In this chapter, Samuel anoints a young boy, David, to be the next king.
The LORD begins by urging Samuel to move on. He has mourned for Saul, and that was good for a time, but he cannot let his grief over Saul paralyze him from anointing the next king, and the LORD is asking Samuel to move on. The LORD was also grieved by what happened with Saul, but Samuel was shutting down, to the detriment of his nation, so the LORD urges him to begin the process of electing Saul's successor.
Samuel goes to Bethlehem “under cover” that he is going to offer a sacrifice. I think it's fascinating to see how the elders respond to Samuel because this shows us how the ordinary people of Israel viewed their national prophet, at this time the senior representative of the LORD. To us, Samuel is perhaps cantankerous but generally friendly, and we've read many stories about him so far in the book that bears his name. To the people of Bethlehem, however, he was a source of considerable fear, such that the first thing they ask him is if he comes in peace. What are the leaders of Bethlehem thinking? They are probably thinking about the stories of Achan or the 70 men who died looking into the ark of the covenant. This is nation where the law is to "purge the evil from among you", so they are probably afraid that God has found evil among them that needs to be purged. Fortunately for them, Samuel has come for another purpose.
Samuel comes in peace and looks over the sons of Jesse to see who will be king. He is initially impressed by Eliab’s appearance and height (v. 7), much like the people of Israel were impressed by Saul’s appearance and height (1 Sam 9:2, 10:23-24). We have already seen what kind of king that Saul is becoming, the emotional insecurities that drive his behavior and cause him to act without faithfulness to the LORD, and I expect that Eliab would have been very similar.
The first king over Israel was demanded by the people, so the LORD gave them the sort of king that they wanted; someone physically impressive, but who ultimately proved unreliable. The second king will be the sort of king the LORD wants, not chosen or considered for his appearance, but for what kind of person he is on the inside. “The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart.” (v. 7) This is another one of my favorite verses in the bible because it's so broadly applicable to modern life and also because it gives us such a profound insight into both human behavior (looking at things superficially) and God's behavior (truly deep understanding of the intentions and desires of all people).
There have been countless times when I find myself praying, "God, you know my heart"; you know the desires that I have, desires to do good things that I sometimes succeed and sometimes fail. This is possibly one of the most encouraging verses in the bible, because for all of my life people have misunderstood me (and will continue to do so). What this verse means is that God is not like that; God understands the desires and emotions that underlie our actions, both the good and the bad. Of course, if this were the only thing we knew about God then we would still be in deep trouble, because God would also see the evil and greed and murder within our hearts. What makes God good is that he sees and understands us, but he is also filled with mercy, helps us in our weaknesses, and encourages us in the things that we do well. God understands, and it is an understanding that is infused with love. One of the strongest memories I have of the LORD is looking into his eyes and seeing satisfaction. It was the kind of satisfaction that you might see in a craftsman who has finished something marvelous. Or possibly what you might see in a father who is watching his child do something amazing. His eyes looked right through me, from the outer skin to the very core of my being, and he was pleased with what he saw. It's impossible to overstate what kind of effect that approval has on the human psyche, since we have such a tremendous need for validation.
None of the seven sons that Jesse brought were chosen by the LORD, and Jesse only mentions his youngest son when Samuel specifically asks about it. Imagine how the scene must have been: the great prophet Samuel arrives at this small town; the elders come forth, trembling at what purpose Samuel might have; Samuel consecrates Jesse and his sons to come to a sacrifice; Jesse comes to the sacrifice and brings all of his sons ... except for David, who is left outside tending the sheep. In what is possibly the most important event of Jesse’s life, and commanded to bring his sons, he brings 7 out of 8 of them. How little respect must David have that his father didn’t bother to bring him to meet the prophet?
Nevertheless, “he is the one” (v. 12). David is anointed in the presence of his brothers and father, but nobody else knows. Like when Saul was anointed, there is a gap between the time when he is anointed and when he actually becomes king. However, the “spirit of the LORD” departs from Saul and comes upon David around this time. I think this is very similar to the story of Adam. Adam is cursed in Genesis 3 that he would return to dust and death would come upon him. However, Genesis 5 tells us that Adam continued to live for another 800 years after giving birth to Seth, and by any sensible chronology this happens after the curse. Again, there is a delay between when the LORD proclaims Adam's death and when his body dies. We see these kinds of delays all the time between the LORD's declaration and when the full consequences of that declaration come about. When it relates to sin, a later passage in the bible calls this God's "forbearance", because by delaying the consequences of sin God is creating an opportunity for people to repent. When it relates to good things (like the redemption we have in Christ), the delay gives us an opportunity to share the riches of Christ's mercy to others. It can be difficult sometimes (just as it is difficult for David to wait until he becomes king), but it is inevitably profitable for us as we grow through the challenges and joys of life.
For David, there are two immediate consequences. The first is that he is called upon to become part of Saul's court, his shieldbearer and musician. I think about this the same way that I view Samuel's arrival just after Saul offered a sacrifice in 1 Samuel 13. It's so ironic that we know it isn't happening by chance. The LORD is clearly orchestrating events to bring David into the royal court. In an event that certainly must have evoked some humility from David, he found himself the servant of a man whom God promised David that he would replace. All evidence seems to suggest that David served Saul well.
Secondly, we can see in v. 19 that David is still “with the sheep”, which I think is also very telling. Although I've heard some commentators say otherwise, it is likely that shepherding was a low-ranked social occupation in David's time, and it shows quite clearly in this chapter. We can also see the resentment of David's brothers, who are witness to him being anointed king over Israel, and promptly send him back to the fields. There is little doubt that his handsome, tall brothers are deeply resentful that their despised, youngest brother is going to be their king. What I find so striking is not just that David is shepherding his father's flock, but that even Saul is aware of David's occupation. Verse 19 quotes Saul as asking Jesse for "David who is with the flock". I can only imagine, again, the jealousy of David's brothers when they find out that the king personally summoned David to serve in the royal court. However, in spite of the several ways that David is being honored, it is going to be a very long road before he is crowned king, and he is going to face many sad adventures and disappointed hopes before he achieves what the LORD has promised him.
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Thursday, April 10, 2014
Bible Commentary - 1 Samuel 15
In this chapter, Saul is commanded to completely destroy the Amalekites but fails to do so.
In chapter 13 we were told that Saul’s kingdom would not endure, because the LORD “sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people.” (1 Samuel 13:14). This chapter says more or less the same thing, but as the result of a separate incident where Saul has again disobeyed a command from Samuel.
In this case, Samuel commands Saul to totally destroy the Amalekites as retribution for when they attacked Israel (see Ex 17 in general and Ex 17:14 in particular), and Saul does not obey. In v. 9 we see that the army keeps “everything that was good” and destroy “everything that was despised and weak”. I will write a bit more on this later, but for now what we can note is that the things they destroy are what is “given over to the LORD”. The things they keep are kept for themselves. This is an attitude of pride: they keep all of the best for themselves and give all the worst to the LORD. The LORD asked for everything: all of the best and the worst from the Amalekites to be destroyed and given over to him.
One can possibly draw a parallel between this and the story of Cain and Abel; Genesis 4:4 points out that Abel brought the fat from the firstborn of his flock, i.e. the best. Cain brought "the fruits of the soil", and did not attract the LORD's favor. Now interpretations of Cain's story vary, but a very common criticism of him is that he is not giving the best of his produce as an offering to the LORD. Israel behaves similarly in this chapter, giving only the things of least value to the LORD.
Verses 10-11 are one of my favorite passages because it shows how the LORD grieves at Saul’s sin, and in response “Samuel was troubled” and stays up all night long in prayer. This is the true mark of a prophet, that he feels what the LORD feels, and in his distress he prays all night long. Abraham (who was called a prophet in Gen 20:7) interceded on behalf of the righteous when he prayed in Gen 18 that God should not wipe away the righteous with the wicked. However, Moses interceded on behalf of the wicked when he prayed that God should not destroy Israel after they sinned with the golden calf in Ex 32. In this case, Samuel is closer to Moses than Abraham, because he is praying out of sorrow at the sinfulness of Saul. But I think what I like the most about this passage is that it shows not just the actions of Samuel, but the emotions underlying it in both the LORD and Samuel’s behavior.
