33. § 1. Events from the Election of Saul Till His Rejection

§ 1. Events from the Election of Saul Till His Rejection

Samuel chose a king, apparently as a concession to the impatient demand of the nation, but in reality following the will of God as it had been revealed to him. At the same time he took care that the anthropocracy should not be in opposition to the theocracy, but should serve as a means of realizing it. The choice was made from this point of view. The result was that Samuel did everything to awaken the king who was chosen to a true and earnest fear of God; and when this attempt failed, the family of the chosen was rejected as a warning example to his successors. It was the divine mission of Samuel to see that what was given to the nation for their salvation should not turn to their destruction. He stands forth as the representative of the people no less than of God; for everything that threatened to separate the people from their God undermined their nationality at the same time, the germ of it being a proper attitude towards God. By this relationship Israel had increased from a horde to a nation; and every disturbance of it threatened internal dissolution, which would necessarily be followed by an external one.

Samuel’s former activity was an excellent preparation for royalty. He had smoothed the ground for it. The consciousness of religious and civil union was powerfully re-awakened by his means. The unanimity of the people, even as exemplified in their desire for a king, was a result of his activity. An able king had only to reap what he had sown. In recent times it has been asserted that Samuel was deceived in his choice; that he had afterwards every reason to be dissatisfied with his accidental selection, for nobody could have been less adapted than Saul to represent the king of so oppressed and broken a nation. The subsequent history of Saul may justly be regarded as a proof that the so-called utterances of God, by which the judges and afterwards the prophets give decisions, were often of a subjective nature merely. But this assertion is totally without foundation. What God revealed to Samuel as the task to be absolutely realized by the king who was chosen, “He shall save my people out of the hand of the Philistines,” 1 Samuel 9:16, was actually realized by him; comp. 1 Samuel 14:47 ff., where, after the counting up of the nations conquered by Saul, we have the concluding words, “And whithersoever he turned himself, he vexed them.” He raised Israel to an external power and importance such as it had not possessed since the time of Joshua. What great gifts Saul possessed in this respect, and how much Israel was indebted to him, we learn best from the lament of David over his death and Jonathan’s, 2 Samuel 1:17 ff. Besides this, Saul was zealous in maintaining the letter of the Mosaic law, everywhere introducing discipline and order, and putting an end to that state of things where “every man did that which was right in his own eyes,” which is represented in the book of Judges as characteristic of that period. Of this we have many examples,—in the severity of the measures by which he rooted out all kinds of superstition forbidden in the Mosaic law, 1 Samuel 28:9; in the anxious care with which he restrained the violation of the Mosaic regulations respecting the eating of blood, even in the thick of battle, 1 Samuel 14:34. It was his honest endeavour to fill the office which our older theologians have assigned to the civil authority, to be custos tabulae ulriusque of the law. But Samuel never gives expression to the conviction that he who is chosen will be and remain a servant of the law, truly devoted to the Lord; or to the assurance that this was a part of God’s plan: hence we are not justified in attributing it to him. He did what he could to bring about this result. The success of his endeavours, which were frustrated by Saul’s hardness of heart,—for he let thorns grow up while the good fruit was choked,—was so little necessary, that their failure was more advantageous to the cause of God. The theocratic principle was more fully developed in the reaction than could have happened had the king been truly pious, so that we may say that Saul was chosen by God, because in His omniscience He foresaw that he would not turn to Him with his whole heart. Saul and David are in necessary connection. On the threshold of royalty God first shows in Saul what the king of Israel is without Him; then in David what the king is with Him. Both are types or representatives. The events which befell them are actual prophecies, which first of all passed into fulfilment in the history of the Israelitish monarchy, and then through the whole history of the world.

