock” in 1Sam 2:2; 2Sam 22:3, 32, 47; “horn” in 1Sam 2:1, 10; 2Sam 22:3; “salvation” in 1Sam 2:1; 2Sam 22:51; “exalting” the humble and humbling the proud in 1Sam 2:7–8; 2Sam 22:28, 47–49; “anointed” in 1Sam 2:10; 2Sam 22:51; etc.). Parallels can be drawn with a number of Psalms, especially the Hallel Psalms (113–118), as well as Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1:46–55. The main theme of Hannah’s song is praise for God’s saving reversal in making the barren fruitful, ultimately showing forth his ability to reverse the curse of sin that makes the world unfruitful (Gen 3:14–19). The reference to the Lord’s king and “anointed” (mashiakh, the first mention of the Davidic Messiah in the Bible) here leads many scholars to question whether Hannah could have actually sung this hymn. Her expectation, however, could easily be attributed to faith prompted by earlier revelations of a coming king of God’s people (Gen 17:6, 16; Deut 17:14–20). Note that Hannah sings a hymn of praise and exultation rather than lament, having just given back to God the child who had brought her this new identity, glory, and hope. In this way she not only echoes the great man of faith, Abraham (Genesis 22), but also the ultimate Messiah King who, before pouring out his very life, set out for the Gethsemane with what was probably a Hallel Psalm (113–118) on his lips (Mark 14:26).

Here the awful state of Israel’s failed and feckless spiritual leaders is on full display in Eli, and especially in his sons.

2:12–21 Unlike Hannah, who was unjustly accused for being “worthless” (“daughter of beliyyaʿal”; 1:16), Eli’s sons are introduced as such by the narrator, further describing them as priests who “did not know the Lord” (2:12; cf. 3:7). These claims are proven by describing their tyrannical and abusive “reign” as priests whose calling was to “minister,” “serve,” and “guard” the sanctuary (Num 18). Instead, they send their servants with “three-pronged forks” (presumably in contrast to two-pronged forks, which would not “hold” as much meat? 2:14) “while the meat was boiling,” and thus before it is tender and likely to fall apart (2:13), so they can “fleece the flock” by stealing more than their God-given share (Ezek 34:2–6). And as if stealing from the Lord’s people’s portion is not bad enough, they are stealing from the portions of the offerings that God had reserved for himself—the fat—under threat of violence (2:15–17; cf. Lev 3:16–17; 7:31). Here instead of the priests teaching Israel God’s Law (Lev 10:11), the people are trying to teach the priests (2:16). The Books of 1–2 Samuel are a study in contrasts (e.g. Saul vs. David), and we see Samuel set in contrast here with Eli’s sons. (As the narrative continues, Samuel will also be compared and contrasted with Eli himself). In 2:18–21 Samuel is shown to offer a sharp contrast to Eli’s sons as he quietly and faithfully ministers and does the work that Eli’s sons are neglecting (2:18, 21), all while enjoying the consistent encouragement of his godly mother (2:19–20).

2:22–26 Eli’s own failure and futility as a spiritual leader of Israel is the point of this section. As if his sons” robbery from God and his people were not enough (2:12–17), they are also abusing their spiritual positions of authority in the area of sexual sin (2:22). Eli knows of it and yet ultimately does nothing to stop them, possibly because he himself is feeding on their plunder (2:29). Like the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart in Exodus 7–10, here the impenitence of Eli’s sons is shown to be part of God’s sovereign purpose (“for it was the will of the Lord to put them to death”; 2:25). This raises the perennial question of theodicy (“How can a good and sovereign God allow such evil in the world?”), which is not “solved” for us in Scripture. Instead, Scripture simply affirms that God is sovereign and not culpable for the sin and evil, and that humans are accountable for their sin and participation in evil. Yet in the end God’s ultimate purposes will be to use the evil for good (Gen 50:20). We also find a striking resolution of the problem in the cross of Jesus Christ, where God’s justice is vindicated as the sins of Christ’s people are paid for in full by his death. And through Christ’s work God’s grace and mercy are poured out as Jesus’s righteousness is credited to his followers by faith. Eli’s pregnant question in 2:25, “If someone sins against the Lord, who can intercede for him?” is of course one we all must ask, since all sin is ultimately against the Lord (Ps 51:4), and the answer comes to us in Jesus Christ, the priestly mediator between God and man who intercedes for his people continually (1Tim 2:5–6; Heb 7:25). While the report of Eli’s sons” wickedness is spreading through Israel (2:22, 24), Samuel’s good reputation is getting out as well (2:26).

2:27–36 Although Samuel will be presented as the progenitor of the prophetic office in the Promised Land, God always has ways to convey his Word, as seen here in “a man of God” (a prophetic title for those who bring God’s Word; 2Kgs 1:10). His prophecy of judgment on Eli’s house comes as a consequence for their sins and covenant unfaithfulness recounted in 2:12–26. In this oracle of judgment, the theme of glory (Hebrew kavod meaning “heaviness” or “glory”) is introduced (2:30), which will become the focus of the coming chapters (4–6), in which the “glory of the Lord” becomes the “main character.” This oracle serves two purposes in the narrative. First, it sets up the Lord’s spoken promise by his Word, which will come true in remarkably orchestrated circumstances that prove that God is able to fulfill his Word and will be faithful to it (note all the specific fulfillments mentioned in ch. 4). Second, it raises the question, “Who is this promised “faithful priest” whom the Lord promises to “raise up” (2:35)?” This priest is righteous, doing according to what is in the Lord’s heart and mind (nephesh, “soul” or “self”). But he is also described in royal terms as one for whom the Lord will “build” a dynasty (or “house”; cf. 2Sam 7:11). Looking through 1–2 Samuel for the identity of this priest-king, he cannot be Samuel, since he is shown to be unfaithful at points (8:3). Because of Samuel’s failure, his “house” (i.e., family) is not “established,” despite his attempts to do so (8:1). King David is a “man after the Lord’s own heart” (13:14) whose “house” (i.e., dynasty) the Lord does establish, yet as king he does not quite fit the bill of a faithful priest. Since Zadok replaces Eli’s final descendant (1Kgs 2:27), some have suggested him as the faithful priest-king predicted here, but nowhere is he called the faithful priest. Instead, the question seems to remain open beyond 1–2 Samuel and ultimately finds its truest and fullest “landing place” in Jesus Christ, the Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek (“king of righteousness”; Ps 110:4; Heb 5:1–10) who is “faithful over all God’s house” (Heb 3:5–6). He was literally “raised up” by God from the dead, doing everything according to the heart and mind of God, and by his faithfulness had a dynasty or “house of faith” built by Almighty God.⁴

In this passage, God begins “solving” Israel’s problem of a lack of godly spiritual leadership by calling Samuel to be the first in a long line of prophets who speak the Word of the Lord to his people in the Land of Promise (though Moses was a prophet, he never served as a prophet in the land; Deut 34:4). Jewish tradition reflected in Josephus holds that Samuel was twelve years old during the events of this chapter (Antiquities 5.348), though the biblical text only calls him a “youth” (naʿar, a term that covers a range of ages from after being weaned until well into adulthood, in contrast with “man” [ʾish], which has less to do with age and more to do with marital status).

3:1–3 These verses set the stage by describing the spiritual darkness that characterized the period of the judges and into which the light of God’s Word will begin to shine through Samuel’s prophetic work. The spiritual darkness is demonstrated by the rarity of God’s revelation, whether by word or vision (1Sam 3:1), and is further illustrated by the growing blindness of Eli (3:2), who represents the priests who were tasked with “enlightening” the people of God through instruction in his Word (Lev 10:11; Neh 8:2). The reason for this darkness is of course Israel’s covenantal disobedience (Deut 28:29; Ps 74:9; Lam 2:9; Ezek 7:26; Amos 8:11), yet a note of hope is held out in the mention that the “lamp of God” (Exod 27:31–40) in the “temple (hekhal) of the Lord” (i.e., the tabernacle) had not yet gone out (1Sam 3:3).

3:4–14 Here we find the call of Samuel not only to the office of prophet (3:19–21) but also to a more personal faith and knowledge of the Lord (3:7). The theme of spiritual darkness continues through this section in Samuel’s inability to recognize the Lord’s voice (3:4–6, 7–9), despite his eagerness to obey (indicated by his “running” to Eli in response to the call; 3:5). The description of the Lord’s second and third calls (3:6, 8) may indicate that it was less “loud,” which may explain why Samuel’s response seems less urgent (“Samuel arose and went to Eli”; 3:6, 8). Nonetheless, Samuel shows his diligence in continuing to answer what he thinks is Eli’s calling to him, further contrasting Samuel with Eli’s wicked sons (2:22–25). Though Eli’s slowness to recognize what was going on may serve to further the picture of spiritual darkness, he does eventually understand it is the Lord calling Samuel (3:8) and wisely counsels him to respond as a covenantal servant should: “Speak, Lord, for your servant is listening” (3:9). Whereas in the previous encounters the Lord had merely called to Samuel, in 3:10 the Lord “entered and took his stand,” implying some sort of physical/visual manifestation of his presence along with his spoken word. Samuel receives a reiteration of the Lord’s promise of judgment on Eli and his house (2:30–36). The terrifying character of this promised judgment (reports of which will cause ears to “tingle”; 3:11), along with its everlasting, unatonable nature (3:14), may explain Samuel’s reticence to tell his beloved Eli about it in the morning (3:15).

3:15–21 While Samuel jumps to his duties, studiously avoiding conveying the Lord’s words to Eli (3:15), Eli finally does “call” Samuel, who again quickly obeys (3:16). Eli seems to recognize Samuel’s reticence, adding oaths and curses to his demand for Samuel to tell him everything the Lord said the night before and not to “hide a thing” (3:17). Samuel’s immediate obedience not only confirms his character as son-like servant to Eli, but also his faithfulness as a prophet to convey the Lord’s word to his people (3:19). Eli’s response in 3:18 seems to evidence faith in the face of the Lord’s discipline: “He is the Lord. May he do what is good in his eyes” (cf. Job 1:21; Dan 4:35), though it could also be read with a note of despairing resignation (i.e., “He will do what is good in his eyes”). The newly minted personal faith of Samuel, his faithful execution of the office of prophet, and the Lord’s blessing on his ministry (1Sam 3:19) lead to broad acknowledgment of his anointing and a measure of “fame” in Israel (3:20; cf. 4:1; 7:15–17).

In the “Ark Narrative,” as 1 Samuel 4:1–7:2 is often titled, the focus shifts away from Samuel to the ark as the “glory of Israel” representing the presence of the Lord with his people. Literarily, this creates the sense of elapsed time while Samuel “grows up” into his fame and success as the final and arguably greatest “judge” of Israel (7:15–17). This story of the ark’s sojourn into Philistia (toward Egypt) echoes the prior journey of Israel into Egypt and back out in the Exodus, while it also foreshadows David’s similar journey during his “wilderness years” on the run from Saul (19–31). The glory (kavod) of the Lord present in grace and salvation with his people and as represented in the ark serves as the unifying theme through these chapters.

4:1–4 The darkness of this period of the judges is reflected here as Israel is oppressed by her enemies (in this case the Philistines; 4:1; cf. Judg 2:11–23), and she seeks to use “the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord of hosts, that inhabits the cherubim” (4:4).⁵ Instead of “crying out to the Lord” (Judg 3:9; et al.), here the elders lead the people in using the ark as a sort of superstitious talisman (Mackay, 76), idolatrously trying to control fate and looking to the Lord’s representation (the ark) to save (“let us bring the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord that it may enter in our midst and save us from the power [lit. “palm”] of our enemies”; 1Sam 4:3). This response smacks of paganism, which seeks to “exegete” experience as authoritative, whereas biblical faith seeks to understand, believe, and apply God’s Word (Deut 20:2–4). The presence of “the two sons of Eli, Hophni and Phinehas” (4:4) strikes a foreboding note, suggesting that Israel’s actions do not reflect faith and are doomed to fail, as Israel’s glory represented by the ark (signifying “Immanuel, God with us”) will be physically lost even as her spiritual communion with God by faith has already been shown to be “lost.”

4:5–11 Although the Israelites are idolatrous in using the ark as a talisman of sorts, seeking to “control” the Lord, the Philistines seem to respond with proper fear (1Sam 4:6–7) as they hear the shouts of Israel when the ark enters her camp (4:8). Further demonstrating the spiritual darkness of this time, the Philistines recognize the glory (kavod) of the Lord, which serves as an overarching theme through this ark narrative (4:21, 22; 6:5), whereas Israel seems to be working against it and is about to “lose” it. The description in 4:8 that Israel’s “gods” struck Egypt “with every sort of plague in the wilderness” does not quite capture what happened in Israel’s Exodus from Egypt. It was in the land of Egypt that God struck Egypt with plagues, and then he delivered Israel from Egypt into the Promised Land through the wilderness. Yet the Philistine’s worry here implies that Egypt was part of Israel’s wilderness sojourn, and in their conflation of the sojourn and Exodus, their words summarize the “experience” of the ark in this section as it “goes into exile” or a sojourn of captivity like Israel (even directionally southwestward). As it sojourns “in the wilderness” of the Philistine territory, God smites his enemies to show his power before returning to “his land” at Kiriath-jearim (6:21–7:1). Somewhat shockingly for the reader’s expectation after having read Exodus, Numbers, and Joshua, where the ark is usually associated with Israel’s victory in battle, here Israel experiences a resounding defeat (4:10). Due to the misuse of the ark by the failed spiritual leadership of Israel (“Eli, Hophni and Phinehas”; 4:11), it is captured (lit. “taken”; also in 4:17, 19, 21, 22), and God’s promised judgment on Eli’s sons is fulfilled (4:11; 2:34).

4:12–22 A Benjaminite escapes the battle (4:16) wearing all the signs of mourning (“clothes torn and dirt on his head”) and runs to Shiloh (4:12). Eli, whose age-related blindness (4:15) has already been noted (3:2), is somewhat tragically and humorously described as “watching” from his “throne,” or simply “seat” (kisseʾ), beside the road (4:13). This may be why the messenger seems to run right past him to enter the city without Eli noticing until he hears the cries of the city from the road (4:14). The “herald of good news,” as the messenger is called in 4:17, seems reticent to report the news of Eli’s sons to him, starting (“I am the one who entered from the battlefront”; 4:16) but then seeming to stop himself by repeating the same thing slightly differently (“and I fled from the battlefront”), so that Eli has to prod him like he did Samuel (3:16–17). In Eli’s final moment and death, his faith may be highlighted in contrast to his many failures with his sons, as the author describes his apparently shock-induced fall backward as caused not by the mention of his sons, but the report of the capture of the “ark of God” (4:17–18). Playing on the theme of “lost glory” (Hebrew root kbd), Eli is said to break his neck and die from his fall off his seat because he is old and “heavy” (Hebrew root kbd). The glory of God as source of life, shown here as the loss of glory, is associated with the power of death, killing two generations in Eli and his sons, but reaching even to new life in the birth of a son (4:19–20). The passage concludes by driving home the theme of “glory lost” in Phinehas’s new son’s being named Ichabod (ʾi-kavod, “where is [the] glory?”), and in Phinehas’s wife’s repeated statement that “glory has gone into exile (Hebrew root glh)” because of the ark of God “being taken” (4:21, 22). Of course the ultimate answer to Ichabod’s name is given when the true presence of God comes to his people as Immanuel (Matt 1:23), the fullness of deity dwelling bodily in the incarnate Son, Jesus Christ (Col 2:9), the Glory of God who comes first in humility, entering our exile due to sin (Rom 3:23) to rescue and redeem us in order to bring us to glory with him (Rom 3:24; 2Cor 3:17–18; Heb 2:10).

5:1–5 The Philistines take the ark to the nearby city of Ashdod (1Sam 5:1), and then, as should shock any pious reader, into the very temple of Dagon, setting it “beside” Dagon as though the Lord is simply another deity in the pagan pantheon (5:2). God shows his supremacy (and defends his honor/glory) by a surprising scene the next morning: Dagon is found “fallen” face-down before the ark in a posture of worship or defeat (5:3; cf. the last person to “fall” by the glory of the ark was Eli in 4:18). Although “Dagon” here probably is some sort of statute or figurine, it is spoken of as though it is who it represents, namely, the Philistine god Dagon himself (Ps 115:4–8; Isa 40:18–20; 44:9–20; 46:5–7). Dagon’s helplessness is highlighted as his worshippers have to put him back in his place (1Sam 5:3), where he promptly falls back into a face-down posture, this time more clearly of defeat than worship, since his head and hands are severed and on the threshold (5:4). The folly of Philistine idolatry is driven home by the author’s noting the “sacramentalization” of Dagon’s defeat in the worship practices of the priests never treading on the threshold from then on (5:5).

5:6–12 Pulling the narrative “camera view” out of Dagon’s temple, the author summarizes the ark’s time in Ashdod as a victory for the Lord’s glory, recounting that “the hand of the Lord was heavy (lit. “glorious,” Hebrew root kbd) against Ashdod” (5:6). The people recognize that God’s presence is judgment for sinners (5:7) and in their fear want the ark sent away for their own good and, humorously, to protect their god, Dagon. Philistine folly seems to be on display as they have to call a council of the Philistine lords to figure out what to do with the ark (5:8). The lords must have believed that “correlation does not prove causation,” as they decide to play “hot potato” with the ark and send it on to Gath (eastward toward Israelite territory) and then to Ekron (north of Gath; 5:9–10). By this time, news must have spread, because the Ekronites beg for the lords to get rid of (lit. “send away” or “set free”) the ark (5:11). Echoes of the Exodus are found throughout this text, including the descriptions of the hand of the Lord being “glorified” or “hard” (Hebrew root kbd; Exod 9:3; 1Sam 5:6, 9, 11); the Lord moving the oppressors to “send away” (or “set free,” shlkh) his people and the ark (Exod 5:1–2, etc.; 1Sam 5:11); and the people “groaning” (zʿq; Exod 2:23; 1Sam 4:13; 5:10) and their cry (shawʿah) going up to heaven (Exod 2:23; 1Sam 5:12).