In verse 12 we see Saul’s pride emerging as an ever stronger force, as he builds a “monument in his own honor” to mark his victory over the Amalekites. In the previous chapter, Saul took an oath that no man should eat until "I have avenged myself on my enemies". In doing so, Saul places all of the emphasis on himself: his own struggles and his own enemies. In this chapter, Saul places emphasis on his own victory and honor. Saul’s pattern of behavior is deeply troubling, because the king of Israel is meant to be a servant of the LORD, when Saul appears to just be serving himself.
The interplay between Saul and Samuel is also very interesting. Beginning in v. 13, Saul claims that he “carried out the LORD’s instructions”. When Samuel challenges him, Saul adapts his story but still keeps a moral/religious spin on it: yes, we kept some of the best animals, but only for “sacrifice to the LORD your God”. Keep in mind, even if this is true, the meat from the animals would be given to the men as a feast, so there is definitely an aspect of self-interest here.
Samuel challenges Saul again, and Saul repeats his denial, insisting that taking the animals back for sacrifice is acceptable and that it would honor the LORD. We can also see that Saul’s admissions are getting wider and wider, because he now mentions that he also took Agag back alive, which could not possibly be justified as a sacrifice or burnt offering. Samuel replies with (another) one of my favorite verses, v. 22: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
Before continuing with the story, I would like to take a closer look at this verse (and v. 23 which I did not quote). In the context of this passage, Samuel’s retort is straightforward and literally applies to what Saul did. Saul did not obey Samuel’s command by killing everything from the Amalekites. He and his men took back the best of the animals, and Saul thought that if the animals were offered for sacrifices that would be sufficient to make up for it. Hence, he thought sacrifices would be more important than listening to the command of the LORD.
However, I think Samuel's statement has broader applicability. Any time somebody tries to make a moral equivalence between committing a sin and then making an "offering" or "sacrifice" to make up for it, they are making the same fallacy as Saul. One could imagine a person saying to him or herself, "I really want to commit adultery, but I will make up for it by spending this Saturday working at a soup kitchen." It's pretty ridiculous when I put it like that, but I think people sometimes unconsciously do this. They think that religious or selfless deeds can "balance out" sins committed in other contexts.
While I can't speculate to the motivations of others, I can't help but wonder if that's what goes on in the mind of all these famous ministers who get caught swindling money or having sexual affairs while married. Maybe, without even realizing it, they think that great ministries, years of service to others and lots of great work justifies disobedience "to the voice of the LORD". If so, then they make the same error as Saul.
Saul is doing something wrong and he knows that he is doing something wrong. He is trying to justify a wrong by layering it with a religious sheen. The LORD will never be interested in people who disobey and think that a vaneer of religiosity will deceive him. Of course, I think it’s more likely than not that Saul was simply trying to deceive himself, to assuage his own conscience that sacrifices make up for his disobedience.
Here is my experience with obedience to the LORD and doing what is right or wrong. There have been numerous times where I felt like I did not do the right thing in whatever situation. Usually it is because I knew the right thing to do but it was just too hard for me to do it, because the temptation to do wrong was too great and I simply couldn’t overcome it. Doing something wrong will always cause harm, either to yourself or to others around you. But the LORD will never reject someone for doing wrong. The proper way to respond is to say, “Yes, I did something wrong and I am sorry about it. I regret what I did and I will try to make up for it to what extent I can, and to do better in the future.”
Contrast this with Saul’s response, where he does wrong but then argues with Samuel, attempting to justify what he did even though it’s contrary to what the LORD told him to do. He isn’t sorry, he doesn’t show regret, and he doesn’t express any interest in “doing better next time”. It is only after being rebuked three times that Saul admits he did wrong, because he was “afraid of the people”. There’s a bunch of things wrong with this, but I’ll just point out that Saul is supposed to be a leader of the people, and yet from this one verse we can see that he is actually just a follower of the people. He is not controlling them; they are controlling him. This is similar to the previous chapter where Saul would have killed Jonathan, but the army pressured him against doing so and Saul relented to popular pressure. Of course, killing Jonathan probably would have been the wrong thing to do. In that case, the people were right. In this case, the people were wrong. And in both cases, Saul followed the will of the people rather than the voice of the LORD.
Saul’s previous sin was in offering a sacrifice rather than wait for Samuel to come. In that case, we saw a very similar pattern of behavior to what he's doing here. Saul was trying to rally his men who were scattering, and he thought that offering a sacrifice would make up for his violation of the Law (since by the Law of Moses he is not permitted to offer a sacrifice). This was also in violation of Samuel’s command, who had ordered him to wait for Samuel to come offer sacrifices in 1 Sam 10:8.
In all of these things, Saul demonstrates religiosity in a sense, but it is a shallow religiosity. More often than not, he appears to be acting to show his faith to other people, and concerned about the opinions of other people, rather than being concerned about God’s opinion. He does not act to obey the LORD, he acts to please people, driven by his fear of people. He continues to demonstrate this behavior later in this chapter when he asks Samuel to go back with him “so that I may worship the LORD” (v. 25). This sounds religious and noble, but when Samuel refuses and Saul insists again, Saul shows what he is really interested in: “Please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.” (v. 30) This is really the story of Saul’s life so far, and because Saul is more concerned about the opinions of men than of God, God will take the kingdom away from him.
In conclusion, Samuel tells Saul that not only is his replacement a better man, it is “one of your neighbors” (v. 28). It’s very possible that Saul is going to be thinking about this prophecy in the future and it will make him more and more suspicious that the people around him are conspiring to overthrow his kingdom.
Samuel also puts Agag to death; who knows what Saul would have otherwise done. He possibly would have kept Agag alive as a captive or “trophy” of sorts, as was commonly done by kings of the day. We will see king-trophies later in the bible.
In chapter 13 we were told that Saul’s kingdom would not endure, because the LORD “sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people.” (1 Samuel 13:14). This chapter says more or less the same thing, but as the result of a separate incident where Saul has again disobeyed a command from Samuel.
In this case, Samuel commands Saul to totally destroy the Amalekites as retribution for when they attacked Israel (see Ex 17 in general and Ex 17:14 in particular), and Saul does not obey. In v. 9 we see that the army keeps “everything that was good” and destroy “everything that was despised and weak”. I will write a bit more on this later, but for now what we can note is that the things they destroy are what is “given over to the LORD”. The things they keep are kept for themselves. This is an attitude of pride: they keep all of the best for themselves and give all the worst to the LORD. The LORD asked for everything: all of the best and the worst from the Amalekites to be destroyed and given over to him.
One can possibly draw a parallel between this and the story of Cain and Abel; Genesis 4:4 points out that Abel brought the fat from the firstborn of his flock, i.e. the best. Cain brought "the fruits of the soil", and did not attract the LORD's favor. Now interpretations of Cain's story vary, but a very common criticism of him is that he is not giving the best of his produce as an offering to the LORD. Israel behaves similarly in this chapter, giving only the things of least value to the LORD.
Verses 10-11 are one of my favorite passages because it shows how the LORD grieves at Saul’s sin, and in response “Samuel was troubled” and stays up all night long in prayer. This is the true mark of a prophet, that he feels what the LORD feels, and in his distress he prays all night long. Abraham (who was called a prophet in Gen 20:7) interceded on behalf of the righteous when he prayed in Gen 18 that God should not wipe away the righteous with the wicked. However, Moses interceded on behalf of the wicked when he prayed that God should not destroy Israel after they sinned with the golden calf in Ex 32. In this case, Samuel is closer to Moses than Abraham, because he is praying out of sorrow at the sinfulness of Saul. But I think what I like the most about this passage is that it shows not just the actions of Samuel, but the emotions underlying it in both the LORD and Samuel’s behavior.
In verse 12 we see Saul’s pride emerging as an ever stronger force, as he builds a “monument in his own honor” to mark his victory over the Amalekites. In the previous chapter, Saul took an oath that no man should eat until "I have avenged myself on my enemies". In doing so, Saul places all of the emphasis on himself: his own struggles and his own enemies. In this chapter, Saul places emphasis on his own victory and honor. Saul’s pattern of behavior is deeply troubling, because the king of Israel is meant to be a servant of the LORD, when Saul appears to just be serving himself.
The interplay between Saul and Samuel is also very interesting. Beginning in v. 13, Saul claims that he “carried out the LORD’s instructions”. When Samuel challenges him, Saul adapts his story but still keeps a moral/religious spin on it: yes, we kept some of the best animals, but only for “sacrifice to the LORD your God”. Keep in mind, even if this is true, the meat from the animals would be given to the men as a feast, so there is definitely an aspect of self-interest here.