Before we turn to isolated events, we must make a remark relative to the character of our source in this period. It is evident that the author of the books of Samuel does not intend to give a complete history of Saul, from the circumstance that he either passes over the most important events in perfect silence, or mentions them very briefly. Thus, for example, we learn nothing of the commencement and origin of the new captivity to the Philistines, in which we here find Israel all at once; Saul’s important undertakings against several neighbouring nations are only briefly and summarily mentioned in 1 Samuel 14:46-47; we only hear casually of his vigorous measures against superstition; nothing is done for the chronological determination of those separate events which are communicated. Everything leads to the conclusion that the author followed a special aim; that he only gives prominence to certain facts because they were of special importance for sacred history. Hence he gives a full account of the war with the Philistines, because it was a realization of the promise of God that He would deliver His people from the Philistines by Saul; and of the Amalekite war, because Saul’s disobedience and perversity were specially manifested in it. The principal aim of the author is to point to these and their melancholy consequences; to show the causes which led to the rejection of Saul and the election of David; and his choice of subjects is explained by the fact that this was the germ of Saul’s history, important for all times. The king chosen belonged to one of the smallest tribes of Israel, the tribe of Benjamin, to the smallest family in this tribe, to an obscure branch of this family, 1 Samuel 9:21. This happened that he might be the more humble, which was really the case in the beginning, as we learn from the passage just quoted; but the principal object was to show the nation that God’s choice was not due to any natural privileges; that He can give greatness to whom He will. Natural greatness might readily have obscured what was to be given by God. In this way each one was led to the true origin of Saul’s subsequent greatness.

Before Saul’s election he occupied a very low standpoint, intellectually and spiritually. He scarcely knew anything of Samuel, the centre of all higher Israelitish life. His servant speaks to him of Samuel as of one who was unknown, 1 Samuel 9:6 : “Behold now, there is in this city a man of God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to pass.” Nothing moves him to make acquaintance with the celebrated prophet but anxiety respecting his lost asses. If Samuel had acted merely in accordance with human judgment, it could never have occurred to him that such a man was destined to be king. But he is at once absolutely certain of his business, and immediately meets him with an announcement. In the conversation he had with him, 1 Samuel 9:25-26, he seeks to stir up a higher life in him; and before leaving he anoints him, i.e. he gives him, in the name of God, a symbolical assurance of the bestowment of the gifts of the Spirit, which were necessary to the fulfilment of the office for which he was destined. He then condescends to his weakness, and tells him the principal things that are to befall him in the time to come,—a circumstance from which we perceive the extent of this weakness, how completely Saul had to be drawn out of the rough, how much the divine must manifest itself outwardly, in order that he might be able to recognise it. But the anointing soon developed its power. In 1 Samuel 10:9 we read: “And when he had turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart.” This is no mere figure of speech. We see that there was a decisive change in Saul’s life,—that in the parable of the sower he belongs not to the first class, but to the third. On his way he passed through Gibeah, where there was a school of the prophets. A band of the disciples came to meet him, and, having been powerfully stirred up, he was now carried away by their enthusiasm: the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, and he prophesied. What a striking contrast there was between his present condition and his former one, appears from the astonished question of the people, “Is Saul also among the prophets? “They had thought no one less likely to be the subject of higher inspiration than he. But the best answer was given by one of the by-standers: “But who is their father”? thus intimating that the heavenly origin of prophetic inspiration removed what was striking and unintelligible in the contrast between the past and the present, which it certainly had when looked at from a human point of view. That which had previously happened had reference only to the relation of Saul to God. Even the anointing had no direct reference to the nation, as appears from the circumstance that it was clone in secret. Now, after everything has been settled with regard to the higher relation, means are taken to bring about the recognition of the chosen king by the nation. First of all the divine choice is verbally proclaimed in an assembly of the nation called by Samuel at Mizpeh. It is generally supposed that Saul was here chosen by lot. But the mode and manner of proceeding, and the expression in 1 Samuel 10:19-21, are not in favour of this view. The fact that all are obliged to appear before the Lord, that the choice is first made among the tribes, then among the families, etc., can properly only serve to heighten the solemnity of the act and to increase attention to it. And it is at variance with 1 Samuel 10:22, “They inquired of the Lord further,” which speaks of an appeal to God, which cannot have been made by lot, but must have been made either by the Urim and Thummim, or else through Samuel. If the choice had been made by lot, there would probably have been some allusion in 1 Samuel 10:22 to the difference in the modus of asking. Saul’s humility appeared on this occasion. He thought himself so little worthy of