6:1–19 After a seven-month (i.e., a “complete”) sojourn in the Philistine territory (6:1), and on the counsel of their priests and diviners (6:2), the Philistines prepare golden tumors and mice to send as a “guilt offering” (ʾasham; cf. Lev 7) with the ark—one for each of the Philistine lords (6:4). Again, the Exodus is in view as the priests and diviners suggest that this follows a less rebellious path than the Egyptians and Pharaoh who “hardened” (lit. “made glorious”; Hebrew root kbd) their hearts (6:6). The sacrificial costliness of the gold and the new cart with milk cows (6:7–8) seems evident in the instructions. To assure that the sacrifice “works,” further instructions are to follow the cart and see if it heads to Beth-shemesh (“house of the sun”; eastward into Israelite territory), in which case it would confirm the Lord had been the cause of the plagues (6:9). If not, they could presumably take their valuables back, since it would indicate it was all merely chance (miqreh). Quickly complying, the Philistines get a swift answer as the cows “went straight on the road to Beth-shemesh” (6:12, 16) There the Israelites of Beth-shemesh greet the ark with joy (6:13) and immediately offer the cows as sacrifices to the Lord, all while properly handling the ark (i.e., having only Levites handle it; 6:15). The golden tumors and mice seem to have been kept as further witnesses to God’s glory (6:17–18) like the manna, tablets, and budded rod of Aaron (though not inside the ark; Heb 9:4).⁶

6:19–7:1 Although the ark has been returned to its rightful people and place (Israel), the Lord makes clear that even his own people must treat the emblem of his presence with proper reverence and awe. Presumably they treated the ark without proper deference (“they looked at [or “into”] the ark of the Lord”; 6:19). The Lord’s people rightly respond by mourning their sin (ʾbl; 6:19) and acknowledging his holiness (6:20). Echoing the response of the Philistines, the people of Beth-shemesh call on the people of Kiriath-jearim (“city of the woods”) to take the ark away. Although not explicit, Abinadab may have been a priest, which would also make it appropriate for his son Eleazar to be consecrated to take charge of the ark (lit. “guard” it; Hebrew root shmr). As this section shows the sacredness of God’s glory and the danger of his presence to those left in their sin, it anticipates one with “clean hands and a pure heart” (Ps 24:4) who can ascend the “hill of the Lord” (Ps 24:3) to enter his presence, not just to receive God’s blessing and joy (Ps 16:11) himself, but also to lead a host of captives safely into the blessing of God’s presence forevermore (Eph 4:8–16).

7:2–17 After half a generation (twenty years) of Israel’s “lamenting” or “yearning” after the Lord (2Sam 7:2), Samuel’s faithful judging of Israel is on display in this passage as he leads Israel in true repentance. He shows that repentance is a change of heart, change of behavior (“remove foreign gods”), renewal of singular devotion (7:3–4), and worship (7:5) with honest confession of sin (7:6). Although Mizpah may have been chosen because it was militarily “safer” (Mizpah meaning “watch-tower” or maybe “lookout spot”), the Philistines get wind of Israel’s gathering and come up against them (7:7). In contrast to 4:7, this time the Israelites are afraid, but they rightly respond with faith by appealing to Samuel to serve in a priestly capacity and seek the Lord’s help in prayer (7:8). In response he leads in sacrifice and worship (7:9), and God answers by single-handedly striking the decisive blow against the Philistines “thundering with a mighty sound” (7:10). The Hebrew syntax indicates that this victorious blow from God occurs at the same time that Samuel is offering up the burnt offering. All that is left for Israel is to pursue the defeated enemy (7:11; cf. 17:52), after which Samuel sets up a memorial stone, “Ebenezer” (lit. “stone of help”; 7:12; cf. Gen 28:18; 31:45; 35:14; Josh 24:26). Samuel’s faithfulness and effectiveness as a judge can be seen in his defeat of the Philistines (7:13), in Israel’s reclaiming of cities lost to them, and in her peace with the Amorites (7:13–14). Unlike the judges in the Book of Judges, although Samuel resided in Ramah (7:17), his ministry as judge was not localized to a specific place since he would regularly travel around Israel (7:15)—north as far as Bethel, east as far as Gilgal toward the Jordan, and west as far as Mizpah, before returning south to Ramah.

8:1–5 As noted in the Introduction, the “historical books” (Joshua–2 Kings; called the “Former Prophets” in Hebrew) including Samuel appear to be written “in dialogue” with Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy serves as a sort of “linchpin” to analyze what is going on in these books and why; or to put it another way, the covenant laws and regulations of Deuteronomy serve as the measure against which Israel’s covenant faithfulness (or lack thereof) is being evaluated. One of the more significant events for which this understanding is crucial occurs here in Israel’s request for a king, which must be carefully compared to God’s instructions for how he would provide Israel with a king “after his own heart” (Deut 17:14–20; 1Sam 13:14). Thus, it is not Israelite kingship that the Lord finds fault with here, but Israel’s direct request for a king not “after his own heart” (13:14) but instead “like all the nations” (8:5). These two descriptions become programmatic for evaluating Saul and David first, and then all Israelite kings to follow. The context here shows that part of Israel’s motivation arises from the fact that like other judges of Israel, while Samuel himself has been faithful, his sons (like Eli’s) were not following his stead (8:3). Israel faces the fact that like the other judges, Samuel’s faithful leadership will come to an end at his death, since his sons “did not walk in his ways, but turned aside after unlawful gain, took bribes, and perverted justice” (8:3).

8:6–9 Yet in 1 Samuel 8, it is not just the Lord who rebukes Israel’s request but also Samuel who gets angry with the people for it (8:6). His motivation seems less pious and more personal, as the text has made his own leadership failures clear despite his overall faithfulness (1Sam 7:14–17). In setting up his sons to be judges in his stead (8:1–3), Samuel appears to be acting the part of a “king like the nations” (cf. Gideon, who first refuses kingship in Judg 8:23, but then amasses wives like a pagan king [Judg 8:30] and names his son “Abimelech,” which means “my father is king”). Thus, while Samuel takes Israel’s request for a king as a personal affront, the Lord minimizes this as an almost petty “offense,” instead showing that their fault is not that they are looking for a human king “like the Lord” but instead that they are looking for one “like all the nations” (“it is not you they have rejected [as a judge], but me they have rejected from ruling as king over them”; 8:7, emphasis added; cf. 10:19; 12:12, 17, 19).

The request of Israel’s elders (8:5, 20) implies that a direct theocracy (that is, a theocracy in which the Lord alone ruled the nation as Israel’s Divine King) was no longer considered good enough and that her senior leaders thought the nation was somehow inferior to neighboring countries because they had no human king to go out before them and lead them into battle (8:20). This was a time when the Philistines (cf. 1Sam 9:16) and the Ammonites (cf. 1Sam 12:12) were a threat to Israel’s security. At its core, this attitude on the part of Israel’s leaders is a rejection of the kingship of Lord and, therefore, a denial of the covenant. Somewhat surprisingly, the Lord tells Samuel to grant their wish (8:7–9), though he instructs him to “admonish” (or as most versions render it “solemnly warn”; lit. “witness against”) them by explaining the “custom” of the king who will rule over them (i.e., the king they are asking for, namely, one “like all the nations”).

8:10–18 Samuel faithfully obeys the Lord, responding to “those who were asking (shʾl) for a king” by warning them what a “king like all the [other] nations” would be like.⁷ The word that most clearly characterizes these kings “like all the nations” is that they “take” (lqkh; used four times in 8:11, 13, 14, 16, and implied several more times). Samuel informs the leaders of Israel that a king like those of the surrounding nations would be a king who would take their sons (8:11), take their daughters (8:13), take the best of their fields and vineyards (8:14), take a tenth of their grain (8:15), take male and female servants (8:16), take the best of their cattle and donkeys (8:16), and take a tenth of their flocks (8:17). The result would be that the people of Israel would be reduced to slavery much like what they had experienced in Egypt (8:17, “you will be his slaves”).

8:19–22 Samuel’s warning, however, falls on deaf ears. After listening to Samuel, the leaders insist even more strongly than they had before (cf. 8:5, 20) that they wanted a king “to judge us” and “lead us into battle” (8:20). So Israel wanted the wrong kind of king for the wrong reasons. Yet, God told Samuel three times in this chapter to “do as they say” (8:7, 9, 22). So, here is a situation in which the Lord consented to the people’s wicked request, but then turned their evil aspiration into something that would ultimately work for the good of the nation. We are reminded here of the words of Joseph to his brothers in Genesis 50:20: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today.”

When kingship is finally introduced by Samuel to the people at Mizpah (1Sam 10:17–27), and then subsequently at Gilgal (1Sam 11:14–12:25), it is a different kind of kingship than that for which the people had asked. Kingship in Israel, as defined by Samuel, was to be a covenantal kingship, i.e., one in which the duties and responsibilities of the king in Israel would be very different than those of the kings of the surrounding nations (cf. 1Sam 10:25; 11:14–12:25). Kingship in Israel would be designed in a way that integrated human kingship into the administration of God’s covenant with his people.

So, 1 Samuel 8 marks the beginning of an important new initiative in God’s plan of redemption. Kingship will now be incorporated into God’s redemptive purposes for his people. But as ancient Israel’s history unfolds, very few of her kings will be faithful to the covenant. For this reason Israel’s prophets begin to speak of a future messianic king in the line of David who would be both human and divine (cf. Isa 7:14; 9:6; Jer 23:6; 33:16). This meant that the promised seed of the woman (Gen 3:15) would not only perform a priestly function of being “offered to bear the sin of many” (Heb 9:28) but also a royal function in which he would “reign until he has put all enemies under his feet” (1Cor 15:25). Ultimately, this king would be Jesus, the root and offspring of David (Rev 22:16). Jesus would completely fulfill the ideal of the true covenantal King of Israel (John 18:33–19:22) and the King of kings (Rev 17:14; 19:16). As the angel who visited Jesus’s mother Mary at his birth told her, she would bear a son who “will be great and will be called the Son of the Most high. The Lord will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; his kingdom will never end” (Luke 1:32–33).

The articulation of the three stages of ascension to a royal throne in the Ancient Near East serves as a compelling background by which to analyze and assess 1 Samuel 9–15 as well as the rest of Saul’s reign in 1 Samuel (Long, ___; Vannoy, 102–05). It highlights Saul’s failure to confirm his Israelite kingship from the Lord’s perspective while he took the throne before the people. It also helps understand the significance of the events in David’s life in 1 Samuel 16–31 as well as 2 Samuel. Simply put, while Saul’s “spiritual” ascension to Israel’s throne before the Lord is derailed by his failure to confirm it by obedience, his “human” ascension before the people is achieved on an “alternate path” of “sacrifice.” In contrast, David’s “spiritual” ascension to be Israel’s king occurs before the Lord long before it is eventually “recognized” by the people in 2 Samuel.

i. Royal Commission (Lord’s: 9; People’s: 10)

The articulation of the three stages of ascension to a royal throne in the Ancient Near East serves as a compelling background by which to analyze and assess 1 Samuel 9–15 as well as the rest of Saul’s reign in 1 Samuel (Long, ___; Vannoy, 102–05). It highlights Saul’s failure to confirm his Israelite kingship from the Lord’s perspective while he took the throne before the people. It also helps understand the significance of the events in David’s life in 1 Samuel 16–31 as well as 2 Samuel. Simply put, while Saul’s “spiritual” ascension to Israel’s throne before the Lord is derailed by his failure to confirm it by obedience, his “human” ascension before the people is achieved on an “alternate path” of “sacrifice.” In contrast, David’s “spiritual” ascension to be Israel’s king occurs before the Lord long before it is eventually “recognized” by the people in 2 Samuel.

9:1–2 The formulaic introduction of a new character (“a man from Benjamin whose name was Kish”) along with his pedigree (“the son of Abiel, . . . a wealthy man”; 9:1; cf. 1Sam 1:1–2) signals the beginning of a new section of narrative. Aside from the escapee from battle in 4:12, the last mention of the Benjaminites in the “Deuteronomistic History” (Josh–2Kgs; see Introduction) was the sordid affair at the end of the Book of Judges (Judg 20–21), making Kish’s (and therefore Saul’s) initial pedigree as a Benjaminite spiritually suspect. Yet as their description continues, Kish and his son Saul have all the makings of worldly success. Not only is Saul from a wealthy family, but he also has the “look” of a “king like all the nations,” there “not being a man from the sons of Israel who was better than he” and being a head taller than average (9:2). His name, “Saul” (shaʾul), meaning “asked for,” hints that he may be the answer to Israel’s rebellious request in chapter 8 and possibly also stands in contrast to Samuel, who was God’s good answer to Hannah’s pious prayer (see comments on 1:12–20 above).

9:3–10 Despite Saul’s dashing good looks, his character comes into question as the story unfolds in both subtle and not-so-subtle ways. In the Ancient Near East, good kings were likened to shepherds (e.g. Hammurabi’s prologue), which is how we’ll meet David—keeping his father’s sheep (16:11). Furthermore, Israelite kings were forbidden from amassing horses (Hebrew susim; Deut 17:16). Though somewhat ambiguously, Saul’s character comes into question, as he not only comes from a family who is amassing donkeys (ʾatonot), but he also seems to be failing to “keep” them well. In fact, there may be a subtle indication that Saul is “lying about,” as his father has to go to him and tell him to “get up, go look for the donkeys” (1Sam 9:3), a job he doesn’t trust him to do alone (“take one of the young men with you”). It is not clear where Saul and his servant traverse, but it seems that they did not go too far before Saul was ready to give up out of “concern” for his father’s worry about him (9:5). It is no surprise that his servant knows of Samuel’s residence at Ramah (3:20; 7:15–17), but the fact that he has to inform Saul may further imply Saul’s lack of spiritual life, especially given Samuel’s “renown” (from Hebrew kbd) in Israel (9:6). Saul’s lack of ability to lead is further highlighted in his inability to problem-solve their situation, as he needed to be told of Samuel and then slowly persuaded to go to him by Kish’s nameless servant who even offers to pay for Samuel’s help with his own money (9:6–10).

9:11–26 In response to Saul and his servant’s terse question (“Is the seer here?”; 9:11), the young women’s loquacious answer (9:12–13) that at points seems grammatically odd, choppy, and repetitive, may be capturing a fawning nervousness at the encounter with such a handsome young man as Saul (see 9:2). It also provides further context for what follows as they providentially “just happen” to catch Samuel on his way up to the sacrificial feast at the high place (9:14).

The narrator makes explicit the providential hand of the Lord in Saul’s encounter with Samuel by rewinding to the events of the previous day in 9:15–16. Noteworthy is that the Lord does not refer to Saul as “king” (melek) but instead tells Samuel to anoint him to be “prince” or “leader” (nagid) of his people. A foreboding note may be seen in the Lord’s language about Saul’s role that the Lord gives him to “save” (yshʿ) Israel from the Philistines (9:16) and to “restrain my people” (ʿtsr; 9:17), which echoes the work of the judges (Judg 2:16). Saul’s spiritual “blindness” may be further implied in his inability to recognize Samuel even when he’s standing right in front of him (1Sam 9:18–19). Samuel’s report about the donkeys (9:20) resolves the driving narrative tension until this point, and the question becomes, “What will Samuel tell Saul?” (9:19).

Though some see Saul’s humble disclaimer (9:21) as genuine, in context it appears to be false humility given his good pedigree introduced in the opening of the narrative (9:1–2), and this may be confirmed by his not protesting his royal treatment at the feast (9:22–24). However he got to bed, Saul’s willingness to lay about sleeping seems to be highlighted by the need for Samuel to call up to Saul on the roof, and like Saul’s father in 9:3 he has to tell him to “get up” (9:26).⁸ As we meet Saul here in chapter 9, his characterization sets forth a stark contrast with the coming “king after the Lord’s heart” in David (13:14), who will better foreshadow the true Shepherd King of Israel, Jesus Christ. Jesus the Christ (or Messiah meaning “the anointed one”) leaves the ninety-nine sheep to find the single lost one (Matt 18:12), and comes not with worldly appeal (Isa 53:2), but as the true savior (yehoshuaʿ) of God’s people who cry for deliverance—not from merely human enemies like the Philistines, but from sin, Satan, and the curse of death.

9:27–10:8 These verses recount the first stage of Ancient Near Eastern ascension to kingship, namely, the anointing or commission, which should be followed by attestation or corroboration, and then affirmation or coronation (see Long). For both Saul and David in the coming chapters, this ascension has two “tracks”—one private (i.e., before the Lord) and one public (i.e., before the people). Saul’s private anointing before the Lord alone (i.e., with only Saul and the prophet Samuel present in 10:1) begins the “private / before the Lord” royal ascension of Saul. Thus, it takes place “on the edge of the city” (9:27; i.e., away from public view in the center of the town) as Samuel instructs Saul to send his servant on ahead so they can discourse privately. Maybe because the Lord is establishing a new redemptive historical office here (i.e., kingship), he bears witness to it with “three witnesses” of signs (10:2–6) that Saul will encounter to give him confidence and offer him the chance to attest himself before the Lord (10:2–7). Based on what follows, it seems that these predicted events were to strengthen Saul’s faith and enable his obedience in fulfilling the Lord’s call to deliver Israel from the Philistines (10:1). The specific location of the Philistine garrison is mentioned along with the instruction to “do what your hand finds to do, for God is with you”—i.e., attack the garrison and deliver Israel (10:7). The final instruction in 10:8 seems to envision a celebration after victory at which Samuel would offer sacrifices for the feast (cf. 9:12–14, 22–24), and after which Samuel would give further instruction.

10:9–16 God’s faithfulness to his word of promise is on display here as all the foretold events come true and God seems to provide Saul with the resources necessary for success (10:9–11). While there is debate surrounding the emergence of the proverb “Is Saul also among the prophets?” (10:12), it seems to refer to something that is unlikely and yet happens nonetheless, maybe a little like “once in a blue moon” in English. Saul’s silence about his anointing when speaking to his uncle, while not direct disobedience of God’s command, seems to indicate embarrassment or fear and is an early indication that Saul may not be a “good fit” as Israel’s king. Here one begins to wonder how Saul is mentally adjusting to assuming the enormous responsibilities of the kingly role to which God has called him.

10:17–27 Even though kingship as requested by the people of Israel was a denial of the covenant and a rejection of the Lord as Israel’s king, when Samuel gives Israel a king, he does so in a way that is consistent with the covenant and integrated human kingship into the structure of the theocracy. The first hint of this is found in the ceremony at Mizpah where Saul is publicly designated or commissioned by lot to be Israel’s first king (1Sam 10:17–27). After the lot falls on Saul (10:20–21), he is presented to the assembly by Samuel as the person whom the Lord had chosen to be their king (10:22–24). We are told that Saul was an imposing figure of royal stature standing taller than anyone else at the assembly (10:23). Nonetheless, he had “hidden himself” among the baggage (10:22). Though we are not told why (Josephus suggests it was due to modesty; Antiquities 6.63), it could have been fearful shyness or possibly so he could get a nap (given his penchant for lying about; cf. 9:3, 26). Nonetheless, at seeing him the people hail him with enthusiasm, shouting, “Long live the king!” (10:24). This was exactly the kind of king they wanted!

Samuel, however, does not want the people to think that just because they have been given a king that their king should rule in the same way as kings did in the surrounding nations. So he is careful to explain to them the “duties of the kingship” (lit. “the manner of the kingdom”; Hebrew mishpat; 10:25). By doing this Samuel takes an important step toward resolving the tension between the people’s sinful desire for a king and the Lord’s acquiescence to their request. Nonetheless, Saul’s failure to live up to God’s ideal for an Israelite king may be implied even in Samuel’s action here, since it is the king who is supposed to write himself a copy of God’s Law upon his ascension to the throne (Deut 17:18). Samuel’s point seems to be that Israel’s kings will not have autonomous power. They must not be a law unto themselves but will always be subject to the laws of the Sinai Covenant as well as to the Word of the Lord through Israel’s prophets. Kingship in Israel would thus be integrated into the covenantal structure of the theocracy, functioning in a manner consistent with the continued sovereignty of the Lord over the nation by serving as a vehicle for the Lord’s rule over his people (see Vannoy, 100).