Samuel challenges Saul again, and Saul repeats his denial, insisting that taking the animals back for sacrifice is acceptable and that it would honor the LORD. We can also see that Saul’s admissions are getting wider and wider, because he now mentions that he also took Agag back alive, which could not possibly be justified as a sacrifice or burnt offering. Samuel replies with (another) one of my favorite verses, v. 22: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obedience to the voice of the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.”
Before continuing with the story, I would like to take a closer look at this verse (and v. 23 which I did not quote). In the context of this passage, Samuel’s retort is straightforward and literally applies to what Saul did. Saul did not obey Samuel’s command by killing everything from the Amalekites. He and his men took back the best of the animals, and Saul thought that if the animals were offered for sacrifices that would be sufficient to make up for it. Hence, he thought sacrifices would be more important than listening to the command of the LORD.
However, I think Samuel's statement has broader applicability. Any time somebody tries to make a moral equivalence between committing a sin and then making an "offering" or "sacrifice" to make up for it, they are making the same fallacy as Saul. One could imagine a person saying to him or herself, "I really want to commit adultery, but I will make up for it by spending this Saturday working at a soup kitchen." It's pretty ridiculous when I put it like that, but I think people sometimes unconsciously do this. They think that religious or selfless deeds can "balance out" sins committed in other contexts.
While I can't speculate to the motivations of others, I can't help but wonder if that's what goes on in the mind of all these famous ministers who get caught swindling money or having sexual affairs while married. Maybe, without even realizing it, they think that great ministries, years of service to others and lots of great work justifies disobedience "to the voice of the LORD". If so, then they make the same error as Saul.
Saul is doing something wrong and he knows that he is doing something wrong. He is trying to justify a wrong by layering it with a religious sheen. The LORD will never be interested in people who disobey and think that a vaneer of religiosity will deceive him. Of course, I think it’s more likely than not that Saul was simply trying to deceive himself, to assuage his own conscience that sacrifices make up for his disobedience.
Here is my experience with obedience to the LORD and doing what is right or wrong. There have been numerous times where I felt like I did not do the right thing in whatever situation. Usually it is because I knew the right thing to do but it was just too hard for me to do it, because the temptation to do wrong was too great and I simply couldn’t overcome it. Doing something wrong will always cause harm, either to yourself or to others around you. But the LORD will never reject someone for doing wrong. The proper way to respond is to say, “Yes, I did something wrong and I am sorry about it. I regret what I did and I will try to make up for it to what extent I can, and to do better in the future.”
Contrast this with Saul’s response, where he does wrong but then argues with Samuel, attempting to justify what he did even though it’s contrary to what the LORD told him to do. He isn’t sorry, he doesn’t show regret, and he doesn’t express any interest in “doing better next time”. It is only after being rebuked three times that Saul admits he did wrong, because he was “afraid of the people”. There’s a bunch of things wrong with this, but I’ll just point out that Saul is supposed to be a leader of the people, and yet from this one verse we can see that he is actually just a follower of the people. He is not controlling them; they are controlling him. This is similar to the previous chapter where Saul would have killed Jonathan, but the army pressured him against doing so and Saul relented to popular pressure. Of course, killing Jonathan probably would have been the wrong thing to do. In that case, the people were right. In this case, the people were wrong. And in both cases, Saul followed the will of the people rather than the voice of the LORD.
Saul’s previous sin was in offering a sacrifice rather than wait for Samuel to come. In that case, we saw a very similar pattern of behavior to what he's doing here. Saul was trying to rally his men who were scattering, and he thought that offering a sacrifice would make up for his violation of the Law (since by the Law of Moses he is not permitted to offer a sacrifice). This was also in violation of Samuel’s command, who had ordered him to wait for Samuel to come offer sacrifices in 1 Sam 10:8.
In all of these things, Saul demonstrates religiosity in a sense, but it is a shallow religiosity. More often than not, he appears to be acting to show his faith to other people, and concerned about the opinions of other people, rather than being concerned about God’s opinion. He does not act to obey the LORD, he acts to please people, driven by his fear of people. He continues to demonstrate this behavior later in this chapter when he asks Samuel to go back with him “so that I may worship the LORD” (v. 25). This sounds religious and noble, but when Samuel refuses and Saul insists again, Saul shows what he is really interested in: “Please honor me before the elders of my people and before Israel; come back with me, so that I may worship the LORD your God.” (v. 30) This is really the story of Saul’s life so far, and because Saul is more concerned about the opinions of men than of God, God will take the kingdom away from him.
In conclusion, Samuel tells Saul that not only is his replacement a better man, it is “one of your neighbors” (v. 28). It’s very possible that Saul is going to be thinking about this prophecy in the future and it will make him more and more suspicious that the people around him are conspiring to overthrow his kingdom.
Samuel also puts Agag to death; who knows what Saul would have otherwise done. He possibly would have kept Agag alive as a captive or “trophy” of sorts, as was commonly done by kings of the day. We will see king-trophies later in the bible.
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Bible Commentary - 1 Samuel 14
In this chapter, Jonathan leads the people to win a great victory over the Philistines.
This is a fairly long chapter with a couple of stories, but the essence of it is contained in v. 6: “Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few.” This is the same principle that we found when the LORD guided Gideon to defeat the Midianites in Judges 7:2 and 7:4. In those verses the LORD specifically asked Gideon to reduce the size of his army to prevent the Israelites from boasting in their own strength. In this case Jonathan goes out with just one man, so a reduction in force is not required of him. Jonathan finds success comparable to Gideon: while Jonathan only kills 20 men, his actions spark a panic in the Philistine army, causing them to not just run in fear, but to actually strike each other down in the confusion. The fear is the most important part, however, as it permits the Israelite army to run down and massacre the fleeing Philistines without resistance, even though Israel is outnumbered and generally lacks weaponry.
Apart from the similarities to Gideon’s victory, I also think it’s interesting to observe the contrast between Jonathan and Saul. Saul, who has alienated Samuel, and whose army is melting away in fear, is left passively sitting under a pomegranate tree while Jonathan goes out to attack the Philistine outpost. Recall that in the prior chapter it was Jonathan who attacked the Philistine outpost at Geba. Even after Jonathan goes to challenge the Philistines he says that the sign of the LORD’s favor would be if he and his armorbearer were to climb up and attack the Philistines, rather than passively wait for the Philistines to come down and attack them. Jonathan is marked not just by his faith, but also by his aggressiveness against the Philistines and in the face of superior numbers and tactical disadvantage (climbing up on your hands and feet is not ideal when attacking a large garrison that sees you coming).
We can see how hapless Saul appears when Jonathan is out winning the battle and Saul doesn’t even know that he is gone. Further, after Jonathan is gone and Saul figures out something is up, his first reaction is to consult with the priest Ahijah. In all fairness, I’m not convinced that this is a bad thing to do; I simply point it out to highlight a pattern of differences between Saul and Jonathan. Jonathan goes out to attack the Philistines and insists that the LORD might save through them, while Saul remains deliberating in the midst of a great victory.
Of course, it would have been better if Saul had consulted the priest before offering a sacrifice on his own initiative. I’m not sure if consulting a priest now demonstrates a change of heart on his behalf, or simply indecisiveness. Regardless, Saul only pauses for a little while before assembling to attack, and that concludes the first half of this chapter.
The second half of the story centers around Saul’s oath and how it affects Israel’s ability to chase down and kill the fleeing Philistines. There are several aspects of this story I find interesting, which I will address in turn.
First, Saul is under no compulsion to issue this oath. Like the Nazirite vow of Num 6, what Saul does is issue a “voluntary oath”, and even going a step further, he binds other people under his oath. More than anything else, I wonder why. Why did Saul do this? I really don’t know. Was it out of humility, an admission of their weakness and dependence on the LORD? Or was it out of pride, because Saul considered his vengeance on “his enemies” more important than anything else? Is Saul being singleminded and focused on revenge over everything else? Why is Saul talking about “[avenging] myself on my enemies” when he is supposed to be the king over the LORD’s people and defeating the LORD’s enemies? He seems very focused on himself, his own problems, his own enemies. Even if we can suppose that Saul makes this oath for the right reason, its practical effects are obvious: it hinders his forces in their pursuit of the Philistines and permits at least some of their army to escape. Jonathan himself points this out in v. 29-30.