kinghood, that he hid himself, in order, if possible, to escape the calling made known to him. But this verbal declaration of God was not enough. There must also be an actual one. God’s election is not vain and feeble; if it be real, it must prove itself in the gifts and deeds of him who is chosen. The people felt this, even those among them who acknowledged the election with all their heart. Saul himself also felt it. He went quietly home, and continued his former occupation, ploughing with his oxen; comp. 1 Samuel 11:5. Both the people and Saul waited for the future actual ratification. Until then everything remained as it had been. Samuel was still at the head of affairs. In the assembly at Mizpeh he endeavoured to make the people conscious of the limits put to royalty by the Mosaic law, of the difference which must necessarily exist between kingship in the theocracy and among the heathen. In 1 Samuel 10:25 we read: “And Samuel told the people the manner of the kingdom, and wrote it in a book, and laid it up before the Lord.” The “manner of the kingdom” here spoken of is to be distinguished from that which is mentioned in 1 Samuel 8, where reference is made to those rights which, alas! are often assumed by kings at the prompting of corrupt human nature; while, on the other hand, we have here to do with those rights which are conceded to them in accordance with the will and word of God. There can be no doubt that Samuel borrowed this “manner of the kingdom” from Deuteronomy 17. The actual ratification of the choice of Saul soon followed. A threatened invasion of Nahash, king of the Ammonites, who probably wished to reassert the old claims already made by the descendants of Lot, in the book of Judges, to the country beyond the Jordan, had, according to 1 Samuel 12:12, first called forth the vehement demand of the nation for a king. In the meantime this invasion actually took place. Nahash attacked the town of Jabesh beyond the Jordan; whose inhabitants in their great need sent messengers to their cis-Jordanic brethren. These came first to Saul, and when he heard their words, “the Spirit of God came upon him.” The peasant was suddenly transformed into a valiant hero, who brings help to the oppressed in the power of the Lord, and causes the enemy to fly in wild disorder. Saul’s true kingly mind manifests itself after victory. The nation, inspired with enthusiasm for him, demands the death of those who had formerly despised and insulted him. But he replies, “There shall not a man be put to death this day; for to-day the Lord hath wrought salvation in Israel.” The Lord had now set His seal on the election of Saul, and Samuel called the nation to Gilgal, a place hallowed by remembrances from the time of Joshua, that they might recognise this seal. Saul was there solemnly inaugurated as king. The relations into which he now entered are not quite clear to us. Respecting the revenues of the kings we have only scattered statements; comp. Michaelis, Mos. R. part i. sec. 59. But we learn from 1 Samuel 17:25 that his position was from the beginning truly regal; that he was not dependent only on the presents brought by those who had any business with the king, comp. 1 Samuel 16:20, but received regular taxes from all Israel. It is here stated that whoever would kill Goliath would receive, among other things, the exemption of his family from all taxes and imposts. The appointment of the new king involved Samuel’s solemn renunciation of office, so far as it was connected with the sphere of politics. The acknowledgment which the nation made to Samuel on this occasion puts his recent opponents to shame. Samuel provokes this acknowledgment, in order to gain a foundation for the subsequent reproof. He endeavours to make the people conscious that they sinned in desiring a king. But the sin lay partially in the circumstance that they desired a king instead of Samuel, the judge appointed by God. Above all, it must be established that Samuel invariably proved his divine mission by his deeds. He had foundation enough for the endeavour to make the people conscious of their sin. The kingship they demanded was not an external representation of the kingship of God, but was in direct opposition to it. But the king saw himself in the same light in which he was regarded by the people. Samuel attained his object. The nation were deeply moved by his words, and by the sign which confirmed them,—a storm which he predicted, and which occurred at a time of year when storms were most uncommon in Palestine. And they said unto Samuel, “Pray for thy servants unto the Lord thy God, that we die not; for we have added unto all our sins this evil, to ask us a king.” Samuel, however, does not take advantage of this frame of mind to overthrow the kingship, as he must have done in accordance with the recent view of the relation of the kingship to the theocracy and of Samuel’s character. He not only formed a just estimate of the subjectively considered sinful character of the demand of the nation, but undoubtedly he knew also that the vox populi, objectively considered, was at the same time the vox dei. He exhorts the people henceforward to be faithful to the Lord, with their king; and the Lord would then glorify Himself in both. But we must draw attention to the fact that he only gave up part of his office at Gilgal. Formerly he had united in himself the kingly, priestly, and prophetic office; now he retains only the two latter. In 1 Samuel 12:23 he says: “Moreover, as for me, God forbid that I should sin against the Lord in ceasing to pray for you: but I will teach you the good and the right way.” If this be remembered, we shall find no difficulty in the fact that in 1 Samuel 7:15 it is stated, “And Samuel judged Israel all the days of his life.” Only we must guard against attributing too narrow and external a meaning to the judging. Every prophet was in a certain sense judge. Samuel judged even the king after he had already resigned his office of judge in a strict sense.