There is some debate as to what to make of Saul’s silence at the insult of the “worthless men” (beliyyaʿal) in 10:27. On the one hand it could be another indicator of failure to require of the people proper honor for the Lord’s anointed, as we see demonstrated so well in David later in the book. It could also imply a fearful weakness in Saul not wanting to “rock the boat” of his newly minted kingship. Or it could be an act of true wisdom in not taking the slight personally but finding a peaceable way forward. Unlike Saul in this account, when anointed with the Holy Spirit at his baptism, the coming true King of Israel would have his call confirmed not by three blessings, but by three temptations in the wilderness (Matt 4). He would not hide himself among the baggage but would boldly step forth for his ultimate trial by turning his face toward Jerusalem (Luke 9:51), where his coronation was not with a crown of gold, but of thorns; where the feast was a quiet Passover meal as a picture of his own suffering and death; and where he was lifted up not to sit on an earthly throne but to hang naked upon a cross. And yet, our great King Jesus’s glory far outstrips any Israelite king who went before, because through his suffering glory he has once for all accomplished true salvation for his people.

ii. Royal Confirmation (People’s – 11:1–11)

11:1–11 The process by which Saul becomes Israel’s first king involves three “public” stages in full view of the people (Vannoy, 102–05). First, he was privately anointed by the prophet Samuel (1Sam 10:1) and then publicly commissioned as king-elect (10:24). After this, his inspiring victory over the Ammonites in 1 Samuel 11 delivers a clear attestation or confirmation of his appointment to the royal office, which then leads to the coronation or inauguration of his reign that is described in 1 Samuel 11:14–12:25.

The probationary nature of Saul’s Ammonite battles appears to be highlighted by naming the enemy king of the Ammonites, Nahash (nakhash), meaning “serpent” (cf. Gen 3:15; Num 21:6; etc.). By implication, he’s just another in the long line of “the seed of the serpent” that oppresses God’s people in enduring enmity (1Pet 5:8–9; cf. Matt 24:9; John 8:44; 15:18; 1Jn 3:12–13). Along these lines, Saul serves as a sort of “First Adam”-type king who, though he has outward public success in this account, will fail the true probation of his spiritual ascension in the eyes of the Lord. He will then fall under the Lord’s rejection to make way for the “Second Adam”-type king in David, who fulfills the Lord’s command in defeating the Philistines. Nonetheless, here in chapter 11 is the high point of Saul’s reign, as he comes to the help of the oppressed Jabesh-gileadites (11:1) under threat of bodily mutilation (11:2) by the “serpent king,” Nahash. Upon hearing of their brothers’ plight (11:3), Gibeah joins them in mourning (11:4). When Saul hears the news (11:5), a divinely given “righteous anger” comes upon him with the Spirit of God (11:6). It should strike the reader that Saul does not hear this with the rest of the people, since he has been out in the field (11:5)—hardly where one would expect a king to be. And his next act strikes an ominous tone. He brutally and seemingly excessively slaughters a team of oxen (note that it is not necessarily his own; 11:7), and in a move reminiscent of the darkest days of the judges (Judg 19–20 and the last mention of Gibeah in the Deuteronomistic History), he sends them “throughout all the territory of Israel.” As portentous as it is, the act has its desired effect of mustering a sizeable army (330 “thousand” or “military units,” depending on how one understands the Hebrew ʾeleph; 11:8), resulting in a resounding defeat of the Ammonites and deliverance of the Jabesh-gileadites (11:9–11). This is a high point in Saul’s career as he not only leads in victory but ultimately gives credit for it to the Lord (11:13).

iii. Royal Coronation (People’s – 11:12–12:25)

Building upon Saul’s confession that credit for the victory over the Ammonites was to be given to the Lord rather than to himself (11:13), Samuel calls for an assembly at Gilgal in order to “renew the kingdom” (11:14). First Samuel 11:14–15 introduces and briefly summarizes the transactions of the Gilgal assembly that are then described in greater detail in 1 Samuel 12. Although chapter 12 describes the inauguration of Saul’s reign as king (see 12:13), this is not its primary focus. Instead, the focus of the Gilgal assembly is on Israel’s confession of her sin in requesting a king (12:19) and Samuel’s exhortation to the people of Israel to “fear the Lord and serve him in truth with all their heart” (12:24). In both passages (1Sam 11:14–15 as well as 12:1–25) the primary purpose for the assembly is for Israel to renew her allegiance to the Lord.

Redemptive History and the Establishment of Covenantal Kingship

Human kingship now becomes an instrument of the Lord’s rule over his people. Here we find the beginning of the “kingdom period” in ancient Israel, and right at its inception kingship is integrated into covenant. Covenant provides the norm for human kingship, and human kingship will function as an integral feature of covenantal administration. First Samuel 11:14–12:25, therefore, has enormous significance not only for the Books of 1 and 2 Samuel but for the rest of the Bible as well. The issues addressed in this passage—related to the establishment of kingship in Israel—set the course for the flow of redemptive history throughout the remainder of the OT, on into the NT, and, for that matter, all the way into the eschaton. From this point forward, kingship will carry a central role in the ongoing flow of redemptive history because of its close connection with the rise of Messianic expectation and the Lord’s promise to David that his dynasty would endure forever (2Sam 7). When Israel’s kings fail to live up to the covenantal ideal, the prophets will begin to speak of a divine-human king, who at some future date will establish universal peace and justice on the earth (Isa 9:6–7; Jer 23:5–6; 30:9; 33:15–17).

The NT records the initial coming of this king to his people in the person of Jesus, who is referred to at his birth (cf. Luke 1:32, 69; 2:11) and during his teaching ministry (cf. e.g., Matt 9:27; 12:23; 15:22; 20:30–31; 21:15; 22:42) as “the son of David.” Just before his crucifixion, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (Matt 21:1–9; Mark 11:1–10; Luke 19:29–38; John 12:12–15; cf. 1Kgs 1:33, 44) to publicly proclaim that he was the one whom the prophets had said would someday sit on the throne of David (2Sam 7:11–14; Zech 9:9). Subsequently, Jesus affirmed before the Sanhedrin that he was the Messiah (Matt 26:57–68; Mark 14:53–65; Luke 22:67–71) and before Pilate that he was “king of the Jews” (John 18:33, 37). In fact, Jesus told Pilate “for this purpose I was born, and for this purpose I came into the world” (John 18:37). The early church clearly understood that Jesus was the Messiah prophesied in the OT Scriptures, and the apostles were careful to explain why Jesus was crucified, resurrected, and ascended to heaven (Acts 2:25–36; 3:20–26; 13:27–37; 18:28). Both Jesus and the apostles spoke of a future day when Jesus would return (John 14:3, 28) and restore all things (Rom 8:20–21). In the last book of the Bible, the coming (Rev 22:7) of a royal figure of the house of David (Rev 22:16) is pictured in all the fullness and glory of the Messianic expectation of the OT prophets (Rev 15:3; 17:14; 19:11–16). This is the trajectory that finds its starting point in 1–2 Samuel.

11:12–15 The apex of Saul’s kingship is reached in these verses. Fresh from the victory against Nahash and the Ammonites, the people offer Saul the chance for a violent and vengeful consolidation of power by putting to death his detractors (11:12). Yet in a somewhat anomalous profession of faith, Saul rightly credits the Lord for his success in battle (11:13), which leads to Samuel’s call to “renew” (khdsh) the kingdom (11:14).⁹

If one understands “kingdom” in the phrase (“Let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom”) as a reference to Saul’s kingdom, as the NIV (1984) implies with its translation “reaffirm the kingship,” it is difficult to explain how Saul’s kingdom could be “renewed” if he had not yet “been made king.” Furthermore, the Hebrew verb in verse 15 (Hiphil of mlk) is understood to mean “to inaugurate the reign of a king” everywhere else it occurs (48x), so that the NIV’s (1984) translation “confirmed Saul as king” should probably instead be rendered “made Saul king” (as the ESV has it). It is preferable, then, to understand “kingdom” in the phrase (“Let us go to Gilgal and renew the kingdom there”) not as a reference to Saul’s kingdom, but rather as a reference to the kingdom of the Lord. In fact, it is Israel’s disavowal of the kingship of the Lord that is the central issue running through the entirety of 1 Samuel 8–12. When Israel asked for a human king, they had rejected the Lord, who was their king (1Sam 8:7; 10:19, 12:12).

This rejection of the kingship of the Lord subverted the covenant relationship between the Lord and his people that had been established at Mt. Sinai. But in spite of this wickedness on the part of Israel (cf. 1Sam 12:17, 19), the Lord, in his grace and mercy, had told Samuel to give the people a king (1Sam 8:7, 9, 22). So now that the time has arrived for Saul’s inauguration, Samuel chooses to accomplish this in a ceremony that not only inaugurates Saul’s reign but that also, and even more importantly, restores the broken covenantal relationship between the Lord and his people. Significantly, in 1 Samuel 11:14–12:25 kingship in Israel is established in the context of a renewal of allegiance to the Lord. It is only in connection with Israel’s affirmation of her continued recognition of the Lord as her divine king that human kingship could assume its proper place in the structure of the theocracy.

12:1–7 Not surprisingly given its redemptive historical significance, the coronation of Saul here begins with the farewell address of Israel’s last, and arguably greatest, “judge” (7:15–16). Using similar language as he did when warning of the abuses of human kingship (8:8–18), Samuel demands the people attest by oath that he has been faithful to serve Israel in administering God’s rule justly (1Sam 12:1–3). Although they happily affirm Samuel’s faithfulness in leadership (12:5–6), there are hints here that Samuel has his own weaknesses and failures. For instance, he references his own sons (12:2) despite their dissolute behavior (8:1–5). He also seems to describe himself in royal, kingly terms as having “walked about before” Israel as the king would now do (12:2; cf. comments on 1Sam 8:6–9 above), further suggesting that he may have wanted the role of king for himself. His taking Israel’s request for a king personally may be implied in the fact that although he mentions Saul a few times, he never does it by name but only as “his (the Lord’s) anointed” (12:3, 5). Furthermore, Samuel couches this whole covenant renewal ceremony in the language of a civil case between him and Israel (“take your stand, so that I may enter into judgment with you before the Lord”; 12:6–7 NRSV).

12:8–18 The inauguration here occurs as a renewal of the Lord’s kingdom through a covenant renewal ceremony. As the historical prologue (12:8–13) makes clear, this is a “renewal” of the Mosaic covenant at Sinai, which though part of the Covenant of Grace (12:8) has a typological conditionality echoing the Covenant of Works (12:14–15). Samuel’s wounded ego may still be on display here, as he puts himself right into the list of some of the most major judges—Gideon or Jerubaal (Judg 6–8), Barak (Judg 4–5), and Jephthah (Judg 11–12)—specifically mentioning those who led Israel in mighty victories in battle (1Sam 12:11).¹⁰ Samuel’s wounded pride may be further seen in his presentation of Saul as king: “Behold the king you have chosen, whom you asked for” (12:13, emphasis added). Finally, Samuel’s irritation seems to color his conveyance of the stipulations of the covenant. Ordinarily one can expect the promise of blessings for obedience and curses for disobedient breaking of the covenant (e.g., Deut 28). But Samuel stops short of communicating the blessings, though most translations supply the missing apodosis of conditional blessings with something like “[then] it will be well with you” (12:14; ESV).¹¹ Instead, he seems to omit the promises ordinarily found in the apodosis of the conditional, and jumps right to the “bad news” of promised curses for disobedience (12:15). The conclusion of such a covenant ceremony often includes the invocation of witnesses—the pagan pantheon of gods in other ANE covenants, but in the Lord’s covenants the rest of creation is called to bear witness (Deut 4:26; 32:1; Josh 24:27; Isa 1:3). In ancient Israel rain was often considered a sign of blessing and provision. Samuel’s invocation of “thunder and rain,” however, especially during the “wheat harvest” (as unexpected as “snow in summer”; Prov 26:1), was instead quite undesirable, as it would likely cause great damage to the anticipated harvest (12:17–18).

12:19–25 At the ominous sign offered by Samuel in 12:18, the people (maybe a bit uncharacteristically) seem to show a true heart-rending repentance and plead with him for mercy. At this display and at their humble request for his intercession, Samuel’s tone seems to soften (12:20–21), and he is moved by his commitment to be faithful in his office (12:23) to reassure the people of God’s grace (12:22–24) and to reiterate his warning a bit more gently (12:25). Again, Samuel serves both to contrast and to foreshadow the coming “true Judge” of God’s people, Jesus Christ (John 5:22, 27; Acts 10:42). Where Samuel took the people’s sinful rejection of God’s kingship personally and almost relished bringing bad news of curses for covenant-breaking, Jesus was personally rejected by his very own people and yet persevered to bring about their salvation at his own personal cost (Isa 53:3; John 1:11; 5:43), even praying for his enemies (Luke 23:34). Like Samuel in his faithfulness as priestly prophet, Jesus “does not cease praying” for his people (1Sam 12:23), and in his ascended glory “always lives to make intercession for us” (Heb 7:22–25).

Tracing the theme of kingship and covenant, 1 Samuel 13–31 recounts how the kingship as practiced by Saul failed to correspond to the covenantal ideal. The Lord graciously offers Saul a divinely sanctioned kingship despite the rebellious request for a human king “like all the nations” by his people (1Sam 8). Yet, as recounted in 1 Samuel 13–15, the reign of Saul, Israel’s first human king, proves to be a failure because he does not live up to the requirements of his office. When the Lord rejects him as king because of his disobedience to the Lord’s word given through the prophet Samuel, he is replaced on the throne by David, who is described as a man “after God’s own heart” (13:14). David will then be given the remarkable promise that his dynasty will endure forever (2Sam 7:11–16; 23:1–5).

i. Confirmation Failure (13–14)

As the story unfolds, Saul’s fear as the failing “king like the nations” is contrasted with his faithful son Jonathan’s remarkably faith-filled and effective leadership. In 1 Samuel 13, immediately following the description of Saul’s inauguration as king during the covenant renewal ceremony held at Gilgal (1Sam 11:14–12:25), we learn that Saul refuses to obey a command the Lord had given him at the time of his anointing. For this offence the prophet Samuel rebukes him and tells him that his dynasty will not endure.

13:1 First Samuel 13:1 marks the official beginning of Saul’s reign. That Saul’s reign did not begin until after the covenant renewal ceremony at Gilgal (1Sam 11:14–12:25) is confirmed by the placement of the “regnal formula” for the beginning of a king’s reign in 1 Samuel 13:1. Despite echoing the clearly formulaic structure of “regnal formulas” found throughout 1–2 Kings, this verse presents the interpreter with a few difficulties. Although 13:1 is “formatted” to look like a “regnal formula,” its purpose in that regard seems merely to serve to indicate that this is the beginning of the narrative of Saul’s reign, since a literal translation of it as a regnal formula makes little sense as it stands (i.e., “Saul was one year old when he became king and reigned for two years over Israel”?).¹² Instead, the NKJV translation (“Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, . . .”) seems better as understanding the text to be saying something like, “Saul’s reign had a duration of one year, and then it went on a second year before he got around to engaging the Philistines.” This verse thus highlights that despite Saul’s moving to confirm his kingship publicly in the eyes of the people by engaging the Amorites in battle (1Sam 11), he nonetheless dragged his feet on lifting a finger to address the problem that the Lord had anointed him to address and by which he was to confirm his kingship before the Lord—the Philistine problem (1Sam 9:16; 10:5–7).

13:2–7 First Samuel 13:2–7 contains background information for the description of an encounter between Samuel and Saul that is found in 13:8–15, which is the real focal point of the chapter. One of Saul’s first royal actions recorded after ascending to the throne was to assemble an army of 3,000 men, dividing them into two groups under the command of himself and his son Jonathan (13:2).

The narrative takes a surprising turn, however, in 13:3, where we are told that Jonathan, rather than Saul, took the initiative to attack the Philistine garrison at Geba (generally considered an alternative spelling for Gibeah, which was Saul’s hometown). This daring act by Jonathan calls to mind the instructions Samuel had given Saul shortly after his private anointing before the Lord. These instructions are found in 1 Samuel 10:5–8, where we read that Samuel told Saul about three signs that would confirm he was the one whom the Lord had chosen to be king over his people. One of these signs was that Saul would encounter a company of prophets near the town of Gibeah (or Geba), where Samuel had said there was a “Philistine outpost” (1Sam 10:5). In the context, Samuel’s instruction to Saul to “do what your hand finds to do, for God is with you” (10:7) immediately after he had told him that that there was a Philistine outpost at Gibeah (10:5) seems to be a clear suggestion to Saul that he should attack that outpost, and that God would be with him in doing so. We will see David doing just this sort of thing when he takes every opportunity to continue Joshua’s mission of dispossessing the idolatrous enemy nations within Israel’s territory (e.g. 1Sam 23:1–5; 27:8, etc.). But then, after doing “what his hand finds to do” (i.e., attacking that Philistine outpost at Gibeah; 10:7), Samuel had told Saul that he should go to Gilgal and wait there seven days for him to come to offer sacrifices and give him further instructions (10:8).

Saul, however, did not take any action against the Philistines when he returned to Gibeah after his encounter with Samuel, thereby failing to “prove” his capability and commitment to be the king the Lord anointed him to be. Instead, Jonathan shows himself to be the faithful man in the Saulide dynasty, fulfilling Saul’s probationary act and thereby moving his “spiritual” ascension process before the Lord to its final stage of coronation at Gilgal (13:7). And Jonathan does this in spite of Saul’s keeping the larger army of 2,000 men for himself (13:2). To Saul’s discredit, and highlighting his questionable character, after Jonathan’s defeat of the Philistines is mentioned almost as a side note (13:3), Saul takes full, public credit for it (13:4).

One wonders if, had it been Saul attacking the Philistines under the influence of the Spirit of the Lord (10:6), the results may have been different. Maybe a fear of the Lord and his king would have fallen on the Philistines (1Chr 14:7). In any case, Jonathan’s defeat of the Philistine garrison at Geba/Gibeah (1Sam 13:3) provokes the Philistines to action. As word spreads among the Israelites that the Philistine garrison had been attacked, Saul summons additional troops to join him at Gilgal (13:4).

There is something ominous, however, in the way the scene is described in 1 Samuel 13:5–7. The Philistines assemble a large army of chariots and warriors and encamp at Michmash “as numerous as the sand of the seashore” (13:5; cf. Gen 22:17). Instead of the Philistines trembling at the armies of the Lord, Israel is described as terrified in the face of the Philistine horde, “hiding in caves and holes and thickets and tombs and pits,” because “they were in trouble” and “hard pressed” by the Philistines (13:6). All of these hiding places have dark overtones of death and burial. In 13:7 Saul’s men at Gilgal are said to be “trembling” with fear while others desert to the east of the Jordan River. The picture here is very different from that of 1 Samuel 11 when the Israelites had fought the Ammonites and Saul, energized by God’s Spirit (11:6), had led Israel to a resounding victory. In sharp contrast we now find a fearfully hesitant Saul and a people with little confidence in either Saul’s leadership or the Lord’s protection. Ironically, these are the same people who had asked for a king to go out and lead them in battle, presumably to give them a sense of safety and national security. Now they have a king, but they are just as fearful, if not more so, than they had been before kingship was established. Here then is the perennial struggle of God’s people between living by fear versus living by faith (1Sam 4; cf. Isa 41:10; 2Tim 1:7).