Second, honey oozing out of the ground is a striking “coincidence”. It should be obvious that honey doesn’t normally ooze out of the ground (v. 25-26), just like honey doesn’t normally flow out of a lion’s corpse (Judges 14:8). The honey that flowed out of the lion was ceremonially unclean, and thus was a trap to Samson. The honey that flowed out of the ground, however, would have been a blessing to the exhausted men, who could have eaten and chased down their long-time oppressors. The blessing was turned into a temptation by the oath of Saul, as the men had to restrain themselves from eating it. But the thing I want to point out is that the honey is not natural.
Third, Jonathan eats the honey without being aware of his father’s oath, yet it appears to count as a “violation” of the oath. I think this is interesting because in most cases, the violation of an oath requires some degree of intentionality. Violating the Law implies intentionality because all of Israel is expected to be familiar with the Law. In the case of Nazirite vows (from Num 6), if someone “dies suddenly” in the presence of a Nazirite, the vow isn’t broken, but the Nazirite has to shave off his hair and start over again. In other cases (such as eating unclean food) we could imagine people becoming ceremonially unclean without knowing it. This happens in e.g. Judges 14:9 when Samson feeds honey taken from a lion’s carcass to his parents. This is a difficult situation because they wouldn’t even know they had to make atonement. In this case, Jonathan violates his father’s oath without knowing it. Who is at fault here? Jonathan or his father? I don't have a particular opinion, but I think it's interesting.
Fourth, the men “pounce on the plunder”, as they are driven by great hunger, and in their haste eat animals with the blood still in them. This is a violation of the Law, so Saul “builds an altar” by rolling over a stone, and has people slaughter their captured animals on the stone (allowing the blood to flow down out of the dying animal). “It was the first time” Saul had built an altar (v. 35), which should give us a second insight into his (lack of) faith in the LORD. The first insight was back in 1 Samuel 10 when people asked “is Saul also among the prophets?” Even apart from Samuel’s criticism in 1 Samuel 13, we can tell from these stories that Saul is not particularly devoted to the LORD. It's quite a contrast to Abraham, who seemed to build an altar everywhere he went.
Fifth, after the oath is broken, the LORD stops speaking to Saul. What this shows is that no matter what Saul intended or whether his oath was the right thing to do, the LORD was going to hold him accountable for what he said. Even when the violator was someone else, someone unaware of the oath, the LORD “did not answer him that day” as a result of the “sin” (v. 37-38). Perhaps this is why the book of Numbers spoke at such length about what kinds of vows and in what situations they are considered binding (Num 30). In this case, the violation of Saul’s oath is almost like the same sort of thing as Achan’s sin (Joshua 7), where in both cases the sin of an individual results in some sort of corporate punishment for the whole army. But it's also interesting because the implication is that before this, the LORD would speak to Saul, in spite of Saul's previous mistakes and sins.
Sixth, Saul insists that Jonathan should die after he is found to be the oathbreaker, but “the men” pressure Saul into letting him live. Again, this kind of raises the question of whether Jonathan is at fault, when he was unaware at the time he broke the oath. Saul made the oath in haste or wrath, Jonathan broke it, so who is ultimately responsible? Saul insists that Jonathan should die for what he has done, but the army supports Jonathan so Saul capitulates to popular pressure. Saul’s behavior is not inspiring my confidence. In the beginning he was striking the enemies of the LORD after “the Spirit of God came upon him in power” (1 Sam 11:6). Then he offered a sacrifice to try to rally the army to fight against the Philistines. Now he threatens to kill his own son after Jonathan brings a great deliverance to Israel against the Philistines.
This is a troubling development. As the book of Samuel progresses, we will see Saul progressively deteriorate into a worse and worse leader, but even now we can see him beginning to make eratic and poor decisions.
This is a fairly long chapter with a couple of stories, but the essence of it is contained in v. 6: “Nothing can hinder the LORD from saving, whether by many or by few.” This is the same principle that we found when the LORD guided Gideon to defeat the Midianites in Judges 7:2 and 7:4. In those verses the LORD specifically asked Gideon to reduce the size of his army to prevent the Israelites from boasting in their own strength. In this case Jonathan goes out with just one man, so a reduction in force is not required of him. Jonathan finds success comparable to Gideon: while Jonathan only kills 20 men, his actions spark a panic in the Philistine army, causing them to not just run in fear, but to actually strike each other down in the confusion. The fear is the most important part, however, as it permits the Israelite army to run down and massacre the fleeing Philistines without resistance, even though Israel is outnumbered and generally lacks weaponry.
Apart from the similarities to Gideon’s victory, I also think it’s interesting to observe the contrast between Jonathan and Saul. Saul, who has alienated Samuel, and whose army is melting away in fear, is left passively sitting under a pomegranate tree while Jonathan goes out to attack the Philistine outpost. Recall that in the prior chapter it was Jonathan who attacked the Philistine outpost at Geba. Even after Jonathan goes to challenge the Philistines he says that the sign of the LORD’s favor would be if he and his armorbearer were to climb up and attack the Philistines, rather than passively wait for the Philistines to come down and attack them. Jonathan is marked not just by his faith, but also by his aggressiveness against the Philistines and in the face of superior numbers and tactical disadvantage (climbing up on your hands and feet is not ideal when attacking a large garrison that sees you coming).
We can see how hapless Saul appears when Jonathan is out winning the battle and Saul doesn’t even know that he is gone. Further, after Jonathan is gone and Saul figures out something is up, his first reaction is to consult with the priest Ahijah. In all fairness, I’m not convinced that this is a bad thing to do; I simply point it out to highlight a pattern of differences between Saul and Jonathan. Jonathan goes out to attack the Philistines and insists that the LORD might save through them, while Saul remains deliberating in the midst of a great victory.
Of course, it would have been better if Saul had consulted the priest before offering a sacrifice on his own initiative. I’m not sure if consulting a priest now demonstrates a change of heart on his behalf, or simply indecisiveness. Regardless, Saul only pauses for a little while before assembling to attack, and that concludes the first half of this chapter.
The second half of the story centers around Saul’s oath and how it affects Israel’s ability to chase down and kill the fleeing Philistines. There are several aspects of this story I find interesting, which I will address in turn.
First, Saul is under no compulsion to issue this oath. Like the Nazirite vow of Num 6, what Saul does is issue a “voluntary oath”, and even going a step further, he binds other people under his oath. More than anything else, I wonder why. Why did Saul do this? I really don’t know. Was it out of humility, an admission of their weakness and dependence on the LORD? Or was it out of pride, because Saul considered his vengeance on “his enemies” more important than anything else? Is Saul being singleminded and focused on revenge over everything else? Why is Saul talking about “[avenging] myself on my enemies” when he is supposed to be the king over the LORD’s people and defeating the LORD’s enemies? He seems very focused on himself, his own problems, his own enemies. Even if we can suppose that Saul makes this oath for the right reason, its practical effects are obvious: it hinders his forces in their pursuit of the Philistines and permits at least some of their army to escape. Jonathan himself points this out in v. 29-30.
Second, honey oozing out of the ground is a striking “coincidence”. It should be obvious that honey doesn’t normally ooze out of the ground (v. 25-26), just like honey doesn’t normally flow out of a lion’s corpse (Judges 14:8). The honey that flowed out of the lion was ceremonially unclean, and thus was a trap to Samson. The honey that flowed out of the ground, however, would have been a blessing to the exhausted men, who could have eaten and chased down their long-time oppressors. The blessing was turned into a temptation by the oath of Saul, as the men had to restrain themselves from eating it. But the thing I want to point out is that the honey is not natural.
Third, Jonathan eats the honey without being aware of his father’s oath, yet it appears to count as a “violation” of the oath. I think this is interesting because in most cases, the violation of an oath requires some degree of intentionality. Violating the Law implies intentionality because all of Israel is expected to be familiar with the Law. In the case of Nazirite vows (from Num 6), if someone “dies suddenly” in the presence of a Nazirite, the vow isn’t broken, but the Nazirite has to shave off his hair and start over again. In other cases (such as eating unclean food) we could imagine people becoming ceremonially unclean without knowing it. This happens in e.g. Judges 14:9 when Samson feeds honey taken from a lion’s carcass to his parents. This is a difficult situation because they wouldn’t even know they had to make atonement. In this case, Jonathan violates his father’s oath without knowing it. Who is at fault here? Jonathan or his father? I don't have a particular opinion, but I think it's interesting.