1 Samuel 13:1 begins the history of Saul’s reign with the statement of his age on ascending the throne, and the number of years he reigned. But this is of no use to us whatever, owing to its critical inaccuracy. In the statement of his age on ascending the throne, the number is completely wanting; and in the statement of the years that he reigned, it is false, for it is quite impossible that Saul could have reigned only two years. The first important event was a war with the Philistines. They had probably availed themselves of the favourable opportunity when the Ammonites had taken arms against Israel. It is certain that the beginning of hostilities belongs to a time previous to Saul’s reign; for in 1 Samuel 9:16 a king is promised by God who should save His people out of the hand of the Philistines. According to 1 Samuel 10:5, the Philistines had a garrison at Gibeah, in the midst of the land of Israel, already before Saul was king. We learn that the oppression was very grievous, and extended far over the land, from the circumstance that the people had to do without arms, because, according to 1 Samuel 13:19, the Philistines had taken away all the smiths. But this measure, and the general intensity of persecution, can only belong to the beginning of Saul’s reign, since we find no indication that the Israelites were wanting in weapons in the campaign against the Ammonites. 1 Samuel 7:13 is also at variance with the supposition that the Israelites were heavily oppressed by the Philistines during the administration of Samuel; for we read here that “the hand of the Lord was against the Philistines all the days of Samuel.” It seems as if Saul’s accession to the throne, in which the Philistines saw a threatening of danger, incited them to their utmost exertions to extinguish the fire in its very beginning; and at first they appeared to be successful. The author, whose object is only to give prominence to certain events which are important for his aim, suddenly transports us into the midst of these warlike relations between Israel and the Philistines, to a point where the Philistines, with their main forces, had retreated, leaving only a few garrisons in the country. As a precaution against these garrisons, which had perhaps been left in the country in consequence of some treaty, after the principal forces had been disbanded, Saul established a kind of standing army, consisting of 3000 men, which he always retained. A quarrel between this army of observation and the Philistines caused the fire of warfare to break forth again into a clear flame. It is vain to attempt to justify the statement contained in 1 Samuel 13:5, that the number of Philistine chariots amounted to 30,000. The nature of the thing, biblical analogies,—Pharaoh, for example, had only 600 chariots in pursuing the Israelites,—the disproportion of the number of riders, who were only 6000,—everything leads to the conclusion that the number is critically corrupt. Some suppose that they had 1000 chariots; the ל belonging to the preceding ישראל being twice written by mistake as the numeral of 30, having given rise to our reading. The most probable supposition is that they had 3000. The number of riders or charioteers agrees best with this. The chariots were generally occupied by two men. On the occasion of this war it first became manifest that Saul’s change of heart had been only superficial. Immediately after his anointing, Samuel had enjoined him, by the command of God, to resort to Gilgal, the holy place, in all difficult circumstances of the State. There the prophet would come to him, and, after the presentation of sacrifice, would show him what he should do. Seven days the king was to wait for him, 1 Samuel 10:8. This command was expressly designed to try Saul, to reveal the thoughts of his heart. He did not stand the trial. He certainly went to Gilgal, and waited there almost to the end of the allotted period; but when the seventh clay was nearly at an end, and urgent danger, in human estimation, permitted no further delay, he performed the sacrifice without Samuel. The sin did not consist in the circumstance of his offering up sacrifice without being a priest; it is even highly improbable that he did so,—the action is probably attributed to him only because it was done at his command. It lay rather in his disobedience to the divine command, which he himself recognised as such, for he never ventured to question the divine mission of Samuel, even at a time when it would have been his highest interest to do so. Unconditional subjection to the will of the God who had revealed Himself in Israel was the barrier which separated Israelitish kingship from the heathen, and it was necessary to place this distinction clearly before the eyes of the king and the nation at the very beginning, and to punish every violation of it. If mercy had been shown in this case, it