13:8–15a In 13:8–15a we read of Saul’s disobedience and Samuel’s rebuke. As the Philistines gather their forces, Saul remains at Gilgal as he had been instructed by Samuel in 1 Samuel 10:8. Samuel’s instruction implied the gathering would be a celebratory coronation feast, so events do not seem to be unfolding the way they “should” if Saul had been faithful to attack the Philistines right when the Lord had indicated (10:6–13). After waiting for Samuel for seven days, and with the military situation deteriorating by the hour, Saul gives the order for sacrifices to be offered (13:9) without waiting for the prophet’s presence as instructed (10:8). If Saul were not such a tragic figure, his poor timing would be almost comical, because just as these offerings are being completed, Samuel does arrive, apparently late on the seventh day (10:10).

Samuel immediately confronts Saul by asking him, “What is this you have done?” (1Sam 13:11). Samuel’s question suggests strong disapproval of Saul’s actions. Saul’s response is defensive, implying he knows his actions to be improper and requiring explanation. In his defense he subtly “blames” God’s providence, describing the people’s “scattering” from him, the Philistines mustering at Michmash, and Samuel’s failure to come “at the appointment of days.” Given all of this “providential” circumstance, Saul claims to have “forced himself” to offer sacrifices and to ask for the Lord’s help (13:11–12). Samuel does not discuss Saul’s excuses, but rebukes him severely as having “done foolishly” (13:13) in disobeying the clear instructions that the Lord had given him. And because of this, Samuel declares to Saul that his dynasty will not endure, and that the Lord has already chosen another ruler who will be a “man after his own heart” (13:13–14).

Saul’s attempt to defend his actions betrays the serious mistake of allowing circumstances to determine behavior rather than the commandment of the Lord delivered by his prophet (Samuel). No doubt the circumstances were alarming, and no doubt this test of Saul’s loyalty to the Lord was a challenging one, but at the same time it was a very important test. The question here for Saul was this: Would he be a king under God, or a king in place of God? Is he a person who is prepared to wait on the Lord in complete submission and trust, no matter how threatening the circumstances might appear, or is he someone who views himself as above the Word and the Law of the Lord? This question is at the heart of what it meant to be a covenantal king. It is a question that could not be circumvented by ostensibly pious motives (such as asking for the Lord’s help) or by the performance of a religious act (the offering of sacrifices prior to battle). It is very easy to confuse genuine piety with religious words and religious acts, but it should be remembered that religious words and acts do not necessarily coincide with walking in the way of the Lord. It is not religious words and acts, in and of themselves, that determine the quality of a person’s behavior. The more important questions are whether or not a person’s behavior arises out of love for God and trust in his Word, and whether or not it is consistent with God’s commands. Saul uses a religious argument in an attempt to justify disobedient behavior, much as he will do again in the events described in 1 Samuel 15. But as Samuel will tell him on that later occasion, “to obey is better than sacrifice, and to listen than the fat of rams” (1Sam 15:22). As a result, Samuel rebukes Saul for his disobedience and tells him that he would not have a continuing dynasty (1Sam 13:14).

What Does It Mean for a King to be “After the Lord’s Own Heart?

In 1 Samuel 13:14 we are introduced to the description of David as Israel’s first true king in accordance with the Lord’s desires and instruction for his people, namely, as a “man after his (the Lord’s) own heart.” That this stands in contrast to Saul as a “king like all the nations” seems readily apparent in context. More debated has been what it means for David to be “after his own heart” (Hebrew ʾish ki-levavo). While historically this description of David as a “man after the Lord’s own heart” has been understood to reference David’s different character vis-à-vis Saul, a very different understanding of the expression was suggested by P. Kyle McCarter in his commentary on 1 Samuel (1980). McCarter took it instead to highlight that David was the Lord’s choice in contrast to Saul, who was “chosen” by the people. The emphasis on and importance of this phrase then becomes how it highlights God’s sovereign electing grace, which of course is a theme throughout Scripture (e.g. Deut 7:7–8; Titus 3:5) and often especially in 1–2 Samuel (see “Major Themes” in the Introduction).

While many scholars (both liberal and conservative) have followed McCarter in this interpretation, careful reflections on the details of the text here as well as elsewhere in the Bible contend for the view that in this phrase David’s heart and character are in view. This can be seen from 13:14 itself, where Samuel explains that the Lord’s choice of another is due to Saul’s not keeping “what the Lord commanded,” implying that the coming king would do so. This contrast of Saul and David is picked up in 1 Samuel 15:28, where Samuel says to Saul that the Lord will give the kingdom to one who is “better than you.” In 1 Samuel 16, when Samuel sees good king material in David’s brothers, God says he is instead looking at David’s heart in making this decision (1Sam 16:7). This suggests that God’s choice of David was in some way linked with divine awareness of David’s inner desire to love and serve the Lord. Furthermore, this understanding of David as “a man after God’s own heart” seems to be corroborated by Paul’s preaching about David in Acts 13:22, where he strings together three OT passages to summarize David’s character: “I have found in David (Ps 89:20) the son of Jesse a man after my heart (1Sam 13:14), who will do all my will (Ps 40:8).”

This view of David as different in character from Saul and having a heart of faith (and the righteousness that is credited through it) seems to play out in the narrative that follows. Despite David’s reign being far from perfect, the narrator’s overall assessment of him is that he “administered justice and equity to all his people” (2Sam 8:15). This assessment is echoed by David himself, who can declare in 2 Samuel 22:21–32, “I have kept the ways of the Lord” and “I have not turned away from his decrees.” As the Deuteronomistic History unfolds (i.e., Josh–2Kgs), his reign becomes the standard by which the reigns of subsequent kings in Israel are measured (e.g., 1Kgs 9:4; 11:33, 38; 15:1; 2Kgs 14:3; 16:2). The narrator even goes so far as to suggest in 1 Kings 3:6 and 15:4, 5 that David secured the promise that his dynasty would endure forever because of his obedience, here reminiscent of God’s reckoning righteousness by faith to Abraham (Gen 22:15–18; 26:4–5).

Perhaps the key to understanding the difference between David and Saul is found in how they respond when confronted with their sin and disobedience. Unlike Saul, who gets defensive and excuses himself, when it is clear that David’s obedience was far from perfect and that he “despised the word of the Lord by doing what is evil in his eyes” (2Sam 12:9), i.e., having committed adultery with Bathsheba and orchestrating the death of her husband, Uriah, he is quick to repent (2Sam 12:13). Similarly, after David orders the census in 24:1–4, his conscience is struck, and he repents quickly and deeply (24:10). David also affirms that the Lord “shows himself faithful to the faithful” (2Sam 22:26) and “saves the humble” (2Sam 22:28), clearly considering himself as included among the “faithful” and the “humble.” It is in these traits that David truly, although imperfectly, exemplified the ideal of the covenantal king and was thus a “man after the Lord’s own heart” (cf. Ps 78:72: “David shepherded them [Israel] with integrity of heart”).

In biblical usage the “heart” represents the core of a person’s being. It is the center of one’s emotional, volitional, intellectual, and ethical functions. This means that the phrase “a man after his (the Lord’s) own heart” speaks of a quality residing in David, rather than God’s sovereign choice of David. David had a “heart” for the Lord, while Saul did not. In spite of his many failures, David repeatedly demonstrated a deep and sincere desire to honor God in both his personal and public life. It is for this reason David is described as “a man after the Lord’s own heart” (1Sam 13:14).

13:15b–23 Saul’s situation here has gotten dire. He now only has “about six hundred men” (13:15b) in Geba situated less than two miles to the southwest from Michmash where the Philistines are entrenched (13:16) and from which they are sending raiding parties (lit. “destroyers”) toward the north (Ophrah), west (Beth-horon), and southeast (Valley of Zeboim; 13:17–18). Adding to this, the Israelites are virtually unarmed due to the longstanding “weapons-control” laws and economic warfare of the Philistines (13:19–21), so that only Saul and Jonathan are properly equipped for war when the Philistines march out to confront them (13:22–23).

In 1 Samuel 13 Saul is shown to be a failing spiritual leader of God’s people much like many of the judges before him. Like Adam in the garden, he was offered a lasting kingdom if only he obeyed God’s Word and passed probation, but like his and our first father, he too falls into sinful rebellion, dragging his progeny down with him (as we will see in Jonathan in the chapters ahead). As such, Saul sets forth a striking contrast between a merely human, sinful king, and the true king “after the Lord’s own heart.” David will prove an example of the latter, yet even he will fail at points. This ought to move us as readers to look deeper into the future for the true fulfillment of the king who shares the Lord’s heart and mind—and this is exactly who we meet in Jesus Christ. Unlike Saul, as he faced Satan himself in battle all alone, hungry, and weary, he did not give in to temptation to take matters into his own hands, but carefully reminded himself and his tempter of God’s Word, which he obeyed perfectly (Matt 4; Luke 4). He won the victory over his and our enemies, being the Second Adam (Rom 5) who gives the gift of new life eternal to all who follow him by faith and are adopted into his family as Royal Heirs of Almighty God.

14:1–23 As the passage continues, our attention is shifted from Saul to his son Jonathan, who seems tired of huddling fearfully in Geba (1Sam 14:1). In fact, it looks as though in selfish fearfulness Saul had left Jonathan with a small force in Geba (where the Philistines would be expected to attack) while he himself had taken most of the army (600 men) and sneaked off to “the place of the pomegranate (Hebrew rimmon) which was in Migron” (14:2).¹³ Saul and six hundred Benjaminites fleeing and hiding at the rimmon also further echoes Judges 20:47 and that sordid history from which Saul himself sprung (as a Benjaminite) and which seems to define his character. The other details about Saul as having a priest from Eli’s line (14:3) rather than Samuel to instruct him spiritually is telling given their portrayal in the book (e.g. 1Sam 2).

The drama of the narrative picks up as Jonathan and his armor-bearer secretly (14:1) sneak out and survey a Philistine outpost from the other side of an intervening valley (14:4–5).¹⁴ Jonathan’s courageous faith here shows him fit to be a king “after the Lord’s own heart” (14:6–7), though due to his father’s disobedience his claim to the throne will be lost (1Sam 15:23, 28). Rather than fear in the face of the obstacles before him, Jonathan radically entrusts himself and his success to the Lord’s providence (14:8–13), and by faith in the Lord’s help he strikes a significant blow against the Philistine enemy (14:14–15). Through Jonathan the Lord literally brings “a panic of God” upon the Philistines, which Saul’s camp about a half-mile away hears (14:16). Saul’s scrambling at this point is evident as he figures out that Jonathan and his armor-bearer are missing (14:17) and he desperately rushes to get divine guidance, though in a similar way to how Israel had abused the Lord’s help (14:18). He apparently gives up on that quickly (14:19) and heads hastily toward the tumult to join the victory that the Lord was already working (14:20–23).

14:24–46 Working through Jonathan’s courageous faith, the Lord had overcome Saul and Israel’s fear, and the victory was already assured. Rather than rejoice with his people and praise the Lord for the victory, in an act of what looks like false piety, Saul lays a foolish oath upon the people not to eat until he is “avenged” on “his” enemies (14:24). Again, reminiscent of the worst days of the judges and Jephthah’s vow (Judg 11), Saul’s oath seems to be to his own hurt as Jonathan, who was not present when his father made the vow, ends up breaking it (14:27–28). The narration of 14:27 cinematically slows and with careful detail describes Jonathan’s “oath-breaking” act. Yet when informed of his breach (14:28), Jonathan rightly assesses his father’s vow as foolish and counter-productive (14:29–30) and in the end tempting God’s people into sin rather than cultivating obedience to God’s laws (14:31–32; cf. Lev 17:10, 14; Deut. 12:16, 23; 15:23).¹⁵ Although Saul does not seem able to recognize and repent well of his own sin (i.e., “the log in his own eye”), he can see the “speck” of sin in others and rebukes the people (14:33). Nonetheless, he begins to lead the people in following proper sacred protocols for feasting and meat-eating (14:34–35).¹⁶ Although the text does not overtly rebuke this cultic act on Saul’s behalf, it does seem that he infringes on the priestly duties here, especially given that the priests are at hand (14:36). As the priests try to assert their role of inquiring of the Lord, however, they are met with silence (14:36), for which Saul again blames the people (14:38). Narrative tension rises as Saul assures the people that “even if [the sin] be in Jonathan my son, he will surely die” (14:39) as the people stand around silent. This leads to a protracted lot-drawing scene in which the lot falls on Jonathan (14:40–44; Prov 16:33). As Jonathan fesses up to his “guilt” (14:43), Saul is about to repeat Jephthah’s horror and kill his own son for the sake of a foolish vow (14:44), but the people rightly stay his hand (14:45), and Saul appears to give up the pursuit of the Philistines (14:46).

14:47–52 These verses appear to reflect the conclusion formula to a king’s reign: they recount Saul’s battles (14:47–48), his genealogy (14:49–51), and his noteworthy acts (14:52). Presumably, this would narratively signal the end of Saul’s reign, though he will not die until chapter 31! What is the point of this? It appears that God through the narrator provides his assessment of Saul as a king “like the nations,” as his reign is summarized in very human terms of battles won and progeny raised instead of the assessment throughout later parts of 1–2 Kings of whether a king did what was good or evil in the Lord’s sight. This whole passage of 1 Samuel 14 seems to scream, “If only the Royal Son (Jonathan) could be king!” Throughout, Jonathan’s fearless faith, contagious courage, and judicious justice shine forth so clearly in contrast to Saul and his fearful, feckless failure to lead well. In this way Jonathan foreshadows the Royal Son to come, who took on himself the sins of his people in order to ransom us from our covenant-breaking status as sinners so that we might be his redeemed victors with him through faith, always nourished for battle by the bread of life (John 6:35).

ii. Coronation Rejection (15)

After having already predicted the downfall of Saul’s kingdom in 1 Samuel 13:14, and having apparently concluded the narrative of Saul’s kingship in 14:47–52, this new “probation” of Saul and his further failure in 1 Samuel 15 seem superfluous. On closer examination, however, there may be a difference between the Lord’s promise of his kingdom not being confirmed or established (or “not continuing” [ESV] or “not enduring” [NIV]; Hebrew qwm) and having the kingdom torn from him by his further disobedience (15:28). Furthermore, since the “conclusion” of Saul’s “reign” has already been marked (14:47–52), the account here in 1 Samuel 15 serves as the beginning of the narrative of David’s ascent to kingship, showing that in the wake of Saul’s failure and rejection David becomes the king anointed to be “after the Lord’s own heart.”

15:1–3 As the chapter opens, Samuel comes to Saul with a word from the Lord of a new opportunity for Saul to show his obedience to the Lord by executing the Lord’s justice against the Amalekites (15:1–3). The Amalekites had opposed the Lord by attacking his people on their journey out of Egypt (Exod 17:8–15; Deut 25:17–19), leading him to promise that they would face his judgment. Saul is instructed to “totally destroy” (NIV) or to “devote to destruction” (ESV) the Amalekites in one of the many commands of the Lord for his people to apply kherem to the idolatrous people within the Promised Land.¹⁷

15:4–9 In this campaign Saul is able to muster a significant army, showing Israel’s willingness to do the Lord’s bidding (1Sam 15:4). The distinguishing character of kherem warfare is evidenced in Saul’s sparing the Kenites, whom the Lord had not commanded him to devote to destruction (15:5–6). Saul’s initial success in the battle against the Amalekites is described in 15:7 as he sweeps through the area south of Judah and kills Amalekites all the way to the eastern frontier of Egypt (Shur). But 15:8–9 inform us that he spares the Amalekite king, Agag, and keeps the best of the sheep, oxen, calves, and lambs, killing only what was “despised and worthless.” This was an indisputable violation of the command of 15:3. Once again Saul fails to obey the Lord’s command, which is his duty as a covenantal king.

15:10–11 In 15:10–35 Samuel confronts Saul and tells him that the Lord has rejected him as king because of his disobedience. As Saul returns from battle, the Lord informs Samuel of his “regret” (Hebrew nkhm) over having made Saul king for two reasons.¹⁸ First, Saul has “returned (or “turned” or “repented”; Hebrew shwb) from [following] after me”; and second, he has not “established my words (i.e., “carried out my instructions,” NIV)” (15:10–11). Obeying the Lord’s commands and following after the Lord were the fundamental requirements of the restructuring of the theocracy as it had been defined by Samuel on the occasion of Saul’s inauguration as king (1Sam 12:14b). So by his failure to obey the Lord’s commands, Saul demonstrates that he no longer recognizes the Lord as his sovereign, and for these reasons the Lord tells Samuel (15:11a) that he “regrets” making Saul king.

15:12–16 It is easy to read past the small detail in 15:12 that “it was reported to Samuel, ‘Saul entered into Carmel, and right there (Hebrew hinneh) he erected for himself a monument (Hebrew yad, usually translated “hand”; cf. 2Sam 18:18).’” This is, however, quite significant, as it shows Saul’s frame of mind subsequent to Israel’s victory over the Amalekites. He apparently regarded himself as the successful military leader whose accomplishment merited the sort of recognition that a victory monument would secure. From this perspective, it is only a short step to the conclusion that as payment for such an illustrious accomplishment he felt he had a “right” to share in the plunder as well as a “right” to participate in a victory celebration in which the defeated enemy king would be put on display, and a monument to the victorious king would be unveiled. In this scenario Saul is no longer subordinate to the Lord as an instrument of the Lord’s judgment on Amalek, but instead he positions himself as the autonomous ruler of Israel. In effect, he has become the anti-theocratic king.

Before Samuel can say even one word to him, Saul issues a royal judgment of his own righteousness: “Blessed be you to the Lord. I have performed the commandment of the Lord” (15:13). Yet the Lord has already flatly contradicted Saul’s claim in 15:11. Saul’s assertion of obedience even before Samuel asks him a question is already a bit suspicious. It suggests that Saul knows he has something to hide. Samuel does not directly challenge Saul’s statement but simply inquires, “What, then, is this bleating of sheep in my ears? What is this lowing of cattle that I hear?” (15:14). Saul responds that the best animals had been spared in order to offer them as sacrifices to the Lord (15:15). While this may seem to be a reasonable explanation for sparing the best of the animals, a closer look at the wording of the response suggests that everything is not as it might appear. Notice, Saul says that the animals were for a sacrifice to “the Lord your God” rather than “our God” or “my God” (15:15). Saul thereby grammatically does not include himself among followers of the Lord. In fact, as his interchange with Samuel progresses and Saul repeatedly attempts to cover his disobedient behavior with pious talk, it becomes clearer and clearer that deep down his heart is not right with the Lord.

15:17–23 Samuel responds to Saul by reminding him that he was the anointed king of Israel (15:17) and that the Lord had sent him on a specific mission that included completely destroying the Amalekites and taking no plunder (15:18). He then issues the Lord’s verdict on Saul’s “obedience” (or better, disobedience) and declares that Saul has done evil in the Lord’s sight (15:19). Saul, however, is still not prepared to admit his guilt, and he continues to attempt to justify his actions by claiming innocence and obedience (15:20), pointing out that he had killed all the Amalekites except Agag, and arguing that it was not himself but his troops who had kept some of the best of the animals to offer as sacrifices to “the Lord your God in Gilgal” (15:21). But not being swayed by Saul’s excuses, Samuel responds in 15:22–23 with one of the most profound poetic statements in the OT concerning the distinction between true religion and religious or ritual acts:

Has the Lord as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices,

as in obeying the voice of the Lord?

Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,

and to listen than the fat of rams.

For rebellion is as the sin of divination,

and presumption is as iniquity and idolatry (15:22–23a; cf. Ps 40:6–8).

This statement then climaxes with Samuel declaring to Saul, “Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, he has rejected you from being king” (1Sam 15:23b).

Samuel’s declaration that “to obey is better than sacrifice” (15:22) is the same message that Israel’s prophets would later proclaim to a people who, as Isaiah put it, “draw near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me” (Isa 29:13, quoted by Jesus in Matt 15:8; Mark 7:6). Religious or ritual acts performed in the absence of a heart desire to live in obedience to the Lord’s commands are not only unacceptable, but they are an abomination to the Lord. The tendency for religious people to move toward this sort of hypocrisy in religious observance is a constant danger, no less today than in the time of Samuel and Saul.

15:24–33 Upon hearing that his disobedience would result in dismissal from the royal office (1Sam 15:23b), Saul seems to reverse himself and to confess his sin. Although Saul had initially claimed that he had “carried out the Lord’s instructions” (15:13), now he says, “I have sinned, for I have transgressed the commandment of the Lord and your words” (15:24). He then asks for Samuel’s forgiveness and requests Samuel to accompany him in the worship of the Lord (15:25). Saul’s confession, however, falls on deaf ears, because Samuel refuses the request to go with him, and he repeats almost verbatim what he had said before: “You have rejected the word of the Lord, and the Lord has rejected you as king over Israel!” (15:26). It is clear that in Samuel’s mind Saul’s confession is unacceptable. The question, then, is, Why?

The first thing to notice is that Saul’s confession is a sort of “yes, but” response. He says, “Yes, I have sinned” (15:24), but he then qualifies this admission by saying he sinned “because I feared the people and obeyed their voice” (15:24). He then adds to his confession the double request to Samuel not only to forgive him but also to accompany him in the worship of the Lord (15:25). This “yes, but” sort of confession contrasts sharply with David’s later unqualified confession in the aftermath of the Bathsheba affair (“I have sinned against the Lord,” 2Sam 12:13; cf. Ps 51), and his similar confession after his sin of numbering the people (“I have sinned greatly,” 2Sam 24:10).

In addition, close attention to the wording of Saul’s confession reveals a serious deficiency in his thinking. The word “obey” (Hebrew shmʾ, “hear, listen”) has occurred several times earlier in the chapter (15:1, 19, 20, 22 [twice]) in connection with obeying God’s words (devarim) or God’s voice (qol). But in Saul’s confession (15:24), he says that because he feared the people, he “obeyed (shmʾ) their voice (qol)” (NIV has, “so I gave in to them”). So, here, Saul admits to obeying the voice of the people rather than the voice of God. But it is not only the term “obey” (shm’) that appears in this inverted sense in Saul’s confession, because the same thing happens with his use of the term “fear” (yrʾ). In setting forth the governing principles of the theocracy at Saul’s coronation, Samuel charged Israel, “If you will fear (yrʾ) the Lord and serve him and obey (shmʾ) his voice (qol) and not rebel against the commandment of the Lord, and if both you and the king who reigns over you will follow the Lord your God, (it will be well)” (1Sam 12:14; i.e., the king must show that he recognizes the Lord as his sovereign). Saul’s justification for not obeying the Lord’s command, but rather obeying the voice of the people, is that “I was afraid (yrʾ) of the people” (15:24). But by saying that he “feared the people” instead of “fearing the Lord,” he inadvertently amplifies his own self-condemnation.

Added to Saul’s self-incriminating attempt to justify his disobedience and shift responsibility for it from himself to the people is his manipulative attempt to avoid any public loss of face through an open break between himself and Samuel. Because of this he requests Samuel to accompany him in the worship of the Lord (15:25). The real purpose of his request, however, becomes clear when, after Samuel refuses to accede to it, Saul repeats the request with the added explanation, “Yet honor me now before the elders of my people and before Israel . . .” (15:30). When confession of sin becomes so closely linked with concern about public image and public honor, the authenticity of the confession is suspect. In this case, after Samuel initially denies his request and begins to walk away, Saul tears the hem of his robe in an attempt to hold him back (15:27). This incident offers Samuel an additional opportunity to reaffirm the Lord’s rejection of Saul by using the torn robe as a symbol (almost sacramental) of Saul’s loss of the kingdom.¹⁹ Unbeknownst to both Samuel and Saul at this point, the “neighbor” (or “friend”; Hebrew reaʿ) to whom the kingdom had been given would be David, who is here characterized in advance as someone who is “better” than Saul (15:28).

Because of Saul’s failure to execute the Lord’s justice on Agag, Samuel steps up to do it himself. Agag’s self-assuredness in Samuel’s presence may be further evidence that Saul had been treating him with “kid gloves” as he thinks he can weasel his way out of execution with the plea, “Surely the bitterness of death has passed” (15:32; ESV, NIV, KJV). Unmoved, however, Samuel issues the verdict of judgment and then executes Agag.²⁰

15:34–35 At the end of the chapter, Samuel and Saul part ways, Samuel going back to Ramah, and Saul to Gibeah (15:34). This is the last time they will speak to each other (15:35). Their parting not only marks the end of a personal relationship, but it also terminates the continuing legitimacy of Saul’s reign as Israel’s covenantal king. His abortive kingship has proven to be a failure because of his unwillingness to submit to the requirements of his office as Samuel had explained to him at the beginning of his reign (cf. 1Sam 10:25; 12:14, 15). The stage is now set for the introduction of the person “who is better than Saul” (15:28) to fulfill the role in which Saul had failed. The remainder of 1 Samuel describes the downward spiral of Saul’s life, ultimately ending in sad suicide (1Sam 31), combined with David’s long and difficult rise to the throne, in which he consistently refuses to lift his own hand against the “Lord’s anointed” (that is, Saul), even though Saul makes numerous attempts to take David’s life.

Saul serves through this chapter as a warning for God’s people. We too can settle for false and outward religiosity, as well as appeal to our “good motives” along with our intentions to “sacrifice” and worship the Lord in ways he has not commanded. But the good news is that we have a better Prophet than Samuel who is also our Priest and King. Where we have failed to “act justly, and to love faithfulness, and to walk humbly with our God” (Mic 6:8) Jesus Christ has done so on our behalf. Although we have fallen short of the glory of God for which we were created (Rom 3:23) and thereby deserve God’s “regret” for creating us (Gen 6:5–6), Jesus has taken the judgment that we deserve on himself on the cross (Heb 5:7–9; 10:6–9), thereby defeating his and our enemies and restoring us to the hope of eternal life with him in glory through his resurrection from the dead.

The remainder of 1 Samuel describes the long interval between David’s anointing and the beginning of his reign after the death of Saul (1Sam 17–31). Echoing the Ark of the Covenant’s “Exodus” sojourn in the direction of Egypt (1Sam 4–6), David flees southward and toward Egypt, even sojourning for a time among the Philistines. Through these trials of David, we see him mature into the kind of king the Lord envisions for his people, one who “learns obedience through what he suffers” (Heb 5:7–9).

i. Royal Commission (Lord’s – 1Sam 16)

16:1–5 As chapter 16 opens, we see the lingering reality of the sad rift that has developed between Israel’s king, Saul, and her primary prophet/priest, Samuel. Despite his objection to kingship, Samuel is now “mourning for Saul” (1Sam 16:1), and this despite the fact that he seems to fear Saul’s anger if he crosses him (16:2). The Lord, however, informs Samuel that he has literally “seen (Hebrew rʾh) my king” among the sons of Jesse (16:1), introducing the theme of this chapter, which compares the Lord’s “seeing” to ours as his creatures (16:6–7, 17, 18). While Samuel fears for his life before Saul (16:2), the elders of Bethlehem have presumably heard of Samuel’s execution of Agag (1Sam 15:33) and tremble in fear at his arrival so that he has to assure them that he comes in peace (16:4–5). Along with the Lord’s command for Samuel to anoint his choice for king (16:2), he graciously offers Samuel a pretext in which to do so (16:2–3; cf. Matt 10:16).

16:6–13 As Jesse and his sons come to the sacrifice (i.e., a feast to enjoy the meat sacrificed), it seems that Samuel has not learned the lesson from Saul and still envisions a king having the “right” outward appearance (1Sam 16:6). This leads to the main theological point in this passage as the Lord contrasts his estimation of human beings with our estimation of one another (16:7; cf. Acts 1:24).²¹ This does not mean the Lord delights in uncomely outward appearance, as we see in the text introducing David as one who his handsome (1Sam 16:12), even if not as toweringly impressive as Saul (10:23) or Eliab (16:6). The first description of characters in narrative is often significant, and we see this as David is introduced as the youngest (or smallest) son of Jesse, humbly and faithfully foregoing the feast in order to “shepherd the flock” (16:11). This is behavior befitting a good ANE king, and it stands in stark contrast to Saul who had to be prodded by his father to find the donkeys (9:3). After anointing David “in the midst of his brothers” (16:13; cf. Deut 17:15) upon the Lord’s command (16:12), the “Spirit of the Lord rushed upon David” (16:13). Unlike Saul’s apparently fleeting empowerments by the “Spirit of the Lord” (10:6, 10; 11:6; cf. 16:14), the Spirit is said to be upon David “from that day forward” (16:13), setting up the next scene, in which the Lord withdraws his Spirit from Saul and sends an “evil spirit” in its place (16:14).

16:14–23 Although at this point only Samuel and David’s family know of the Lord’s new choice for king, this shift in the spiritual reality is signaled by the change in the Lord’s disposition to Saul. Where before, despite Saul’s failure to obey the Lord, he has enjoyed the blessing and empowerment of the Lord’s Spirit based on his office as Israel’s king, it is now said to be replaced by a terrifying “evil spirit” from the Lord (16:14). What exactly this “spirit” was has been debated, with some arguing for a form of mental illness and others for demonic oppression, though spiritually the line between these may be more blurry than is sometimes suggested. Nonetheless, what is noteworthy and challenging to some of the “spiritual warfare” models propounded in the modern church is that this “evil spirit” is “from with the Lord” and utterly under his sovereign power and control. Yet notice that there are very human means by which the effects of this “evil spirit” can be alleviated, namely by the healing power of music (16:15–17).²² This leads to the remarkable “coincidence” of Saul bringing David into the royal court based on his second major characterization in this passage (cf. 16:11–12), namely, as one who has a reputation among others of being “seen” (rʾh) to be “skilled in playing [music], a man of valor, a warrior, skillful in speech (lit. “discerning/understanding of a thing/word,” so maybe “well studied”), a good looking man, and the Lord is with him” (16:18). And once again, if we are wondering where David is and what he is doing, we are given the answer in Saul’s request of Jesse to “send over to me David your son who is with the flock” (16:19, emphasis added). So David comes as a humble servant into the royal court of Israel bearing gifts for the king (16:20–21) and quickly earning the king’s approval (16:22) based on his beneficial service (16:23).²³

As David enters into the royal court of Israel in the form of a humble servant who lovingly devotes himself to serve the king, he models for us so clearly the coming Messiah King of Israel, Jesus Christ, who left the glory of his Father’s presence to become the humble Servant King (Phil 2:4–9), being born in Bethlehem, the city of David, and growing to love and serve the people of the wayward First Adam in their sin and misery. While on earth, Jesus healed the sick and cast out evil spirits (Luke 7:21–23), much like David who ministered healing to Saul through his music.

ii. Royal Confirmation (Lord’s – 1Sam 17–18)

First Samuel 17 is all about a battle of champions, as David shows himself fit to be the Lord’s king of Israel by being both Israel’s and the Lord’s champion in battle against their enemies.

17:1–11 As the passage opens, the narrator shows us the value of a “champion” (Hebrew lit. “the man of the betweens” or “the man between two [parties]”; 1Sam 17:4) as the Philistines muster against Israel in the heart of Judah’s territory (17:1–2). The blessing of a champion is that it allows a battle to be decided without the widespread loss of life that often attends warfare, and it is especially useful if you have a great champion like the Philistines do, namely, Goliath of Gath, who stands 9’6” tall (as the MT has it, though the LXX reads 6’6”; 17:3–4). Much space is taken up describing Goliath’s armor (120 lbs. of it!) and weapons (a 15-lb. spearhead!), all of which seems meant to highlight his ominous power, terrifying strength, and virtual invincibility (17:5–7). Even more significant is the spiritual character of the descriptions of Goliath’s appearance, which overtly associate him with the “great dragon, . . . that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan” (Rev 12:9). This can be seen in his “coat of mail” (lit. “armor of scales“), the metal of his outfit—“bronze” (Hebrew nekhosheth, eerily echoing the nakhash [“serpent”] first met in the Garden of Eden in Gen 3:1), and the “spear’s head” (lit. the “flame of his spear,” like a fire-breathing dragon?). The spiritual character of the battle is driven home by Goliath’s roar toward the battle lines of Israel, not only setting forth the rules for battle (1Sam 17:8–10) but also specifically defying the “armies of the living God” (17:10, 25, 26, 36, 45). The significance should be obvious: Israel here does not just face a formidable foe in battle, but instead the fight with the Philistines is reflective of a deeper spiritual war that has existed since the fall into sin and which is the Lord’s primary focus in all of his redemptive acts on behalf of his people. Ultimately, the Lord’s king must be one who cannot just protect his people from earthly kings but who can also free them from bondage to sin, Satan, and death. Sadly, despite Saul’s height (1Sam 10:23), he is no match for the Giant from Gath (17:11).

17:12–30 Next, we are reintroduced to David as the eighth son of Jesse, who is now “advanced in years” (17:12) and whose oldest three sons had followed Saul to the battle (17:13).²⁴ Some commentators suggest that this reintroduction of David and his brothers by name suggests that this text arose separately from 1 Samuel 16, since many of these details have already been mentioned (16:6–13). Alternatively, these details may serve a narrative purpose of re-highlighting the outward insignificance and smallness of David, who may not even be old enough to send into battle and who is required to serve more menial tasks of shepherding his father’s sheep while also serving in his court duties (17:15; cf. the repetition in 17:2, 19).²⁵ Presumably, the battle lines were unsafe for a youth like David, so that when Saul was on the battle lines, David’s musical ministry was not demanded. David’s faithfulness in serving his father and brothers can be seen when his father instructs him to take provisions to his brothers on the front (17:17–18), an order he is quick to obey without abandoning his sheep as a good shepherd (17:20–21). His attentiveness to the charges under his care is further highlighted in the note in 17:22 that as he moves from the camp to the front lines to talk to his brothers, he leaves the things he had brought “in the charge of the keeper (shomer) of the baggage.” After getting to the front lines and talking to his brothers, David happens to be there to overhear Goliath’s defiant charge to Israel and her God (17:23). He also gets wind of the king’s offer of reward for anyone who will face the Philistine champion: riches, his daughter, and a tax-free estate (17:25). David’s asking about it in 17:26 seems to be an attempt to motivate Saul’s men to respond as they should to “this uncircumcised Philistine” who is “taunting the armies of the living God.” Yet David’s attempts are unsuccessful (17:27) and instead draw the ire of his older brothers, who may sense a note of reproach in David’s engagement with the people (17:28–30).

17:31–47 David’s passion for the Lord’s name and willingness to fight for it reaches Saul (17:31), who sends for David and hears of his willingness himself (17:32). David’s fearless faith (17:34–37) in the face of Saul’s fearful doubt (17:33) is not only inspiring on its face but is also reminiscent of Jonathan in chapter 14. Although Saul attempts to robe David royally (17:38–39), maybe so that at a distance it might look as though Saul himself is leading as a king should, David finally refuses these “untested” weapons and equips himself instead with the humble tools of the shepherding trade (17:40). Goliath’s disdain at seeing this young man is clear as he curses him, assuming his victory is assured (17:43–44). Yet David issues a prophetic verdict making it clear that the battle is a spiritual one and to whom the victory will belong (17:45–47). At that, the “battle” is over almost as quickly as it began (17:48–49).

17:50–58 While the Lord’s victory through David is quite swift (17:48–49), the focus becomes the fallout as David makes a spectacle of the enemy’s defeat (17:50–51, 54; cf. Col 2:15) and the people pursue the vanquished Philistine armies plundering their camp (1Sam 17:52–53). What a picture of the greater victory won by our true champion, King Jesus, who has conquered Satan, sin, and death (1Cor 15:20–28) and whom we now follow in pursuing and plundering the vanquished enemy by resisting Satan and mortifying our sinful flesh! This may be driven home by the fact that in 17:54 we are told that David takes Goliath’s skull to Jerusalem. Some believe the presence of Goliath’s skull in Jerusalem is behind the name Golgatha (Aramaic for “the skull [place]; Matt 27:33; Mark 15:22; Luke 23:33; John 19:17), although there is not enough biblical or historical evidence to prove this. If true, however, it would mean that it was at the very site where the work of David in his Spirit-empowered defeat of Israel’s giant enemy was commemorated that Jesus defeated the greater “giant” and enemy of his people—sin, Satan, and death itself—by his death on the cross.

Some see Saul’s question about David’s patronage (1Sam 17:55) as evidence that this account has been inserted from some preexisting material and as another inconsistency with the prior narrative in chapter 16 that the text’s compiler or editor failed to smooth out. Alternatively, it could actually further the characterization of Saul here. He knew David, though maybe merely as a servant musician in whom he took little interest (see comment on 16:21 above). Saul knows his name but merely calls him a “youth” (naʾar), maybe to diminish his status. His question about his father may imply that Saul is now regretting his promise of reward for the vanquisher of Goliath and wants to know whose tax stream he might be losing (or whom he will try to keep from learning about his new status; cf. 18:2). For his part, David happily and humbly honors his father by reciting his lineage (17:58).

18:1–4 This chapter break falls in the middle of the scene. As Saul and David are speaking together, attention shifts to Jonathan who is present and whose soul is knit to David in love (18:1). We are not told why, but one can imagine he sees in David a kindred spirit given how the two of them are characterized as having similarly courageous faith (see 17:34–37 above). Saul’s keeping David from returning home in virtual slavery (18:2) could be due to his high regard for David, or it could be an indication that he is reneging on his offer (17:25) and beginning to show himself to be the kind of king Samuel had warned Israel about (1Sam 8:16). For his part, Jonathan seems to recognize David’s status before the Lord, entering into covenant with him (18:3) and ceremonially recognizing him as the true Royal Son by stripping (psht) himself of his robe and armor and giving them to David (18:4).

18:5–16 As Saul entrusts leadership in battle to David (18:5), David’s reputation grows among the people so that he becomes true to his name (“beloved”), being loved not only by Jonathan (18:1) but also by all the people of Israel (18:6–7). Unsurprisingly, Saul does not take kindly to the women of Israel’s song in 18:7, despite the fact that this may not have been intended as a comparison (18:8) but instead as a common poetic trope of honoring two great men together. Saul’s growing jealousy (18:9) will characterize his relationship with David from here on, and two specific vignettes of its manifestation are offered in 18:10–11 and 18:12–16. Ironically, given the comparisons between Saul and David’s “prowess” in battle throughout chapter 18, Saul cannot seem to pin David with his spear despite his apparent proximity (18:10) and multiple attempts (18:11). Saul’s fear of and frustration with David can be felt to mount (18:12, 15) as he tries to demote and diminish David (18:13) and yet fails in every attempt (18:14, 16).