Fourth, the men “pounce on the plunder”, as they are driven by great hunger, and in their haste eat animals with the blood still in them. This is a violation of the Law, so Saul “builds an altar” by rolling over a stone, and has people slaughter their captured animals on the stone (allowing the blood to flow down out of the dying animal). “It was the first time” Saul had built an altar (v. 35), which should give us a second insight into his (lack of) faith in the LORD. The first insight was back in 1 Samuel 10 when people asked “is Saul also among the prophets?” Even apart from Samuel’s criticism in 1 Samuel 13, we can tell from these stories that Saul is not particularly devoted to the LORD. It's quite a contrast to Abraham, who seemed to build an altar everywhere he went.
Fifth, after the oath is broken, the LORD stops speaking to Saul. What this shows is that no matter what Saul intended or whether his oath was the right thing to do, the LORD was going to hold him accountable for what he said. Even when the violator was someone else, someone unaware of the oath, the LORD “did not answer him that day” as a result of the “sin” (v. 37-38). Perhaps this is why the book of Numbers spoke at such length about what kinds of vows and in what situations they are considered binding (Num 30). In this case, the violation of Saul’s oath is almost like the same sort of thing as Achan’s sin (Joshua 7), where in both cases the sin of an individual results in some sort of corporate punishment for the whole army. But it's also interesting because the implication is that before this, the LORD would speak to Saul, in spite of Saul's previous mistakes and sins.
Sixth, Saul insists that Jonathan should die after he is found to be the oathbreaker, but “the men” pressure Saul into letting him live. Again, this kind of raises the question of whether Jonathan is at fault, when he was unaware at the time he broke the oath. Saul made the oath in haste or wrath, Jonathan broke it, so who is ultimately responsible? Saul insists that Jonathan should die for what he has done, but the army supports Jonathan so Saul capitulates to popular pressure. Saul’s behavior is not inspiring my confidence. In the beginning he was striking the enemies of the LORD after “the Spirit of God came upon him in power” (1 Sam 11:6). Then he offered a sacrifice to try to rally the army to fight against the Philistines. Now he threatens to kill his own son after Jonathan brings a great deliverance to Israel against the Philistines.
This is a troubling development. As the book of Samuel progresses, we will see Saul progressively deteriorate into a worse and worse leader, but even now we can see him beginning to make eratic and poor decisions.
Sunday, March 30, 2014
Bible Commentary - 1 Samuel 13
In this chapter, Saul prepares for battle against the Philistines but sins in the matter and loses his right to the kingship.
Saul was anointed as king three chapters ago, confirmed as king before all the people two chapters also, and loses his kingdom in this chapter. The chronology is a bit difficult to work out, but in all likelihood this chapter is happening 7 days after Samuel’s message in 1 Samuel 10, because verse 8 of this chapter talks about Saul waiting the “seven days, the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come to Gilgal”.
What makes this somewhat confusing is that Samuel, Saul and the rest of the people were at Gilgal just a little while ago in 1 Samuel 11:14-15 when the kingship is reaffirmed, and it is probable that Samuel’s speech also occurs in that same festival at Gilgal. It’s only in v. 2 of this chapter when Saul chooses 3000 men and sends the rest back to their homes. Back from where? From the convocation at Gilgal.
By this chronology, I can assert that it has been no more than 7 days since Saul was anointed as king and then selected as king, and now Samuel is prophesying that his kingdom will not endure and will pass to another. What I find so fascinating about this is that verse 1 of this very same chapter says that Saul reigned as king for 42 years (some manuscripts say 2 years, but later passages in the OT confirm that Saul reigned for 42 years). After Saul was anointed king, it took several days before the kingship truly passed to him and the people affirmed his kingship. So there was a delay that occurred between Samuel’s anointing and when the “real” kingship passed into his hands. Now we are told that the kingship will not remain with him and that the LORD will select another man to be king, “a man after his own heart”, which Saul apparently is not. But even here, there is a delay as Saul will remain king for another 42 years before another takes his place.
In my mind, this is the same sort of delay that happened between when God told Adam he would return to the dust (in death) in Genesis 3 and when Adam actually died at least 800 years after this happened. God prophesied that Adam’s sin would result in death, but there was a delay between when his death was proclaimed and when it actually occurred. It’s the same kind of delay as when God called Gideon a “mighty warrior” (Judges 6:12) but it took some time, some days or weeks, before Gideon was in any way behaving like a mighty warrior. It’s the same kind of delay as when God called Abraham a father of many nations, but in his life he only had one child of promise (and a few other children through concubines). It took some time before that one son had another son, and then it took some time until that son had 12 sons, and more time after that before those 12 sons became 12 tribes, and then 400 years before they ever returned to the land of promise, that had been promised to Abraham all those generations before.
Many people are confused by the waiting period between when something is prophesied and when it is fulfilled. Sometimes this results in discouragement, when some promised blessing feels delayed, and sometimes this results in scorn or discouragement when promised destruction, the result of sin, is delayed. This causes people to believe that the wicked prosper and the righteous suffer, because the blessing of the righteous is sometimes delayed and the destruction of the wicked is sometimes delayed, each for its own reason and purpose. But we do not easily understand the purposes of God and therefore misunderstand his actions. I have seen this confuse believers and nonbelievers alike, but from the bible we can see these kinds of delays happen in many stories, but we always see the LORD fulfill his word. Sometimes it takes a day, and sometimes it takes 400 years, but we always see the fulfillment of his word.
In this chapter, we see Israel once again engaging in conflict with the Philistines. The Philistines are oppressing Israel, prohibiting them from keeping blacksmiths so that they could not make weapons. From a chronology standpoint, I don’t understand how Israel could have fought and defeated the Ammonites without weapons if they now struggle to fight the Philistines without weapons. Maybe they really did fight the Ammonites without weapons, or maybe the battle against the Philistines happened sometime later than 7 days after their earlier conflict. I’m not sure.
Samuel guided Israel to defeat the Philistines some time ago, in chapter 7, but by 1 Samuel 9:16 the LORD is already telling Samuel that the king he should anoint will save Israel from the Philistines. This is undoubtedly the conflict foreshadowed by that verse. After sending everyone home in v. 2, Saul blows the trumpet (Num 10 explains the construction and use of trumpets in rallying the nation) and calls the nation back to Gilgal. However, it appears that Samuel departed from Gilgal and has not returned. Now Saul is in a horrible predicament.
I once heard a teacher summarize this chapter as follows: when the men scatter, the enemy gathers, and the LORD tarries, then is the heart of a man revealed.
Saul knows that he’s not permitted to offer sacrifices. Offering sacrifices is part of the ministry of the priesthood, which belongs to the house of Levi, and Saul is a Benjamite. Samuel himself is an Ephraimite, but he was dedicated at his birth to the LORD so I think he was “adopted” into the priesthood. More specifically, Samuel commanded Saul to wait for him in Gilgal for 7 days, but even if he didn’t Saul would never be permitted to offer sacrifices.
I think there is a more important issue than what the Law commands. That issue is Saul’s heart, which Samuel references in v. 14: “the LORD has sought out a man after his own heart and appointed him leader of his people, because you have not kept the LORD’s command.” This was something I pointed out a couple times about Samuel, because Samuel is doing things that appear to violate the letter of the Law. He slept in the most holy place before the ark of the covenant, and he has offered sacrifices which is reserved for the Levitical priesthood. Even his criticism of Saul here is that Saul did not wait for Samuel to come and offer the burnt offerings and fellowship offerings.
I believe the distinction is (apart from Samuel’s Nazirite dedication) that Samuel acted from a heart’s desire to honor the LORD, to do the “good and right way”, to follow the spirit of the Law that is expressed in the Ten Commandments and the Shema.
Let us seek to understand Saul’s heart in this matter. His troops are quaking with fear, hiding in caves and among rocks and pits and cisterns, or crossing over the Jordan and living among the tribes of Israel outside of the promised land. Saul himself waited 7 days, “the time set by Samuel; but Samuel did not come.” Saul explains it best in v. 11-12: he sees his men scatter, Samuel is delayed, and the Philistines are assembling to attack him, he wanted to “[seek] the LORD’s favor.” Why is this bad?
I think part of the issue is that Saul is doing this to rally his men. I suspect that Saul is not being entirely truthful with Samuel. Maybe seeking the LORD’s favor is one thing he had in mind, but I think Saul is also trying to encourage his men by constructing an appearance of religiosity.
Another issue is that I think Saul is behaving like the elders who brought out the ark of the covenant to help them win their earlier battle with the Philistines in chapter 4 of this book. In that case, the people of Israel cheered greatly at the appearance of a religious symbol, thinking that the LORD would give them victory even while their hearts are distant from him. I believe that Saul may be doing the same thing here. He is not offering a sacrifice to honor the LORD, he is offering a sacrifice out of fear that he’s going to lose his nascent kingdom.