would have been the worst possible precedent for all future time, and have put the thing in an utterly false light. If we look merely at the external appearance of the sin, it seems, like the sin of our first parents, to have been very great, yet scarcely so great as to justify the severe judgment of Samuel. But we must remember that Samuel, as a divinely illumined seer, could look into the heart of Saul. He saw not merely the detached fruit, but the tree which had borne it. That he was not deceived, that he did not invade the province of God’s judgment, but that God pronounced sentence through him, is shown by the subsequent history of Saul, in which his inner nature revealed itself more clearly: his unbroken heart; his arrogance, which would always be sui juris, and refused to submit to a higher authority, still manifested itself more and more plainly. Those who accuse Samuel of severity on the ground of this circumstance, proceed on the false assumption that he possessed no other means of judging of Saul’s act than are open to us. But this judgment, when compared with Saul’s further development, proves the contrary. Moreover, Samuel does not tell Saul that he is rejected by God as king, but only that the kingdom will not remain in his family. Personal rejection only follows afterwards, when the inner godlessness of Saul, which was covered with the semblance of outward piety, was more plainly revealed. For the present the former relation of Samuel to Saul still continued. The frivolous oath made by Saul after the overthrow of the Philistines, that whoever should taste any food or drink till the evening should be punished with death, damaged the cause which it was intended to promote; for the nation, deprived of all refreshment, soon tired in pursuit of the enemy; comp. 1 Samuel 14:28-30. Yet Saul appears in a far more disadvantageous light even than this oath, in his conduct when his son Jonathan is found to have unwittingly broken the command. Instead of acknowledging what the silence of the Urim and Thummim was intended to indicate, that he had sinned, and humbling himself before God on account of the frivolous use he had made of His name, he lays the blame on Jonathan, and thinks it necessary to kill him, though he had been the author of the victory; but is prevented from carrying out his design by the powerful interference of the people. His hypocritical self-deception, his blind arrogance, goes so far that he would rather lose his son than relinquish aught of his imaginary pre-eminence. But Ewald has no reason in the narrative in 1 Samuel 14 for making him guilty of having allowed another to die for Jonathan. No example of this kind of substitution ever occurs in Israel. In Deuteronomy 25:19, in the Mosaic law, a command was laid upon the Israelites that when the Lord had given them rest from all their enemies round about, they were to accomplish the curse pronounced on Amalek in Exodus 17. This condition was now fulfilled by Saul’s victories over the neighbouring nations, told in 1 Samuel 14:47 ff. He therefore receives, through Samuel, a revelation that the time is now come to accomplish the judgment of divine righteousness on the rejected and radically corrupt race of the Amalekites, whose former offence against Israel is not to be regarded as the sole cause of this judgment, but only as a symptom of their whole state; comp. 1 Samuel 15:18-33. Saul spared the king of the Amalekites (whose name we do not know—Agag is the nomum dignitatis of all Amalekite kings), not from motives of humanity,—otherwise why should he not have spared the children?—but to do honour to the kingly dignity, and thus to himself, and allowed the people to retain the best part of the booty, showing that in so far as he fulfilled the divine commission, he fulfilled it not as such, but only employed it as an occasion for satisfying his own inclination which happened to be in unison with it. If he had remembered to act as the servant of divine righteousness, he would have felt it his first duty to judge the king in whom the bad spirit of the nation culminated; whose sword robbed the women of their children. It was but just, therefore, that the curse should give rise to a new one, which fell upon the unrighteous instrument of its accomplishment. This simple representation of the matter shows the injustice of asserting that Samuel only made use of this opportunity to revenge himself on Saul, who still showed more and more inclination to withdraw from his dictatorial power. With heartfelt sorrow Samuel executed the divine commission. It is true that he was filled with holy wrath on account of Saul’s crime, of whose godlessness this act was only a symptom, but he cried to God all night through, hoping to obtain some mitigation of the divine decree; and when this hope proved vain, and he found himself obliged to announce the divine sentence