18:17–30 After apparently reneging on his promise of “freedom” (18:2), Saul at first seems ready to give David his oldest daughter, Merab, (17:25), though with conditions of more faithful service attached. The narrator, however, tells us Saul’s intention—not to bless and thank David, but to cultivate his enmity with the Philistines so they can rid Saul of one who is increasingly becoming his rival (18:17). In contrast to Saul’s feigned humility (9:21), David seems genuinely humbled by the offer (18:18) and appears to have demurred from taking her hand so that she was given to another (18:19). Michal, another of Saul’s daughters, also loved David, however, so Saul offers her as “a snare” (moqesh) to David (18:20–21). When David again seems hesitant (18:23), Saul enlists others of his servants (18:22, 24–25) to persuade David with the “bride-price” of one hundred Philistine foreskins (presumably indicating their death; cf. 18:27). This time “the thing was right in the eyes of David,” namely to become “the son-in-law of the king” (18:26), so David killed double the bride price of Philistines, and the marriage was made (18:27).²⁶ Saul’s plan to use Michal along with David’s Philistine attack as a means to “make David fall by the hand of the Philistines” (18:25), however, backfires as David meets continued success on the battle field (18:30) and Michal’s love for him deepens (18:29). At this point Saul’s fear of David leads to the utter breakdown of the relationship between the two anointed ones, so that from here on “Saul was David’s enemy continually” (18:29). In facing the enmity he does from Saul (and his other enemies; Ps 3:1–4, 8), David points us forward to “David’s greater son,” Jesus Christ, who though loved by his disciples and the crowds was ultimately abandoned by them to face his enemies alone. Yet unlike David, whom Jonathan clothed with the royal robes, Jesus set aside his glory (Phil 2:5–11) and was stripped (Matt 27:28) so that he might clothe his people—the rejected “royal sons and daughters” of the First Adam—with his robes of righteousness (Isa 61:10).

19:1–10 The battle of the “two seeds” of Genesis 3:15 unfolds here in the enmity between the two “Messiahs” or “anointed ones,” yet the Lord providentially preserves his king. Like his future namesake, Saul here “breathes threats and murder” (Acts 9:1) against the Lord’s chosen king (1Sam 19:1). Jonathan again shines as the royal son of character as he gets wind of Saul’s plots, helps David avoid being caught up in them (19:2), and respectfully challenges his father’s evil intentions (19:3–5). Jonathan’s reconciling work seems effective (19:6–7), though as soon as David meets more success (19:8), Saul’s jealousy sours their relationship again and he brashly tries to kill David, putting him to flight (19:9–10). In a humorous irony, David’s prowess in battle is further contrasted with Saul’s weakness and incompetence in not being able to hit David with his spear despite being at what appears to be close range (19:10).

iii. Tested and Confirmed through Wilderness Exodus (1Sam 19–31)

19:11–18 Saul’s growing alienation from his family is evidenced here in Michal’s assisting David to flee from her father (19:11–12). Interestingly, she uses “household gods” (teraphim) to do so, implying that these were present in David’s household, though maybe due to Michal bringing them in (cf. Gen 31:19). Saul here uses all the powers of the state to pursue David, doing most of his persecution through “messengers” (malʾakhim; 1Sam 19:11, 14, 15, 16). Though Saul eventually calls Michal’s bluff, the back and forth of messengers buys the time needed for David to flee to safety (19:18).

19:19–24 The Lord’s providential preservation of his anointed king through the children of Saul (Jonathan in 19:1–7 and Michal in 19:8–18) is repeatedly emphasized through the text in the repeated line that David “fled and escaped” (19:10, 11, 12, 17, 18; 20:1; cf. the Philistines who flee but do not escape in 19:8). At this point, however, the Lord intervenes more directly as Saul pursues David to Samuel’s presence in “Naioth of Ramah.” “Naioth” literally means something like “grazing place,” so it may refer to a more rural township or dwelling space outside a larger city (Ramah). Samuel may have thought being away from the city would enable David to escape notice, though that plan does not seem to pan out (19:19). Yet as Saul sends messengers, and then finally goes to Ramah himself (cf. Matt 21:33–41; Mark 12:1–12; Luke 20:9–19), the Spirit of the Lord intervenes (1Sam 19:20) and sovereignly protects David from Saul by thwarting him and his messengers (19:21–24). Where David was protected in his righteous innocence (19:4–5), King Jesus was allowed to be taken by his persecutors, tortured, and put to death as a common criminal in order to save his people who in our sinfulness are by nature enemies of God (Rom 5:10).

20:1–17 Although in chapter 19 David’s period of flight from Saul has begun, in this chapter his sojourn away from the land of Israel and Judah begins in earnest (1Sam 20:1). With Jonathan’s help it becomes clear that he will find no peace in the presence of Saul. This chapter offers a picture of deep friendship, as David approaches Jonathan, who had helped broker peace with Saul before (19:2–7), for help. Jonathan seems to believe Saul will hold to his sworn oath (19:6; 20:2, 9), so David is given the awkward task of convincing him otherwise (20:3). Thus David devises a plan for helping Jonathan and him learn of Saul’s disposition toward him (20:4–8). This leads to a reaffirmation of their covenantal love and commitment to each other (20:10–17), which David will honor in his relation to Mephibosheth (2Sam 9, 21). Modern interpreters who see in David and Jonathan’s deep and loving friendship sexual overtones reflect the modern obsession with sexuality rather than a good reading of the text. Biblical, intimate friendship is marked by covenantal commitment and love (Prov 17:17; 18:24).

20:18–34 Jonathan offers David a plan for them to discern Saul’s disposition. The plan allows Jonathan to communicate with David by means of shot arrows and a servant, which will provide cover for Jonathan if Saul is indeed plotting against David (1Sam 20:18–23). The profound contrast between the two “Messiah” or “anointed” kings is highlighted in verse 24, where David hides himself in the field while “the king” sits down “to eat the bread.” One can imagine David’s hunger growing as the royal feast extends through one day and into the next. Saul at first chalks up David’s absence to him needing to purify himself ritually (20:25–27), probably because such feasts were associated with sacrifices so that ritual purity was required to eat (1Sam 9:12–13; Lev 7:19–21; 22:3). Since ritual purity could have been attained by the next day (Lev 22:1–7), on the second day of the feast Saul begins to raise questions about David’s absence, which Jonathan answers as David had instructed (1Sam 20:27–29). The costliness to Jonathan of his friendship and commitment to David become clear as Saul lashes out in anger at his very own loyal son (20:30–34).

20:35–42 By this point David has been hiding in the field for over two days, yet true to his word Jonathan goes out to the field and provides the agreed upon secret sign (20:35–39). Jonathan seems to go “off script” when he sends his young man (naʿar) with his weapons back to the city (20:40) and, being alone, meets David for a proper, sad goodbye (20:41–42). The sacrificial character of Jonathan’s actions on David’s behalf is striking. As Saul has pointed out, David is a threat as much to the possibility of Jonathan becoming king as he is to Saul’s kingship, if not more so (20:31). Here, alone in the field, Jonathan could easily have struck David down and “established” his kingdom, though the fact that he sent his weapons back to the city (20:40) could have helped assure David that he had no ill intentions. Nonetheless, in Jonathan’s sparing of David, he further confirms that his kingdom will be lost and David’s established, and he instead aligns himself and his future (i.e., his offspring) with David’s kingdom (20:42). In this way Jonathan is a model of faith for us, who must give up our claim to an earthly “dominion” in the First Adam (Rom 5)—one that is passing away (1Jn 2:17; 1Cor 7:31)—and instead submit ourselves and our futures to the Second Adam, the true Messiah King Jesus. Though he came first in humility, living a life in flight like David here (Luke 9:57–62), he calls us to follow him through the trials and pilgrimage of this life and only then enter the glory of salvation that awaits in his Second Coming (1Cor 15:24–28; 2Cor 4:17–18).

21:1–15 David’s “Exodus wilderness wanderings” first lead southward to Nob (1Sam 21:1), a city between Gibeah to the north and Jerusalem to the south.²⁷ Ahimelech seems apprehensive as he greets David, meeting him “trembling” (khrd; cf. 1Sam 13:7; 14:15; 16:4; 28:5). Maybe he had heard that Saul was seeking him, though Ahimelech must be concerned not to judge one of the king’s commanders too quickly and merely asks about his being alone (21:1). David’s claim of being on a secret errand of the king (21:2) appears to be a bald-faced lie, and would not be the only sin of David’s that is recorded in 1–2 Samuel (cf. 2Sam 11, 24). Those who wish to “get David off the hook” may try to find truth in David’s words if in his ambiguous reference to “the king” he might be referring to the Lord, or maybe to himself as the rightful claimant to the throne.

Dispelling Ahimelech’s concern, David gets right to the point—his ravenous hunger given his three days of hiding in a field (1Sam 21:3–6). Although not a priest (Lev 24:5–9), David takes the bread and eats in a manner that seeks to follow the laws of cleanliness (1Sam 21:4–5; cf. Exod 19:16), though not necessarily of who should be eating this (Lev 21–22). As Jesus points out later, however, in such a circumstance the Lord sanctions “his bread” being given to his anointed king to preserve his life and to aid him in his God-given duties (Matt 12:1–8; Mark 2:23–28; Luke 6:1–5). There is an ominous chord struck as the Edomite Doeg’s presence at Nob is noted (1Sam 21:7; cf. 22:9), though the narrative quickly moves on to David’s request for a weapon and his receiving back Goliath’s sword, which then sets up the narrative tension in the next scene (21:10–15).

21:10–15 Armed with the sword of Gath’s most famous citizen, Goliath, David heads west to the city (21:10). While the servants of Gath’s King Achish do not necessarily recognize the sword, they do recognize David as the Philistine-slayer memorialized in Israel’s popular music (21:11). Seeing their recognition of him (21:13), David puts on a grand deception, literally “changing (shnh) his sense/taste (taʿam) in their eyes” and “acting mad (hll) in their hand” (21:14). Achish’s response must have made ancient Israelite chuckle, as the king roasts his servants while he rejects David’s admittance to his court (21:15). While David’s ruse appears to “work,” when he sings of the event in Psalm 34:4–6, he gives credit to the Lord for his deliverance.

22:1–5 Escaping the hostility of Gath, David next heads about ten miles (16 km) southeast to the “cave of Adullum” (22:1). Here, David’s “army” begins to grow as he attracts to himself a motley crew of “about 400 men” who have been disenfranchised by Saul’s rule, including those in “anguish,” “debtors,” and “bitter of soul” (22:2). The desperation of David’s situation, yet also his shepherd’s heart in caring for his aging parents, becomes clear as he heads all the way southeast across the Dead Sea to Moab and entrusts them to the pagan king there (22:3). David’s Moabite great-grandmother, Ruth (Ruth 4:8–21), may have provided some familial connection to the Moabite kingdom, explaining the specificity of this move on David’s part. After delivering his parents into safety, David returns to “the mountain stronghold” (metsudah; 1Sam 22:4). This could refer to Masada on the cliffs west of the Dead Sea, or it could be another term for the cave of Adullum, though David is quickly moved from there at the Lord’s direction through the prophet Gad back to the forests of Judah (22:5).

22:6–19 Meanwhile, Saul is back at Gibeah and gets wind of David’s movements (22:6). Once again, we find Saul in a posture of laziness, or the “lording it over others” kind of oppressive kingship, as he is “sitting under the tamarisk tree on the height (ba-ramah), and his spear was in his hand” (cf. 9:2; 10:22). Saul is further shown to be growing paranoid as he berates his followers and whines narcissistically (22:7–8), though Doeg seems ready to prove his loyalty as he reports on the events he observed at Nob (22:9–10). Saul displays his arrogant pride as he summons Ahimelech with the priests of Nob (22:11) and disrespectfully calls him “son of Ahitub” (22:12). He then perverts justice as only a king can do by acting as accuser (22:13) and judge (22:16) without consideration of the disputed facts of the case (i.e., Doeg’s testimony in 22:9–10 vs. Ahimelech’s defense in 22:14–15). Like in 14:45, the people have a better sense of justice under God’s laws and refuse Saul’s unlawful order (22:17) so that he has to turn to the brown-nosing Edomite, Doeg, to commit the atrocious massacre of the Lord’s priests (22:18–19).

22:20–23 In contrast to Saul, David displays his honor and benevolent character as a leader as one of Ahimelech’s sons, Abiathar, is able to escape Doeg’s slaughter and runs to David for safety (22:20). David owns his failure to do all he could to keep the priests safe (22:21–22) and compassionately comforts and assures Abiathar with the words, “Do not be afraid, for the one who seeks my life seeks your life so that your safekeeping (mishmeret) is with me” (22:23). What a picture David offers here of the “Anointed One” / Messiah to whom he points—Jesus Christ—who welcomes those fleeing the curse of sin and its deadly consequence (Rom 6:23) to find in him a mighty Shepherd-King. He has fought the greatest enemies of our soul—sin, Satan, and death—so that as we align with him and his Kingdom, we find our safekeeping in his presence.

23:1–5 While David is hiding out in the “Forest of Hereth” (22:5), he hears of his fellow Judahites (Josh 15:44) to the west being attacked by the Philistines and their harvest being plundered (1Sam 23:1). Keilah would presumably have been a “border town” between Israel and the Philistines, Gath being only about twelve miles (19 km) to the west. The response of David’s men who distinguish Hereth as “here in Judah” to going “to Keilah, to the battle lines of the Philistines” (23:3) indicates the encroachment of Philistia on Judah, presumably exercising control as far east as Keilah. Keilah’s loss of the harvest from the “threshing floors” would not only endanger the Keilahites’ present food supply for the following months but would also endanger their future supply since the present harvest provides seed for next year’s sowing. David seems ready to go help his countrymen, though this will take him back in the direction of Gath and right to “the battle lines (maʿarkhoth) of the Philistines.” Unlike Saul, however, David seeks the Lord’s direction twice to allay the concern of his men (23:2, 4). Armed with the Lord’s promise of victory, David leads a swift defeat of Philistia and saves (yshʾ) the inhabitants of Keilah (23:5).

23:6–14 Again, information about David’s work in Keilah travels back to Saul quickly (23:7; cf. 19:19; 22:6), and he presumes to read God’s providence thinking “God has estranged (nkr) him into my hand” (23:7). David, in contrast, has the means to hear the Lord’s instruction through the priest Abiathar bearing the ephod (23:6), so as Saul musters to attack David from the rear (23:8), David can again inquire of the Lord (23:9) as he had done previously (23:2, 4). The detailed description of David’s inquiry in 23:10–12 seems to imply a similar dialogue with the Lord through his priest at other times (22:10; 30:8; 2Sam 5:19, 23; cf. Num 27:21), though often reported in more summary form. The Lord’s answers that Saul “will come down” or “is coming down” (1Sam 23:11) and that Keilah “will surrender” or “is surrendering” David (23:12) seem clearly conditioned on the basis of David’s remaining in Keilah, so that when he leaves, Saul gives up chase (23:13) and the Keilahites lose their opportunity to betray their savior. While David’s army is growing (up to 600 now; 23:14), it would still pale in comparison to the forces Saul can muster, making Keilah’s willingness to side with Saul make sense from a human perspective. For his part, David and his men head eastward once again to the strongholds (metsadoth) “in the wilderness” (bammidhbar, which is the Hebrew title for the Book of Numbers), into the hill country, and to the wilderness of Ziph a few miles north of Carmel (25:2). Meanwhile, Saul’s constant pursuit continues to be foiled by God’s providential protection (23:14).

23:15–29 Israel’s loyalty to Saul vis-à-vis David reflected in the Keilahites’ willingness to hand him over is further developed as the Ziphites now betray David to Saul by informing him of David’s flight to their region (23:15, 19–20). Jonathan’s encouragement illustrates how the Lord sustains his anointed one in his wilderness wanderings with the blessing of a community of faith (23:18) that can reassure God’s people of his promises (23:17) and “strengthen one’s hand in God” (23:16). Saul’s blessing on the Ziphites’ betrayal is ironic at best (23:21), since he is hardly in a position to invoke the Lord’s blessing and he is not the one deserving of God’s people’s “compassion” (khml). Saul seems reticent to amass an army again only to be eluded (23:13), sending the Ziphites back to ascertain the exact whereabouts of David, who is in the wilderness of Maon a few miles (13 km) south of Hebron (23:22–24). As Saul finally pursues David there (23:25), the “rock” or “crag” (selaʾ) plays a prominent role in the narrative, as it stands between Saul and David to protect the latter (23:26). Then, in the impeccable timing of providence, a message “happens” to reach Saul that the Philistines are attacking (lit. “stripping,” psht) Israel elsewhere (23:27–28). As Saul is drawn away and David flees further east to Engedi on the coast of the Dead Sea, David names the crag “the Dividing Rock” (selaʿ hammakhleqot̲h; 23:28). Given David’s regular description of the Lord as his “Rock” (selaʿ; Pss 18:3; 31:4; 40:3; 42:10; 71:3; 78:16; 104:18; 137:9; 141:6), the passage records the memorialization of this place as a regular reminder of God’s “dividing” presence (Ps 118:22; Isa 8:14; 28:16; Rom 9:32–33; 1Pet 2:6, 7), protecting his people providentially, and providentially frustrating the wicked plans of the enemies of his people (Ps 33:10).

iv. Three Wilderness Temptations to Take a Shortcut to Throne (1Sam 24–26)

In 1 Samuel 24–26 David is driven to wander “in the wilderness” (bammidhbar, the name for Numbers in the Hebrew Bible) and faces three temptations to take a shortcut to the throne by asserting his kingship before it has been confirmed by the Lord. Each of these pairs nicely with the three temptations of the True King “after the Lord’s heart,” Jesus Christ, though in a slightly different order (Matt 4; Luke 4). David is offered a different path to the throne in chapter 24, much like the devil offered Jesus the kingdom if only he worshipped him (Matt 4:8–9; Luke 4:5–8). In chapter 25 David is tempted to take food by force like the devil challenged Jesus to make stones into bread (Matt 4:3–4; Luke 4:3–4). In chapter 26 David almost seems to test God’s commitment to him, much as the devil suggested Jesus “prove himself” by throwing himself off the top of the temple (Matt 4:5–7; Luke 4:9–12). Like his coming Savior, David passes the tests, though not by his own righteous obedience and attendance to God’s Word, but instead through God’s sovereign and providential interventions to preserve David’s character and mature him in his faith and obedience.