I’ll be the first to admit that Saul is under a lot of pressure. It is quite possible that the Philistines will murder him if they can, so this is a life or death situation. It’s also really hard for me to point to something and say “Saul did the wrong thing here” because so much of the problem is not Saul’s actions, but Saul’s intentions. We have seen that people can behave contrary to the letter of the Law and still be righteous insomuch as their hearts seek righteousness. But I think it’s far more common for people to behave contrary to the Law for all of the wrong reasons, like greed, lust, jealousy or (in this case) fear. Sometimes fear can drive people to God, but many other times it drives people away from God because like Saul, they do not trust God to protect them in the times when your allies are few, your enemies are gathering and swiftly approaching, and God and his prophets seem distant.
This is a pivotal moment in Saul’s kingship precisely because it tests his heart and he responds so badly to it. Israel hasn’t even lost a battle, but Saul has lost the kingship. I don’t think the irony is unintended when Samuel shows up the moment that Saul finished offering the sacrifice. Samuel was delayed in order to give Saul a choice as to what he is going to do. Saul chose to offer the sacrifice himself, so it’s only fitting that Samuel would show up immediately after Saul had made his decision. If Samuel had showed up earlier, Saul would still have had a heart distant from the LORD, but he would not have had an opportunity for it to be revealed. God creates situations like this not to embarrass Saul, nor to lay a trap for him and destroy him, but to reveal to Saul and to Samuel and to all of us what kind of a person Saul is. He would have been that person regardless of whether this episode had happened, but we would not have known it.
Even now I don’t believe that Saul is rejected by the LORD if he were to repent and change his heart. The LORD gave him the kingdom once, and could give him the kingdom again. More importantly, God has taken the kingdom from him, but that doesn’t mean that God rejects him as a person. Saul could still repent and seek a life of righteousness, and regardless if he gets the kingdom back God would honor him for it. This is something we will read about in later chapters, as we see how Saul’s life progresses.
For now, the Israelite army is in a dire situation. They have no weapons, are dispersed and hiding in caves and amongst rocks, and Saul has 600 men left against a considerable Philistine army. The Philistines are sending raiding parties into Israel, stealing food and probably murdering or capturing what men they find. Saul has sinned by what he did with the burnt offering, and Samuel tells him his kingdom will not last and then leaves for Gibeah. The battle is not over, however.
Wednesday, February 26, 2014
Bible Commentary - 1 Samuel 12
In this chapter, Samuel recites Israel’s history to the congregation at Gilgal.
I think Samuel’s speech in this chapter is wonderful. More than anything else it reminds me of Deuteronomy, although I’m not sure if I could exactly explain why. I think part of it is that Samuel has a very similar didactic style, and partly it’s because Samuel is “confronting” Israel with their history, much like Moses did in the beginning of Deuteronomy. Samuel uses the second-person pronoun “you” when referring to Israel, even when the Israelites involved were long-dead. For instance, verse 11 refers to when the LORD delivered "you" by the various judges of the past (about whom we read in the book of Judges). This is similar to Deuteronomy also, where Moses directly addresses the Israelites even when discussing events that occurred to prior generations.
I also love Samuel’s banter at the beginning of the chapter, when he is challenging Israel about his personal integrity, asking anyone to come forward and accuse him of cheating them. The people admit that Samuel has behaved with integrity, and then Samuel turns it around and “confronts” Israel with all of the righteous things the LORD has done for them, concluding with their most recent rebellion against the LORD’s authority by asking for a king. This is part of Israel’s literary tradition. In the same way, the book of Samuel itself recounts the history of Israel, the LORD’s righteous deeds, and Israel’s sinful response to his kindness.
I think Samuel’s speech in this chapter is wonderful. More than anything else it reminds me of Deuteronomy, although I’m not sure if I could exactly explain why. I think part of it is that Samuel has a very similar didactic style, and partly it’s because Samuel is “confronting” Israel with their history, much like Moses did in the beginning of Deuteronomy. Samuel uses the second-person pronoun “you” when referring to Israel, even when the Israelites involved were long-dead. For instance, verse 11 refers to when the LORD delivered "you" by the various judges of the past (about whom we read in the book of Judges). This is similar to Deuteronomy also, where Moses directly addresses the Israelites even when discussing events that occurred to prior generations.
I also love Samuel’s banter at the beginning of the chapter, when he is challenging Israel about his personal integrity, asking anyone to come forward and accuse him of cheating them. The people admit that Samuel has behaved with integrity, and then Samuel turns it around and “confronts” Israel with all of the righteous things the LORD has done for them, concluding with their most recent rebellion against the LORD’s authority by asking for a king. This is part of Israel’s literary tradition. In the same way, the book of Samuel itself recounts the history of Israel, the LORD’s righteous deeds, and Israel’s sinful response to his kindness.
Samuel concludes his speech by noting Israel's sinfulness, but that they should not despair.
Samuel performs a miracle by calling for rain and thunder during the harvest season. I don’t know much about Israel’s weather patterns, but we can infer from the context that this would be exceptionally unusual, probably because harvest is done in late summer during the dry season.
You can sense the nation’s despair when they ask Samuel to pray that they “may not die”, because they know that they have sinned over and over and have now sinned again by asking for a king. Samuel’s response is the second part of this chapter that I find simply wonderful.
What he says is, yes, you have sinned in all of these things, but do not despair. “Do not turn away from the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.” (v. 20) Why would they turn away from the LORD as a result of their sins? Because they feel that they cannot do right and that the LORD will not accept them after they have sinned. That is what despair does; if you feel like you can never get it right, then you should simply stop trying. Despair is the feeling that makes us think that it’s better to live in sin and follow idols than to seek righteousness and the LORD, because we think righteousness and the LORD is unattainable. It’s as if our own behavior, our own mistakes, can serve to discourage us from seeking to do what is right. I think this is the same sort of attitude that some people have when they are planning on remaining a virgin until marriage, but (for whatever reasons) have sex, and then decide that they might as well give up and have sex a bunch more times. Or if someone is trying to avoid drugs, but then use some kind of drug and then decide that it’s not worth trying to hold onto their earlier goals or principles because they made a mistake.
What Samuel says is that the LORD will not reject them. Even after their many sins, “the LORD was pleased to make you his own” (v. 22). Samuel is encouraging the Israelites, just as he is encouraging us, to not let our feelings of sinfulness separate us from the LORD. If we seek him, if we desire to serve him and follow him, he will not reject us.
Samuel, for his own part, says that if he failed to pray for them, that would be a “sin against the LORD”. I feel in Samuel the same heart that I feel in the LORD. If he would not pray for them, that would be a sin. If he would not “teach [them] the way that is good and right”, that would be a sin. Samuel knows in his own life the obligation that he has to share the “good and right” with the LORD’s people Israel, and I feel that this is a representation of the same faithfulness that the LORD has towards Israel, in seeking to bring them back under the covenant. Samuel says the LORD will not reject Israel, and Samuel understands that he himself must not reject Israel.
This is how I believe God feels towards all people, who are now given the invitation to live under the new covenant. God will not reject us, because he was pleased to make us his own. And similarly, as a Christian I often find myself in the role of Samuel, saying to others that I will not sin against the LORD by failing to pray for them, and I will do everything in my power to teach them the way that is good and right.
Sometimes I am overwhelmed by the many sinful decisions I have made, all of the things I’ve gotten wrong throughout my life, and in those times I feel that despair that asks why I continue, why do I not give up and accept a life buried in darkness. Other times, I find myself encouraging others with the words of Samuel, that the LORD will not reject them. I believe that this is one of the great goods in Christianity: to sometimes receive timely encouragement and to sometimes give it. But every time I read this passage I feel the warmth of Samuel’s encouragement for my own heart, that I should never despair because the LORD will not reject me. That I should seek him diligently, and when I get something wrong I turn that around and press in harder rather than give up. I “consider what great things he has done for you” (v. 24), remembering the many stories of the LORD’s faithfulness to me and to the people whom I love, much like Samuel recites the faithfulness of the LORD to the earlier generations of Israel.
With my heart fixed upon the LORD’s faithfulness, rather than my own disgraces, I press in with all my strength to serve the LORD and receive his grace and mercy. From this place, I am empowered to pass that same message of grace and mercy to others in their time of need. I still make mistakes to this day, but I don’t let my mistakes become an emotional barrier, separating me from the LORD, but rather accept the mercy of the LORD to spur me onward towards him.