of Saul’s rejection, he was moved with such deep sorrow, that he felt it impossible to see him any more; 1 Samuel 15:35, 1 Samuel 16:1. We see how completely the single deed was only a symptom of the whole corrupt state, from the behaviour of Saul when Samuel called him to account. How different is the conduct of David after his adultery with Bath-sheba and the numbering of the people! First false and hypocritical excuses: the fault is not his, but the people’s; what he withheld from the curse he intended as a sacrifice to God, so that it would have belonged to God in the end. Finally, when he sees that his excuses are of no avail, he coldly admits, “I have sinned.” We see how similar in character this confession was to that of Pharaoh, from the request immediately attached to it, that Samuel would honour him before the people. We learn from 1 Samuel 15:17 that the root of his sin was arrogance, for Samuel here contrasts his present with his former position, when he was small in his own eyes. The father’s arrogance afterwards descended to his daughter Michal. External service of God served him as a means of making terms with the Lord. This is evident from 1 Samuel 15:22-23, where Samuel says to him: “Hath 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 hearken than the fat of rams,” etc. Saul himself acknowledges the justice of the standard by which he is judged. It never occurs to him to denounce the principle which destroyed him, as false. In that which led to his overthrow, he acted against his own conviction. He never doubted the reality of the Lord’s supremacy in Israel, that unconditional obedience was due to His commands, or that Samuel was His servant. Those who have recently attempted to justify him at any cost have not considered this. Even from their standpoint he must be condemned. We may regard the theocracy as a delusion, but he shared this delusion. The semblance of injustice to Saul is only attributable to this circumstance, that Samuel’s energetic measures against the first manifestations of his evil disposition kept it within certain limits, and hindered it from fully revealing itself. If he could have done as he wished, there would soon have been an end to the supremacy of God in Israel. Rude despotism would have usurped its place. Saul tried to lay a foundation for this despotism by the formation of a standing army. He placed men of his own tribe in the places of command, and sought to bind them to his interest by considerable dotations; comp. his own words in 1 Samuel 22:7. Samuel’s antagonistic working kept Saul in fear of the principle which he did not love, and thus made the powerful realization of his wishes and tendencies impossible. Since he would not give up his inclinations, he fell into a state of unhappy dualism, which at last brought him to the verge of madness. He was prevented from consistently following out his desires not only by his own indecision, by conscience which was kept alive by Samuel, but also by fear of the nation, whose attention was drawn to his evil designs by the appearance of Samuel, and from the better part of whom he had to expect decided opposition if matters came to the worst. By the determination to reject Saul, we are not to understand that he ceased from that time to be the legal king of Israel. Samuel himself continues to recognise him as such, regarding the anointing of David as possessing only prophetic significance; so also David, whose whole behaviour towards him is guided by the conviction that he is the anointed of the Lord. His rejection involves only this: (1.) That God would henceforward leave him, and withdraw from him the gifts of His Spirit, His counsel through the Urim and Thummim and by His servant Samuel; and (2.) That in a short time the real deposition would be followed by tangible consequences,—the kingly ruins would be destroyed, and the kingdom would not pass to his descendants. Venema gives this interpretation of the divine decree briefly and well in the Hist. Eccl. i. p. 407: “Mansit quidem rex legitimus, sed spretus et brevi exscindendus, qui a deo desertus et furiis agitatus subinde nihil praeclari amplius gessit, sed continuis se commaculavit facinoribus et reatum suum auxit.” Those who would make Samuel instead of Saul a revolutionist, changing the parts, are unable to explain this patient waiting for the time when God Himself would execute His decree. The ἐκλογή followed the prophet. They looked forward with longing to the time when God would fulfil His determination. But no man ventured to do anything to hasten the overthrow of Saul. It is remarkable that he did not venture to do anything against Samuel, even at a time when he hesitated at no other deed of violence. In quiet retirement Samuel still worked for the kingdom of God. So powerful was the impression which his personal eminence exercised even over a hardened mind.