24:1–7 In this chapter David is led through a temptation to take a shortcut to the throne. Rather than trusting the Lord and waiting on his timing, he happens upon the opportunity to take Saul out and seize the throne, though at this stage this likely would have resulted in a civil war within Israel and torn the fledgling kingdom into shreds. As the passage opens, David’s respite from Saul’s hunt is short-lived, since as soon as he finishes up with the Philistines (1Sam 24:1), Saul takes a force of 3,000 trained warriors (i.e., “men chosen from all Israel”; 24:2) to the wilderness of Engedi.²⁸ This rocky wilderness on the west coast of the Dead Sea is replete with caves, making it relatively easy for David and his men to remain hidden (24:3). This sets up the drama in this passage as Saul enters the very cave where David and his men are hiding (24:3) in order to “relieve himself” (lit. “cover his feet,” presumably because when squatting in a tunic or robe, the front of one’s feet would be covered). Like Saul did earlier (23:7), David’s men “read providence” as delivering Saul to David to “do to him as is good in [his] eyes” (24:4). It is not clear when the Lord had spoken of this day, but as David sneaks to Saul and cuts off a corner of his robe (representing his royal office; cf. 15:27; 18:4), he is conscience-stricken (24:5), and with some difficulty he restrains his men from harming Saul (24:6–7).

24:8–22 In a rebuke of Saul, David follows him out of the cave (24:8) and challenges him respectfully (24:9–10). Showing proof of the opportunity he had to harm him (24:11), David appeals to Saul’s honor and pride (24:14) as well as the Lord’s just judgment (24:12–13, 15), calling Saul to drop his hunt and treat David with justice. Saul seems genuinely remorseful and repentant (24:16), admitting his fault (24:17–19) and even affirming the Lord’s promises to David (24:20–21). David magnanimously swears to treat Saul’s memory well in his kingdom, and they part ways. We see here in David a picture of the Messiah to come, who would be tempted by the devil himself “in the wilderness” (Matt 4:1; Luke 4:1) to take a shortcut to his throne (Matt 4:8–10; Luke 4:5–8), yet who remained faithful and “for the joy set before him endured the cross, despising its shame” (Heb 12:2) in order that he might be seated “at the right hand of the throne of God,” having defeated all his and our enemies first and having purchased our redemption (1Cor 15:20–28; Col 1:13–14).

25:1 Although Samuel has not been a main character ever since he led in the establishment of Israel’s kingship in the coronation of Saul (1Sam 12) and the anointing of David (1Sam 16), his ongoing relationship with David vis-à-vis Saul (1Sam 19:18–24) must have made his death a sad loss for David. This brief note of it at the opening of this chapter may help explain David’s hastiness to lash out in anger at Nabal (25:13). The mention of the loss of his friend and mentor Samuel, therefore, sets up this next test and trial as coming in the context of personal grief and anguish, heightening its intensity.

25:2–8 Like Israel wandering in circles in the wilderness, David and his men head back southwestward to the “wilderness of Paran” (25:2; cf. Num 10:12; 12:16; 13:3, 26) to the southeast of Maon, the town in which the wealthy Nabal (Hebrew nabal) and his beautiful wife, Abigail, reside (1Sam 25:2–3). The extensive characterization of these two characters should be noted, as Hebrew narrative tends to be sparse in description unless it has some significance to the story. In Hebrew nabal usually means “fool” (25:25), and noting that he is a Calebite may imply that he is “dog-like,” since Hebrew “Caleb” (kaleb) sounds like the word for “dog” (keleb; note the further description of him as “harsh and bad”). Whereas Nabal’s name associates him with folly, Abigail is associated with beauty and good sense (sekel, “good sense”; Prov 13:15; 16:22; 19:11) in her description. The occasion of sheep-shearing (1Sam 25:2, 4), while on the one hand a time of labor, also seems to have been associated with celebration and a festival atmosphere (Gen 38:12–19), making David’s request for a token of thanks in 1 Samuel 25:5–8 appropriate to the occasion.

25:9–22 Nabal’s response (25:9–11) is a grave affront to etiquette in an honor-shame cultural setting. As David’s request had made clear, he could easily have taken whatever he wanted for himself based both on his strength (600 men strong at this point! 23:13; 25:13; 27:2) and his status as the Lord’s anointed. So in purely human terms, David’s bone-chilling response (lit. “Gird each his sword!”; 25:12–13) is reasonable. But as a “king after the Lord’s own heart,” David ought not operate in “purely human terms,” which the unfolding narrative demonstrates. The Lord providentially intervenes, this time by getting word of the offense to Abigail (25:14–17), who surreptitiously (25:19, 36) prepares an appropriate gift for David and his men (25:18) and boldly goes out to meet David (25:20). Disturbingly reminiscent of Saul’s rash oath (14:24), the narrator at this point reports David’s having sworn a somewhat excessive response (25:21–22), which raises the narrative tension with the question “Will he fail as Saul did?”

25:23–44 Abigail, however, intercedes on behalf of the “worthless fellow” (ʾish habbeliyyaʿal) Nabal with an eloquent and humble speech (25:23–31), which immediately persuades David to pursue a better path (25:32–35) of leaving vengeance to the Lord (25:36–38; Deut 32:35; Rom 12:19; Heb 10:30). This allows David to take Abigail for his wife (1Sam 25:39–40) without the appearance of having killed off her husband to take her (as he will later do with Bathsheba; 2Sam 11– 12). Given the fact that Abigail can decide for herself to marry David (1Sam 25:41) and that she comes to him attended by five female servants (25:42), it may be that Nabal’s estate had transferred legally to Abigail, who brings it into David’s estate by marriage. This would be a significant providential provision from God for the kind of assets needed to sustain David’s growing army of followers. The note of David now having two wives (25:43; Saul having taken back Michal; 25:44) raises concerns given the Lord’s instructions in Deuteronomy (Deut 17:17). In the context of this narrative, however, with regard to Abigail, David may be acting not out of pure self-interest, but given the legal context of his day, he is graciously taking a widow under his care as a good king should (Exod 22:22; Deut 10:18).

Like David, who is here tempted to take food by force in a way that threatens his character as the anointed “king after the Lord’s heart,” Jesus “the anointed” (i.e., “the Christ”) was also tempted by the devil in the wilderness to make bread out of stones without his Father’s permission (Matt 4:3–4; Luke 4:3–4). He, however, did not need an intercessor to step in like David, but instead faithfully responded with God’s Word (Deut 8:3) and in this way proved to be perfectly obedient “to the point of death, even death on a cross” (Phil 2:8). And through his life, death, and resurrection Jesus intercedes for “worthless fellows” much like Abigail does here, mediating on behalf of his. Although by nature his people are “worthless fellows” and his enemies in sin (Eph 2:1, 2, 12; Col 1:21), yet by his mediation (1Tim 2:5; Heb 8:6; 9:15; 12:24) and intercession (Rom 8:34; Heb 7:25; 1Jn 2:1), we are by grace through faith reconciled to the Father (Col 1:22–23).

26:1–12 The “happy ending” of 1 Samuel 25, however, is no “happily ever after,” as David’s Judahite countrymen in Ziph betray him to Saul (26:1). Saul musters a force of 3,000 to root out David and his 600 (26:2). Saul’s arrival in the region sets up David’s third wilderness temptation to take a shortcut to the throne (26:3–4). David almost seems to be testing God’s providence at this point as he commits the brazen, almost suicidal act of sneaking right into the heart of Saul’s camp (26:5–7; cf. 14:6–15). Again, one of David’s men, Abishai, suggests “reading” God’s providence and encourages David to take the shortcut to the throne (cf. 24:4), offering to do the deed himself (26:8). And again, David passes the test, this time with a profound statement of faith in God’s protection and providence (26:9–11), which the narrator then finally tells us is operative at that very moment in the deep sleep he had caused to fall upon Saul and his men (26:12).

26:13–25 It is not clear what David’s plan had been, but after standing over Saul in his deep sleep, David and Abishai only grab his spear (signifying his protecting armor) and his water jug (signifying the preservation of his life in the wilderness), which were at his head (26:12, 16). From a safe distance (26:13), David then calls out to wake up Abner and his army and expose their failure to protect the king (26:14–16). Saul wakes up as well and recognizes David’s voice (26:17), so that David can once again confront him with his sinful jealousy (26:18, 20; cf. 24:9–15) and how it is failing to “lead” David in worshipping and serving the Lord (as David has to flee from the Land of Promise where God is present with his people; 26:19). Again, Saul seems to repent, confessing his sin and welcoming David into his presence (26:21), though David appears to distrust his word (26:22) and instead entrusts himself to the Lord, and they part “in peace” (26:23–25).

As we compare chapters 24 and 26, which have a number of parallels, we see David is growing and maturing in his faith in the wilderness as he continues to foreshadow his greater son, Jesus Christ. Like David here, Jesus brazenly stormed into the strong man’s camp (Luke 11:14–23), making a public spectacle of his defeat of the prince of this world (Col 2:13–15) in defeating death and its sting (Satan’s “spear”; 1Cor 15:54–56) and dooming him to judgment (Rev 12:9–10).

v. David’s Philistine Sojourn and Saul’s Final Battle (1Sam 27–31)

This sojourn into the Philistine territory echoes both the direction and character of Israel’s sojourn into Egypt as well as the ark’s sojourn earlier in 1 Samuel (chs. 4–7). And like his greater son, Jesus Christ, who also had to flee to Egypt (Matt 2), David’s departure makes Saul finally give up pursuit (1Sam 27:4).

27:1–28:2 Following right on the heels of his brazen act of faith in God’s protection by entering Saul’s camp in chapter 26, as often happens in the lives of God’s people, David’s faith seems to falter (27:1) and he again flees westward to Gath (27:2). Apparently, King Achish did not hold his former insanity against him (maybe because he now has a following of 600 men? 21:10–15), and he allows David, his wives, and his men and their wives to dwell in his land for over a year (27:7), though not in Achish’s own city (27:3–6). Like the ark before him (1Sam 5), David’s time among the Philistines is put to good use plundering them and demonstrating to them the Lord’s power and judgment. First, Achish gives David Ziklag, so that without a battle, David begins to expand Israelite territory into the southwestern Philistine region (27:6). Then, David and his men use Ziklag as home base to make raids (lit. “to strip”; psht) toward the southwest among “the Geshurites, the Girzites, and the Amalekites” (27:8). In all of these David appears to apply kherem warfare (see note on 15:1–2 above), though he would spare the non-human spoil (27:9; cf. Deut 20:10–18).

Since these people appear to dwell in the land and be marked by the Lord for destruction (for Geshurites see Josh 13:1–13; for Girzites see Josh 16:5–10; for Amalekites see 1Sam 15), it appears that David fails to follow the Lord’s laws perfectly here in allowing his men to take the spoil. He also appears to lie to Achish when asked where he has been raiding (27:10–12). While the narrator does not openly condemn these actions, as the story unfolds, David’s deception puts him in quite a predicament in Israel’s battle with the Philistines (ch. 29) and results in his and his men’s families being captured (ch. 30), all consequences that are ultimately resolved only by the Lord’s gracious blessing and provision. The narrative tension caused by David’s actions is set up in 28:1–2 as, toward the end of David’s Philistia sojourn, the Philistines muster for war against Israel, and Achish informs (rather than “asks” or “invites”) David that he and his men will be going forth into battle with him (28:1). David’s ambiguous response (“You will know what your servant can do”; 28:2) leads Achish to show his complete trust in David and leads the reader to wonder whether or how David will be able to dig himself out of this deep hole of deception.

28:3–14 While David’s faltering faith leads him to some questionable behavior at best (27:8–12), Saul, in contrast, commits a brazen act of disobedience and unbelief in 28:3–25. The reminder of Samuel’s death (28:3) sets up important information for what follows (28:11–20). The brazen sinfulness of Saul’s act here is driven home right from the outset as the narrator reports on Saul’s purging the land of mediums and necromancers (28:3) in obedience to the Lord’s commands (Exod 22:18; Lev 19:31; 20:27; Deut 18:10, 11). Saul watches in terror as the Philistines muster in Shunem (1Sam 28:4–5), right in the center of the Jezreel Valley, and essentially split the northern tribes of Israel from the southern (and Saul’s government centered in Gibeah). Despite Saul’s desperate inquiring of the Lord, he receives no instruction (28:6), so he shockingly demands that his servants find him a medium (lit. “a mistress of a ghost”; ʾesheth baʿalath-ʾov; 28:7). His servants seem not to need to look too hard and tell him of one who exists in En-dor on the northern side of the Jezreel Valley, on the opposite side from Saul on Mount Gilboa to the south. Presumably, the Philistines are in the valley between Saul and En-dor, making a journey there a dangerous endeavor. This danger is made explicit in Saul’s needing to disguise himself and travel to the medium in the dark of night (28:8). Saul adds lies and false swearing (28:10) to his sin of consulting a medium, as she seems hesitant to serve him (28:9). For some reason, the woman seems reassured by Saul’s oath (28:11) but recognizes him after she sees Samuel (28:12). Maybe Samuel identified Saul somehow, or maybe the woman was not used to her “necromancy” actually “working.” Regardless, Saul (called “the King” here, presumably to highlight his failure to be the true king of Israel) reassures her and begs to know what she is seeing (28:13). At the description of her vision of “gods coming up from the earth” and “an old man coming up . . . wrapped in a robe,” Saul almost seems to “worship” Samuel (28:14).

28:15–25 For his part, Samuel seems annoyed at being “disturbed” and dragged back into the land of the living (28:15), offering no sympathy for Saul’s sad desperation, revisiting his judgment, and predicting his demise the following day (28:16–19). Sometimes, having more information is not the blessing we often think it would be. We see this in Saul, who is completely undone by this word (28:20), though one wonders, “What did he expect?” Saul here serves as a picture of apostasy, as this narrative that began in darkness (28:3) ends in even deeper despair with Saul submitting himself to the commands of a medium (28:21–23). She serves him a final sacred (pagan) meal before he departs with a full belly toward his final death (28:25).

The good news of the gospel stands in such striking contrast to this chapter, as our good King entered into a similar dark night of the soul, though not because he deserved it for his sin and not because he sought illegitimate knowledge, but instead because it is what his sinful people deserve. After he celebrated his last sacred (and truly holy) meal, instituting the Lord’s Supper with his disciples (Matt 26:26–30; Mark 14:22–25; Luke 22:18–20; 1Cor 11:23–25), he went out into the night to face his death in battle, not against human armies but against the armies of hell. Unlike Saul, he did not die in his sin but was “cut off from the land of the living” because of the transgression of his people (Isa 53:8) and to bear our griefs, carry our sorrows, and be crushed for our iniquities (Isa 53:4–5). Unlike Saul, however, morning dawned on the third day after his death, not with his body lying lifeless on the battlefield (1Sam 31:8), but with him having defeated his and our enemies, even death itself, by his resurrection from the dead (John 20; 1Cor 15). His people, therefore, no longer need necromancers and mediums to communicate with a True Prophet “beyond the grave” and receive the Lord’s instruction, but we can do so whenever we desire as we commune with the risen Christ through his Word, the sacraments, and prayer (Westminster Shorter Catechism #88).

29:1–11 The narrative rewinds now to sometime before Saul’s fateful night recounted in 1 Samuel 28. The Philistines have not yet reached Shunem (1Sam 28:4) but are mustering in Aphek (29:1) on the coastal plain to the west of Israel before heading in to the Jezreel Valley. David has marched up from Gath with Achish and faces the horns of a dilemma—will he join the Philistines and fight against the Lord’s people, Israel, or will he turn on the Philistines and lose his protection from Achish while also having Saul to contend with? At this point the Lord steps in to relieve him from his self-inflicted dilemma as the Philistines leaders notice him and his men and raise concerns (29:2–5). Despite Achish’s protests (29:3), he is forced to send David and his men back to Ziklag (29:7–10), while David himself pleads his innocence (29:8), presumably to maintain the ruse. Thus, the next morning finds David and his men heading back south to Ziklag while the Philistines head into the Jezreel Valley, where that following evening Saul will disguise himself to sneak to the medium (28:4–8).

30:1–15 Yet the troubles for David and his men are far from over, as they quickly become aware of when they arrive back in Ziklag “on the third day” (30:1). Having made great time in traveling about sixty miles (97 km) in three days (almost a marathon per day with weapons, etc.!), they arrive in Ziklag exhausted from the journey only to be met with the horror of Ziklag burned to the ground and utterly plundered (lit. “stripped”; psht) of people and possessions (30:1–3, 5). Not surprisingly, their first response is to be almost undone by exhausted grief (30:4), followed by anger directed at their leader, David, who had led them into this mess (31:6). At this point David restores his faith, as the text explicitly states that he “strengthened himself in the Lord his God” (31:6; cf. 23:16). While Saul is left without a means to inquire of the Lord (28:6), David has Abiathar and the ephod, so he asks the Lord what to do next (30:7–8) and swiftly obeys. The exhaustion from their three-day sprint to Ziklag appears to be felt, however, as 200 only last about 12 miles (19 km) of the southward trek, stopping at the brook Besor (30:9–10). After crossing, God’s providential intervention becomes clear as in the open wilderness south of the Besor Brook they happen to find an Egyptian left for dead (30:11–12). Once nursed back to life, he “just happens” to be a servant of the very Amalekite raiding party that David is pursuing (30:13–14), and in exchange for David’s protection, the servant offers to lead him to them (30:15).

30:16–31 David and his men come across the Amalekites in the throes of celebration (30:16) and attack that very evening, fighting “from twilight and until the evening of the next day” (30:17).²⁹ By the Lord’s gracious help, the defeat of the Amalekites is complete (30:18) so that David and his men lose nothing (30:19), even adding to their possessions (30:20). One can understand the sentiment of the 400 who went with David vis-à-vis the 200 who stayed behind (30:21–22), though David steps forth here in his developing kingly character and enforces justice, brotherly love, and leads in appropriate gratitude and recognition of the Lord’s grace (30:23–25). Furthermore, David diplomatically begins to woo the loyalty of his fellow countrymen of Judah by sending a share of the spoil back to them (30:26–30).

Although David’s hardship in this passage is somewhat self-inflicted, in his leading his men through it into a victory replete with spoil, he points the reader forward to the coming Messiah King. Jesus Christ would also fearlessly lead his people into battle, not with the Amalekites but with Satan, sin, and death, winning the victory and plundering his enemies and leading “a host of captives” in his train as he receives gifts among men (Ps 68:18; Eph 4:1–16).

31:1–7 Saul’s final day and demise on the battlefield ends up being told in a couple of terse narrative verses (1Sam 31:1–2). Just as God’s sovereign providence had been with David to spare him even from the consequences of his questionable behavior in chapters 29–30, here God’s providence is turned against Saul as the archers “found him” and he “writhed greatly” because of them (31:3). Saul is worried about how he will be treated as an enemy king (maybe thinking of what he had intended to do with the Amalekite king, Agag; 1Sam 15:9, 32–33), so he begs his armor-bearer to finish him off (31:4). The servant of Saul, however, seems to have David-like distaste for laying a hand on the Lord’s anointed and refuses to kill Saul so that he commits suicide instead (31:4). Seeing his hopeless situation, his armor-bearer follows suit (31:5), and the utter loss of battle is recounted as reaching even across the Jordan to the east (31:6–7).