Samuel performs a miracle by calling for rain and thunder during the harvest season. I don’t know much about Israel’s weather patterns, but we can infer from the context that this would be exceptionally unusual, probably because harvest is done in late summer during the dry season.
You can sense the nation’s despair when they ask Samuel to pray that they “may not die”, because they know that they have sinned over and over and have now sinned again by asking for a king. Samuel’s response is the second part of this chapter that I find simply wonderful.
What he says is, yes, you have sinned in all of these things, but do not despair. “Do not turn away from the LORD, but serve the LORD with all your heart.” (v. 20) Why would they turn away from the LORD as a result of their sins? Because they feel that they cannot do right and that the LORD will not accept them after they have sinned. That is what despair does; if you feel like you can never get it right, then you should simply stop trying. Despair is the feeling that makes us think that it’s better to live in sin and follow idols than to seek righteousness and the LORD, because we think righteousness and the LORD is unattainable. It’s as if our own behavior, our own mistakes, can serve to discourage us from seeking to do what is right. I think this is the same sort of attitude that some people have when they are planning on remaining a virgin until marriage, but (for whatever reasons) have sex, and then decide that they might as well give up and have sex a bunch more times. Or if someone is trying to avoid drugs, but then use some kind of drug and then decide that it’s not worth trying to hold onto their earlier goals or principles because they made a mistake.
What Samuel says is that the LORD will not reject them. Even after their many sins, “the LORD was pleased to make you his own” (v. 22). Samuel is encouraging the Israelites, just as he is encouraging us, to not let our feelings of sinfulness separate us from the LORD. If we seek him, if we desire to serve him and follow him, he will not reject us.
Samuel, for his own part, says that if he failed to pray for them, that would be a “sin against the LORD”. I feel in Samuel the same heart that I feel in the LORD. If he would not pray for them, that would be a sin. If he would not “teach [them] the way that is good and right”, that would be a sin. Samuel knows in his own life the obligation that he has to share the “good and right” with the LORD’s people Israel, and I feel that this is a representation of the same faithfulness that the LORD has towards Israel, in seeking to bring them back under the covenant. Samuel says the LORD will not reject Israel, and Samuel understands that he himself must not reject Israel.
This is how I believe God feels towards all people, who are now given the invitation to live under the new covenant. God will not reject us, because he was pleased to make us his own. And similarly, as a Christian I often find myself in the role of Samuel, saying to others that I will not sin against the LORD by failing to pray for them, and I will do everything in my power to teach them the way that is good and right.
Sometimes I am overwhelmed by the many sinful decisions I have made, all of the things I’ve gotten wrong throughout my life, and in those times I feel that despair that asks why I continue, why do I not give up and accept a life buried in darkness. Other times, I find myself encouraging others with the words of Samuel, that the LORD will not reject them. I believe that this is one of the great goods in Christianity: to sometimes receive timely encouragement and to sometimes give it. But every time I read this passage I feel the warmth of Samuel’s encouragement for my own heart, that I should never despair because the LORD will not reject me. That I should seek him diligently, and when I get something wrong I turn that around and press in harder rather than give up. I “consider what great things he has done for you” (v. 24), remembering the many stories of the LORD’s faithfulness to me and to the people whom I love, much like Samuel recites the faithfulness of the LORD to the earlier generations of Israel.
With my heart fixed upon the LORD’s faithfulness, rather than my own disgraces, I press in with all my strength to serve the LORD and receive his grace and mercy. From this place, I am empowered to pass that same message of grace and mercy to others in their time of need. I still make mistakes to this day, but I don’t let my mistakes become an emotional barrier, separating me from the LORD, but rather accept the mercy of the LORD to spur me onward towards him.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Bible Commentary - 1 Samuel 11
In this chapter, Saul defeats the Ammonites.
I don’t think we even knew they were in conflict, but apparently the Ammonites are attacking Israel. Not that we should be surprised at this point; it seems like Israel has been in conflict with all of their neighbors for generations. 1 Samuel 9:16 told us that Saul would deliver the Israelites from the Philistines. Even though the Philistines were defeated in 1 Samuel 7, it appears they have become a threat again, and are oppressing Israel.
It’s hard for me to understand the chronology of the next three chapters. In chapter 10, Samuel tells Saul to meet him in Gilgal within 7 days, and without spoiling anything, there is a passage in chapter 13 that implies the 7 days had not yet expired. This would seem to indicate that all of the events of this chapter happened in less than 7 days, including Saul’s messengers traveling around the nation, the Israelite army mustering, and the battle with the Ammonites. I don’t know how that is possible. Admittedly, the nation of Israel is relatively compact by modern standards, so maybe they really could field an army in 2-3 days. Still, it’s difficult for me to imagine how anyone could rally an army of 330,000 people in less than 7 days. In modern times, we could compare this to e.g. the first world war. In the first world war, it took the principal actors (France, Germany, Russia) between a few weeks and a few months to mobilize their national armies. Again though, these were armies of millions of people over significantly larger countries, but also with far more sophisticated infrastructure (i.e. railroads) and advanced preparation. It is not directly comparable, but I think it also gives us an idea of how long I would have expected mobilization to take.
I believe the flow of the story indicates to the contrary, as we will read in the next two chapters. But even at the end of this chapter, we see Samuel and Saul travel to Gilgal, which is perhaps the meeting that Samuel had instructed Saul to go to. This was a point of confusion for me, so hopefully this will help my readers to understand what happened. To the best of my knowledge, everything in this chapter happened within the 7 days that Samuel laid out, and the next chapter likewise.
Next, I would like to point out something in v. 8. The author writes that Saul mustered an army of men from Israel and Judah. Why would he separate Judah from Israel, if the entire nation put together is Israel? The answer is that this is an anachronism of sorts. Some time in the future, we will see Israel be separated into two kingdoms. There will be a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom. The southern kingdom will be known as Judah, because Judah is the main tribe in the south (there is also Simeon in the midst of Judah, but Simeon is largely forgotten). The northern kingdom will be known as Israel. This split has not yet happened, but the author is writing this book in a time after the nation was split, and this sentence anticipates their division. It’s really confusing, but for much of the OT going forward, “Israel” does not refer to all of the tribes of Israel, but only the northern tribes. Judah will refer to the southern kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capitol. I will try to clear up these references when I see them.
In the end, Saul takes his army and smashes the Ammonites, delivering the men of Jabesh Gilead (in the land of Gilead, east of the Jordan, part of Manasseh), and Saul is confirmed as king by the jubilant masses. Saul even goes so far as to graciously forgive his earlier detractors.
All things considered, this seems like a good start to Saul’s kingship. He led the people into battle and fought on their behalf, and they are obviously grateful to have such a strong man to help defend them. This is what they had wanted, someone to lead them, defend them and fight for them. Saul, in turn, has the “spirit of God [coming] upon him in power” (v. 6), leading him to defend Israel and wipe out their enemies. It is a good start. We will see how things progress.
I don’t think we even knew they were in conflict, but apparently the Ammonites are attacking Israel. Not that we should be surprised at this point; it seems like Israel has been in conflict with all of their neighbors for generations. 1 Samuel 9:16 told us that Saul would deliver the Israelites from the Philistines. Even though the Philistines were defeated in 1 Samuel 7, it appears they have become a threat again, and are oppressing Israel.
It’s hard for me to understand the chronology of the next three chapters. In chapter 10, Samuel tells Saul to meet him in Gilgal within 7 days, and without spoiling anything, there is a passage in chapter 13 that implies the 7 days had not yet expired. This would seem to indicate that all of the events of this chapter happened in less than 7 days, including Saul’s messengers traveling around the nation, the Israelite army mustering, and the battle with the Ammonites. I don’t know how that is possible. Admittedly, the nation of Israel is relatively compact by modern standards, so maybe they really could field an army in 2-3 days. Still, it’s difficult for me to imagine how anyone could rally an army of 330,000 people in less than 7 days. In modern times, we could compare this to e.g. the first world war. In the first world war, it took the principal actors (France, Germany, Russia) between a few weeks and a few months to mobilize their national armies. Again though, these were armies of millions of people over significantly larger countries, but also with far more sophisticated infrastructure (i.e. railroads) and advanced preparation. It is not directly comparable, but I think it also gives us an idea of how long I would have expected mobilization to take.
I believe the flow of the story indicates to the contrary, as we will read in the next two chapters. But even at the end of this chapter, we see Samuel and Saul travel to Gilgal, which is perhaps the meeting that Samuel had instructed Saul to go to. This was a point of confusion for me, so hopefully this will help my readers to understand what happened. To the best of my knowledge, everything in this chapter happened within the 7 days that Samuel laid out, and the next chapter likewise.
Next, I would like to point out something in v. 8. The author writes that Saul mustered an army of men from Israel and Judah. Why would he separate Judah from Israel, if the entire nation put together is Israel? The answer is that this is an anachronism of sorts. Some time in the future, we will see Israel be separated into two kingdoms. There will be a northern kingdom and a southern kingdom. The southern kingdom will be known as Judah, because Judah is the main tribe in the south (there is also Simeon in the midst of Judah, but Simeon is largely forgotten). The northern kingdom will be known as Israel. This split has not yet happened, but the author is writing this book in a time after the nation was split, and this sentence anticipates their division. It’s really confusing, but for much of the OT going forward, “Israel” does not refer to all of the tribes of Israel, but only the northern tribes. Judah will refer to the southern kingdom, with Jerusalem as its capitol. I will try to clear up these references when I see them.
In the end, Saul takes his army and smashes the Ammonites, delivering the men of Jabesh Gilead (in the land of Gilead, east of the Jordan, part of Manasseh), and Saul is confirmed as king by the jubilant masses. Saul even goes so far as to graciously forgive his earlier detractors.
All things considered, this seems like a good start to Saul’s kingship. He led the people into battle and fought on their behalf, and they are obviously grateful to have such a strong man to help defend them. This is what they had wanted, someone to lead them, defend them and fight for them. Saul, in turn, has the “spirit of God [coming] upon him in power” (v. 6), leading him to defend Israel and wipe out their enemies. It is a good start. We will see how things progress.
Bible Commentary - 1 Samuel 10
In this chapter, Saul is anointed and made king over Israel.
There are so many fascinating little details in this chapter I hardly know where to start. I guess we can start at the very beginning, with Samuel anointing Saul with oil. This appears to be a cultural tradition that existed at the time, that pouring oil onto someone is a sign of favor. Nowhere is this explained, so we’ll just have to take it for granted.
Samuel tells Saul about a series of events that will happen through the day, concluding with the “spirit of the LORD” coming upon Saul, causing him to prophesy. The word prophesy here is the same word as when the 70 elders of Israel prophesied in Num 11:25-27, which was something I discussed extensively at the time, and I believe that this is the same kind of prophesying as there. But what I find more interesting is verse 6, where Saul “will be changed into a different person” as a result. Is this what prepares him for the kingship? This leaves me equally wondering what kind of man Saul must have been before, and what kind of man he will become after.
Part of this question is answered by the next paragraph, verses 9-12. Apparently Saul is not the sort of person who would normally be amongst the prophets. I love the dialogue between “all those who had formerly known him” and “a man who lived there”. What the people who knew Saul ask is, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” This is a remark of surprise; they never would have expected him to associate with the prophets. Keep in mind, the prophets would have been some of the most dedicated followers of the LORD, so this suggests pretty strongly that Saul is not the most religious fellow in the nation. He might be among the least.
But I love the response in verse 12, when the man asks “and who is their father?” Perhaps people who knew him would not expect the son of Kish to be amongst the prophets, but you could just as well ask why anybody else is amongst the prophets. Nobody is really qualified to be amongst the LORD’s prophets; everyone is there because they choose to be there, or like Saul, they were chosen.
After all this, Saul being anointed and joining with the prophets, still nobody knows that he is going to become king. Samuel deliberately sent away the servant before anointing Saul, and in v. 16 Saul deliberately omits telling his uncle about the kingship. Saul has been anointed as king, but the reality of it hasn’t yet set in. This is addressed next when Samuel calls the people together to choose a king by lot. This is more or less the equivalent of rolling dice and choosing the king by random selection. Samuel probably wouldn’t have been able to influence the randomness, so this is a second confirmation of Saul as king. Perhaps more importantly, it is a very public selection, so now the entire nation knows that Saul has been chosen to be king, and from v. 26-27 we know that some people accepted it and some people didn’t.
This leads me to my next amusing detail, which is Saul “hiding among the baggage”. I can’t even imagine what series of thoughts would make him believe this is a good idea. Inauspicious metaphors abound here: Saul is lost in his own personal baggage, much like he is hiding in the assembly’s baggage. But seriously, why is he there? It just doesn’t make sense, unless he’s trying to avoid something; is he trying to avoid his selection as king, by staying away from the assembly?
Out of this chapter, I think my favorite two parts are the dialogue exchanged in v. 11-12 and the mental image of Saul hiding in the baggage. It’s also interesting to imagine this procession of prophets, playing many different instruments and Saul getting swept along with them.
In the end, Samuel writes down the “regulations of the kingship”, and I wonder how similar that is to Deut 17 when Moses had previously describes the laws governing the selection and behavior of kings over Israel. We don’t have any record of the regulations that Samuel gave Saul, but I would guess it’s similar to what is recorded in Deuteronomy.
Samuel also told Saul to go to Gilgal, and I believe this hasn’t happened yet. We will see what happens in the next couple chapters with this.
There are so many fascinating little details in this chapter I hardly know where to start. I guess we can start at the very beginning, with Samuel anointing Saul with oil. This appears to be a cultural tradition that existed at the time, that pouring oil onto someone is a sign of favor. Nowhere is this explained, so we’ll just have to take it for granted.
Samuel tells Saul about a series of events that will happen through the day, concluding with the “spirit of the LORD” coming upon Saul, causing him to prophesy. The word prophesy here is the same word as when the 70 elders of Israel prophesied in Num 11:25-27, which was something I discussed extensively at the time, and I believe that this is the same kind of prophesying as there. But what I find more interesting is verse 6, where Saul “will be changed into a different person” as a result. Is this what prepares him for the kingship? This leaves me equally wondering what kind of man Saul must have been before, and what kind of man he will become after.
Part of this question is answered by the next paragraph, verses 9-12. Apparently Saul is not the sort of person who would normally be amongst the prophets. I love the dialogue between “all those who had formerly known him” and “a man who lived there”. What the people who knew Saul ask is, “Is Saul also among the prophets?” This is a remark of surprise; they never would have expected him to associate with the prophets. Keep in mind, the prophets would have been some of the most dedicated followers of the LORD, so this suggests pretty strongly that Saul is not the most religious fellow in the nation. He might be among the least.
But I love the response in verse 12, when the man asks “and who is their father?” Perhaps people who knew him would not expect the son of Kish to be amongst the prophets, but you could just as well ask why anybody else is amongst the prophets. Nobody is really qualified to be amongst the LORD’s prophets; everyone is there because they choose to be there, or like Saul, they were chosen.
After all this, Saul being anointed and joining with the prophets, still nobody knows that he is going to become king. Samuel deliberately sent away the servant before anointing Saul, and in v. 16 Saul deliberately omits telling his uncle about the kingship. Saul has been anointed as king, but the reality of it hasn’t yet set in. This is addressed next when Samuel calls the people together to choose a king by lot. This is more or less the equivalent of rolling dice and choosing the king by random selection. Samuel probably wouldn’t have been able to influence the randomness, so this is a second confirmation of Saul as king. Perhaps more importantly, it is a very public selection, so now the entire nation knows that Saul has been chosen to be king, and from v. 26-27 we know that some people accepted it and some people didn’t.
This leads me to my next amusing detail, which is Saul “hiding among the baggage”. I can’t even imagine what series of thoughts would make him believe this is a good idea. Inauspicious metaphors abound here: Saul is lost in his own personal baggage, much like he is hiding in the assembly’s baggage. But seriously, why is he there? It just doesn’t make sense, unless he’s trying to avoid something; is he trying to avoid his selection as king, by staying away from the assembly?
Out of this chapter, I think my favorite two parts are the dialogue exchanged in v. 11-12 and the mental image of Saul hiding in the baggage. It’s also interesting to imagine this procession of prophets, playing many different instruments and Saul getting swept along with them.
In the end, Samuel writes down the “regulations of the kingship”, and I wonder how similar that is to Deut 17 when Moses had previously describes the laws governing the selection and behavior of kings over Israel. We don’t have any record of the regulations that Samuel gave Saul, but I would guess it’s similar to what is recorded in Deuteronomy.
Samuel also told Saul to go to Gilgal, and I believe this hasn’t happened yet. We will see what happens in the next couple chapters with this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)