31:8–13 The final verses of 1 Samuel recount the day after the Philistines’ victory as they scavenge (lit. “strip”; psht) among the slain in battle and happen upon Saul and his three sons on Mount Gilboa (31:8). Apparently, Saul’s fears were justified (31:4), as the Philistines mutilate his body, cutting off his head, and stripping (psht) him of his armor, and sending their “gospe,l” or “good news,” of Saul’s defeat to their gods and people (31:9). They take his armor as a trophy to their gods, and his body they hang out for public spectacle and the birds (31:10). Yet in a daring act of grateful love and devotion, the people of Jabesh-gilead (31:11), who appear to remember Saul’s earlier service to them in saving them from King Nahash (1Sam 11), steal Saul’s body away (31:12) for a more proper burial (31:13).

What a striking contrast Saul is, not only to David who is growing into a godlier king “after the Lord’s own heart,” but even more so to Jesus Christ, whose reign does not end as every other earthly king’s does—in the defeat of death! Instead, after dying an utterly undeserved death, being hung for a spectacle on a Roman cross and having his corpse lovingly taken down and laid in a tomb (Matt 27:57–61) similarly to Saul, he rose again on the third day to prove that he had defeated our sin and death itself once for all (Acts 2:24; 2Tim 1:10; Rev 1:18)! So now the True King of True Israel (God’s people by faith) rules forever over his kingdom and will one day come again to judge the whole world, establishing his kingdom of peace in the new heavens and new earth.

Although 1–2 Samuel are one work, they have probably always existed in two separate volumes (i.e., originally two scrolls; see Introduction). Thus, as we reach the end of 1 Samuel, we are only in the middle of the larger story. Nonetheless, the division of the story here probably has an ancient pedigree and is a natural breaking point given that it marks the death of Saul, Israel’s first king. This allows us to look back over the book of 1 Samuel and consider its overall message. Doing so we see that this book focuses on leadership in Israel at the time of transition from the period of the judges to the establishment of Israel’s monarchy under human kings. Throughout this transition we see that leadership in God’s kingdom is to be strikingly distinct from leadership in the unbelieving world (i.e., kingship “like all the nations”; 1Sam 8:5, 20). As the final judge (1Sam 7:6, 15–16), Samuel serves overall as good model of leadership, being in some measure the judge par excellence. Nonetheless, he also shows the failures attending sinful human leaders, as like Eli his sons fail to follow in his stead and are corrupt contrasts to their father (1Sam 2:12–36; 8:1–3). As the concluding character to the period of the judges when “there was no king in Israel” and “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judg 21:25), the exemplary character of Samuel seems to underscore the need for a king given the overall failure of Israel to faithfully follow the Lord’s leadership through his judges.

Yet, as the Lord grants Israel’s demand for a king “like all the nations” (1Sam 8:5, 20) by anointing Saul, we learn that it is not just the institution of kingship that God’s people need (as proven during the period of the judges), but a specific kind of king (i.e., “a man after the Lord’s own heart”; 1Sam 13:14). This man we see modeled in David, who begins his career as anointed (mashiakh) king, proving his courage and faith to lead God’s people in victorious battle (1Sam 17), but is then persecuted by the rival rejected leader of God’s people. Thus, we begin to see that the king we need walks a path first of suffering before entering into glory (Luke 24:26; 1Pet 1:11). Through his suffering, the Lord’s servant king shows his courage, faith, and faithful obedience, even to rejected and sinful human authorities in his life.

Now with Saul’s death at the end of 1 Samuel, we are poised for the great transition in the beloved King David’s ascent to the throne of Israel. He has suffered greatly at the hands of evil men, but as we turn to 2 Samuel, we are ready to see “the glories” that will follow the suffering of the Lord’s anointed (mashiakh), by whom God’s people learn to long for the Savior Shepherd-King, the Son of David (Matt 1:1; Luke 1:32– 33; Rom 1:3; 2Tim 2:8; Rev 22:16), who is born in Bethlehem (John 7:42), the city of David, and named Jesus Christ or Jesus the Anointed One (Hebrew mashiakh or Greek christos).

Davis, Dale Ralph. 1 Samuel: Looking on the Heart. Focus on the Bible. Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2010.

–––. 2013. 2 Samuel: Out of Every Adversity. Focus on the Bible. Fearn, Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus, 2013.

Long, V. Phillips. 1 and 2 Samuel. Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries 8. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2020.

Mackay, John L. “1–2 Samuel,” in 1 Samuel–2Chronicles, 19–490. ESV Expository Commentary 3. Edited by Iain Duguid, James Hamilton, and Jay Sklar. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019.

Vannoy, J. Robert. 1–2 Samuel. Cornerstone Biblical Commentary 4a. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2009.

1. Although the verbal form is ambiguous, based on word order the priestly “blessing” in 1:17 should perhaps be read not as a “good wish” (“may the God of Israel grant your request”) but instead as a promise (“the God of Israel will grant your request”).

2. Throughout these verses, the repetition of the Hebrew words for “ask” (shʾl in 1:17, 20) and the Lord “giving” (ntn in 1:11 [x2], 16, 17, 27) may serve as literary foreshadowing of Saul (shaʾul, “one asked for”) and Jonathan (Yonatan, “the Lord has given”; Long, 42–43). Somewhat strikingly, though Hannah bases her naming of Samuel on the fact that “I have asked (shʾl) for him from the Lord,” his name (shemuʾel) sounds like “God has heard” but based on its spelling would appear to mean “(the) name is El (or God).”

3. Although some ancient versions have her bringing a “three-year-old bull” (LXX; Dead Sea Scrolls), the Hebrew text has her bringing three bulls, which would be three times the required offering to fulfill a vow, which is matched by a more than tripling of the accompanying grain and wine offerings (Num 15:8–10). It appears that not only does Hannah wean her child as a service to Eli and the tabernacle of the Lord so he would not have to care for an infant, but she also “pays” God for the privilege of doing so in offering a bull for each year she has “borrowed” him.

4. Part of the difficulty in identifying this “faithful priest” as ultimately pointing to Jesus is due to how we render the final phrase of 2:35: “he (?) shall go in and out before my anointed (lit., “messiah,” Hebrew mashiakh) forever,” which makes it sound like the priest is someone other than the Messiah. The subject of the Hebrew verb here can just as well be “the house,” rendering the verse as saying, “It (i.e., the house or the Messiah’s people of faith) shall go in and out (i.e., serve or minister or be led in battle) before my Messiah forever,” thus describing the character of God’s people, his “household” of faith as led by the coming Messiah.

5. Note that the translations usually have “the Lord” as the antecedent of “who sits” (yosheb), though in the given construction “the ark” should probably be understood to be the antecedent (see Stephen Coleman, The Biblical Hebrew Transitivity Alternation in Cognitive Linguistic Perspective [AKM 114; Wiesbaden: Harrossowitz, 2018], 137–39).

6. “As far as the large stone” in 6:18 follows the emended reading of “stone” (ʾeben) for the MT “brook” or “meadow” (ʾabel; Hebrew root ʾbl), though the MT may be a wordplay anticipating what follows in 6:19–7:3 where, due to the Lord’s judgment, the people “mourn” (from the same Hebrew root ʾbl; 6:19).

7. Note the play on words with Saul’s name: shaʾul from root shʾl meaning “asked for” and the people described as “the ones asking (hash-shoʾalim) for a king” in 8:9.

8. The Hebrew of 9:24–25 is somewhat difficult, making it unsurprising that the ancient versions try to smooth it out. The MT says, “Samuel spoke with Saul on the roof” after coming down from the high place, whereas the LXX says, “Samuel spread (a bed?) for Saul on the roof.”

9. It has often been suggested that the “kingdom” Samuel wanted to “renew” at the assembly in Gilgal was the kingdom of Saul. This understanding, however, creates a number of problems. Not least is the problem of how Saul’s kingdom could be “renewed” if he had not yet begun his reign, as is implicit in his return home to Gibeah after the assembling at Mizpah and taking up work in the fields (1Sam 11:5). Instead, “making Saul king” (i.e., inaugurating his reign) was one of the purposes for which the Gilgal assembly was convened (11:15). And it is not until after the Gilgal assembly that we find the typical regnal formula that marks the beginning of a king’s reign (“Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty-two years,” 1Sam 13:1 [NIV]; see also 2Sam 2:10; 5:4 and numerous other examples of the regnal formula in 1–2 Kings). In light of this, the ESV and KJV translations seem better than the NIV in how they render 1 Samuel 11:14–15: “‘let us . . . renew the kingdom there.’ . . . they made Saul king” vs. “‘let us . . . reaffirm the kingship.’. . . all the people . . . confirmed Saul as king.”). The NJPS makes this even more overt in its translation: “‘let us . . . inaugurate the monarchy.’ . . . they declared Saul king.”

10. While the MT reads “Bedan,” it could easily be the result of a scribal error in reading the original “Barak” (as found in the LXX) given the similarity of r and d as well as q (>k) and n in the paleo-Hebrew script.

11. A few versions, such as the HCSB, KJV, and NLT, read the apodosis as the final clause (“then you, even you and even your king who reigns over you, will be after the Lord your God”), which, while grammatically possible, is probably incorrect (often the apodosis in such ʾim conditional clauses is indicated by a change in verbal subject, which does not occur here). Instead, the reading taken here sees the utter absence of an apodosis (and thus leaving it merely implied) as intentional on Samuel’s behalf, as he may relish the promise of curses for Israel’s disobedience in light of their apparent “rejection” of him.

12. Ordinarily the formula presents the age of the king at his ascension and then the length of his reign—“X was Y years old when he became king, and he ruled for Z years” (e.g., 2Kgs 8:17). If this formula is in view for 1 Samuel 13:1, however, the Hebrew would appear to say that “Saul was one year old when he became king, and he ruled over Israel for two years,” which aside from being quite absurd does not fit the rest of the details of the narrative. Some versions emend the text with what seems more reasonable, e.g., “Saul was thirty years old when he became king, and he reigned over Israel forty–two years” (NIV; cf. HCSB; NLT). Others assume a corruption without suggesting emendation, e.g., “Saul was . . . years old when he began to reign; and he reigned . . . and two years over Israel” (NRSV; cf. NJPS). Other interpretations suggest the interpretation offered here, that 13:1 instead situates the events of 1 Samuel 13–14 in the second year after Saul was anointed, e.g., “Saul reigned one year; and when he had reigned two years over Israel, . . .” (KJV; cf. ESV).

13. The phrase in 14:2 could also be rendered “under the pomegranate,” which explains the English versions that read “under the pomegranate tree” (NJPS, NRSV, NIV). More recent observation of a large cave with a rounded, pitted opening in the region of Migron resembling a pomegranate has led to the interpretation followed by the ESV that takes “the pomegranate” as a reference to this cave, hence “in the pomegranate cave.” As Long (150) points out, this makes good sense of why a lookout was needed (14:16); it would seem unnecessary if they were under a large tree atop a hill.

14. The rocky crags in 14:4–6 called Bozez (“slippery”) and Seneh (“thorny”) seem to present the situation like the English idiom of being “between a rock and a hard place,” making Jonathan and his armor-bearer’s venture even more challenging, requiring God’s hand of providence to go with them.

15. The distance Israel pursued the Philistines from Michmash to Aijalon (14:31) would have been about twenty miles (32 km), almost the length of a marathon foot race, making this description of Israel being “very faint” seem like a bit of an understatement.

16. Interestingly, the Hebrew seems to say that Saul merely began to build an altar to the Lord, implying he did enough to “check the box” of religiosity without fully obeying proper protocols.

17. Without going into extensive detail on kherem warfare, or “the ban” as it can be translated, the Lord’s command of it against the Canaanites often causes discomfort for modern readers. In order to make sense of it, one must enter deeply into the text of Scripture to understand its worldview in which the justice and rightness of the Lord’s verdict makes good sense. First, it must be recognized that in Adam “all have sinned” (Rom 3:23; 5:12–21) and therefore deserve immediate death and destruction as a consequence for our sin (Gen 2:17; Rom 6:23). Only because of God’s longsuffering patience and expansive common grace are sinful humans allowed some time on earth, so the Lord’s bringing some people’s lives to an abrupt end is not injustice, but rather a little glimpse of “swift justice” in contrast to his patient “delayed justice” (Deut 32:4–5; Isa 61:8; Ps 147). This leads to the description of kherem warfare as “intrusion ethics,” in which the eschatological judgment of the last day or “the day of the Lord” (2Pet 3:9–10) enters proleptically into certain periods and places in the history of God’s redemption of his people to show forth the judgment that is coming (e.g., the flood in Gen 6–9). Second, God’s command for his people to execute kherem is primarily focused on the Promised Land during Israel’s theocratic kingdom. The Promised Land as a proleptic picture of the eschatological Kingdom of God was to be cleansed from sin, idolatry, and danger as the sacred space for the Lord to dwell with his people in peace (cf. descriptions of New Jerusalem in Rev 21–22). Although pagans who converted were welcomed and incorporated into God’s covenant people (e.g., Rahab, Ruth), unrepentant idolaters as enemies of the Lord would threaten the peace of Israel from within (as seen throughout Judges) and lead Israel to wander from the Lord and his commands into sinful idolatry (Judg 2:11–3:6). In fact, even Israelite cities who strayed away from following the Lord and into idolatry were to be “devoted to destruction” (khrm; Deut 13:12–18). Thus, kherem war had a specific, redemptive historical purpose of revealing the coming judgment of the Lord in order that sinners may repent (Luke 10:13–16; 13:1–5). It finds its ultimate culmination for God’s people in the cross of Jesus Christ where he was placed “under the ban” (khrm), so to speak, and the full judgment for the sin of his people was poured out on him in order to redeem his people out of the everlasting judgment they deserve.

18. While there is not sufficient space for a lengthy discussion of the doctrine of divine immutability and how this accords with the claim here of God “repenting” or “regretting” having made Saul king, a few comments may help to show how orthodox theologians have handled this passage in the past and may continue to do so. Worth noting at the outset is the fact that those who developed a robust view of divine immutability were careful readers of the Bible and recognized that this text must be explained in light of it. The way this “repenting” here has thus been understood is as anthropomorphic language, describing God’s change in action toward his people by terms used for the motivation of change in humans (i.e., a change of mind), whereas with God his decree and will do not change. This is the clear language of Scripture found even here in this passage when it speaks more doctrinally than anthropomorphically (“The Glory of Israel . . . does not change his mind [nḥm] for he is not a man that he should change his mind [nḥm]”; 1Sam 15:29; cf. Num 23:19; Ezek 24:14).

19. The theme of robes and clothing runs throughout the Book of 1–2 Samuel, starting with Samuel’s robes made by Hannah (1Sam 2:19), Jonathan’s giving his robes to David (1Sam 18:4), David cutting the robe of Saul (1Sam 24), etc.

20. The Hebrew verb rendered “hacked him to pieces” in 15:33 (shsp) only occurs here in the Hebrew Bible and may simply be a technical term for “beheading” or “execution” (cf. LXX sphazo; Targum pshkh).

21. While it may be common practice to appeal to the fact that “the Lord sees to the heart” (1Sam 16:7) as justification for what may be construed as outwardly “bad” behavior, more commonly through Scripture this truth stands as a warning to us that the Lord sees the evil that lurks within (Gen 6:5; Ps 7:9; Prov 24:12; Jer 11:20; 17:9–10; 20:12; Matt 1:3–4; Luke 16:14–15; John 2:25; 5:42;). The fact that this is ordinarily “bad news” further illustrates David’s presentation as one whose heart is seen by the Lord and found fit to be his choice for king (see discussion of what it means to be a man “after the Lord’s own heart” above).

22. To put a finer point on it, in dealing with mental health issues today the implications of this passage would indicate that we should never adopt a merely materialistic or mechanistic view of such issues. Wherever we find brokenness and distortions of the good creation, there is a Satanic and/or demonic source and character. On the other hand, rather than claiming power for ourselves over the demonic and promoting processes for “successful” spiritual warfare (i.e., ways to “cast out demons” and “bind Satan” by certain prayers or incantations), God calls us to apply the means of grace (the Word, sacraments, and prayer; see Westminster Larger Catechism #154) along with other common grace means discovered from general revelation (i.e., medicines, mental health wisdom, etc.; Jas 5:14; Westminster Larger Catechism #135).

23. Although Saul’s approval of David is clear (16:23), who exactly is said to love whom in 16:21 is less clear. The Hebrew is somewhat ambiguous, simply stating (woodenly translated) that “David entered to Saul. And he stood before him. And he loved him very much. And he became his armor-bearer” (so KJV). Given the fact that the subject of all the other verbs is “David,” the most natural grammatical reading would seem to be that it was David who loved Saul very much rather than the reverse (as most of the English versions translate it by inserting “Saul” as the subject of this clause; ESV, NIV, NJPS, NRSV, etc.). Given the meaning of David’s name (“beloved”), the ambiguity may, however, be intentional, raising the question that the following narrative will answer: “By whom was David beloved?” While Saul shows himself clearly not to love David, the people and even many of Saul’s own family grow to love David deeply (e.g. Jonathan, Michal for a time). Ultimately and more significantly, however, David is shown to be beloved of the Lord, to whom David will faithfully credit his many great blessings and strong success.

24. The claim throughout 1 Samuel 16–17 that David is the eighth son of Jesse seems to conflict with 1 Chronicles 2:13–16. Various attempts have been made to explain the disparity, the best probably being that the Chronicler may have omitted a son who somehow lost his status as a “son of Jesse” in the history between when the Former Prophets’ texts were written and the time of the Chronicler.

25. Given Saul’s question about David’s parentage in 17:55–58 and the reiteration of the details in 17:12–14, some see the possibility of dischronologization here, or even contradictions in the text. The interpretation followed above, however, can account for all these details as historically plausible and narratively significant.

26. This act of killing Philistines may seem brutal, though they are the avowed enemies and oppressors of Israel. Nonetheless, in the context of a general command for kherem warfare within the land of Israel, David is showing himself faithful both to the Lord and the Lord’s command for his king. See comment and footnote on 1 Samuel 15:1–3 above.

27. Note that in Hebrew 20:42 is numbered as 21:1, so that the first verse of this chapter in English is numbered 21:2 in the Hebrew text.

28. Note that 23:29 is numbered as 24:1 in Hebrew so that the rest of the verse numbers in chapter 24 of the English versions do not quite match up.

29. Some commentators and translators think this unlikely, especially given David and his men’s exhaustion, translating “twilight” (nesheph) as “[darkness] before dawn” (NJPS) or just “morning” (LES). On the other hand, given the fatigue of David’s men and the likely inebriated state of the Amalekites, such a lengthy and messy battle may be exactly what the text is trying to describe.

---

The text of 1 Samuel, excluding all Bible quotations, is © 2023 by The Gospel Coalition. The Gospel Coalition (TGC) gives you permission to reproduce this work in its entirety, without any changes, in English for noncommercial distribution throughout the world. Crossway, the holder of the copyright to the ESV Bible text, grants permission to include the ESV quotations within this work, in English.

In addition, TGC gives you permission to faithfully translate the work into any other language, but you may not translate the English Standard Version Bible into another language. If you wish to include Bible quotations with the translated work, you will need to obtain permission from a publisher of a Bible translation in the same language.

All scripture quotations are taken from the ESV® Bible (the Holy Bible, English Standard Version®) copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. ESV Text Edition: 2016. All rights reserved. The ESV text may not be quoted in any publication made available to the public by a Creative Commons license. The ESV may not be translated into any other language. The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, is adapted from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.